Lords Sitting of 17 December 1908

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  EDINBURGH AND LEITH CORPORATIONS GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL, [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee; Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a Amendments made, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INDIA (ADVISORY AND LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS, &c.)
  Vol. I. Proposals of the Government of India and Despatch of the Secretary of State.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Return of prices of crops, live stock, and other Irish agricultural products for 1907–1908.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
  Rules made by the Board of Trade, CCXVII. and CCXVIII.: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
LUNACY BILL [H.L.]
  POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
INCEST BILL.
  ARDS RAILWAYS BILL.
    PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

INDIAN REFORMS.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount MORLEY OF BLACK-BURN)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount MORLEY OF BLACK-BURN) rose to make a statement on the proposals of the Government of India, and to present Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I feel that I owe a very sincere apology to the House for the disturbance in the business arrangements of the House of which I have been the cause, though the innocent cause. It has been said that by the delays in bringing forward this subject I have been anxious to burke discussion. That is not in the least true. The reasons which made it seem to me desirable that the discussion on this most important and far-reaching range of topics should be postponed were—I believe the House will agree with me—reasons of common sense. In the first place, discussion without anybody having seen the Papers to be discussed would evidently have been ineffective. In the second place it would have been impossible to discuss those Papers with good effect—the Papers which I am going this afternoon to present to Parliament—until we know, at all events in some degree, what their reception has been in the country most immediately concerned. And then thirdly, my Lords, I cannot but apprehend that discussion here—I mean in Parliament—would be calculated to prejudice the reception in India of the proposals which the Government of India and His Majesty's Government agree in making. My Lords, I submit those are three very essential reasons why discussion in my view, and I hope in the view of this House, was to be deprecated. This afternoon your Lordships will be presented with a very modest Blue-book of 100 or 150 pages, but I should like to promise noble Lords that tomorrow morning there will be ready for them a series of Papers on the same subject of a size so enormous that the most voracious or even carnivorous appetite for Blue-books will have ample food for augmenting the joys of the Christmas holidays.
The observations which I shall ask your Lordships to allow me to make are the opening of a very important chapter in the history of the relations of Great Britain and India; and I shall ask the indulgence of the House if I take a little time, not so much in dissecting the contents of the Papers, which the House will

1975
be able to do for itself by and by, as in indicating the general spirit that animates my noble friend the Viceroy of India and His Majesty's Government here in making the proposals which I shall in a moment describe. I suppose, like other Secretaries of State for India, I found my first idea was to have what they used to have in the old days—a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into Indian Government. I see that a predecessor of mine in the India Office, Lord Randolph Churchill—he was there for too short a time—in 1885 had very strongly conceived that idea. On the whole I think there is a great deal at the present day to be said against that idea.
Therefore what I have done was at the instigation of and in concert with the Government of India, first to open a chapter of constitutional reform, of which I will speak in a moment, and next to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the internal relations between the Government of India and all its subordinate and co-ordinate parts. That Commission will report, I believe, in February or March next, February, I hope, and that again will involve the Government of India and the India Office in Whitehall in pretty laborious and careful inquiries. It will not be expected—it ought not to be expected—that an Act passed as the great Act of 1858 was passed, amidst great excitement and very disturbing circumstances, should have been in existence for half a century and that its operations would not be the better for supervision.
Now, I spoke of delay in these observations, and unfortunately delay has not made the skies any brighter. But, my Lords, do not let us make the Indian sky cloudier than it really is. Do not let us consider the clouds to be darker than they really are. Let me invite your Lordships to look at the difficulties—the considerable difficulties, even the formidable difficulties—that now encumber us in India, with a due sense of proportion—I can give no better example which I would wish Members of this House, or of any other House, to imitate than what I may be perhaps allowed to call the intrepid coolness of Lord Minto.
What is the state of things as it appears to persons of authority and of ample knowledge in India? One very important
1976
and well-known friend of mine in India says this—
"The anarchists are few, but, on the other hand, they are apparently prepared to go any length and to run any risk. It must also be borne in mind that the ordinary man or lad in India has not too much courage, and that the loyal are terrorised by the ruthless extremists."
It is a curious incident that on the very day before the attempt to assassinate Sir Andrew Fraser was made he had a reception in the college where the would be assassin was educated, and his reception was of the most enthusiastic and spontaneous kind. I only mention that to show the curious and subtle atmosphere in which things now are in Calcutta. I will not dwell on that, because, although I have a mass of material, this is not the occasion for developing it. I will only add this from a correspondent of great authority—
"There is no fear of anything in the nature of a rising, but if murders continue a general panic may arise and greatly increase the danger of the situation. We cannot hope that any machinery will completely stop outrages at once. We must be prepared to meet them. There are growing indications that the native population itself is alarmed, and that we shall have the strong support of native public opinion."
The view of important persons in the Government of India is that in substance the position of our Government in India is as sound and as well-founded as it has ever been.
But I shall be asked, has not the Government of India been obliged to pass a measure introducing pretty drastic machinery? Well, that is quite true, and I, for one, have no fault whatever to find with them for introducing this machinery and for taking that step. On the contrary, my Lords, I wholly approve and I share, of course, to the full the responsibility for it. I understand that I am exposed to some obloquy on this account—I am charged with inconsistency. Well, that is a matter on which I am very well able to take care of myself, and I should be ashamed to detain your Lordships for one single moment in arguing that. Quite early after my coming to the India Office an attempt was made—pressure was put on mo to repeal the Regulation of 1818 under which men are now being summarily deported without trial and without charge, and without intention to try or to charge. Well that, of course, is a

1977
tremendous power to place in the hands of an Executive Government. But I said to myself then, and I say now, that I decline to take out of the hands of the Government of India any weapon that they have got in circumstances so formidable, so obscure, and so impenetrable as are the circumstances that surround British Government in India.
There are two paths of folly in those matters. One is to regard all Indian matters—Indian procedure and Indian policy—as if it were Great Britain or Ireland, and to insist that all the robes and apparel that suit Great Britain or Ireland must necessarily suit India. The other is to think that all you have got to do is what I see suggested, to my amazement, in English print—to blow a certain number of men from guns and then your business will be done. Either of these paths of folly leads to as great disaster as the other. I would like to say this about the Summary Jurisdiction Bill—I have no illusions whatever. I do not ignore, and I do not believe that the noble Marquess opposite or anyone else can ignore, the frightful risks involved in transferring in any form or degree what should be the ordinary power under the law to arbitrary personal discretion. I am alive, too, to the temptations under summary procedure of various kinds, to the danger of mistaking a headstrong exercise of force for energy. Again, I do not for an instant forget, and I hope those who so loudly applaud legislation of this kind do not forget, the tremendous price that you pay for all operations of this sort in the reaction and the excitement that they provoke. If there is a man who knows all these drawbacks I think I am he. But there are situations in which a responsible Government is compelled to run these risks and to pay this possible price, however high it may appear to be.
It is like war, a hateful thing, from which, however, some of the most ardent lovers of peace, and some of those rulers of the world whose names the most ardent lovers of peace most honour and revere—it is one of the things from which these men have not shrunk. The only question for us is whether there is such a situation in India today as to justify the passing of the Act the other day and to justify resort to the Regulation of 1818. I cannot imagine anybody reading the speeches—especially the unexaggerated
1978
speech of the Viceroy—and the list of crimes perpetrated, and attempted to be perpetrated, that were read out last Friday in Calcutta—I cannot imagine that anybody reading that list and thinking what they stand for, would doubt for a single moment that summary procedure of some kind or another was justified or called for. I see about a tendency to criticise this legislation on grounds that strike me as extraordinary. After all, it is not our fault that we have had to bring in this measure. You must protect the lives of your officers. You must protect peaceful and harmless people, both Indian and European, from the bloodstained havoc of anarchic conspiracy. I deplore this necessity, but we are bound to face the facts. I myself recognise this necessity with infinite regret, and with something, perhaps, rather deeper than regret; but it is not the Government, either here or in India, who are the authors of this necessity, and I should not at all mind, if it is not impertinent and unbecoming in me to say so, standing up in another place and saying exactly what I say here, that I approve of these proceedings and will do my best to support the Government of India.
Now a very important question arises, for which I would for a moment ask the close attention of your Lordships, because I am sure that both here and elsewhere it will be argued that the necessity, and the facts that caused the necessity, of bringing forward strong repressive machinery should arrest our policy of reforms. That has been stated, and I dare say many people will agree with it. Well, the Government of India and myself have from the very first beginning of this unsettled state of things never varied in our determination to persevere in the policy of reform.
I put two plain questions to your Lordships. I am sick of all the retrograde commonplaces about the weakness of concession to violence and so on. Persevering in our plan of reform is not a concession to violence. Reforms that we have publicly announced, adopted, and worked out for more than two years—it is no concession to violence to persist in these reforms. It is simply standing to your guns. A number of gentlemen, of whom I wish to speak with all respect, addressed a very courteous letter to me

1979
the other day that appeared in the public prints, exhorting me to remember that Oriental countries inevitably and invariably interpret kindness as fear. I do not believe it. The Founder of Christianity arose in an Oriental country, and when I am told that Orientals always mistake kindness for fear, I will say that I do not believe that any more than I believe the stranger saying of Carlyle that, after all, the fundamental question between any two human beings is—Can I kill thee or canst thou kill me? I do not agree that any organised society has ever subsisted upon either of those principles or that brutality is always present in the relations between human beings.
My first question is this. There are alternative courses open to us. We can either withdraw our reforms or we can persevere in them. Which would be the more flagrant sign of weakness—to go steadily on with your policy of reform in spite of bombs, or to let yourself openly be forced by bombs and murder clubs to drop your policy? My second question is—Who would be best pleased if I were to announce to your Lordships that the Government have determined to drop the reforms? It is notorious that those who would be best pleased would be the extremists and irreconcilables, because they know very well that for us to do anything to soften estrangement and appease alienation between the European and native populations would be the very best way that could be adopted to deprive them of fuel for their sinister and mischievous designs. I hope your Lordships will agree in that, and I should like to add one reason which I am sure will weigh very much with you. I do not know whether your Lordships have read the speech made last Friday by Sir Norman Baker, the new Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, in the Council at Calcutta dealing with the point which I am endeavouring to present. In a speech of great power and force he said that these repressive measures did not represent even the major part of the policy dealing with the situation. The greater task, he said, was to adjust the machinery of government so that their Indian fellow-subjects might be allotted parts which a self-respecting people could fill, and that when the constitutional
1980
reforms were announced, as they would be shortly, he believed that the task of restoring order would be on the road to accomplishment. For a man holding such a position to make such a statement at that moment is all the corroboration that Lord Minto and I and His Majesty's Government need for persisting in our policy of reform. I have talked with Indian experts of all kinds concerning reforms. I admit that some have shaken their heads, they did not like reforms very much; but when I have asked, "Shall we stand still, then?" there is not one of those experienced men who has not said, "That is quite impossible. Whatever else we do, we cannot stand still."
I should not be surprised if there are here some who say: You ought to have some very strong machinery for putting down a free Press. A long time ago a great Indian authority, Sir Thomas Munro, used this language which I will venture to quote, not merely for the purpose of this afternoon's exposition, but in order that everybody who listens and reads may feel the tremendous difficulties which we and our predecessors have overcome. Sir Thomas Munro said—
"We are trying an experiment never yet tried in the world—maintaining a foreign dominion by means of a native army; and teaching that army, through a free Press, that they ought to expel us, and deliver their country."
He went on to say—
"A tremendous revolution may overtake us, originating in a free Press."
I do not deny that for a moment. On the contrary, I recognise to the full the enormous force of a declaration of that kind. But let us look at it as practical men who have got to deal with the government of the country. Supposing you abolish freedom of the Press or suspend it, that will not end the business. You will have to shut up schools and colleges, for what would be the use of suppressing newspapers if you do not shut the schools and colleges? Nor will that be all. You will have to stop the printing of unlicensed books. The possession of a copy of Milton or Burke, or Macaulay, or of Bright's speeches, and all that flashing array of writers and orators who are the glory of our grand,

1981
our noble English tongue—the possession of one of these books will, on this peculiar and unfair notion of government, be like the possession of a bomb, and we shall have to direct the passing of an Explosives Books Act. All this and its various sequels and complements make a policy if you please; but after such a policy had produced a mute, sullen, muzzled, lifeless India, we could hardly call it, as we do now, the brightest jewel in the Imperial Crown. No English Parliament would permit such a thing, and the last man to acquiesce in such a policy is the present Governor-General of India.
I do not think I need go through all the contents of the despatch of the Governor-General and my reply, containing the plan of His Majesty's Government, which will be in your Lordships' hands very shortly. I think your Lordships will find in them a well-guarded expansion of principles which were recognised in 1861, and are still more directly and closely connected with us now by the noble Marquess opposite in 1892. I have his words, and they are really as much a key to the papers in our hands as they were to the policy of the noble Marquess at that date. He said—
"We hope, however, that we have succeeded in giving to our proposals a form sufficiently definite to secure a satisfactory advance in the representation of the people in our legislative Councils, and to give effect to the principle of selection as far as possible on the advice of such sections of the community as are likely to be capable of assisting us in that manner."
Then you will find that another Governor-General in Council in India, whom I greatly rejoice to see still among us, my noble friend the Marquess of Ripon, said in 1882—
"It is not primarily with a view to the improvement of administration that this measure is put forward; it is chiefly desirable as an instrument of political and popular education."
The doctrines announced by the noble Marquess opposite, and by my noble friend are the standpoint from which we approached the situation and framed our proposals.
I will not trouble the House by going through the history of the course of the proceedings—that will be found in the Papers. I believe the House will be satisfied, just as I am satisfied, with
1982
the candour and patience that has been bestowed on the preparation of the scheme in India, and I hope I may add it has been treated with equal patience and candour here; and the end of it is that, though some points of difference arose, though the Government of India agreed to drop certain points of their scheme—the Advisory Councils, for example—on the whole there was complete agreement, even remarkable agreement, between the Government of India and myself as to the best way of dealing with these proceedings in Legislative Councils. I will enumerate the points very shortly, and, though I am afraid it will be tedious, I hope your Lordships will not find the tedium unbearable, because, after all, what you are considering to-day, what you are beginning to consider to-day, is the opening of a great chapter in the history of British responsibility to India, and, therefore, I hope you will pardon the tedium of these rather technical details. There are only a handful of distinguished Gentlemen in this House who understand the details of Indian Administration, but I shall be very pleased to explain them as shortly as I can.
This is a list of the powers which we shall have to acquire from Parliament when we bring in a Bill. I may say that we do not propose to bring in the Bill this session. It would be idle. I propose to bring in a Bill next year. This is the first power we shall come to Parliament for. At present the maximum and minimum number of Legislative Councils are fixed by statute. We shall come to Parliament to authorise an increase in the numbers of those Councils, both the Viceroy's Council and the Provincial Councils. Secondly, the members are now nominated by the head of the Government, either the Viceroy or the Lieutenant-Governor. No election takes place in the strict sense of the term. The nearest approach to it is the nomination by the Viceroy upon the recommendation of a majority of voters of certain public bodies. We do not propose to ask Parliament to abolish nomination. We do propose to ask Parliament, in a very definite way, to introduce election working alongside nomination with a view to

