Lords Sitting of 5 August 1909

COLLOONEY, BALLINA, AND BELMULLET RAILWAYS AND PIERS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
GREENOCK CORPORATION BILL.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a; agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PRESTATYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills, and that the Bills be now read 3a; agreed to: Bills read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bills passed, and returned to the Commons.
LUNE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
MOUNTAIN ASH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL.
WATFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

STOURBRIDGE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LUNE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 131.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1908, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908—Was presented by the Lord Balfour; read 1a,and to be printed. (No. 132.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I gave the noble Earl the Leader of the House private notice that I would ask him to-day whether he was able to give us any further information as to the course of business during the next few weeks.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I am afraid I am not able to give a very large amount of information in reply to the noble Marquess's question, but our proposition is that after the sitting to-day we should adjourn until Monday the 16th, and on that day take the Appropriation Bill and the Public Works (Loans) Bill. On that day also there would be a Commission for the Royal Assent to those and to one or two other Bills. We should then propose, unless anything occurs in the meanwhile to cause us to alter our intentions, to adjourn till the 30th of August, and on that date, or the following day, if that should be more convenient to the House, to go on with the Trade Boards Bill and one or two minor Bills. It is expected that the Irish Land Bill will arrive here in the week beginning on August 30, and therefore it will be possible to take that Bill, if desired, in the second week of September, or, of course, if it suited noble Lords better, it could be postponed for a few days, but as regards the time of its arrival that is what is expected. I am afraid that is all the information I can give at this moment.

WATER SUPPLIES PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I venture to submit for Second Reading the Water Supplies Protection Bill. It is an important measure in many of its aspects, as it deals with a first necessity of life to man and beast and all that grows upon the

927
ground. Notwithstanding that, I do not think that any of the clauses in the Bill are of a novel character. They all have some precedent, having received the sanction of Parliament in one form or another. I do not think it necessary to go into this matter at any length, but I may say that the hardship which it is sought to obviate by this Bill is one of long standing.
The law recognises no right of property in water below the soil, and the consequence has been that supposing A had a well on his property and B sank a well on his adjoining property to a deeper depth he might deprive A of water. But no very great harm was done in such a case, as it was possible to come to some arrangement in this matter. The case is different, however, when there appears upon the scene a company with large capital and great pumping powers which proceeds on the principle that if it has land in which to sink pumps it can with impunity take all the water from its neighbours without any compensation whatever. That, I believe, is the present state of the law. It was considered at one time that a water company could not actually deprive a stream of its water by pumping from the chalk at its head, but I believe it was decided, in the case of English v. the Metropolitan Water Board in 1897, before the Lord Chief Justice, that this could be done with impunity. Therefore the present position is practically as I have stated—namely, that these water companies who do a great public service can also do a great public disservice by drying up and sapping the land of its moisture without giving compensation to those who suffer in consequence.
This Bill has received the serious consideration of the County Council of Hertfordshire, who were largely responsible for its drafting, and it is introduced by me on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, who are unanimous as to the harm that is being done in this direction. Enormous sums of money have been spent by various corporations and individuals who are rich enough to do so in approaching Parliament and protecting their water supply. The object of this Bill is to protect those who are unable to incur this great expenditure. It is unnecessary for me to refer to the various fights that have taken place in connection with the protection of the water supply. In 1893 a Royal Com-
928
mission was appointed to inquire into the subject. In 1896 the New River Water Company introduced a Bill; numerous petitions were presented against it, and the Bill was ultimately withdrawn. There were also very costly fights in Parliament in connection with the South Essex Water Bills of 1899 and 1900. I could quote a number of other instances. It is no exaggeration to say that the same state of things has been going on all over the country.
Parliament has recognised the right of the community to protection against the powers that water companies assume in consequence of there being no legal right in the water below the soil. In 1901 the Wolverhampton Water Bill was rejected on Second Reading largely for the reasons of the hardship which would take place if the Bill was passed into law, and in 1904 I myself opposed the Rickmansworth Water Bill, which was thrown out on Second Reading. Parliament, therefore, gave protection in those cases. There are numerous instances of protection having been given to those who had the money to apply for it, and in 1907 the Lord Chairman, in consequence of the action of Parliamentary committees and of representations from the Board of Trade, introduced a clause in the case of all water companies having Bills then in Parliament prohibiting them from using lands for the purpose of sinking wells except under the express authority of Parliament. It is sought in this Bill to extend this right of protection to all.
There are three main provisions in the Bill. The first provision is practically the Lord Chairman's clause which is now inserted in all Bills before Parliament. It provides that no water undertakers shall sink wells or construct works for obtaining their supply unless such wells and works and the sites thereof have been expressly approved by Parliament. The next provision is to amend the law with regard to underground water by providing that wherever private supplies are injured by the abstraction of water for public supply (by means of future works) the owner shall be entitled to compensation. There are various precedents for this principle as well as for the former principle. It was admitted in 1898 and in 1906, and again this year in another case the principle of compensation was admitted and inserted

929
in Bills very much in the manner in which it appears here. The third provision in the Bill is to provide that where, by means of future works, water is taken from any district for supply to communities outside that district, the district whence the water is taken and through which it is conveyed shall be entitled to demand a share of such water for its own needs upon terms to be agreed or fixed by the Local Government Board. This principle has been recognised in the Manchester case and also in the Metropolitan Acts of 1902. These are the three main objects of the Bill, all of which, as I have said, have precedents for them.
I will now briefly go through the provisions of the Bill. Clause 2 provides that the Bill shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland, but if Scotland or Ireland desire to have it extended to them I do not anticipate any difficulty in that being done. Clause 3 is practically the Lord Chairman's clause which is now inserted in all Water Bills before your Lordships' House. Clause 4 provides compensation for injury by abstraction of water. This clause closely follows the precedent set in the South Staffordshire Bill of this year. It provides that—
"if any private water supply situate within any protected area…shall be diminished or injured subsequently to the construction or enlargement after the passing of this Act—
these words are important as showing that it is not proposed that the Bill should be in any way retrospective—
"of any works of an authorised undertaker, that authorised undertaker shall (in default of proof that such diminution or injury has not been caused by such works) make full compensation."
This also follows the precedent of the South Staffordshire Bill. The reason the water company is required to prove that it has not injured the well is, as will be apparent to your Lordships, that many poor people cannot afford to go to the expense of getting expert witnesses and fighting Bills in Parliament in order to obtain protection. Supposing new works of an important character are carried out by a water company and a neighbouring well suddenly goes dry, the object of this clause is that the water company, who possess experts and the necessary machinery for doing so, should prove that the sudden drying up was not due to them or to anything under their control.
930
Subsection (2) of Clause 4 provides that for the purposes of this section authorised undertakers shall have power to supply water outside their limits of supply and to execute and do all such works and things as may be necessary. The object of this is to meet the case of a man who has a well just outside the area of supply of the pumping company and which has been dried up as a result of the operations of the company. The subsection will enable the company to supply water in that particular case. Clause 5 sanctions the right of supply in bulk from water in transit. This principle has already been recognised in the Manchester case and in various other cases, but there is a protection in this case given to the water undertakers because there is an appeal by both parties to the Local Government Board, and the Board are given power of determining whether in their opinion the demand to be supplied with water in transit is equitable and the terms and conditions under which it should be done. The safeguard in that clause is the inquiry to be held by the Local Government Board at which all parties shall be entitled to be heard. I have now explained to your Lordships the chief points of the Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Desborough.)
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, the Local Government Board fully recognise the importance of the questions dealt with in this Bill. They recognise, too, that in a great many localities there has been a considerable diminution in the water supply through the operations of large water undertakings which supply populous districts, but at the same time it must be recognised that a cheap and plentiful supply of water is a prime necessity for all populous districts. Care must, therefore, be taken not to impose any great restrictions upon these large water undertakings.
If your Lordships will allow me, I will take the various objects of the Bill and state the view of the Local Government Board upon each. The first object is to prohibit the sinking of any well or the construction of any water works for taking or intercepting water by any authorised undertaker unless those works and the lands upon which they are to be constructed are specified in an Act of Parliament.