1983
the aim admitted in all previous schemes, including that of the noble Marquess opposite—the due representation of the different classes of the community. Third, The Indian Councils Act of 1892 forbids—and this is no doubt a very important prohibition—either resolutions or divisions of the Council in financial discussions. We shall ask Parliament to repeal this prohibition. Fourth. We shall propose to invest legislative Councils with power to discuss matters of public and general importance, and to pass recommendations or resolutions to the Government. The Government will deal with them as carefully, or as carelessly, as they think fit—just as the Government do here. Fifth. To extend the power that at present exists to appoint a Member of the Council to preside. Sixth. Bombay and Madras have now Executive Councils, numbering two. I propose to ask Parliament to double the number of ordinary members. Seventh. The Lieutenant-Governors have no Executive Council. We shall ask Parliament to sanction the creation of such Councils, consisting of not more than two ordinary members, and to define the power of the Lieutenant-Governor to overrule his Council. I am perfectly sure there will be differences of opinion as to these proposals. I only want your Lordships to believe that they have been well thought out and that they are accepted by the Governor-General of India at this moment.
There is one point of extreme importance which, no doubt, though it may not be quite diplomatic for me to say so at this stage, will create some controversy. I mean the matter of the official majority. The House knows what an official majority is. It is a device by which the Governor-General or the Governor of Bombay or Madras may secure a majority in his Legislative Council by means of officials. And the officials, of course, for very good reasons, just like a Cabinet Minister or an Under-Secretary, whatever the man's private opinion may be, would still vote, for the best of reasons, and I have no doubt with perfect wisdom, with the Government. But anybody can see how directly, how palpably, how injuriously,
1984
an arrangement of this kind tends to weaken, and I think I may say, even to deaden, the sense of trust and responsibility in the non-official members of these councils Anybody can see how the system tends to throw the non-official member into an attitude of peevish, sulky, permanent opposition, and, therefore, has an injurious effect on the minds and characters of members of these Legislative Councils.
I know it will be said—I will not weary the House by arguing it, but I only desire to meet at once the objection that will be taken—that these councils will, if you take away the safeguard of the official majority, pass any number of wild-cat Bills. The answer to that is that the head of the Government can veto the wild-cat Bills. The Governor-General can withhold his assent, and the withholding of the assent of the Governor-General is not a defunct power. Only the other day, since I have been at the India Office, the Governor-General disallowed a Bill passed by a Local Government which I need not name, with the most advantageous effect. I am quite convinced that if that Local Government had had an unofficial majority that Bill would not have been passed, and the Governor-General would not have had to refuse his assent. But so he did, and so he would if these gentlemen, whose numbers we propose to increase and whose powers we propose to widen, chose to pass wild-cat Bills. And it must be remembered that the range of subjects within the sphere of Provincial Legislative Councils is rigorously limited by statutory exclusions. I will not labour this point now. Anybody who cares, in a short compass, can grasp the argument of which we shall hear a great deal, will find it in Paragraphs 17 to 20 of my reply to the Government of India in the Papers which will soon be in your Lordships' hands.
There is one proviso in this matter of the official majority in which your Lordships may, perhaps, find a surprise. We are not prepared to divest the Governor-General in his Council of an official majority. In the Provincial Councils we propose to dispense with it, but in the Viceroy's Legislative Council

1985
we propose to adhere to it, though let me say that here we may seem to lag a stage behind the Government of India themselves—so little violent are we—because the Government say, in their despatch—On all ordinary occasions we are ready to dispense with an official majority in the Imperial Legislative Council, and to rely on the public spirit of non official members to enable us to carry on the ordinary work of legislation. My Lords, that is what we propose to do in the Provincial Councils. But in the Imperial Council we consider an official majority essential. It may be said that this is a most tremendous logical inconsistency. So it would be on one condition. If I were attempting to pet up a Parliamentary system in India, or if it could be said that this chapter of reforms led directly or necessarily up to the establishment of a Parliamentary system in India, I, for one, would have nothing at all to do with it. I do not believe—it is not of very great consequence what I believe, because the fulfilment of my vaticinations would not come off very soon—in spite of the attempts in Oriental countries at this moment, interesting attempts to which we all wish well, to set up some sort of Parliamentary system — it is no ambition of mine, at all events, to have any share in beginning that operation in India. If my existence, either officially or corporeally, were prolonged twenty times longer than either of them is likely to be, a Parliamentary system in India is not the goal to which I for one moment would aspire.
One point more. It is the question of an Indian member on the Viceroy's Executive Council. The absence of an Indian member from the Viceroy's Executive Council can no longer, I think, be defended. There is no legal obstacle or statutory exclusion. The Secretary of State can, to-morrow, if he likes, if there be a vacancy on the Viceroy's Council, recommend His Majesty to appoint an Indian Member. All I want to say is that, if, during my tenure of office, there should be a vacancy on the Viceroy's Executive Council, I should feel it my duty to tender to the King my advice that an Indian member should be appointed. If it were on my own authority
1986
only, I might hesitate to take that step, because I am not very fond of innovations in dark and obscure ground, but here I have the absolute and the zealous approval and concurrence of Lord Minto himself. It was at Lord Minto's special instigation that I began to think seriously of this step. I quite admit it is a very important step, but I think this concurrence points in the right direction. Anyhow, this is how it stands, that you have at this moment a Viceroy and a Secretary of State who both concur in a recommendation of this kind. I suppose—if I may be allowed to give a personal turn to these matters—that Lord Minto and I have had a very different experience of life and the world, and we belong I daresay to different schools of national politics, because Lord Minto was appointed by the party opposite. It is a rather remarkable thing that two men differing in this way in antecedents and so on should agree in this proposal—Lord Minto zealously concurring in it, even instigating it. We need not discuss what particular portfolio should be assigned. That will be settled by the Viceroy on the merits of the individual. The great object, the main object, is that the merits of individuals are to be considered and to be decisive irrespective and independent of race and colour.
But I am not altogether without experience, because a year ago, or somewhat more, it was my good fortune to be able to appoint two Indian gentlemen to the Council of India that sits at the Indian Office. Many apprehensions reached me as to what might happen. So far, at all events, those apprehensions have all been dissipated. The concord between the two Indian members of the Council and their colleagues has been unbroken, their work has been excellent, and you will readily believe me when I say that the advantage to me of being able to ask one of these two gentlemen to come and tell me something about an Indian question from an Indian point of view is enormous. I find in it a chance of getting the Indian angle of vision, and I feel sometimes as if I were actually in the streets of Calcutta. I do not say there are not some arguments on the other side, but this, at all events, surely is common sense—to have in the Government of the country, for the

1987
Governor-General to have at his side a man who knows the country well, who belongs to the country and can give him the point of view of an Indian, surely that is likely to prove an enormous advantage.
I can say, further, in the Judicial Bench in India everybody recognizes the enormous service that it is to have Indian members of abundant learning, and who add to that abundant learning a complete knowledge of the conditions and life of the country. I propose at once, if Parliament agrees, to acquire powers to double the Executive Council in Bombay and Madras, and to appoint at least one Indian member in each of those cases, as well as in the Governor-General's Council. Nor, as the Papers will show, shall I be backward in advancing towards a similar step, as occasion may require, in respect of at least four of the major provinces.
I wish that this chapter had been opened at a more fortunate moment; but, as I said when I rose, I repeat—do not let us for a moment take too gloomy a view. There is not the slightest occasion. None of those who are responsible take a gloomy view. They know the difficulties, they are prepared to grapple with them and to keep down mutinous opposition, and they hope, and we hope, to attract the good will which must, after all, be the real foundation of our prosperity and strength in India. We believe that is so far unsapped, and we believe that this admission, desired by the Governor-General and desired by us, of the Indians to a larger and more direct share in the government of their country and in all the affairs of their country, without for a moment taking from the central power its authority, will strengthen the foundations of our position. It will require great steadiness, constant pursuit of the same objects, and the maintenance of our authority, which will be all the more effective if we have, along with our authority, the aid and assistance, in responsible circumstances, of the Indians themselves.
Military strength, material strength, we have in abundance. What we still want to reacquire is moral strength—moral strength in guiding and controlling the people of India in the course
1988
on which time is launching them. I should like to read a few lines from a great orator about India. It was a speech delivered by Mr. Bright in 1858, when the great Government of India Bill was in another place. I would like to read this language, and I hope your Lordships will like it. Mr. Bright said—
"We do not know how to leave India, and therefore let us see if we know how to govern it. Let us abandon all that system of calumny against natives of India which has lately prevailed. Had that people not been docile, the most governable race in the world, how could you have maintained your power there for 100 years? Are they not industrious, are they not intelligent, are they not, upon the evidence of the most distinguished men the Indian service ever produced, endowed with many qualities which make them respected by all Englishmen who mix with them?… I would not permit any man in my presence without rebuke to indulge in the calumnies and expressions of contempt which I have recently heard poured forth without measure upon the whole population of India.… The people of India do not like us, but they scarcely know where to turn if we left them. They are sheep, literally without a shepherd."
However that may be, we at least at Westminster here have no choice and no option. As an illustrious Member of this House wrote—
"We found a society in a state of decomposition, and we have undertaken the serious and stupendous process of reconstructing it."
Macaulay, for it was he, said—
"India now is like Europe in the fifth century."
Yes, a stupendous process indeed. The process has gone on with marvellous success, and if we all, according to our various lights, are true to our colours, that process will go on. Whatever is said, I for one—though I am not what is commonly called an Imperialist—so far from denying, I most emphatically affirm that for us to preside over this transition from the fifth European century in some parts, in slow, uneven stages, up to the twentieth—so that you have before you all the centuries at once as it were—for us to preside over that and to be the guide of people in that condition, is, if conducted with humanity and sympathy, with wisdom and political courage, not only a human duty and a great national honour, but what was called the other day one of the most glorious tasks ever confided to any country.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it is a long time, I venture to say, since this House has listened to a statement of such absorbing interest as that just made by the noble Viscount, and I hope I may be permitted, in the name of those who sit round me, to congratulate him, not only upon the great eloquence which characterised his observations, but upon the directness and sincerity with which he approached the many difficult and, I may say, embarrassing questions with which he had to deal. I hope I may also congratulate him upon the fact that he was able, in spite of an indisposition that we all regretted, to perform his somewhat laborious task with conspicuous success. The noble Viscount told us that voluminous Papers would shortly be laid before us, and he suggested that in these circumstances it would be better if we did not attempt to discuss the details of proposals which are yet hardly before us. I make no complaint of that suggestion. I think it is a suggestion which I should have ventured to make myself if it had not been made to us. The noble Viscount told the House indeed that the policy he was unfolding marked the opening of a new chapter in the history of our relations with India; and when that chapter is presented to us with the high authority not only of the noble Viscount and of the expert advisers who surround him at the India Office, but with the authority of the Viceroy and his Council, I feel that it would indeed be rash on the part of any Member of your Lordships' House, upon the spur of the moment, to offer any criticisms which might occur to him at the time, but which he might afterwards desire to modify.
Let me say in passing with what pleasure I heard that part of the noble Viscount's statement in which he was able to tell us that in regard to the whole of this policy he and the Viceroy of India and his Council were at one. Anyone who has had to do with Indian affairs knows what an encouragement it is to the person who represents this country at the head of the affairs of India to know that he is not only in close touch with, but loyally supported by, the Cabinet Minister who has charge of the Indian business of the Government;
1990
and that solidarity, if I may use the word, is to my mind of particularly happy omen at the present moment. I shall, therefore, in these circumstances, in the few words which I am about to address to the House avoid any attempt to touch upon details, and I shall merely make one or two observations of quite a general character which have occurred to me.
The policy which is submitted to us is a twofold policy. There are proposal framed with the object of repressing disorder and of suppressing crime and anarchy, and there are other proposals for making far-reaching alterations in the machinery of the Government of India. I may be permitted to say that in my view each of these two sets of proposals should be considered strictly upon its own merits. It is our duty to restore a sense of security in India; it is also our duty to re-adjust the machinery of the Government of India from time to time should we be clearly of opinion that the country is ripe for a change and that a change will add to the efficiency of our administration. But I believe that it would be a mistake either on the one hand to be deterred from the introduction of reforms of this kind by the fact that in certain parts of India a dangerous agitation is in progress, or on the other hand to represent these great modifications of our present system of government as a counterpoise to the repressive measures, as the result of a kind of transaction in which one set of proposals was, as it were, to be set against the other. I do not think that the treatment of the subject by the noble Viscount was open in any way to the imputation that he dealt with these two proposals otherwise than as I have suggested.
The noble Viscount gave to your Lordships some description of the present condition of India. His account of the situation was, it seems to me, eminently judicial and temperate. It was not without its sombre touches, and we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there are dark shadows in the picture. But, on the other hand, he told us with confidence that the general condition of the country was sound; and I hope that we may take it from him that in his