931
That provision is in Clause 3. If your Lordships will look at Clause 7 you will find that the expression "authorised undertaker" means any local authority, company, body, or persons authorised by Act of Parliament or Provisional Order confirmed by Act of Parliament to take water for purposes of distribution and supply. Under the Public Health Act, 1875, urban and rural district councils are empowered and may in certain cases be compelled to provide a supply of water for their neighbouring villages; but under this Bill no works could be constructed, even though all parties were agreed as to the necessity of doing so, without coming to Parliament. The obtaining of an Act of Parliament, even if it is not opposed, is a lengthy proceeding, and is a matter which involves considerable expense. It would, appear almost unreasonable to ask a rural district council to incur such an expense; and, further, it should be mentioned that at present rural district councils have no statutory authority to promote Bills in Parliament, and the Local Government Board do not consider that it would be advisable to give it to them.
As regards the compensation to be paid for diminution of or injury to private water supplies, the expression "private water supply" is defined in Clause 7 as including rivers, springs, streams, ditches, ponds, wells, and bore pipes, and the water flowing or a percolating into or being therein and owned or used by any person not being an authorised undertaker. It would appear that it would expose authorised under-takers to very serious liability if every pond and ditch were included in that category, and unless they could prove that they were not responsible for the injury, they would, I take it, have to pay full compensation. It is an extremely difficult thing to prove a negative, and this provision would place undertakers in a most unfortunate position. Again, the radius of two and a-half miles seems rather a hard and fast provision. In some cases the effect of water works extends further than that distance, and in others perhaps less.
The next proposal is open, I think, to a somewhat similar objection. While it is quite reasonable that if a big undertaking is conveying water from a distance opportunity might be taken to provide a supply where it is needed along the route, still if it is laid down as a hard and fast rule
932
that any one can claim the right of a supply—
LORD DESBOROUGH: It is only a district council which can apply. An individual could not apply.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: But the power is given to any district council along the line of piping.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Yes, but not to any individual.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: The Local Government Board, as I have said, do not fail to recognise the importance of the questions dealt with in the Bill, and the President of the Board has had them under consideration for a considerable time in connection with future legislation dealing with the protection of water rights and supplies. At the same time it seems to him that this Bill is too general in its proposals. He is afraid that it would substitute other grievances scarcely less serious than those it desires to remedy. Any general provisions to prevent the absorption of smaller supplies by larger undertakings ought to be very carefully safeguarded. In regard to fresh schemes coming before Parliament, I understand that it is now the practice of Parliamentary, Committees to consider most closely the details of all such schemes and their probable effect on local supplies and to insert appropriate provisions to safeguard them. It appears to the President of the Local Government Board that such provisions framed to meet the particular circumstances of special cases would be likely to be more satisfactory and equitable than the general and hard and fast rule provided in this Bill. For these reasons the Local Government Board do not favour the Second Reading of this Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I confess I have heard with great disappointment the views expressed by the noble Earl on behalf of His Majesty's Government. There is no doubt as to the grievance which this Bill is intended to meet. My noble friend who introduced it laid great stress, and very properly, on the unfortunate case of the poor man, the owner, perhaps, of a small piece of land containing a well, who has his well entirely drained by some authority or company which has obtained powers

933
to sink a deep well for the benefit of some populous area. It is a great and general grievance in the rural parts of the country. Though the Bill may be capable of amendment in regard to details, I venture to differ from the concluding words of the noble Earl when he said, on behalf of the President of the Local Government Board, that he thought no general alteration of the law was necessary in this matter. I do think that a general alteration of the law is necessary on behalf of those poorer persons whom my noble friend wishes to protect.
Now what were the objections raised by the noble Earl opposite? In the first place, he said that if Clause 3 were passed in its present form a parish council or rural district council would be unable to sink a well in their district to supply water to the inhabitants of that district. If that is so, that is a point of detail in which, no doubt, the Bill might be capable of amendment; but that is not a ground for objecting to the Second Reacting of the Bill. Then, again, the noble Earl objected to the obligation which the Bill proposes to impose on companies or local authorities by requiring them to prove that they have not abstracted the water from the well of a private owner. It may be difficult to prove a negative, but I do think there is some reason for strengthening the law in this matter. If it is difficult to prove a negative, it is by no means easy to prove an affirmative. Then the noble Earl objected to the third provision of the Bill, which he thought would impose very great difficulties in the way of local authorities in supplying water. That, again, is a matter for consideration in Committee. What I would venture to suggest is this, that the principle of the Bill might very fairly be affirmed by your Lordships' House, and that then the Bill might be referred, if His Majesty's Government thought well, to a Select Committee for further inquiry. We might then hope that my noble friend who introduced this Bill would see some practical result from his labours.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I share the surprise which was expressed by the noble Viscount at the attitude His Majesty's Government have adopted towards this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Desborough showed, there is really no proposal in the Bill which has not already
934
received the sanction of Parliament. Clause 3, commonly known as the Wells Clause, is the clause which is now inserted in every Bill dealing with this matter which comes before Parliament, and it has the effect of preventing any local authority or private promoters from taking water from any places or by any works except those which have been sanctioned by Parliament.
But it is not every local authority and every water company that come to Parliament, and unless they do come to Parliament they still have the power, so far as Parliament is concerned, to sink wells on any land which they may possess or which they may by agreement acquire. I will not enter into the question as to whether or not the Courts of Law would hold that they had such a power. I think there has been a recent decision which rather tends to show that the law as it stands certainly discourages the idea that water companies or local authorities may sink wells wherever they choose within their district without coming to Parliament.
The reason why I am surprised at the attitude of His Majesty's Government is that this matter has already been before the other House of Parliament, and when Water Bills came before that House at the commencement of this session there was an Instruction moved to the Committees by whom those Bills were considered that they should inquire whether adequate provision had been made for the supply of water to any person or persons from whom any existing or natural supply was or might be withdrawn owing to the works or undertakings sanctioned by Parliament. That is practically the Bill of my noble friend, and I should have thought that if the Government were going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill they would have proposed some alternative, such as the setting up of a Joint Committee to consider what was a proper clause to insert in all Water Bills to protect the poorer classes of the community.
I do not mean to say that I agree with every part of every clause in this Bill. The question of the onus probandi is a very important and a very serious one. It is one which has been settled by different Parliamentary Committees in different ways. Sometimes the onus probandi has been put upon the promoters, and some-

935
times upon the complainant. The South Staffordshire Bill, to which Lord Desborough referred, had a proviso which to my mind is more equitable than the one in this Bill, because it gave both parties an opportunity of taking objection. That Bill provided that—
"It shall not be obligatory on the owner to show that such diminution has been caused by the pumping aforesaid, but on the other hand it shall be competent to the company to show that any diminution has not been caused by such pumping."
Therefore both parties were able to appear and state their case, and the onus probandi was equally distributed. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow the House a further opportunity of considering its details. There are, of course, large undertakings, such as the supply to Glasgow and Birmingham, where no great hardship would ensue if the pipes were tapped on the way from the source of supply to the consumers; but there are smaller undertakings which would not be able to supply in this way. These, however, are all questions of detail. The matter is one of very great importance, as the supply of water is not inexhaustible. In fact, in many parts of the country this is becoming a serious subject for consideration, and I venture to submit that it is the duty of Parliament, as far as it can, to protect the sources of supply to everyone who is entitled to draw from them, and not allow them to be exhausted on behalf of one section only of the community.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I desire to say a few words on this Bill as I live in a county which is, perhaps, likely to suffer more than any other from the system which at present prevails. Reference has been made to the power of water companies to put down pumping stations without coming to Parliament. Our early experience was a very good instance of that. The Corporation of Nottingham applied to borrow money for the purpose of putting down a new pumping station on land which they had acquired by private purchase. Fortunately we had a locus standi, because their pipes were going to cross our road. If that had not been so the county council could not have stepped in, and there were no other minor authorities in the county sufficiently strong to make a protest against this scheme. The result of the inquiry was that the Local Government Board declared the matter to be of such importance
936
that it must come to Parliament. The Bill came to Parliament; we opposed it very strongly in the other House, and finally the Bill was thrown out; but they were given a pumping station to be placed in the north of the county where there was an ample supply of water, and which we had offered them at the very outset of the proceedings. That showed the necessity of some body being empowered to look after the water supply of the rural districts.
In our county the water supply is an underground water supply, and undoubtedly you may, by putting down more powerful machinery than your neighbours, dry not only all the wells and streams in the neighbourhood, but also the less important pumping stations of the minor authorities. The common law right of pumping water on your own land, valuable and necessary as it is to those people who live upon their own property, was not a right which had been intended to be disposed of by private treaty to a large corporation who could put down a powerful pumping station and practically pump the neighbourhood dry. I think we should be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this Bill, which makes a serious attempt to deal with this difficulty.
This matter is not a new one. Seven years ago the County Councils Association appointed a very important committee, which was joined in by one society of engineers and by other bodies, to inquire into the whole question of underground water, and a valuable memorandum was produced. The result was that a deputation waited upon Mr. Walter Long, who was then President of the Local Government Board, to press upon him the necessity for some inquiry which would lead to legislation on this matter. The County Councils Association themselves promoted a Bill to try and establish a local authority who should have a general discretion over the watersheds. The West Riding and Lancashire succeeded in getting private Bills on those lines for themselves and our feeling was that if a general Act could be passed setting up some water authority, including no doubt representatives of the authorities in the county, who should have discretion with regard to the sinking of wells looking at what the supply of the district was it would be very valuable. Mr. Walter Long entirely agreed, and I think at that time he was anxious to

937
appoint a Commission. That Commission, however, never was appointed.
Another subject of the greatest importance is the allowing of water to run to waste. Clause 4 deals with the question of the payment of compensation where water disappears owing to a new pumping station having been put down; but in a district like that in which I live it would be absolutely impossible to prove what was the cause of a sinking of water in particular wells. I will state what happened in our own case. A colliery was being sunk and during that work wells miles away were absolutely run dry in consequence, it was supposed, of the millions of gallons of water which ran to waste while the colliery was being sunk. There is also no doubt that at that period there had been very dry seasons, and the underground reservoirs had less water in them than before. The pumping stations had a great effect in reducing the amount of water available in the wells, but since then there have been rainy seasons, and a certain amount of water has returned. Therefore, it would be impossible to judge in these cases whether the decrease in the water available was owing to natural causes or to the particular pumping stations which had been laid down.
I should like to ask His Majesty's Government to consider the desirability of undertaking some sort of inquiry, either by a Committee of both Houses or a Royal Commission. Some of the provisions of this Bill are extremely desirable, and it does seem to me that there are many points of importance which a Committee or Commission could inquire into, and if the Bill is read a second time it might be made the foundation of dealing with the particular points in the Bill, but the inquiry could be extended into the whole question of the rights with regard to underground water. I should be obliged in Committee to move Amendments to Clause 4, which I do not think is applicable in its present form to all parts of the country; but I hope the Bill will be read a second time and will form the basis of an inquiry into the whole subject.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, anyone who has sat on Committees upstairs has had experience of this difficulty, and I can recall frequent instances in which, much against my inclination, I have given Bills to promoters which manifestly would injure
938
certain localities. My noble friend who has brought in this Bill instanced cases where both protection and compensation have been accorded, but what I desire to point out is that this is a purely haphazard matter. In one case compensation may be awarded, but in another case, equally deserving, no such safeguard is obtained. In fact, it depends entirely on the chance of the membership of the Committee, and in my opinion it is most desirable that the Chairman of Committees should have definite rules by which they can be guided. With regard to this Bill, I venture to suggest to my noble friend that it is not of much use proceeding with the Bill if the Government are unfriendly to it. What possible chance is there of its becoming law? I venture to suggest as an alternative that the Local Government Board should appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the special points that have been raised. It need not take a long time. A decision might be arrived at before next session, when a model clause serving as a future guide to Private Bill Committees might be submitted.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Viscount opposite and the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees expressed acute disappointment at the attitude assumed by the Government in regard to this Bill. I confess that I do not think their attitude was an entirely reasonable one, and for this reason. This Bill contains three separate propositions, all of importance and all most clearly impressed on the House in the opening speech of the noble Lord. Exception has been taken to every one of these propositions, I think I am right in saying, by noble Lords who have spoken opposite, and who yet apparently desire to support the Second Reading.
This Bill seems to be an instance of a habit which appears to be growing on the House—that is to say, of introducing Bills and recommending them without any real regard to what they actually contain, and asking that they should be read a second time because they suggest a general principle of which everybody may be supposed to be in favour. In that respect this Bill resembles a very different Bill—that dealing with compulsory service. We were told then, Pay no attention to the contents of the Bill, this and that is objectionable, but do vote for the Second Reading in order to establish the principle. Now we are