1991
opinion these disorders, however dangerous, are of a local character, and that we need not assume that the whole country is honeycombed by the kind of organisations and conspiracies which are, unfortunately, prevalent in some parts of it. There is another consideration which seems to me to be satisfactory. As far as I am aware, it is not alleged that these disorders are in any way due to a general dissatisfaction with British rule or with the feeling that those who represent us in that country are harsh, oppressive, and unjust in their treatment of the natives of India. I believe myself that those Indians who think at all about these things are perfectly aware that our treatment of them has been, not only just, but generous, and that the withdrawal or disappearance of our rule would bring about chaos and calamity from which all races and all parts of the country would suffer.
There is another consideration—it is not in India alone that upheavals of this kind are to be noticed at the present time. These disorders seem to be the result of the somewhat unhappy operation of Western ideas of the most mischievous and dangerous type operating on the minds of an ignorant and impulsive population. It is like the case of some of those diseases which assume a peculiarly virulent type when introduced into new countries. In the same manner the political diseases which affect the Indian community seem to have acquired in certain parts of India a special degree of virulence and it seems to me that the noble Viscount established clearly that there is a case for special legislation designed to strengthen the hands of the Government of India against those who are responsible for these proceedings.
We have seen in the Press this morning an account of the new repressive measures introduced in the Viceroy's Council. I did not catch quite clearly from the noble Viscount whether that measure is specially directed against abuses on the part of the Indian Press; but I take it that offences committed by persons connected with the Press, if they come within the general scope and purview of the Bill, will be dealt with like other offences committed against order.
1992
I am deeply convinced that it is necessary to strengthen the hands of the Government of India against the seditious Press of that country. Although the person who wreaks his own vengeance or spite by blowing up a number of his fellow-citizens with dynamite is a great criminal, I am not sure that the man is not a greater criminal still who, by the distribution of inflammatory literature, incites people to crime which he has not himself the courage to commit. I hope that I shall not be supposed to favour anything which can be described as interference with the liberty of the Press. The Indian Press enjoys a full measure of liberty already, and no one that I am aware of has ever desired to deprive it of that full measure of liberty. I mean by this that the Indian newspaper is perfectly free, and should in my opinion remain perfectly free, to criticise, and, if it likes, abuse the Government of the country, but it should not be left free to incite to sedition and to recommend the perpetration of crimes. There is no analogy between the Press in this country and the Indian Press. In this country the best antidote to abuses on the part of the Press is to be found in the Press itself. A gross mis-statement or an atrocious libel is detected in this country by the Press. It is exposed and promptly condemned; but only those who know India are able to say how utterly unscrupulous are the writers of these miserable publications and how absurdly credulous are those who read them.
I will not attempt this evening, therefore, to discuss the details of the repressive measures proposed by the Government of India. I will only say that it seems to me that they ought to comprise at any rate these features. In the firsts place, a strong Court, commanding general public respect; in the next place, a procedure so contrived as to avoid needless delay; and in the third place, penalties of a sufficiently deterrent character. I will add that the measures now put forward seem to me to be taken not a moment too soon, and not to be one whit too strong. We owe them to those able and devoted men who are carrying on the admistration of the Indian Empire for us. We owe them to the not les devoted women who share their risks and

1993
anxieties, and we owe them last and not least to those—if I may use the language of the noble Viscount—"dim masses of the people of India" whom we endeavour to protect against famine and against pestilence, and whom it is our duty to protect also against the still more dangerous contagion with which they are now threatened.
I pass for a moment to the proposals which have reference to the machinery of the Government of India. The noble Viscount was perfectly correct when he pointed out that this policy was not a new policy, but the extension of an old policy—a policy which, far from being forced on the Government of India, has been adopted by them readily, willingly, and of their own accord, in the hope of educating the people of the country to a better sense of their responsibility, and also in the hope if possible of lightening the heavy burden which falls on the shoulders of a necessarily very much centralised Government. The last step was taken, the noble Lord told the House, when I had some connection with the affairs of India; and I say unhesitatingly that those with whom I was associated at that time, if they had been asked whether what we then recommended was to be regarded as a final arrangement never to be hereafter modified, would have answered the question in the negative. The changes made in 1892, I believe, have worked on the whole well; and I do not think that any dissentient voice was raised when, in the Imperial Address to the Princes and people of India, published not long ago in the name of His Majesty, it was announced that the time had come when, in the judgment of the Viceroy and his councillors, the principle of representative institutions might be prudently extended. Therefore I approach that part of the scheme not only with an open mind, but with a mind predisposed in its favour. I will, however, venture to enter two reservations.
In the first place, although I am sure that in dealing with these bodies it is desirable to introduce so far as circumstances permit the principle of representation, I am not by any means convinced that it is wise to rely over
1994
much upon the principle of popular election as we understand it here, and unless I misunderstood what fell from the noble Viscount, I gathered that in this case he did not intend to proceed upon popular election pure and simple, but upon something more in the nature of an extension of the present plan under which members of councils are recommended by constituencies of different kinds, nominated but not absolutely elected in the sense in which a Member of the House of Commons is elected in this country by his constituents.
LORD MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: We do propose—not over the whole field—but we do propose the substitution of election in a large degree for the old process of recommendation.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I promised I would endeavour not to discuss details, and, therefore will not follow that further, but I am glad to have elicited the noble Viscount's explanation. I will only say this, that in my belief popular election in India is really an exotic idea. It is an idea which we ourselves introduced into the country. We did it cautiously and tentatively, beginning only with the local and less important bodies. I do not think those who know the country best will tell you that it has been an unqualified success, or that it is always greatly appreciated where it has been introduced. In the Indian municipalities, I am under the impression that it was at first regarded with considerable indifference, and that it worked very far from well wherever racial feelings ran high. But I pass from that.
The other reservation which I should like to make is this. As to the functions of these Legislative Councils, I am inclined to say by all means let us give them the fullest possible measure of opportunity for criticism, consultation, deliberation, interpellation, and so forth, but I think we must be extremely careful how we do anything which might have the result of paralysing the Executive Government. The noble Viscount himself pointed out how widely different were the circumstances of the Opposition in this country and the Opposition, so-called, in India. The Opposition in this country criticise

1995
the Government with the feeling at the back of their mind that a time may come when they will change place with the Government and when they will have to incur the responsibility which rests for the moment with the Government. But you can never allow the Indian Opposition to turn the Government out, and therefore the two cases really are fundamentally different.
I heard with some satisfaction the announcement that although there was to be an unofficial majority in the provincial councils, the noble Viscount intended at present that the official majority should remain in the Viceroy's Council. That seems to me to be a wise proposal, and it accords with what seems to me the sound principle in all these cases—namely, that you should work upwards from the bottom and make your reforms in the municipal assemblies and in the provincial bodies before attempting to touch the body which is entrusted with the high political affairs of the Indian Empire.
Only one word more. The noble Viscount announced that it was intended to extend the Executive Councils to other provinces, that it was intended to add native members to them, and that it was in contemplation to take the first opportunity of adding a native member to the Council of the Viceroy. I will reserve what I have to say upon these questions until some other occasion. I will only venture to say that the proposal to add a native member to the Viceroy's Executive Council is—and the noble Viscount evidently feels it is—a tremendous innovation, and I confess I should have thought it was an innovation which, whatever the technical legal rights of the case may be, ought not to be introduced until Parliament has had full opportunity of discussing the Government scheme in all its completeness. The noble Viscount admitted frankly that there were arguments on the other side, and I should have hoped that he would have listened to those arguments before burning his boats. The noble Viscount dwelt indeed on the advantage of having on the Viceroy's Council a member who knows the country. I should like to ask what country?
1996
There are a great many countries in India. If the noble Viscount could discover a native gentleman who knew the whole of the Indian Empire, and could speak authoritatively on behalf of all the different races and creeds concerned, I should say by all means give him a^ place on the Viceroy's Council. The subject is one of such interest that I have I am afraid, slightly transgressed the limits I had proposed for my own guidance. I will add nothing more except to say—and I am sure the noble Viscount will believe I say it with my whole heart—that it is my desire to support him so far as I can in a judicious extension of the reform of our Indian institutions, and that it is no less my desire—and I am sure it is the desire of those who sit behind me—to do all that we can to support and encourage the Government of India, who have, I venture to think, met a difficult and critical situation with a courage and self-restraint for which they deserve infinite credit.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWIN-FORD: My Lords, I promise not to detain your Lordships very long, but the statement of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India is of such a momentous nature that I desire to state very clearly what my own thoughts are with regard to the more salient features of it. I would ask your Lordships to believe that my thoughts are not mere impressions formed while listening to the remarkable speech of the noble Viscount. They are the result of prolonged experience of an executive character in India, and the result also of years of anxious reflection on the problems of Indian government with which the noble Viscount has dealt.
The noble Viscount's remarks seem to me to fall naturally under three heads—first, as they related to the Government of India; next, as they related to the Provincial Governments; and, lastly, as they related to the inhabitants of the various provinces. I wish to say that, broadly speaking, I am in warm sympathy with the policy of the Secretary of State. Although on certain important points I differ, I believe the policy of the Secretary of State to be

1997
bold, courageous, and, in the circumstances, statesmanlike and prudent. But I regret to say I completely differ from the noble Viscount's remarks with regard to the Executive Council. The principle which, in my opinion, ought to direct and control our policy in India is this—the maintenance of complete and absolute control in the hands of a small body of picked officers of the Empire who form the Government of India, and, subject to that control, the fullest measure of local government in the provinces that each province is fit to administer. I believe you could not find in India any individual native gentleman, who as enjoying general confidence, would be able to give advice and assistance to the Governor-General in Council. I am certain that if you are to avoid discontentment you cannot appoint a Mahomedan to that Council without also appointing a Hindu. Nor do I think that if you did appoint a native of India and he were not of the politically advanced class against whom the legislation of which we have heard is directed, he would command influence amongst his co-religionists. Therefore, I agree with everything that has fallen from the noble Marquess opposite with regard to the Executive Council of the Viceroy.
I was also extremely glad to learn that the official majority was still to be preserved in the Legislative Council of the Viceroy. If under this new arrangement the councils of the local governments are enlarged and increased functions conferred upon them, the business which will fall upon the Council of the Governor-General will transcend local interests; it will be connected with high Imperial affairs, and with the disposal of those matters on which racial quarrels and religious difficulties arise. Consequently the Council of the Governor General will hold the position of arbiter; and, that being so, as complete authority should be retained by the Governor-General in his Council as in my opinion should be retained by him in his executive authority.
In regard to the local governments, the second division into which I thought the noble Viscount's remarks fell, I am glad to learn that the Executive
1998
Councils of Madras and Bombay are to be enlarged. I think the time for doing that has come. I also think the time has come for withdrawing the official majority in the local Legislative Councils. But if an enlargement of the Executive Councils be granted, then the power of the Governor of the Province should be increased so that he in the ultimate result may be able to check any shortcomings on the part of his council which may transpire. In addition to Madras and Bombay, the noble Viscount, as I understood him, said he proposed to give Executive Councils to two Lieutenant-Governorships and subsequently two more. I should like to know to which two Lieutenant-Governorships Councils are to be immediately given. I presume that one will be given to Bengal, as it now exists, and another probably to the United Provinces. The principle which should direct our policy in this respect is to give a larger measure of local government to Provinces as they become fit for it. In my opinion the Lieutenant-Governorship of Bengal, as it at present exists, is not fit for a Council. What does the Lieutenant-Governorship of Bengal consist of now? It consists of two divisions of Bengal proper, which no doubt are, so far as education and material resources are concerned, perhaps the most prominent in India. It also consists of a country which is different in the origin and in the language of its people, different linguistically and ethnically, I refer to the districts of Behar. Then it includes the high lands of Chota Nagpur which are inhabited by aboriginal tribes, and, finally, it includes Orissa, which is and always has been stagnant. To give a council to such a province as that and to place it on an equality with Madras and Bombay is, I think, to court defeat.
But if the wise and statesmanlike proposal of the noble Viscount had been put forward four years ago he would have had no difficulty in finding a province which would have satisfied all his requirements for a new Governorship with an Executive Council. The most advanced and forward province in India, whether you regard it from the point of view of material prosperity or of education, is what is known as Bengal proper. The

1999
idea of giving a council to Bengal proper is not a matter of to-day or yesterday, but has been a commonplace of Indian administrative thought for more than half a century. It was earnestly advocated before I went to India; but in the course of events, with the swing of the pendulum as regards official opinion, it came to be considered that the personal rule of the Lieutenant-Governor was better than the rule of a council particularly when the Presidency commands were abolished, reducing the council to three officers, and greatly increasing the risk of the Governor being in a minority. But the noble Viscount's opportunity has been diminished by what is known as the partition of Bengal. I do not know how that matter arose. Nobody seems to know how it did arise. The noble Lord who is reputed to be the author of it, in this House denied its authorship and threw responsibility on two noble Lords who were urgent in denying the soft impeachment. The partition remains now nobody's child, and is productive of much evil. The partition of Bengal, in my opinion—and I speak my mature opinion—is the greatest blunder which has been committed in India since Clive conquered at Plassey. If that partition can be undone, in the larger consideration of Indian administrative situations now under notice, then I think the noble Viscount will have in Bengal a field in which his policy will take root, with as a result the removal of all these difficulties which now confront him. For, in my opinion, these difficulties are nothing more than the outcome of this administrative blunder, which has driven mad the best of the young men in Bengal. I know I speak on an unpopular theme, but I feel very strongly on this matter.
When three years ago I heard of this partition I knew that a mistake had been made; since then I have kept myself absolutely aloof from all agitation, and from all agitators on this matter. But now in your Lordships' House, I do not think I should be doing my duty to this House and to the country if I did not say, with such authority as my experience in India may enable me to command, that this is a blunder, and that if it is not retracted and corrected, the great scheme of reform which has been launched to-night will fail, at all events in Bengal, of the
2000
success which it ought to command. It has been said that to go back on a mistake in India is to encourage the enemy. I have had larger administrative experience of India than most men, and speaking as the result of that experience, I say that the correction of a mistake has never been a bad thing for the Government of India or for the people of India. Those, my Lords, are the remarks which I desired to make on this occasion. When the Bill to which the noble Viscount's remarks point, comes before the House we shall be able to discuss its terms; but I did think it my duty, on the earliest opportunity, to say what I have said, and to congratulate the noble1 Viscount on having produced a scheme which, in my opinion, will be of the utmost benefit to India.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he understood it would not be convenient to raise his first Amendment because it would exclude any possibility of subsequent Amendments. Therefore, with their Lordships' permission, he would move his second Amendment, the effect of which would be so to alter Clause 1 (Establishment of Port of London Authority) as to increase the number of appointed Members from twelve to fourteen, in order to give one representative each to the Middlesex and Surrey county councils. Only yesterday a strong plea was made for the county councils who had authority on the banks of the River Thames. He pointed out that by an Amendment in Committee the House had granted one representative each to the Kent and Essex County Councils, and emphasised the desirability of making a similar concession to the councils of the two other counties affected by the establishment of the new Port Authority. The county councils of Middlesex and Surrey had quite as good a claim to representation on the Board as the county councils of Kent and Essex. Something happened last night which convinced him that Middlesex had a very strong claim for representation upon this Board. His noble friend

2001
Lord Jersey moved an Amendment to exempt the river between Brentford and Teddington from the operation of the Bill because that part of the river had no mercantile interest at all and was principally used for purposes of recreation. An attempt had been made at Richmond at great expense to secure the amenities of that part of the river for the purposes of recreation, but those amenities had nothing whatever to do with the object of the Port of London Bill. When his noble friend moved that Amendment the noble Lord in charge of the Bill pointed out that this question had never been raised before, that it had been sprung upon the Government, that it would upset the financial arrangements of the measure, and that it was impossible under those circumstances to exempt that part of the river. If it was impossible to exempt a part of the river which had no mercantile interest and had a totally different interest from the rest of the river, surely that was a very strong argument for giving to the councils of the counties adjoining that part of the river some voice in the deliberations of the Board. It was said that the composition of the Port Authority was purely of a commercial character, although he confessed he could not follow the argument that the Admiralty was a mercantile body. The argument was that the new board was not a body such as that which was qualified to alter the upper reaches of the river, which were devoted to the purposed of recreation. It would be a very serious thing if the mercantile proclivities of the Port of London were allowed to affect that part of the river which was now outside, not only their jurisdiction, but also their interests. He ventured to think that it was not a very great demand which these county councils made that they also should be represented on the Board. A great deal was made yesterday of the argument that it was not advisable' to make the Board too large. Of course, that was very true, because they all knew that as a rule the larger a body was the less good work it did. But surely it was also true that they should not cut down the size of any body so as to omit altogether the representation of interests which might be keenly affected, and he could not believe that the
2002
efficiency of this Board would be seriously affected by having three or four more members upon it. He was justified in saying that the Comity Council of Middlesex felt very strongly on this point. The Joint Committee refused to hear one single word that council had to say in support of its desire to be represented, and that in itself he thought was a very strong argument for adding their representative to the Board. Those facts justified him in pressing very strongly upon the House the claims of the counties of Surrey and Middlesex for representation.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line, after the words 'By the Essex County Council, one' to insert the words 'By the Middlesex County Council, one; by the Surrey County Council, one.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
LORD DESBOROUGHproposed, as a consequential Amendment, the addition of a member to represent the Corporation of West Ham.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but had we not better settle my question first?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Standing Order of the House requires the question to be put from the Chair as soon as it is moved. I think that rather implies that each Amendment should be treated by itself, and I would suggest that that is the best course to adopt.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsaid that 'his prophecy of the preceding day that a certain cause would have a certain result had been rapidly fulfilled. There was a certain amount of satisfaction in being able to say "I told you so," and he said it now. What the Government and the Joint Committee had feared had happened. The door had been opened to further municipal representation on this body, and the rush for representation had already commenced, headed by the noble Duke and by the noble Lord who had been momentarily staved off. He did not know where that rush was going to cease. Yesterday he opposed the

2003
inclusion of Kent and Essex, and to-day he must as strongly oppose the inclusion of these further municipal bodies. If this Amendment, and the further Amendment of which they had had an indication, passed, the number of appointed representatives on the authority would be fifteen, while the number of elected representatives remained at eighteen. The whole character of the body would be altered, and altered for the worse. If this undertaking were to be carried on, as was contemplated in the former Bill, by municipal capital, such representation would be right, but that was not the case. The capital embarked in the docks was private capital, and even under this Bill the shareholders would hold Port stock instead of shares of the dock company. It would be private capital, and if this Amendment were passed a great deal of the security given to the shareholders on which the bargain had been concluded would be taken away. The idea of the Board of Trade and the Joint Committee was that the Port should be managed by business men in a business-like way, and by business men carrying on their business in the Port. If their Lordships chose to alter the constitution of the body and if it did not prove successful in its management of the Port the fault would not lie with the Board of Trade or the Joint Committee.
THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid that the prophecy of the noble Lord had come true simply because of the desire of the local authorities to have some control over the stretch of river that ran through their respective counties. That was the reason why Middlesex desired to be represented upon the authority which would govern a large portion of the river which ran through the county of Middlesex. Middlesex had a stretch of seven miles from Brentford downwards which was full of wharves and docks of various kinds, end for all that they had not a single representative upon the Port Authority. Therefore, it was not unnatural that the county council should desire to be represented, having such large interests at stake. He hoped the noble Duke would press this question. The Middlesex County Council were very strong upon this point, and he did
2004
not think the security of these who invested their money in the Port of London would be in the least invalidated by the fact that all the authorities who had an interest in the success of the Port were represented.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I think there is a difference between this Amendment and that which was carried by your Lordships yesterday. If Essex and Kent are not directly represented from their county councils on the board they will have no representation at all, although their interests on both banks of the Thames below London are very considerable. On the other hand, Middlesex and Surrey will be represented through the London County Council which comprises a very considerable part of their areas. I feel that this Amendment cannot be supported on the same grounds as that of yesterday. There is some force in what the noble Lord says, that it will be very difficult to know where to stop. If this is carried there will be an application from the borough of West Ham, and it is possible that the borough of Richmond may require representation. The whole balance of interests will be upset, and instead of the authority being a commercial body, its majority will be merely the representation of local authorities. I hope that the noble Duke will not press the Amendment.
On question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DESBOROUGHsaid that after that result he would not press his Amendment, but would impress on the House that if any more representatives were added to the Port Authority West Ham had a very strong chum. West Ham was a most populous district containing 300,000 inhabitants, and it contained two of the most important docks on the river. A large proportion of the population was engaged in working at the docks and wharves, and those facts entitled West Ham to some consideration.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved an Amendment—
"In page 5, line 29, to leave out from the beginning of the line to the worn1 'make' in line 39, and to insert the words 'The Board of

2005
Trade may on the application of the Port Authority.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
to remove a certain amount of ambiguity from the clause. He said that the Amendment was agreed to between the Board of Trade and the noble Marquess. The words he proposed made the meaning of the clause perfectly clear, and took out a number of redundant words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved a further Amendment—
"In page 5, line 9, after the word 'constructed' to insert the words 'in pursuance of an order under this section."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
Also at the suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite. Its object was to make the meaning of the clause more clear, although it did not materially alter the substance of the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsaid the next Amendment he had to move carried out an undertaking which he gave to the noble Lord opposite having regard to the preservation of commons and open spaces. The words he row moved had been accepted by the noble Lord.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 31, after the word 'requisite,' to insert the words '(c) Nothing in this section shall, without the consent of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, authorise the acquisition of any common or commonable land, or any recreation ground, village green, or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any disused burial ground.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In line 39, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'not in the employment of any Government Department.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order) and dispensed with. Bill read 3a with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.'

COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order.)
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved to insert a provision that: "Where a majority of the workmen employed decide by a ballot that a period for rest or meals shall be provided during any shift, the time of absence from the surface prescribed by this Act shall be increased by the duration of such period." He thought that this Amendment was necessary to carry out the real object and intention of this Bill. If a man desired to work up to the full eight hours laid down by this Bill and earn as much as he could during the statutory time, he could not do that and at the same time get anything to eat during that period. He did not think it was the object of the Government to deprive these miners of an opportunity for obtaining meals and rest. As the Bill stood the miners must either go without food for the period of eight hours or else take their food within the eight hours whilst at work.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDhoped the Government would be able to accede to this Amendment. By the terms of the Mines Regulation Acts, all boys on the pit brow were entitled to half an hour for dinner.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 8, to insert the words 'where a majority of the workmen employed decide by a ballot that a period for rest or meals shall be provided during any shift, the time of absence from the surface prescribed by this Act shall be increased by the duration of such period."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP): I am afraid the precise effect of this Amendment has not been correctly understood. I may point out to your Lordships that it would allow the workmen to have a period for rest or meals provided during the shift, and under those circumstances, as your Lordships will see, that period of time would be excluded in the computation of the period during which the

2007
miners are actually working. An Amendment much to the same effect was moved in another place, and it was defeated by twenty-five votes to ten. The argument which I think will appeal most to your Lordships is that the workmen do not themselves make this request, and from the very nature of the hewers' work it is apparent that the rest and meals have to be taken at irregular intervals whilst they are waiting for the tubs. I think it will be obvious that this proposal would cause a very serious dislocation of work underground, and I hope the Amendment will not be carried in the form which the noble Earl suggests. The practical result of the Amendment would be that it would allow workmen by ballot to increase the time spent below ground, and instead of making a six or eight hours day there is no reason why they should not make a nine hours day, or even a longer period.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid it was the practice during the windings of coal to have a temporary cessation of work in order to allow the men to get their food. That was of enormous importance to the safety of the men, because during that interval the whole gear was examined and the lifting machinery inspected. He thought that was another argument in favour of this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid that the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, was right in his statement that if they added the time for rest or meals to the shift they might make the time below ground eight hours twenty minutes. He wished, however, to point out that under this Bill, arguing on the same lines, they were making the time at work underground only seven hours forty minutes and not eight hours per day. Under the circumstances, however, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN, in moving to amend the clause by omitting from subsection (a) the words "During the five years after the commencement of this Act," said this is one of a series of I Amendments necessary in order to carry out an alteration in the Bill which was
2008
alluded to more than once in the debate on the Second Reading. As the Bill now stands there are three transition periods during which it is to come into operation. In the first place, there will be a period of six or twelve months as the case may be, during which the collieries are to prepare for the working of the Bill. Then there is to be a period of five years during which the Bill is to come into force to this extent, that there is to be an eight hours day and both windings up and down are to be excluded from those eight hours. After a period of five years one of those windings is to be included in those eight hours, so that there will be a total period of half an hour less than during the first five years of the operation of the Bill. I must say that so far as I can gather from the expressions of Ministers on this subject, or from the Reports of the Departmental Committee, if there is any belief in the minds of those responsible for this Bill that its effect will not be injurious to the rest of the community, and also to the miners and owners of coal, that belief does not go further than this, that the proposal for the first period, namely, the eight hours, excluding both windings, might be safely adopted. I find with regard to that proposal an expression of opinion from a high authority who declared that it was not possible to forecast precisely the amount of disturbance that might occur in the working of a mine when the Bill came into operation, or the precise increase in the cost of production. He went on to say that in Durham and Northumberland that something like complete reorganisation in most of the mines would be necessitated, and that in South Wales and Lancashire inconvenience would arise and that the transition might involve some rise in the price of coal. That is what the Home Secretary said in the debate on the Third Reading in the House of Commons with reference to the first term when both windings would be excluded. Mr. Russell Rea, who is a high authority on this matter, said he could not regard the extremely drastic step which was to be taken next July without some degree of anxiety and apprehension. I must say that this seems to me to show anxiety with