939
told that there is a grievance, which I fully admit, on this water question, and we are therefore to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, although all the actual propositions which it contains appear to be disputed.
I do not deny the importance of the question raised by the Bill or the existence of a grievance. It is no doubt the fact that very hard cases occur in which, under water schemes, water is abstracted from wells and from the supplies of private persons and of small communities, who gain nothing whatever from the passing of the larger scheme and indeed only lose by it. Those cases in the main, I should have thought, were cases which come before Parliament. I should have thought that the bulk of cases in which real hardship follows are cases in which application has to be made by Bill owing to the scale on which the operations are to be conducted, and then it is, of course, within the power of the Committee upstairs to insert any safeguards it can think of in the Bill. I am disposed to agree with the noble Lord who spoke last that it would be highly advantageous if some uniform method of applying these safeguards in Bills could be arrived at, and this certainly is one of the matters which demand attention.
As regards the three points, it seems to me that the noble Lord would have done better if he had not spread his net quite so wide, and if he had not tried to cover in this very general way every conceivable case of hardship. The first proposition is that all schemes by public authorities to supply water must be carried through by Act of Parliament. The noble Viscount said that that is a mere detail which can be considered in Committee. Surely it is a principle. If you are at once going to say that there are a considerable number of schemes, or any number of schemes, which need not come before Parliament, that may be the best way to meet the matter, but the noble Lord's principle goes by the board and you really come to the existing state of things some-what modified. That is one principle of the Bill gone.
The second principle is that wherever private supplies are injured by the abstraction of water the owner shall be entitled to compensation. Lord Belper has explained the extreme difficulty of
940
arriving at the facts in a case of that kind. He mentioned the case of colliery sinkings, which in many cases abstract a great deal of water from their neighbourhood and sometimes from a considerable distance. In such cases there is no remedy, and apparently the noble Lord does not intend to apply a remedy. It is only in the case of a public supply that any remedy is to be applied. I ask your Lordships whether you are prepared to accept the proposition that in every case where a well is affected within a district of two and a half miles, whatever may be the possible contributory causes, the unhappy local authority is to be compelled to prove that it has not caused the loss of water. If that is the proposition which you are proposing to accept, and which you would accept, I think, by reading the Bill a second time, then it would put an absolute stoppage on all small local water schemes, and recourse to filling the kettle at the wayside ditch, which still exists in parts of the country, will continue to exist where small water schemes might otherwise be carried out. I do not think that with this risk over them any rural district council would attempt to engage in any kind of water scheme at all.
Then you have the third proposition, that the company is obliged to supply the whole of any district, whether rural or urban, through which the mains may pass on their way from the source of supply to the inhabitants of the district. There, again, we are told that that is a mere detail, and that there may be cases where it ought not to be done. But surely that is a principle. The moment you break into that you return very much to the existing state of things, in which, as we know, provision is frequently made both for supplying district councils or individuals through whose neighbourhood the mains pass, but there is no general compulsion of the very large kind suggested by the noble Lord. Therefore all three propositions more or less go by the board, and in these circumstances it does not seem to me altogether wise to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
If we are to lay it down as a proposition that the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind merely means that the subject is one for inquiry, well by all means read it a second time, though I do not think that it is quite a proper course for this House to pursue. I do think that there ought to be

941
some inquiry, and I am sure the Local Government Board would gladly agree to an inquiry of that kind. It is worth noting that in one of the Reports—the Report issued in 1903—of the very important Committee on sewage disposal, these words occur:—
"In regard to the further question, it appears to us that the central authority might, with the aid of the Rivers Boards, collect such information as is available in regard to waste of water by pumping from mines and in regard to the abstraction of water from one district to the supply of another district to the detriment of the district from which the water is taken."
What form the inquiry ought to take is a matter with regard to which we must ask for consideration. As to whether it should be a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, or a Joint Committee, or, as the noble Lord opposite suggested, a Departmental Committee, or some other form of inquiry, the House would hardly expect me to give an opinion without consulting with my right hon. friend, the President of the Board. So far as the Bill itself is concerned, it is obvious that it cannot become law this year, and I am quite sure that my noble friend opposite did not imagine that it would. Whether it is worth while reading it a second time in the rather peculiar circumstances I have stated I must leave to your Lordships to decide.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is quite clear from the attitude the noble Earl has taken that he is fortunate enough not to live in a county which suffers from the present state of the law with regard to water supplies. I am differently situated. I live in the unfortunate county of Hertfordshire, which has suffered more than any other county in this matter. The noble Earl does not realise how acutely public opinion is excited in that county, which is being robbed continually of its underground water supplies to provide water for London. To those who live in the county this is an intolerable grievance, for we are perpetually being called upon to spend our money in appearing before Parliamentary Committees in order to protect ourselves. With regard to the form of inquiry, I do not agree that a Departmental Committee would be the best form in the present case, because what we are seeking is some general arrangement which should govern the Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and a Departmental Committee has no authority—
THE EARL OF CREWE: I understood that the question was wider than that, because the Bill refers to schemes which do not come before Parliament. The question is, therefore, a wider one than the noble Marquess has indicated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:It may be wider, but a Select Committee would be capable of dealing with the wider issue whereas a Departmental Committee would not be capable of dealing with the narrower issue. The finding of a Select or a Joint Committee would be more binding, and, therefore, it appears to me that the matter should be referred to a Committee of that kind I should like to say a word as to the criticisms which the noble Earl made on my noble friend's proposals? He criticised the three principles and said they had been abandoned by those who had spoken on the Bill. In my opinion the noble Earl greatly overstated the case. No doubt there were criticisms, but in no case was the fundamental principle called into question. The noble Earl has entirely confused matters of principle with matters of detail. I think that my noble friend has established a primâ facie case in favour of some remedy being applied to the present state of things, and in those circumstances I think your Lordships should agree to the Second Reading of the Bill; leaving the question of sending it to a Committee—and I should favour such an inquiry myself—for subsequent consideration.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Nunburnholme.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
LORD NUNBURNHOLME LORD NUNBURNHOLME moved to leave out Clause 2, which ran—
"Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act the clerk of the county council of any of the three ridings, or any deputy clerk of any such county council, shall, for the purposes of section thirty-seven of the principal Act, be deemed to be qualified for appointment by the county council of that riding as registrar for that riding, and the office of clerk or deputy clerk of the county council shall not be deemed to be a calling or profession within the meaning of subsection (1) of the said section,"
and to insert the two new clauses set out in his Amendment. He explained that the Amendment had been put down at the request of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn. The noble Viscount had called the attention of the promoters of the Bill to the fact that it was desirable that the county council should not appoint one of its own officers to perform the duties of registrar without the special consent of the Lord Chancellor. Under the Bill as it stood it was considered that the Lord Chancellor already had that power, but he was very glad to insert words which would lay greater emphasis upon that. All that the County Council of the East Riding of Yorkshire wished to do was to provide for the carrying on of the office, and, in addition, to save a sum of £600 a year.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 2, and to insert the following new clauses:
'2.—(l) Section thirty-seven of the principal Act shall be read and have effect as if there were added at the end of subsection (1) thereof the words "except for such period and upon and subject to such terms and conditions as may in each case be approved by the Lord Chancellor."
(2) A person who shall for a period of at least five years have discharged the duties of a deputy registrar under the principal Act shall, for the purposes of the said section thirty-seven as amended by this Act, be deemed to be qualified for appointment as registrar.
3. For the purposes of the principal Act as amended by the Yorkshire Registries Amendment Act, 1885, and by this Act the expression "probate" shall be construed as if the words "with the Will annexed" had been omitted from the definition of that expression in section three of the principal Act.'"—(Lord Nunburnholme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived: The Report of the Amendment to be received on Monday the 30 th instant, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No.133.)