2009
regard to the working even of the first five years under this Bill, and I do not think it will he denied that even that change will materially interfere with the coalmining industry. In Scotland, Yorkshire and the Midlands, I believe that, generally speaking, so far as I can gather from the Report of the Departmental Committee, an eight hours day with both windings excluded would not materially interfere with the present system of working, but the same Committee say that the hours worked by hewers in West Lancashire, instead of being eight hours exclusive of both windings, are now nine and a half hours, and that other workmen work for as much as ten and a half hours per day, whilst in the Cardiff Steam Coal Mines the hewers and day men work ten and a half hours per day. It is clear that in West Lancashire and South Wales, to say nothing of Durham and Northumberland, the effect of the proposal in this Bill, if it merely amounted to an eight-hours day exclusive of both windings, would be a serious change. At any rate it is clear that for practically six years to come all that His Majesty's Government, as the authors of this Bill, think can be safely done in the way of bringing an eight-hour day into operation is to enact the hours proposed for the first period, namely, an eight hours day excluding both windings. Turning to the question of safety, surely nobody can contend that the inclusion of a winding within the eight hours term would be otherwise than dangerous to the workmen concerned. There would be every temptation where an employer or his workmen desired to evade the operation of the restricted period of eight hours to hurry the winding, and serious accidents might occur owing to the inclusion of a winding within the eight hours. That being so, what do the Government tell us with regard to the possibilities of the future which would justify this change at the end of a period of five years? They tell us that they think there may be certain elements In the present system of working mines which do not bring out to the full extent their productive power. They suggest—and I do not doubt there may be something in it—that if men work shorter hours they would work more
2010
efficiently. They suggest also that there might be time saved if there was less loss by stoppage of the mines or absenteeism, and the Committee quote in support of that contention the fact that in Lancashire, where the longest hours are worked, there is a double percentage of absenteeism as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Whatever can be done towards minimising the effect of the Bill in this way will be required to make an eight hours day, with both windings excluded, a change which will not seriously diminish output. What His Majesty's Government really seem to rely upon with regard to the possibility of extending an eight hours day beyond that is some great change in the working of the mine due to the importation of new forms of coal-cutting machinery. That, however, is a purely imaginative view. It may be right or it may be wrong. Nobody can possibly foresee what changes will be made within the next five years. As was well said in the House of Commons in regard to what is to happen five years hence His Majesty's Government, like the miners, are absolutely working in the dark. That being so, why cannot they limit the Bill to what they believe can safely be done now, namely, to an eight hours day excluding both windings? If no harm results from the adoption of that practice in the mines, at the end of five years those interested can come to Parliament and ask that more stringent provisions should be enacted. If, on the other hand, as many fear will be the case, some serious injury may occur, Parliament can deal with the subject according to the experience gained. I can conceive but one objection to the exclusion from this Bill of legislation for an unknown future, which is utterly beyond the proper scope of the duties of Parliament. That is the argument suggested by the Secretary for the Colonies on the Second Reading of this Bill, in which he said that the Bill was shaped in the way in which it now stands to bring about what was believed to be a final settlement of the question, and that if an eight hours day including one winding, was not included in the Bill as the final result, the miners' agitation would continue. There would be uncertainty as to the future prospect of the trade; and

2011
everybody knows that uncertainty is one of the worst things for the prosperity of a trade. That was the noble Lord's argument, and I think it was the only argument he used in favour of this proposal. I am inclined to think that the trade do not share that view. So far as I know, and judging from the fact that my noble friend Lord Newton has also put this Amendment on the Paper, it may be concluded that the trade do not wish to go further than the Bill proposes for the first five years, and they desire the Bill should stop there. But whatever the view of the trade may be, we have to consider something much more important, and that is the interest of the consumer. In the interest of the consumer I do not think we have any right whatever to legislate for a future which we cannot foresee, and, therefore, we ought not now to enact that a further change should be made at the end of five years. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Amendment prop sed—
"In page 1, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'During the five years after the commencement of this Act.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
LORD KNARESBOROUGHsaid he would not repeat what he had stated on the last occasion on this question. He wished, however, to point out that if they employed several Hercules or Samsons to hew coal, and they were able to get three times as much as the present miners were doing, it would not be the slightest use, because they could not get more coal out of the pit. The difficulty at the present time was to move away the coal after it had been got by the hewers. Collieries had been laid out for the production of coal during a certain number of hours through a shaft of a certain diameter, and they had constructed and laid out a certain class of ways or tunnels to support which a certain amount of coal was left. Where the amount of coal left was not sufficient, they had to build up and support the ways with masonry. The rest of the coal was worked out; the roof then crushed down, and they could not make any new ways through a lot of broken stone and roof. If
2012
the public liked to pay a couple of pounds a ton for coal, they could do anything with the assistance of engineers, but they could not make new ways in their present collieries except at enormous expense. Production at collieries went on now for nine hours-forty minutes per day, during which the coal flowed out of the pit. If they reduced that period to eight hours, they would cause a very serious reduction in the output of coal. Under this Bill it would be impossible for certain collieries to work except at a considerable loss unless they put on two shifts instead of one. It was very distasteful to the colliers themselves to have to work in two shifts. It also meant a very great increased expense, and in a case he had in mind, they would require 378 extra men for the extra shift. Having gone to all the expense of an extra shift, at the end of five years they were to be mulcted of twenty minutes per day of their outflow of coal. At the end of that period the hewers would be working in two shifts, half of them in one shift, half in another, so they would be hewing no more coal than they do now; if you cut off twenty minutes or half an hour from their hewing time you must curtail the output or employ more men to do the same amount of work.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think your Lordships will realise the great importance of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, and I think the House will hardly expect that the Government will be able to agree to the passing of this Amendment, at any rate without putting your Lordships to the trouble of a division. The effect of the Amendment, if it is agreed to by your Lordships, will be to make a temporary expedient proposed by His Majesty's Government to meet the convenience of colliery management into a permanent condition of affairs. I explained to your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill the whole idea of this preliminary period, and I stated how it was intended to meet the convenience of the various interests concerned in the collieries. It was represented that the Bill as originally framed, involved the risk of certain economic disturbances, and it was also alleged that

2013
there was a possibility of certain temporary risks to the safety of those engaged in the mines. It was also asserted that there was some danger which might arise by hurrying the process of winding, in consequence of which the lives of the men would not be so safe as they are at the present time. It was in order to meet those representations and prevent those risks that His Majesty's Government decided to introduce this preliminary period, and the idea was that it would obviate both the dinger of economic disturbance and also the danger to the safety of the people employed in the mines. I think it is generally admitted that any inconvenience which might possibly be effected by the Bill, would be caused, not at the end of the period of five years named in this Bill, but would come now. Any danger would probably be over and passed long before the expiration of the period of five years. It is clear, however, that both these matters I have mentioned would be obviated by this period of five years. What I wish to point out to your Lordships is that at the end of this period of five years, there would not be the possibility of such an interference with the economic condition of affairs or with safety as is possible at the time when the Bill becomes law. I was very glad to notice what was said by the noble Viscount opposite this afternoon and on the Second Reading to the effect that they would not be averse to considering this question again after five years have elapsed if it was found no hardship had been inflicted either upon colliery owners or consumers throughout the country. [Cries of "No."] I think that statement was, at any rate, made by the Leader of the Opposition, and what has been said on this point certainly justifies me in asking noble Lords opposite whether, supposing the results which we anticipate from this Bill really occur—and the miners come forward again at the end of a period of five years, to ask this House to re-insert what it is now proposed to strike out—they will afford every possible facility for such a proposal becoming the law of the country. Of course, I hardly expect to get an answer to that question now. The real object of this Amendment is to turn this Eight Hours Bill into a measure
2014
which will establish an eight and a half hours day. [Cries of "No."] That shows how far this Amendment strikes at the root of the Bill, and I am afraid this fact will make it necessary for the Government to ask your Lordships to divide upon this Amendment if the noble Viscount presses the matter to a division.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYhoped his noble friend would press the matter to a division. He had listened attentively to the speeches which had been made in this House, and he had read the speeches made in the House of Commons on this question, and he had no hesitation in saying that no answer had been given by the noble Lord who had just sat down to the arguments pat forward by the noble Viscount. The reason for the exclusion of one of the windings was said to be for the purpose of securing safety and to prevent hurrying up. If that danger existed now why would it not exist in five years' time? He thought this measure would create a very great revolution in the coal trade, most certainly in that part of the country with which he was connected. Not only that, but if they were unable to settle down under this new system in the counties of Durham and Northumberland there would be another revolution in five years, when they altered the system by introducing one of the windings inside the eight hours. To those with any experience of coal mines there could be no doubt that this would add very materially to the danger of the men coming up and down by causing hurrying up. There was another danger to which he wished to draw the attention of their Lordships, and it was that in the course of five years time if the pitmen who were paid by the piece came under the new system they would naturally have far greater anxiety to send up the shafts quickly the coal for which they were paid, and which they turned out below but which had no value at all until it got to the top, than they would in getting up themselves. Therefore the speeding up in endeavouring to give more time to the winding would increase the risk considerably. What were the expectations of the Home Secretary with regard to improvements and discoveries within the next five years

2015
which he thought would make the inclusion of one of the windings in the hours safer than at the present time. All he could say was that the Home Secretary seemed exceedingly ignorant with regard to the cost of sinking shafts. He did not think anybody in their senses would think it wise to sink a great deal of capital in anything in this country at the present time. He should be very glad to hear what were the improvements and discoveries which the Home Secretary expected to find during the next five years. It was evident that they would have another revolution in five years' time, and if this Amendment were accepted that difficulty would be overcome.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): I need add very little to what has been said by my noble friend behind me. I quite admit that there is something to be said on both sides upon this question, and there are arguments to be used both ways. There is undoubtedly some force in the contention that it is better not to admit a winding into the time at all. That I do not deny. Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat the argument which the noble Viscount used which was a very fair description of what I said upon the last occasion. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, says he desires to avoid a revolution, and that as this Bill will cause one revolution at once he wishes to avoid another revolution at the end of five years. The question whether there will be another revolution on this matter within five years or within any number of years does not depend upon the Government, and does not depend upon what we put into this Bill. If noble Lords are right in thinking
that miners will be satisfied with this day of eight and a half hours which was so clearly described by my noble friend behind me, then the question will fall to the ground and everybody will be satisfied. But does it not occur to your Lordships that this argument of danger, which has been put forward so strongly, might equally well be met by an agitation for a seven and a half hours day, excluding; both windings? If any agitation of that kind, which I for one do not wish to encourage, should be started, you cannot prevent the trade being subjected to another revolution, supposing it should, be found necessary to grant that demand.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYhoped the noble Lord had not misunderstood what he said. He meant, of course, a revolution of the system of working in the counties of Durham and Northumberland at the present time.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Of course, I did not believe the noble Marquess meant a revolution in the whole foundation of society, or that anything of that kind was going to be brought about by this measure in whatever form it was passed. I quite understood that he meant a revolution in the coal trade what I desire to point out is that either people will be satisfied with eight and a half hours per day, or they will not be satisfied, and what we put into the Bill as regards the winding will not affect that point one way or the other.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause,"
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 136.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Craven, E.

Eversley, L.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Selby, V.

Haversham, L.

Hemphill, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Allendale, L.

Herchell, L.

Armitstead, L.

Lucas, L.

Ripon, M.

Blyth, L.

Lyveden, L.

Boston, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Colebrook, L. [Teller.]

Marchamley, L.

Carrington, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Monson, L.

Chichester, E.

Denman, L. [Teller]

O'Hagan, L.

Reay, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Welby, L.

St. Davids, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Winterstoke, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Weardale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Northesk, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Bedford, D.

Onslow, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Devonshire, D.

Orford, E.

Harris, L.

Newcastle, D.

Radnor, E.

Hatherton, L.

Northumberland, D.

Shaftesbury, E.

Heneage, L.

Portland, D.

Stamford, E.

Hindlip, L.

Sutherland, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Hothfield, L.

Wellington, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Westmeath, E.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Bath, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

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

Bristol, M.

Wilton, E.

Bute, M.

Kenyon, L.

Hertford, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Killanin, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Falkland, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Zetland, M.

Falmouth, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Camperdown, E.

Goschen, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hampden, V.

Lamington, L.

Carnwath, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Cathcart, E.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Cawdor, E.

Portman, V.

Lovat, L.

Clarendon, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Middleton, L.

Cromer, E.

Mowbray, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Addington, L.

Newton, L.

Dartrey, E.

Allerton, L.

North, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Derby, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Atkinson, L.

Poltimore, L.

Avebury, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Durham, E.

Balfour, L.

Rathmore, L.

Eldon, E.

Barrymore, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Baring, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Essex, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Feversham, E.

Borthwick, L.

Saltoun, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Sanderson, L.

Haddington, E.

Braye, L.

Sandys, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Seaton, L.

Harewood, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Sherborne, L.

Howe, E.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Jersey, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Lathom, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Lichfield, E.

Stalbridge, L.

Lindsey, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Stanmore, L.

Lovelace, E.

Colchester, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Lucan, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Morley, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Morton, E.

De Mauley, L.

Wynford, L.

Munster, E.

Desborough, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Nelson, E.

Ellenborough, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON*LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON moved to leave out the words "through unforeseen circumstances." This Amendment he proposed in the interests of coal-cutting machinery. He did not think, however, he should be able to make his point clear unless he gave to their Lordships a short description of how coal-cutting machinery was used. They commenced to cut along the face of the coal for about 100 yards, in length,
2018
terminating in one of the roads by which the coal was conveyed to the shaft. After the batch of men with the coal-cutter had proceeded a certain distance the men attached to the conveyer went down. Their business was to move the conveyer from the position which it held on the previous night close to the face under-cut by the coal-cutting machine, and they had to remove the props close up to the face. After that came the hewers, and they cut the face of the coal which had been under-cut by the

2019
coal-cutter, and they had to put it on the conveyer by which it was drawn to the trucks. Now, if any of those three different squads of men were delayed by any accident or any breakdown of machinery or by any fall of roof, or any other cause, they must remain to complete their own particular job before the other party could go over the same ground. It therefore followed that if the coal-cutter broke down, the men were not able to do their work within the time allowed. If, for any reason, the conveyer could not be put into its proper place the miners could not use it to fill in the coal, and it was for these reasons that the Departmental Committee said in the case of coal-cutters it was absolutely necessary that some elasticity of working hours should be allowed. That was his argument for giving more elasticity to each of those squads. It might be said that the words put into the subsection were sufficient. Those various occurrences by which a number of men might be delayed from coming out at the end of eight hours would occur very frequently. They might occur in one part of the pit one day, and in another part another day, and the men might still have to finish up their work flush when the eight hours had elapsed. He asked, therefore, that these words might be omitted.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'through unforeseen circumstances.'"—(Lord Belhaven and Stenton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am sorry we cannot accept this Amendment, but I think I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord on the points he has raised. His proposals are mainly concerned with coal-cutting machinery. What I wish to point out is that if anything goes wrong with the coal-cutting machinery, obviously it is an unforeseen circumstance. That will also apply to other occurrences by which gangs are stopped doing work because the machinery has broken down. All those things would come in under "unforeseen circumstances," and I think the noble Lord may be perfectly satisfied so far as that point is concerned. I desire to remind the noble Lord that his
2020
Amendment goes a great deal further than the circumstances which He contemplates. If these words were omitted the subsection as it would then remain would be very vague in its terms. I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord so far as the machinery is concerned, which was the only point he dealt with; that really is already provided for by the actual terms of the Bill, and the words already provided will not cause any difficulty in the working of the mine.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTONsaid it was not only the machinery, but also the extra hardness of the face of the coal which might cause the hewers to be delayed in their work. They might have to remain to cut the face of the coal perfectly square, although there might be no accident at all to the machinery. He would not, however, press his Amendment under the circumstances, and he asked leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTONsaid the same arguments he had used applied equally to the Amendment which he now moved to leave out the word "serious," and substitute the word "substantial." He wished to have this consideration, at any rate, allowed to the men remaining longer in the mine from these causes. He begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 5, to leave out the word 'serious,' and to insert the word 'substantial.'"—[Lord Belhaven and Stenton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment, and I may say that I do not think it meets the point which the noble Lord desires to meet. In view of the drafting of this clause it is thought that the word "serious" is necessary, and, therefore, we cannot accept the change proposed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDhoped the noble Lord would consider an Amendment which he had handed in with a view to its acceptance on Report. He quite appreciated that His Majesty's Government was desirous of playing the game and affording fair play to both sides. They had already materially protected the consumer and he asked that in justice only certain protection should be given to the producers of coal. Noble Lords were aware that there were very many old pits in this country which would be placed in very serious straits by the operation of this Bill, and would in all probability have to be done away with and closed. It meant not only closing those pits, but moving the men who worked there from places in which they had been accustomed to live for a great many years.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the noble Lord has not moved his Amendment, and that he suggests it should be moved on Report. In that case it is somewhat inconvenient that we should hear the arguments for an Amendment which is not before the House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid the Amendment which he wished to move was to insert after the word "time" the words "or in the case of any individual pit or mine which, owing to the provisions of this Act may be found to be no longer workable at a profit, and if that in consequence public notice has been given that the pit or mine will be closed."
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have only just had an opportunity of looking at this Amendment and from a cursory inspection of it I must warn the noble Lord that I think it is quite certain that the Government will not be able to accept his proposal on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I think the point which has been raised by my noble friend is one of very great importance. I have in my hand a Report of the Departmental Committee, and I do not apologise to your Lordships for quoting from it because everybody must admit that the Departmental Committee made
2022
a most exhaustive and careful inquiry, and were by no means prejudiced against this Bill. Therefore the conclusions the Committee arrived at must be taken with very great respect. One unanimous conclusion they came to was that when a special statutory protection is afforded to the workers in a special trade it may be considered advisable in this country, as it has been considered advisable in all other countries which have enacted such legislation, to reserve in the hands of the Government certain powers of suspension and exceptions in the public interest. Already His Majesty's Government have followed that recommendation in Clause 4, so far as war is concerned, and any great emergency. Clause 4 says—
"His Majesty may, in the event of war or of imminent national danger or great emergency, or in the event of any great economic disturbance due to the demand for coal exceeding the supply"—
take power to suspend entirely the operations of this Act. The Government, however, have not touched the point of exceptions to the operation of the Act. I will quote further from the Report of the Committee which shows in what cases exceptions might arise, and they are precisely the cases which the noble Lord near me had in his mind when he addressed your Lordships. The Committee say that in certain classes of mines, such as house coal mines in the Forest of Dean, and in thick seam mines like those in South Staffordshire, the difficulty of adapting the work to the hours will be such that it may be necessary to have special regulations. I notice there is something in the Bill relating to South Staffordshire, but there is nothing relating to the Forest of Dean. Now what did the Committee say on this point? They say that the district of the Forest of Dean presents a case of peculiar difficulties; that the majority of the men work in mines getting house coal, that the mines are rapidly becoming exhausted, and the representatives of the owners of house coal collieries state that this Bill will prove fatal to the existence of those undertakings. The mining agent of the district takes the same view, and the Committee further state that the miners of the Forest of Dean are almost without exception natives of the district, and receive no recruits from outside districts; also that

2023
40 per cent. of them own their own dwellings. Let the House consider the result if those collieries are closed. These men in the Forest of Dean, district are largely freeholders owning their own houses, and consequently will be unable to leave them without serious loss. All these little collieries might be closed if this Bill became law. The Committee in their Report state that in other countries where similar provisions have been enacted care has been taken to meet such a case as this, and they refer to France, Austria, and the Netherlands. In France, exemption from the law may be afforded to poor mines where the application of the law might compromise the working of the mines and lead to the risk of depriving of employment certain populations living entirely by the working of those mines. The Report further states that those exemptions have given rise to no reasonable complaint. I wish to ask the Government seriously to consider this point. In case of grave economic disturbance, or in the event of war, the Government take power to suspend the operation of this Bill altogether, and why cannot they take power to vary the operation of the Bill in the case I have alluded to, where a whole population in a given district might be deprived practically of employment if the mines were closed, and the Government could not interfere to prevent it, although satisfied that the mines would be closed by the operation of this Bill? I am not asking for this concession upon any other conditions, but I think the Government are incurring a grave responsibility by not taking power to meet such a state of things as that. I have prepared some words by way of an addendum, and I move them now, as follows: "His Majesty may, by Order in Council, vary the application of this Act to mines, or to any class of mines in a particular district to such an extent and for such a period as may be necessary to prevent a loss of employment to the population residing in that district by the closing of the mines in consequence of the operation of this Act." I hope the Government will give some consideration to those words, and if they do not I think a very heavy responsibility will rest on their shoulders.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 37, at the end, to add the words, 'His Majesty may, by Order in Council, vary the application of this Act to mines or to any class of mines in a particular district to such an extent and for such a period as may be necessary to prevent loss of employment to the population residing in that district by the closing of the mines in consequence of the operation of this Act.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn).
LORD AVEBURYsaid the coal of this country was a national asset, and one which was being very rapidly reduced in quantity. It was clear from what the noble Viscount has just stated that there were coal mines which could not possibly be worked unless they had some such proviso as that which had I just been proposed. The Bill would deprive the country of that portion of its mineral wealth and that seemed to him a strong argument in support of what the noble Viscount had just suggested.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope the noble Viscount, when he has heard my reasons, will not press his Amendment. It might make a considerable distinction in various districts, and it would allow the Home Secretary to make a difference between one mine and another and one district and another. I think it is quite obvious that no distinction should be made, because the whole principle of this Bill is that we should establish a national system. It is clear that those coal-owners in whose favour no exception was made would clearly have a ground of complaint.
LORD NEWTON: What about Durham and Northumberland?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The principle of this Bill is that the hours of labour in mines should be the same ultimately throughout the country. We desire that there shall be a national system and not any variation between one part of the country and another. That system would break down if this Amendment were accepted. An Amendment was moved in the House of Commons to exempt a certain colliery which has been mentioned by the noble Viscount, but it did not meet with any success, and it was negatived without, a division.

2025
I ask your Lordships, to notice that Clause 3 provides for one hour's overtime on sixty days in the year, and that was inserted to meet the season's demand and with the object of mitigating the operation of the Act in such collieries as those mentioned by the noble Viscount. May I point to another effect of this Amendment? It has been said that His Majesty may vary the application of this Act, but supposing we had a Home Secretary who varied the operation of the Act in the direction of making the hours of working mines six hours per day. There would be nothing in the Amendment to prevent it working in a different direction from that which the noble Viscount desired, and I am sure he would be one of the first to make it impossible for the Secretary of State to do any such thing as that. That, however, is quite possible under the Amendment suggested by the noble Viscount, and it is quite obvious it goes a great deal further than he intended. Under these circumstances I hope your Lordships will not add these words to Clause 4, and I trust the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment to a division.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I admit that the words may have the interpretation which the noble Lord has put upon them, and it is not my intention that they should bear that interpretation. I am only sorry that the time at our disposal did not permit me to consider the words more carefully. The Government have already taken power to suspend entirely the operation of the Act. Must that suspension apply to the whole country? No, because Clause 4 gives power to suspend the operation of the Act—
"To such extent, and for such period as may be named in the order, either as respects all coal mines or any class of coal mines."
All I wish is that the Government should have power to vary the application of the Act in such manner as might make it adaptable to some of the specially situated coal districts. The Forest of Dean is not the only district to which special circumstances apply. There are other districts, like those in Lancashire. I was anxious to call the attention of your Lordships to the matter and more especially the attention of the Government, and if the
2026
Government are prepared to accept the responsibility by refusing to take power to vary the operation of the Act in such a way as might prevent the closing of mines and the loss of employment by the whole of the population in certain districts, then I must leave the responsibility on the shoulders of the Government.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I admit this subject is one of some difficulty. It is very singular after the many complaints we have heard from noble Lords of giving the power of dealing with private interests to public departments to find' now that the noble Viscount is moving an Amendment which will give the Home Secretary or the Government practically the power of favouring one coal business in one part of the country as against another business.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: But yon can do it now under the Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The wording of the Bill on that point is pretty clear. The words are—
"His Majesty may, in the event of war, or of imminent national danger."
The whole thing in such an event would be done under the eye of the public, but this Amendment would enable a preference to be exercised in favour of a particular colliery or collieries on the strength of their statement that they were doing badly or that they could not make their business pay. It seems to me to be a very unusual course to attempt to hand over a power like this to the Government of the day. Although I think it is impossible to deny that the incidence of the Bill cannot be entirely even, it is impossible to redress any such inequality in the way suggested by the noble Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There are a number of Amendments down to Clause 6, and I may say that a consultation has taken place with regard to those Amendments, and an arrangement has been

2027
come to satisfactory to both sides of the House. The way in which we propose to proceed is to divide Clause 6 into two parts, and insert a new clause after Clause 5. Certain Amendments are to be made to Clause 6, which, as I say, have been agreed upon by representatives of both sides of your Lordships House. Under these circumstances I think it would be convenient if I were to read the new clause we propose.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he knew the owner had to do what the noble Earl said with regard to regulations affecting safety. Did he understand that at the present moment there was not placed on the owner the unpleasant duty of having to enforce those regulations? Were they to be free from that responsibility?
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I hope we shall have this Bill in print to-morrow morning before the Report stage.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That wish shall be conveyed to the printers, but at this period of the session they seem to be even slower than at other times.
LORD NEWTONsaid that, perhaps it would be more convenient if he did not move his Amendment under these circumstances. His object was to protect the owner from an unjust provision which would put him to the trouble of sending people to search for men who might be infringing the Act. It was probable that when the Bill came into operation it would be found that a good many men would infringe the regulations. As the Bill was brought in in opposition to the wishes of the owner and in the interests of the men, it was distinctly unfair that the owner should be penalised for any offence on the part of a man which he would have the greatest difficulty in preventing.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved to leave out the words postponing the application of the Act for an extra six months as
2028
regards mines in the counties of Durham and Northumberland. He wished to point out that he did not move this as a wrecking Amendment. He recognised that the principle of the Bill had been adopted, but he did not wish to be charged subsequently with having wrecked the Bill on a side issue. The counties of Durham and Northumberland had been exempted for six months from the operation of the Bill, and he could not help thinking that there were suspicious circumstances in connection with the matter. He suspected that some bargain not necessarily corrupt had been arrived at between the Members for Durham and Northumberland and His Majesty's Government. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] At any rate it occurred to him that some arrangement which was not quite clear to his mind had been arrived at between these two parties, and he did not mean anything offensive. In former years the chief opposition to this principle came from the Durham and Northumberland miners, and now the position had been assumed that the miners of Durham and Northumberland were such superior individuals that a Bill of this kind ought not to be made to apply to them. That might be true. The miners of Durham and Northumberland had had very high testimonials paid to them by the Marquess of Londonderry and by Lord Durham. Notwithstanding he was not disposed to admit that they were so extremely superior to all the rest of the miners of this country. They were always held up to admiration as men who had managed by their cleverness to establish an extremely short system of working hours. What did this system upon which the miners of Northumberland and Durham prided themselves so much amount to? Simply that in order that the men might work shorter hours the boys were made to work longer hours. That might be evidence of the extremely practical nature of the Durham miner, but for his part he did not see any moral beauty about it. These two counties were being exempted from the operation of the Bill, and the excuse put forward was that those two counties were more difficult to deal with. Possibly in a political sense they were more difficult to deal