TRAWLING IN PROHIBITED AREAS (PREVENTION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pentland.)
LORD EVERSLEY*LORD EVERSLEY had given notice that he would move, on Third Reading, the insertion of the following new clause—
"(1) This Act shall cease to be in force on the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and twelve, provided that if within one month preceding that date the Secretary for Scotland certifies his opinion that trawling has practically ceased to be carried on in the Moray Firth; it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to direct that the Act shall continue in force as regards Scotland, notwithstanding this clause, and in such case the Act shall continue in force as regards Scotland until Parliament shall otherwise provide.
(2) The by-law of the Scottish Fishery Board prohibiting trawling in the Moray Firth beyond the three mile limit from low water mark shall be in force so long only as this Act shall be in force as regards Scotland."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not my intention to move the new clause of which I have given notice. That clause was for the purpose of inserting a time limit in the Bill. I find that there is considerable difference of opinion amongst those who think there ought to be a time limit to this Bill as to the particular form of the clause, and it certainly would not be worth while to ask your Lordships to occupy time in discussing the form of such a clause, the more so as I had not intended to press my Amendment if Lord Pentland on behalf of the Government objected to it. But I hope your Lordships will permit me to say a few words on the Third Reading of the Bill. The question I put is this, whether the Bill as it is now framed will, in fact, carry out its purpose of putting an end to foreign trawling in the Moray Firth and in the other prohibited areas in Scotland. I think everybody admits that the prohibition of British trawlers to fish in these areas while foreign vessels are permitted to trawl there with impunity is a very great scandal and one which ought to be abated.
The question is whether this Bill, which proposes to put a stop to foreign trawlers fishing in these areas by the indirect method of prohibiting the sale of their fish in British ports, will be successful in its object. On that point a good deal of light has been thrown by some information given

945
to the House after the Committee Stage of the Bill in answer to a question put to my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland. Lord Pentland then informed the House that in 1908 no fewer than 39 foreign vessels, or vessels under foreign flags, were observed trawling in the Moray Firth. Of these, fourteen were under the Norwegian flag, ten under the Belgian flag, and the others were sailing under the Swedish, Danish and Dutch flags. It may be, and probably is, the case that a very large number of these 39 vessels are, in fact, what my noble friend called pseudo-foreigners—that is to say, they are practically British-owned vessels registered in foreign countries but manned and commanded by foreigners. So far as I have been able to ascertain, that is the case with the vessels which have been registered in Norway and Belgium, but it is not the case with the vessels trawling in this bay which are registered in Denmark, Sweden and Holland. My noble friend gave some further information bearing on this subject. He told us that of the 39 vessels observed in the Moray Firth 29 brought their fish to market in British ports, the remaining ten taking their fish to foreign ports. It is quite certain that those ten vessels will continue to fish there and to take their fish to foreign ports. Therefore, so far as those ten vessels are concerned the Bill will be in-operative. The question is whether the other 29 will be precluded from trawling in the Moray Firth by the fact that they will be prohibited from bringing their fish to British ports in future. That, of course, is a matter of surmise. On this point, again, I think a good deal of light is thrown by the statistics given in the report of the British Fishery Board.
One of the most notable facts in the North Sea of late years has been the enormous increase in the number of foreign steam trawlers fishing there. As recently as the year 1904 there were 179 foreign trawlers fishing in the North Sea, and three years later the number had increased to 376. Of these, the German vessels in 1904 numbered 118, but they had increased to 239 in the later year. During the same period the number of British vessels, although very much larger than that, had not increased substantially in number. Therefore the increase of fishing in the North Sea during the last three or four years has been mainly confined to foreign trawlers. These vessels fish in every part
946
of the North Sea, and evidently find no difficulty in securing a market for their fish in foreign ports. It seems to me that if the Moray Firth is open to fishing by foreign vessels these steam trawlers owned by foreigners will find their way there, and will experience no difficulty whatever in selling their fish in markets in the North of Europe.
Then it is said that, even if this Bill should fail in prohibiting foreign vessels from trawling in the Moray Firth, it will, at all events, strengthen the hands of our Government in their negotiations with other Powers in the direction of some general understanding with a view to a general prohibition of vessels trawling in the Moray Firth and other prohibited areas. This was dealt with and exposed by Lord Fitzmaurice last year in the course of the debate which arose on the Motion of Lord Heneage. Lord Fitzmaurice then said that for the last twelve years the British Government had been endeavouring in vain to come to some understanding on the matter, but the other countries would not give their consent to any such arrangement. He added very significantly that in order to induce them to give their consent the British Government would have on its part to make concessions to other Governments which might be detrimental to British fishermen. I think, therefore, we may dismiss from our minds the possibility of other countries in the North of Europe coming to an agreement with our Government for a general prohibition of trawling in the Moray Firth and other prohibited areas. Looking, then, all round at the question, it seems to me most improbable that this Bill will result in preventing trawling in the Moray Firth and other prohibited areas.
I admit the extreme difficulty of the whole question, and I am very far from saying that my noble friend, looking at public opinion in Scotland on the subject, was not justified in making this experiment; but I believe it will be the last experiment in the direction of endeavouring to prevent foreign trawlers fishing in the bay. I cannot but think that this experiment will not succeed, and that in two years time we shall have again to face this question. My belief is that the better plan, on the whole, is to throw these prohibited areas open to all countries. But I am not a fanatic on the subject, and if this Bill should be

947
successful in its operation I should prefer that solution to the existing state of things. At the same time I feel bound, on the Third Reading, to say that, having given the subject great consideration for many years, it is my conviction that the Bill will not succeed in its object, and that Parliament will be compelled in a very short time to reopen the question and deal with it in another manner.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before this discussion closes I should like to say a word or two in answer to the remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I am very glad, indeed, that he is not proposing to put any time limit into this Bill. I think that if that proposal were made and carried it would have this bad effect, that it would seem to imply that the Government of this country were not in earnest in endeavouring to stop trawling within these narrow seas. I believe that the Government of this country are in earnest in this matter if they can possibly bring it about, and I think they are supported in this proposal by an immense majority of those of both political Parties at all events around the coast of Scotland.
I think this matter has a very much wider aspect than the mere question of whether a certain number of trawlers, be they foreign or British, should trawl in the Moray Firth. In my humble opinion the matter goes very much deeper than that. It really goes to the whole question —a very much larger one—of whether or not we are really depleting the stock of fish in the North Sea. I know that the noble Lord does not agree with the theory that the stock of fish is being depleted in the North Sea. I am bound to say that such evidence as I have been able to consider shows that certain kinds of fish are getting scarcer, that greater exertions have to be made to get a paying take, that those who fish for certain classes of flat fish have to go further asea to get a paying take, and considering the number of men employed and the size of the vessels engaged in this trade the returns of the catches conclusively show that there is a real danger of the supply of fish in the North Sea being seriously diminished.
I do not go into the narrower question at the moment of whether or not this proposal will really put an end to trawling
948
in the narrow seas. I believe it will, and I do not think that those who prompted the noble Lord to place his Amendment on the Paper and to make the dismal prophecies he has put forward are not the people who will do their utmost to bring those prophecies to a successful realisation. The people who have been opposing these proposals are just those who place every obstacle in the way, and give the idea abroad that this country is not in earnest in the matter. I believe that if this Bill passes, as I think it will now pass, we shall have a better foothold for negotiations with foreign Powers which may have the desired effect of securing certain areas secluded from trawling in order that they may be preserved as breeding grounds for certain classes of flat fish. There can be no doubt that vast quantities of undersized fish of the most valuable kinds are caught in the Moray Firth and in other similar areas.
The whole desire of the Scottish Office and the Scottish Fishery Board has been that for a period of years the experiment should be practically tried of whether by leaving these breeding grounds undisturbed you will not do something to prevent the depletion of the stock in the North Sea. I quite agree that it is impossible to look with complacence on the fact that people who are fishing under foreign flags, whether they are really foreign subjects or only colourably so, should have an advantage over genuine British fishermen. None of us desire that, but we want this experiment tried over a series of years to see whether it will be successful. The point is that it never has been tried. If after a reasonable period of years the experiment is proved not to be successful and not to be increasing the stock of fish, then there will be a very much better case than there is at the present time for doing away with the whole policy of these restrictions.
I conclude by expressing an earnest hope that when this Bill is passed the British Foreign Office, in spite of past discouragement, will approach other Powers to see whether they cannot come to some agreement, which I believe would be for the advantage of all countries concerned. I do not want to keep the Moray Firth as the only protected area. If this subject is approached from the broad and wide standpoint of what is best for the general food supply you will have a much better chance