2029
with, because they had returned an unbroken phalanx of supporters of the Government, but it was quite clear that the actual economic difficulties were much less than in the case of some other districts. The report of the Committee stated in dealing with this subject that the effect on production of the limitation of hours to eight in the collieries of Northumberland and Durham presented some difficulties, but they did not appear to the Committee to present the same difficulties as the districts in which the working day was much in excess of eight hours for all classes of workers. That was a self-evident proposition. It seemed to him that a change of this kind would be much less of a danger where the hours were already shorter than it would be in districts such as South Wales or Lancashire where the hours were longer. He had no doubt it would cause inconvenience. It would be extremely inconvenient to the hewers of coal who had been in the habit of working seven hours to be obliged to work for a longer period, but that was the penalty which they paid for joining the Federation. Having joined the Federation they ought to be placed in the same position as everybody else, and it was distinctly unfair on the other localities that these two counties should be exempted from the operation of the Bill. They were always being told that the Bill had been prompted by humanitarian motives. If that were so, if humanity was their real object, surely the case of the unfortunate boys working longer hours than the men was one deserving of sympathy. There were thousands of men working nine and a half and ten hours a day in many parts of the country, and it was perfectly clear that when the Bill came into operation there would be considerable difficulties to face with regard to the question of wages alone. There would be the difficulty, for instance, of paying the men who had been working for ten hours a day and were now going to work eight hours, because they would expect the same rate of payment, and that must cause a serious difficulty. It seemed to him that, having recognised the principle of the measure, having committed themselves to an eight-hours day, it was the business of everybody to see that as
2030
little disturbance and dislocation as possible was caused by the operation of the Bill. They were told that the people in Durham and Northumberland, were so peculiarly circumstanced that a whole year was necessary for them to accommodate themselves to the new conditions. If a year was necessary in the case of people who were already working-shorter hours than anybody else, a longer period was more necessary with regard to the people to whom the change would" be considerably greater. He had received all sorts of memorials and so forth from districts where the people considered they would be most seriously handicapped under the Bill. Take the case of the Forest of Dean district. They were told in the debate the other day practically that the case of the Forest of Dean could not be taken seriously because there were only 5,000 miners there. He did not care what the number was. He said it was a gross injustice that those people should be placed under disadvantageous conditions when strong counties like Durham and Northumberland managed to escape the effect of the Act for an additional six months. He did not put it to the Government, because they were not the real promoters of the Bill, but he put it to the Labour Party and the Miners' Federation that they were putting their comrades in the federated districts under a considerable disadvantage as compared with Northumberland and Durham. Personally he felt so strongly upon the disadvantage at which the other districts would be placed as compared with, Durham and Northumberland that he should prefer an arrangement by which the Bill came into operation all over the country on the earlier date of 1st July, He would like to make an appeal to those responsible for the Bill and not to the Government because he believed them to be much more reasonable than they occasionally appeared. They had got their Bill and it was a most notable triumph, and he thought they might well exercise some little generosity. They might under the circumstances, in view of the tremendous victory they had achieved, show some consideration to their opponents, and he ventured to submit that the most practical way of dealing with the difficulty was to postpone

2031
the period when the Bill was to come into operation to 1st January, 1910. He urged this for the purpose not only of studying the general convenience but for allaying the anxiety which was felt on all sides with regard to the effect of "the measure. He sincerely trusted that the Government who were only nominally responsible for the Bill would view his proposal in a favourable light, and if they were unable to accept the Amendment as he proposed it, he hoped they would consider the matter between now and the Report stage, in which case he should be most happy to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 11, to leave out from the word 'operation' to the word 'on' in line 12."—(Lord Newton.)
LORD KNARESBOROUGHsaid he had put down a similar Amendment, but Tie intended to support this Amendment; The reason he did not put down 1st July was that he was afraid the Government would not consent to such an extension. July would be a much more suitable time than January, and if the Government would be content to give them 1st July, 1910, instead of 1st January, he was sure his noble friend Lord Newton and himself would be glad to withdraw the Amendment and support the Government.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTONalso desired to support the Amendment. He had received from both the East and West of Scotland urgent appeals that there should not be any preference given to Northumberland and Durham.
THE EARL OF DURHAMsaid the noble Earl opposite had suggested something in the nature of a vicious compact existing between the people in Northumberland and Durham and the Government. For his part he should say there was no such compact. The noble Lord opposite had made a rather long speech upon this subject, and had pointed out to their Lordships the selfishness and greed of the owners and miners of the two counties of Northumberland and Durham. He might have ascertained with a very little inquiry
2032
whether it was true that these two counties were desirous of taking an advantage over the other coal areas in the country. He was informed on good authority by persons who ought to know that in those two counties they had not the slightest desire to gain any advantage over any other county, but what they said was that they should be given at least up to January, 1910, to make their fresh arrangements. Lord Londonderry had said that the Bill would produce a revolution in the coal trade of Northumberland and Durham. It would produce a revolution in the working of their system, and that was what the noble Marquess opposite meant. They did not want any advantage over the other counties, and they urged the Government to leave their time limit, if he might so call it, as it was in the Bill. If the Government would allow the other counties to have that same time limit as well he was sure the counties of Northumberland and Durham would not object in the slightest degree.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid that if this Amendment was agreed to it would cover the case of an Amendment he had later on, so far as South Wales and Monmouthshire were concerned. He thought the case of South Wales and Monmouthshire strengthened the argument which had been used by Lord Newton. In the South Wales district, practically speaking, no house coal for domestic purposes went out of the district. The whole business was an export one, for the supply of shipping and large matters of that kind, and it was a business which must be carried on by contracts extending over a considerable time and made some time before the period commenced. He thought he would be quite accurate in saying that all the contracts for next year were made two or three months ago. He need scarcely point out that if the Bill was to come into operation in that district in July next, the disturbance and dislocation of business would be terrific, and it might be impossible in some cases for the contracts entered into to be carried out at all. Therefore, on account of the business of South Wales and Monmouthshire it was almost imperative that the operation

2033
of the Act should not come into force until the period for which these contracts had been made had expired, namely, the end of next year. There was another reason, and a rather cogent one, and that was that the wages scale which was fixed for three years, would terminate at the end of next year, and a new scale of wages would have to be settled upon. He need scarcely say that it would not diminish the labours and difficulties of the Conciliation Board in settling a new scale of wages in January 1910, if the district had scarcely recovered from the trouble and dislocation of business which would occur if this Act came into operation in the previous year. It was very important that in South Wales and Monmouthshire this Act should not come into operation until the end of next year. He had mentioned these reasons because he thought they would strengthen the case which Lord Newton had made out for postponing the operation of this Bill generally to that date.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he did not propose to intervene in the discussion as to the relative virtue of the miners of one part of the country or the other. He noticed there was a preference given to the districts of Northumberland and Durham, and his noble friend had an Amendment on the Paper which would add to the districts which got a preference. He did not propose to argue for one date or another, but he urged very strongly that there should be no preference between one district and another. Northumberland and Durham they all knew exported a large portion of their coal, and so did South Wales. The districts in which he was interested in the East of Scotland, in Fifeshire and Clackmannan, were also large exporting districts, and he had had strong letters from his district urging that there should be no preference to any county at all. They said they were already engaged in arranging their contracts for next year, and unless they knew the terms and had the same terms as the other counties with which they were competing it would be most unfair to them. He did not intervene as between one district and another, but he wished to put in a plea for absolute
2034
equality of treatment between one district and another.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I notice that there is on the Paper an Amendment on this point standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth. At this point perhaps your Lordships will allow me to express my sympathy with Lord Plymouth and the cause of his absence, which is the serious illness of his eldest son. I am sure your Lordships will sympathise all the more when I tell you that the noble Lord's son is far away from homo, in India. Fortunately, we have now passed from the more acute stages of controversy in regard to this Bill. We have admitted the principle on both sides of the House, and what is now before us is not so controversial as the actual principle of the measure. The Government would welcome the opinion of any Member of your Lordships' House, and I delayed intervening in order that every noble Lord might have his say, and if possible, afford some guidance to the Government. Now there are two courses open to the Government. We may either withdraw the concession made to Northumberland and Durham—and I think that would be an ungracious step—or we might make the concession go further and extend it to every other coalfield throughout the country. There is this caveat which ought to be entered with regard to the date being fixed, which will appeal to the noble Lords who have any fear of a rise in the price of coal as a consequence of the passing of this Bill. If it takes effect on 1st January it will be much harder than on 1st July. So far as that is concerned, I think it is a matter which ought to be considered. In any case His Majesty's Government do not propose to divide the House on this question, and although no division will be taken I hope your Lordships will not regard that as an intimation that we are prepared to accept that date. We keep a free hand.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We hail with delight the noble Lord's readiness on this occasion to accept guidance from these benches. We have not found him quite so pliable on other occasions. I venture to say that this

2035
is an occasion upon which we really have a right to look for guidance from the authors of this Bill, and those who are responsible for its details and for the elaborate machinery which it sets up. I should have been perfectly ready to leave it to His Majesty's Ministers after hearing the eloquent pleas advanced from several quarters to decide whether or not this alteration to the Bill came within the scope of their scheme. I should be very sorry to take any part in forcing a proposal of this kind upon the Government, and I will tell your Lordships why. It is not because I hold a brief for Durham and Northumberland, which seem extremely well able to take care of themselves. My misgivings are founded upon an entirely different reason. If this Amendment were adopted we should fundamentally alter the scheme of the Bill so far as the time at which it comes into operation is concerned. Under the Bill as it stands for collieries in general, the date of the beginning of the operation of the Bill is 1st July, and it is quite obvious what the reason is why that date has been fixed upon. It is quite evident that the Government had at the back of their minds the fear that this Bill would produce a very serious disturbance of trade, and the fact that they chose the date as 1st July is conclusive evidence that they are aware that a great dislocation of trade may take place in consequence of the passage of this Bill. Now it is suggested that we should alter that date for all collieries and move it forward to 1st January, 1910. As the noble Lord has already pointed out that would bring the operation as to the commencement of the Act into mid-winter, and if His Majesty's Government are right in anticipating, and if we are right also in anticipating, that this dislocation of business might cause a coal famine, it is quite obvious that it would be most unfortunate if that dislocation took place in the winter months. I will be no party to any attempt to press this alteration on the Government, but if upon a review of all the facts they decide to abandon the preferential treatment of Durham and Northumberland, and to make the Act begin at the same date for all the collieries, choosing whatever date seems
2036
to them most advisable for that purpose, I have nothing more to say. I will not, however, take the responsibility of pressing this proposal upon the Government against their better judgment.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very unwilling to take part in this discussion, because I am, to some extent, an interested party, and I should greatly have preferred one of my noble friends to have taken part in this discussion. The question is one of very considerable difficulty. I confess I do not see how the Bill is to be brought into operation without some hardship upon somebody. I think it is true that a preference given to the counties of Durham and Northumberland might operate to the disadvantage of trade in some other parts of England. It would not, however, be a permanent damage, but it might be one of considerable extent. On the other hand His Majesty's Government are impressed by the argument which I understand was put forward on the Second Reading by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, although we do not believe that any serious rise in prices will follow the coming into operation of this measure. Apparently a great many people do believe that and I suppose noble Lords opposite continue to hold that opinion and believe that the passing of this Bill will cause a rise in the price of coal. Those opinions unfortunately have a way of causing the very event of which they are afraid. We are not afraid of a serious rise in prices due to the actual operation of this Bill, but we are afraid of something like a possible panic caused by those who hold the view about it which the noble Lords opposite have expressed. It is undoubtedly true that any panic of that kind will have an infinitely more serious effect in the winter than in the summer, because it would affect not so much contract coal as house coal which is used so much by poor people. Under these circumstances we entertain a very strong objection to a winter date, and for that reason at any rate, as at present advised, we are obliged to adhere to the dates named in the Bill, although we do not propose to divide the House against the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid the noble Earl who had just sat down spoke of the loss not being permanent. He wished to point out that the loss on a contract made by a colliery company owing to a strike or anything of that sort was never recovered. He had had thirty years experience as Chairman of one of the largest coal companies in this country, and he could say that they never recovered the loss they sustained on any contract whim failed owing to a strike. Such contracts were taken up by somebody else in a moment, and contracts amounting to 30,000 or 40,000 tons per annum had been lost in this way.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not dispute the noble Lord's statement in the slightest degree.
LORD KNARESBOROUGHasked I why, if the Government disliked this proposal so much, they did not bring up an Amendment to split the difference and mike the date the 1st October? In that case Durham would give up three months, and the other counties would gain three months. He thought the 1st October would be a very good date to adopt.
LORD NUNBURNHOLMEsaid 1st October was the time when the large contracts were made in Yorkshire, and he was afraid it would be taken advantage of in order to get more money for wages.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the noble Earl opposite had stated he did not wish to give any preference to Durham and Northumberland and that he was very much impressed by the speech of Lord Newton.
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I explain that in speaking of that preference I am speaking on my own account? I am personally interested in the matter, and I wish it to be understood I was speaking purely in my own personal cap a city.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he was certain no one supposed for a moment that the noble Lord would speak differently on any subject whether he was interested or not. He said he did not wish to give any preference to Durham
2038
or Northumberland, and then he went on to say that the 1st January was a suitable date, and he proposed to keep the Bill as it was. The result of that was that he continued this preference to Durham and Northumberland. He hoped he would accept the advice of Lord Knares-borough, which was that to-morrow morning, seeing the difficulty in which they were placed by the Government proposal as it stood, he would come down and take the lead of the House, and give them some date which in his opinion would meet the difficulties which he admitted had arisen.
LORD NEWTONsaid that to him one thing seemed perfectly clear, and it was that each of the two front benches was anxious to fix the responsibility of the date on the other. This was a question which would have to be settled by the back benches. What he should like to do would be to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the Government would come down tomorrow and give them a plain statement of their policy on this question.
LORD ST. DAVIDSthought they were all agreed that Northumberland and Durham should not be favoured and that it would be inadvisable to bring this Act into operation in the winter. Would it not be a simple matter to make the date 1st July, 1909, and let it apply equally all round? That would equalise everybody, and bring the Act into operation in the middle of the summer at a time when trade was not very good and the price of coal was likely to be falling rather than rising.
THE EARL OF DURHAMsaid he must really ask their Lordships to object to this proposal. It was now the 17th of December, and to say that in July next the unfortunate counties of Durham and Northumberland should have to make all their arrangements was absurd.
LORD NEWTONsaid everybody else had to do the same.
THE EARL OF DURHAMasked why not give them to July, 1910? He thought the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, was going to move an Amendment to that

2039
effect, namely, that the Bill should not come into operation until July, 1910. Durham and Northumberland required no preference, and noble Lords were all agreed that some inconvenience would be caused if it came into operation in January. It was absolutely sure that there would be a strike in Durham if the Act came into operation in July next, and it would be much better if the Government would prolong the time until July, 1910.
LORD AVEBURYsaid they were all agreed that they could not give a preference to Northumberland and Durham. The Government said they could not withdraw from Northumberland and Durham the date they proposed. They also said that the Bill could not be brought into operation in December, and that it ought to come into operation on 1st July. Therefore he thought they were all agreed that the 1st July, 1910, was the date on which the Bill ought to come into operation. He suggested to his noble friend that he should withdraw his Amendment and move the words "the 1st July, 1910," and that would carry out the general opinion of the House.
LORD NEWTONsaid he would do so but he knew that there was not the faintest chance of it being accepted. Therefore he saw no use in making that suggestion.
LORD AVEBURYsaid he would take the responsibility of moving those words himself.
Amendment moved.
"In page 6, line 13, to omit the word 'January' and insert the word 'July.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I understand that the Amendment is to make the date 1st July, 1910. I think your Lordships will see that the Government will not be able to accept an Amendment of that kind.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: If the Government cannot accept this Amendment, speaking for myself, I think
2040
it would be advisable that we should insert this word now, and perhaps the Government will have made up their minds by to-morrow what their policy really is.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The policy of the Government is contained in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the Government had told them that they did not wish to give a preference to Durham or Northumberland.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I never said anything of the sort.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the policy of the Government was not in the Bill. The first words of the noble Earl were that the Government object to any preference, and preference was in the Bill.
LORD AVEBURYunderstood the Government said there were strong reasons against bringing the Bill into operation on 1st January. Therefore they were all agreed that it should be July.
Standing Committee negatived.
The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 267.]