949
of success. I believe that the authorities of other countries are becoming alarmed on the subject. They are finding that it is not so easy to get supplies of fish as it once was. Prices have gone up, the catches are not so remunerative as they were, and I believe that if the question is approached, not from a selfish standpoint but from the standpoint of general advantage, a much better chance will be afforded of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. I congratulate my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland on having got this Bill through both Houses of Parliament, and I sincerely hope that, having got it, the Government will do what they can to carry the matter a step further and see that the experiment, which for the last twenty years many of the most enlightened persons have desired should be tried, shall be tried under the best auspices.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, if by powerful interests ranged against the Bill the noble Lord who has just sat down meant the very large trawling industry which exists all along the East Coast of England and up to Aberdeen, I venture to think that is an industry and an interest which your Lordships cannot afford entirely to neglect. I cannot help feeling that there may be difficulties in the administration of this Bill. There have been such difficulties in the past, and mistakes have been made. On several occasions the wrong number has been taken, with the result that the wrong vessel has been prosecuted, and it is quite likely that mistakes that have occurred in the past may occur again. Therefore I am somewhat sorry that your Lordships decided, on the Report Stage, to reverse the decision which had been arrived at by the Standing Committee, and which eliminated certain words giving to the customs authorities under this Bill all the powers conferred upon them by the Customs Consolidation Act. These powers are very extensive indeed, and amount to the seizure of the ship. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill, in urging your Lordships to go back upon that decision, gave an intimation that it was not the intention to do more than to confiscate the cargo of fish and to take legal proceedings against the owner of the vessel; there was no intention to confiscate the vessel itself. I will not ask your Lordships, on Third Reading, to reverse the decision you came to on Report, but it would be satisfactory to those who are concerned in trawling operations along the
950
East Coast of England if we could have from the noble Lord a distinct and categorical assurance that it is not the intention of the Government, by the retention of those words, to impose all the heavier penalties which can be imposed under the Customs Consolidation Act.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, I am obliged to your Lordships for the consideration with which this Bill has been treated this evening, and to my noble friend Lord Eversley for having foregone the moving of the Amendment he had placed on the Paper. Perhaps your Lordships will excuse me from entering on this occasion into a discussion of the prophecies which have been made as to the ultimate effect of this measure. I think there is some ground for believing that its operation will be effectual, and I share the hope of Lord Balfour of Burleigh that that will be the case. In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who asked me a question as to the intentions of the Government in respect to putting into force the penal clauses, I repeat with pleasure the assurance which I gave at an earlier stage of this Bill. There is no departure from precedent in including in this Bill the penal clauses of the Customs Consolidation Act, but there is no special intention in this Bill, no greater intention in this Bill than in any other similar Bills which have included these penal clauses, of putting into force the further and more drastic clauses to which he has alluded. The view of the Government all along has been that it is desirable that these clauses should remain in the Bill more as sanctions to procedure under the Act than for any other purpose; and I hope that what I have now said will operate in some degree as an assurance to any of those who are apprehensive as to the course being followed which Lord Onslow has named.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, this Bill is practically a clause from a Bill which was introduced some years ago by

951
Lord Balfour of Burleigh when he was Secretary for Scotland. It carries out a suggestion made by Lord Elgin's Committee on Prisons, and its object is to allow the Secretary for Scotland to annually appoint to be additional members of the visiting committee for any prison where female prisoners are received, a woman or such number of women as shall not exceed one-third of the prescribed number of such committee.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 30 th instant.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1908, AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, this is a very simple Bill. Owing to the phraseology of section 32 (4) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908, which came into operation on the 1st June, 1909, a doubt has been expressed as to the competency of remanding accused persons for detention in police cells pending summary trial. This Bill is intended to make it clear that the new Act has not in this respect altered the law.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday, the 30th instant.

LABOUR EXCHANGES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had a number of Amendments on the Paper to Clause 2, which ran—
"2.—(1) The Board of Trade may make general regulations with respect to the management of labour exchanges established or assisted under this Act, and otherwise with respect to the exercise of their powers under this Act, and such regulations may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, authorise advances to be made by way of loan towards meeting the expenses of workpeople travelling to places where employment has been found for them through a labour exchange.
(2) The regulations shall provide that no person shall suffer any disqualification or be otherwise prejudiced on account of refusing to accept employment found for him through a labour exchange where the ground of refusal is that a trade dispute exists, or that the wages offered are lower than those current in the trade in the district where the employment is offered.
(3) Any general regulations made under this section shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House of Parliament within the next forty days after any regulations have been so laid before that House resolves that the regulations or any of them ought to be annulled, the regulations or those to which the resolution applies shall, after the date of such resolution, be of no effect without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime under the regulations or to the making of any new regulations.
(4) Subject to any such regulations, the powers of the Board of Trade under this Act shall be exercised in such manner as the Board of Trade may direct.
(5) The Board of Trade may, in such cases as they think fit, establish advisory committees for the purpose of giving the Board advice and assistance in connection with the management of any labour exchange."
He first moved to insert, after the word "prejudiced" at the beginning of subsection (2), the words "in being afforded facilities under this Act for obtaining employment." He thought the subsection as it stood was exceedingly vague. The particular occasion on which it was sought to protect a workman from disqualification or prejudice was vaguely stated, and the particular disqualification or prejudice was not stated at all, and it might be a disqualification or prejudice having no relation to labour exchanges whatever. Neither this Amendment nor the others standing on the Paper in his name were of an aggressive kind; they were really little more than drafting.
Amendment moved—

953
"In page 2, line 14, after the word 'prejudiced,' to insert the words 'in being afforded facilities under this Act for obtaining employment.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL agreed that none of the noble Marquess's Amendments on the Paper were of a hostile character, but at the same time he thought many of them were unnecessary. With regard to the Amendment now under discussion, the noble Marquess had stated that as the clause now stood it might be held to mean something altogether outside the labour exchange. He did not think that if the clause was carefully read that view could be held, because the clause dealt with the regulations that might be made by the Board of Trade, and such regulations could not affect anyone outside the labour exchange. The Government were of opinion that the words proposed by the noble Marquess were quite unnecessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY intimated that he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved an Amendment in the same subsection to insert, after the words "a trade dispute," the words "which affects his trade." His object was to secure that only in a trade dispute "which affects his trade" should a person not suffer disqualification on account of refusing to accept employment found for him through the labour exchange.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 16, after the word 'dispute,' to insert the words 'which affects his trade.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said that, in the form in which the noble Marquess had moved this Amendment, the Government were prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY then moved to amend subsection (3) by inserting, after the words "within the next forty days," the words "on which that House has sat." He said that the Government had inserted in the other House a proper provision that the regulations should not take effect until they had lain for a certain number of days on the
954
Table of Parliament; but it might easily happen that the regulations were laid the day before the Prorogation, and in that case the spirit of the provision would be violated. He therefore thought their Lordships should insert the words "on which that House has sat."
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 23, after the word 'days,' to insert the words 'on which that House has sat,' and to leave out the words 'that House' and to insert the word 'it.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said that here, again, the Government did not object to the object of the noble Marquess. In the case of their Lordships' House however, it was not the invariable custom to sit on every day of the week, and therefore the words "forty days on which that House has sat" might mean a long period. He suggested that the Amendment should read "during the session of Parliament." In that form the Government would be prepared to accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY amended his Amendment in accordance with this suggestion.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY intimated that he would not move the other Amendments to this clause which stood in his name.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with. —(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we shall raise no objection to this Motion on the present occasion, though it is, of course, of an exceptional character. The object of the noble Lord is to finish the remaining stages of this Bill to-day. We understand that it will be of convenience to the Government and to the country as a whole that this Bill should pass into law as

955
quickly as possible, and we shall, therefore, raise no objection to the noble Lord's Motion.
THE EARL OF CREWE: We are obliged to the noble Marquess for what he has said. I need not assure the House that we do not like making a practice of passing Bills through several stages in one day, but this course is necessary in the present case on account of the fact that your Lordships are about to adjourn for some days.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, we were prepared to go on with the Committee stage of this Bill to-day, but I understand that it is not convenient to certain noble Lords that this should be done, and therefore, with your Lordships' permission, we will put off this stage. Your Lordships will recollect that what happened was that on the Second Reading I undertook that the Committee stage should not be taken for three weeks, in order to allow a period for negotiations to take place. Those negotiations went on till last Friday, and therefore the notice for the Committee stage of the Bill was necessarily rather short, but we thought that those interested would be in a position to go on with the Bill in the time. But we do not wish to hurry the Bill in any way, though it is a very important Bill and one which we hope to see passed into law in the course of the session; and as we have been asked to put the Committee stage off we are willing to do so.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Lord for the considerate statement he has made, though I do not think he told quite the whole story which seems to me a justification for asking for the postponement of this stage of the Bill. It is perfectly true that the negotiations with the insurance companies lasted for a good many weeks—they lasted until Friday of last week, and it was at a meeting of the insurance com-
956
panies on Friday that they received an intimation from the Board of Trade that their Amendments would not be accepted and that the Committee stage would be taken this week. The Bill was down for Committee, yesterday, and if you consider that of the four days which elapsed between the Friday and Wednesday one was a Sunday and the other a Bank Holiday you will see that the opportunity for consideration of what Amendments should be moved and how they should be drafted was rather too short. Those who are anxious to secure Amendments did their best and we placed some Amendments down last night, but I am conscious that they are not worded quite in the best form. Some of them are only alternative, and therefore are not in a form in which it is very convenient to argue them. I think I am justified in saying that it would be a little too hurried to go on with the Bill to-day, because only this morning a very large number of Amendments of considerable substance were put down in the name of the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade. The Bill is one of thirty-six clauses, and there are thirty pages of schedules. It deals with the amendment of the law in regard to companies doing life assurance and fire and accident insurance business. It is a very technical Bill, and I am advised that it is not altogether consistent in some of its parts. Any one will see that a Bill which has for its objects—as set forth in the Memorandum prefixed to the Bill—the consolidation and amendment of the Life Assurance Companies Acts, 1870 and 1872, and of the Employers' Liability Insurance Companies Act, 1907, and the extension to companies carrying on fire insurance business and accident insurance business of the law relating to life assurance companies cannot be a simple measure. I am not connected with any insurance companies, of any sort or kind, but I am authorised to say that there is no hostility to the main provisions of the Bill. I believe that those concerned are most willing to see it passed into law. They hope for some Amendments, and with the further time which has been granted I believe those Amendments will be put down in the best possible form so as to lead to the smallest amount of discussion, and I hope that some of the Amendments placed on the Paper by Lord Hamilton to-day will make it unnecessary to proceed with some of the Amendments standing in my name.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: In order that the notice may be as long as possible this time, I may say that we propose to take the Committee stage on Tuesday, the 31st instant.

THE ROYAL DECLARATION.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether the meeting of the Parliament on 14th February, 1901, was the meeting of the first Parliament summoned next after the accession of His Most Gracious Majesty, or the first meeting in the present reign of a pre-existing Parliament; and, if the latter, whether the Royal Declaration enacted by the Act of 1688, and made in Parliament on 14th February, 1901, was made in pursuance of the said Bill of Rights which enacts that it shall be made by every King or Queen thereafter coming to the Crown on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Crown or at his or her Coronation (whichever shall first happen); and, if not, whether or not it was in fact made on the first day of the meeting by His Gracious Majesty of the Second Session of the last Parliament of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, which first met on 3rd, December, 1900, and was prolonged by force and in virtue of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, in spite of the demise of the Crown; and whether, if then and so made, the said Declaration had or has any statutory or other sanction whatsoever.
This Question is a somewhat long one in, appearance, but it can be compressed into a much shorter compass. The question arises whether the present Parliament was the first Parliament of the present reign. As a mere layman I speak in fear and trembling before the legal luminaries in your Lordships' House, but it seems to me there is no doubt that this Parliament is the first Parliament of the present reign. If that is the case, the Declaration that was enacted by William and Mary in 1688 was not taken at the time that that Statute enacted that it should be taken, and therefore, if taken at another time and in other circumstances, it is evident it has no Parliamentary sanction and ought to be expunged from the Journals of this House although taken here. If we cast a glance at history we find that what happened at the beginning of this reign in 1901 did not happen in all the previous reigns during which this Declaration was in force. I
958
presume that Queen Anne was the first Sovereign to take this Declaration and she took it at her Coronation, and there is no doubt whatever that the Declaration was made by George I. at his Coronation.
But coming down to more modern times we find that in the last reign, which commenced in 1837, the Declaration was taken at the meeting of the first Parliament, which is the alternative permitted by the Statute of 1688, whichever should happen first, the Coronation or the meeting of the first Parliament. It was taken on November 20, 1837; but a different event occurred in 1901. For some reason, of which I am not aware, the Declaration was made in a very great hurry only a few days after the accession. Why this hurry I do not presume to conjecture. I may remind your Lordships that in 1696 an Act was passed in which Parliament was prolonged for six months after the demise of the Crown, but in 1867 a clause was inserted in the Representation of the People Act by which it was enacted that the Parliament should continue at the demise of the Crown as if that demise had not taken place—that is to say, it should share the fate of any, ordinary Parliament and go on either until it expired or until it dissolved. Those who drafted that Bill were not thinking for one instant, of course, of the curious circumstances to which I have alluded—namely, that this Declaration should be taken either at the Coronation or the meeting of the first Parliament—and therefore they made no allusion whatever to it. And here I may incidentally say that nobody, either in Parliament or out of Parliament, during the last reign called any attention to this Declaration. It escaped the notice of everybody, except, perhaps, a few individuals who from time to time have called attention to it as an antiquarian monstrosity. But the country generally knew nothing about it, and it was not until the year 1901 that it cropped up and caused general excitement and in a large portion of the community deep-seated indignation and disgust.
I will not enter upon the subject-matter, which has been gone into in great detail on more than one occasion since 1901, but I would remind your Lordships, in justification for my calling attention to the matter at all, that both in this House and in another place the subject of this question has been denounced by the highest authority.