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order); further Amendments made. Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. [No. 268.]
POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (PUBLIC TRUSTEE) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
POST OFFICE SITES BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

CHILDREN BILL.
Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments and consequential Amendments, and Commons' reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments considered (according to order).
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The first Amendment which stands on the Paper is the one made by your Lordships in page 17, line 21, to leave out from the word "purpose" to the end of the clause and insert "Provided that such persons shall be either inspectors or assistant inspectors of reformatory and industrial schools, members of the medical profession, or persons of experience in the management and training of children." The Commons disagree with this Amendment, because they think that the Secretary of State should have full power to avail himself of the services of officers whose experience would render them well qualified to act as inspectors of children's homes. I have to move that your Lordships do not insist upon such Amendment. It deals with the question of the people who are to inspect and look after the children, and it was felt by the Home Secretary to be very important that he should have as full a discretion in the matter as possible. It is considered by the Commons that your Lordships' Amendment fetters that a discretion, and, therefore, in another place your Amendment has been struck out. I, therefore, ask you to agree to the Commons Amendment.
Moved, "That this House does not insist upon its Amendment."
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The next of your Lordships' Amendments dealt with is in page 30, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words "other than the mother of the child," and in line 17, to leave out the word "child" and insert the word "person." The Commons propose to insert the following consequential Amendment. "In page 30, line 20, after the word 'school' to insert the words 'Provided that a child shall not be treated as coming within the description contained in paragraph (f) if the only
2042
common or reputed prostitute whose company the child frequents is the mother of the child, and she exercises proper guardianship and due care to protect the child from contamination.'" The House of Commons desires this Amendment to be left as it was moved by the Lord Chief Justice who has concurred with the words on the Paper.
Drafting Amendments made by the Commons in Clause 108, page 61, line 27, and in page 65, line 15, agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The next Amendments which I have to move are those relating to Clause 119, which deals with the exclusion of children from the bars of licensed premises. Your Lordships will see on the Paper the Amendments which the House of Commons propose. They suggest, in the first place, to insert in line 15, after the word "bar," the words "apparently a person over the ago of fourteen." That is intended to cover the case of an elderly boy who looks to be older than he is, and it deals with what we know as the big boy.
Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid these were Amendments to a clause in a Bill which was said to have been most carefully reviewed and discussed in another place, and which was claimed to have been sent up to their Lordships' House in its final form. It had now come back from the Commons, and no less than four very important Amendments had been made in it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The next Amendment to this clause suggested by the Commons is intended to meet the Scottish point. In Scotland it appears that some public-houses there are like shops. They have a private bar, and it is desired that a child should be allowed to go into that bar to carry the dinner to its father. That will be possible under

2043
this Amendment, but unless the Amendment is made the child will be able to enter the bar, but it will not be able to get away. The first Amendment I propose is in "line 17, after the word 'premises' to insert the words 'or who is in the bar of licensed premises solely for the purpose of passing through in order to obtain access to some other part of the premises, not being a bar, where there is no other convenient means of access to that part of the premises.'"
Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The Commons have inserted a further Amendment in the same clause "in line 18, after the word 'of' to insert the words 'railway refreshment rooms or other.'"
Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
Consequential Amendment made.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The Commons propose to amend your Lordships' Amendment to Clause 122, page 68, lines 1 and 2, by inserting the words "whether charged with an offence or not" after the word "person," and after the word "court" inserting the words "other than for the purpose of giving evidence."
Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The Commons disagree with your Lordships' Amendment in Clause 131, page 74, line 3, and propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof: "and references in section one hundred and nineteen and section one hundred and twenty to a licence, to licensed premises, and to intoxicating liquor respectively as references to a certificate, to certificated premises, and
2044
to exciseable liquor, within the meaning of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903."
Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment, and agrees with the Commons' Amendment proposed in lieu thereof."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move that your Lordships do not insist on your Amendment to Clause 132, with which the Commons have disagreed, and which is in the following terms: "The exemptions from Part I. of this Act contained in section eleven thereof shall extend to any person who undertakes for reward the nursing and maintenance of such infants only as are boarded out with him by some religious or charitable society or institution approved by the Local Government Board for Ireland." The Commons disagree to this Amendment because they think that the powers of exemption possessed by local authorities are sufficient. When the Amendment went down to the Commons, it found no friends on either side of the House, and that being so the Government cannot see their way to ask your Lordships to insist upon it.
Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment."—)(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREinsisted that the Amendment ought to have found friends in His Majesty's Government. When he moved it in Committee the noble Earl opposite said that, if he would restrict its operation to Ireland, the Government were disposed to accept it. He consented so to restrict it, the Irish Office redrafted its terms, and in that form it was accepted by the Government and embodied in the Bill. Now the Government disagreed with it, and, in these circumstances, he thought he was justified in strongly protesting against such treatment being meted out to their Lordships' House. He did not think it was unreasonable to say that it was generally understood that, when the noble Lord in charge of a Bill accepted an Amendment, he accepted it as an integral part of the Bill, and that its acceptance would be recognised in another place.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry the noble Earl is so angry with us on this point, but the case is not quite as he puts it. He brought forward his Amendment, vouching for it that he was representing Irish opinion on the matter, and it was accordingly accepted by my noble friend Earl Beauchamp with that simple faith which distinguishes him. It went down to the House of Commons, and both sides of that House seem to have agreed that it was an Amendment that ought not to be accepted. Therefore it is perhaps hardly fair to regard my noble friend's acceptance as an unqualified acceptance. I am quite sure that my noble friend had no intention of misleading the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Nothing is further from our thoughts than imputing anything like bad faith to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, but when understandings are arrived at in Committee of this House, His Majesty's Government, who command the big battalions in another place, should see to it that those understandings are not thrown over. If understandings of that kind are liable to be thrown over it renders it much more difficult to come to terms, as we always wish to do, if possible, when discussing the details of a Bill in Committee. I recollect a case when my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture accepted some Amendments from us, and when the same difficulty was raised in another place he put his foot down and said that having accepted the Amendments it was his intention to see that they were retained. I am sorry a little more courage has not been shown in this matter.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships made the following Amendment, "in page 82, line 20, after the word 'evidence' to insert the following new subsection: "The Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1853 to 1905, shall be substituted for the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906.'" The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose the following new subsection in lieu thereof: "The provisions of section one hundred and
2046
twenty of this Act (relative to the exclusion of children from bars of licensed premises, shall not apply in the case of any child going to or being upon licensed premises, if a substantial part of the business carried on upon the premises is a drapery, grocery, hardware, or other business wholly unconnected with the sale of intoxicating liquor, and the child or the person (if any) in whose custody the child is, goes to or is upon the premises for the purpose of purchasing goods other than intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises; and the reference in the said section to the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906, shall be construed as a reference to the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1905."
Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment, and agrees to the Commons' Amendment proposed in lieu thereof."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
Bill returned to the Commons with the Amendments.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order); further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. [No. 269.]
CROFTERS' COMMON GRAZINGS REGULATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be road 3a To morrow.
CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL.
Commons' Amendment to Lords Amendments considered (according to order).
Lords' Amendment—
After Clause 4, to insert the following new clause: '5. Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to prohibit a local authority from admitting the public to its meetings, and, subject to the accommodation available, the public shall have the right of admission to meetings of local authorities at all times when the Press is admitted to such meetings under this Act.'"
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out from the word "meetings" in line 2, to the end of the clause.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he had been in communication with those who objected to the proviso as it left their Lordships' House, and the following proviso would meet their views: "Subject to the accommodation available, the public shall be admitted to the meetings of a local authority at such times as representatives of the Press have a right to be present under the provisions of Section 1 of this Act unless the local authority, by a majority, otherwise determine." He would formally move that Amendment in order to enable a discussion to take place.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWthought he was correct in saying that when the noble Lord moved the original Amendment he did so on his own account, and not on behalf of the County Councils Association. Strong representations against the Amendment put in at the instance of Lord Belper had been made by the Borough Councils Association, and they greatly preferred the Commons' Amendment. Unless the Government expressed some view to the contrary he thought their Lordships would be well advised to agree to the Commons' Amendment.
LORD ALLENDALEsaid the Government preferred the words which had been inserted by the Commons to the words suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore. He did not think the words which had been suggested would very materially alter the effect. Although
2048
he appreciated the noble Earl's position in reference to Lord Belper's Amendment, he would remind the House that the Bill was one dealing with admission to the Press and did not affect the public. He hoped their Lordships would agree with the Commons' Amendment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid that if they took the course suggested by the Government they would be giving the Press a right which they were not giving to the public. He thought the Commons' Amendment went too far. The Amendment proposed that the public should have an equal right with the Press subject to exclusion by a special vote.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This has come down to an extremely small matter, because, as proposed by the noble Earl opposite, there is a distinct preference to the Press, and you cannot get over it. The Press have a right of admission, and the public have only a right of admission if the local authority agree. I put it to the noble Lord whether it is worth while to send this Bill back to the House of Commons with this extremely minute Amendment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the difficulty he was in was that Lord Belper was not present. As the Government had appealed to him he did not think it would be necessary to put their Lordships to the trouble of a division, and he begged to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Commons' Amendment agreed to.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.] COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments

2049
to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. [No. 270.]

APELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. [No. 271.]
LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to with Amendments. The said Amendments to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. [No. 272.]
CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Denman). [No. 273.]
PUBLIC MEETING BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donughmore).) [No. 274.]

LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL [H.L.]
Commons' Amendment considered.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid he ought to say a word or two about these Electric Supply Bills, because they were considered by a Committee of their Lordships' House for a very protracted period. One of those Bills had been rejected, and this one had been modified almost out of recognition. It was originally intended to be merely a Bill for linking up certain companies which might require assistance from one another, but it had now been made into a Bill by which they might all be linked up, and at a future period purchased by the London County Council. He was not going into the details, and he only wished to say that there were two provisions to which some exception might be taken. One provision was that the London County Council might lend to these companies sums of money shortly before the time
2050
arrived to purchase the companies upon such terms and conditions as they might arrange. The effect of that might be that the money advanced would take precedence of the present debentures. The other point was that a clause had been inserted by the Commons to the effect that the London County Council should have concurrent powers with the local authorities, and also with the Postmaster-General, to object to the erection of any plant or other buildings required by the companies in public roads or streets. It had been proved entirely to his satisfaction that this was not a new power, but that all the companies were now working under Provisional Orders granted by the Board of Trade which conferred on the London County Council the same powers as they were asking for under this Bill. If the noble Lord's reply was satisfactory he would move that the Commons' Amendment be agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid that a new principle had been introduced into this Bill because a single Department of the Government might now come forward and impose upon private companies a limitation of the powers granted to them by a special Act of Parliament under a provisional order. He wished to protest against this provision being taken as a precedent. It simply meant that although a company might have powers and room for the production of, say, 100,000 horse-power they were told that they should not exercise their rights and were limited to 60,000 horse-power; thus the company might be forced to buy land in another place and sacrifice their capital.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsaid that the question of the security of the debenture holders being affected by this loan from the county council had been considered and the Board of Trade had taken counsel's opinion on the point. They had been advised that nothing in the sub-clause affected the rights of the debenture holders. The noble Lord was correct in assuming that the authorities consulted in regard to the laying of mains under various Provisional Orders were the Postmaster-General and the local authority, and in the case of London the

2051
borough council and the London County Council. Therefore the Bill did not make any serious change. The provision inserted by the Admiralty was for the protection of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, and although it might be hard on the company, obviously it was necessary in the national interest.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid he was not complaining of the particular instance, but he did not think it ought to be used as a precedent.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsaid he could not promise that under similar circumstances the same thing would not be done again. He thought that in future companies ought to avoid the selection of such sites.
Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments."—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LONDON (WESTMINSTER AND KENSINGTON ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Denman). [No. 275.]
WATER OF LEITH PURIFICATION AND SEWERAGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Herschell), and reported from the Committee; and to be read 3a To-morrow. [No. 276.]

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Third Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. [No. 266.]
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Nine o'clock till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.