959
The late Lord Salisbury, when Prime Minister, denounced the Declaration as indecent; he also called it "a stain on the Statute Book." These were very emphatic words, and words of great importance as falling from the lips of the Prime Minister of this country in your Lordships' House. But to come to a later period and to bring the matter, so to speak, up to date, I may remind your Lordships that only the other day the present Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, denounced this Declaration in language almost as emphatic; at all events, the burden of his speech was to the effect that if he had the power he would tear it out of the Statute Book and that it had no right to be there at all. So that in giving utterance to the wish that the day may not be far distant when this stain on the Statute Book shall be removed I am not speaking merely for myself. In that case I would not ask your Lordships to listen to me; but I am stating views in accord with those of the late Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister representing both political parties. I am also speaking in sympathy with twelve million subjects whose faith is grossly insulted and held up to ridicule and obloquy, not only before this country but before three hundred and fifty millions, if that be the right figure, of the inhabitants of India, whose religious faiths, by the way, are not denounced though ours is.
I recollect going across Canada one summer and having audiences with all the Archbishops separately in their own provinces, and asking what they wished to be done by way of application for the removal of this Declaration. The answer I received from all of them was that they left the matter to the Imperial Parliament, however desirous they might be of raising local agitation; and in an interview at Ottawa with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the eminent Prime Minister of Canada, I met with the same sympathy that I received from ecclesiastical quarters. He, too, promised that he would do all in his power to aid in the removal of the Declaration, but he left it to the Imperial Parliament. I have always found, I am glad to say, in the Colonies that the reverence for the Imperial Parliament, which they call the Mother of Parliaments, is very great, and no initiation of a matter of this kind would take place in the Colonies unless they took their cue and their example from the Imperial Parliament.
960
Well, my Lords, here we are in the Imperial Parliament. We have had certain indications in the House of Commons of how they regard this Declaration. We also had long and painful discussions in this House in 1901, 1903 and 1904, in which your Lordships were severally invited to give your opinions as to the desirability of removing this Declaration from the Statute Book. Nothing, however, came of those discussions, and it is in order to keep the matter alive and to keep it above water that I have ventured from time to time to bring the subject again to your Lordships' notice. There is no doubt that, if this House had its way, there would be no discussion about this matter, and the "indecency" to which Lord Salisbury referred would be removed. The power which prevents that course being taken is the Puritan power in this country, but I feel convinced that if your Lordships were only to take your courage in your hands and give a Second Reading to a Bill for this purpose no opposition in the country would be maintained for a month or for a week.
It is self-evident in these times, when persecution for religion has passed away, at all events in this country, that this gross anomaly should no longer remain. The civil disabilities under which Roman Catholics laboured were so great that no persons professing that faith could sit in either House of Parliament until the year 1829. Now there are several of that faith in your Lordships' House, and many in the other House. The penal laws were not only cruel, but they were vexatious. No Catholic could come within five miles of London, no Catholic could inherit real property; another enactment was that no Catholic could possess a horse of the value of over £5, etc., etc., etc. All these laws have been rightly abolished, but this Declaration still remains; it ought to have gone with the others, and I have therefore brought the matter once more before your Lordships' attention.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that this Question is rather argumentative as it appears on the Paper, and it shares the vice, if I may so, of most argumentative questions that it seeks to exact an assent to certain preliminary conditions before an answer is to be given to the question which is put at the end. I

961
hope that the noble Lord will excuse me in not following him into the historical arguments he has laid before the House, but on the merits I may say that in my opinion it is thoroughly wrong that an Act of Parliament should require from the Sovereign or from any man that he should insult the religious opinions held sacred by any person in this kingdom. The noble Lord, I presume, really wishes to know whether the Declaration made by his present Majesty is valid or not in law. In my opinion undoubtedly the Declaration is perfectly valid according to law.

THE UP-KEEP OF CHURCH CHANCELS.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to lay on the Table of the House a Return of the parishes in England and Wales in which the chancel of the parish church must be kept in repair by the lay-rector and impropriator of the great tithes, or by the lay-rector, or by the impropriator of the great tithes, and in how many instances at the present time the lay-rector or the impropriator of the great tithes is a dissenter from the Established Church, and nevertheless is compelled by law to pay for the sustentation of the chancel, and whether they will introduce any measure with a view to relieve such persons, either wholly or in part, of their liability; to ask if there are any parishes in England or Wales where the sustentation of the chancel of the parish church is by law a burden wholly or in part on any manorial property in land in the parish, although such property is not owned by the rector of the parish, and if so, how many lords of such manors there are liable to this burden, and how many (if any) such persons are dissenters from the Establishment.
Since Church rates were abolished fifty years ago or more there appears to be no liability whatever upon any person or persons to build up the parish church if it falls down or gets out of repair in any small degree whatever. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, or, I should say, in 999 cases out of a thousand, the parishioners, of course, are only too glad to come forward with voluntary contributions to build up the nave of the parish church if it falls into disrepair, but there is no obligation whatever, as far as I am aware, that they should do so. I think that is a curious fact,
962
and one that is very often overlooked. The incumbent is not entitled to exact any rate or tax from the parishioners to build up the nave, and, therefore, if the parishioners were so minded they might, I presume, however interesting the building might be and however precious in the eyes of an antiquarian, allow it to fall into ruins. But with regard to the chancel it is quite a different thing. It appears that the rector there is subjected to a tax or the obligation of building up the chancel, and it would be interesting to know how many cases there are where the rector is a lay-rector and is responsible, and it would be still more interesting to know in how many cases that lay-rector is not a member of the Establishment. For it seems to me that there not only a hardship but an injustice comes in, because the lay-rector in that case who is a dissenter from the Church of England, whether he be a Jew, or a Nonconformist, or a Catholic, is obliged to pay for the sustentation of the Church.
I think the present Government, which professedly boast of liberal ideas of an extreme type, might take into their consideration whether it would not be just to that small body of persons to relieve them of their liability—that is to say, to relieve them of the necessity of paying a tax which may be, in individual cases, a very heavy one, amounting to several hundreds of pounds, to sustain a building of which they cannot make any use and which belongs to an alien religion. The lay-rector, although he is, in theory, the freeholder of the chancel, is not entitled to lock the chancel up or to make any use of it whatever. All he has to do is to build it up when it falls down, and this is rather a hardship upon any person who does not have any use of the building and who cannot in the nature of the case use it as a place of worship. I think, therefore, that the suggestion which I have made in my Question may not be unworthy of the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the Government are not able to comply with the wishes of the noble Lord. The information that he asks for is information which the Government are not able to obtain; and even if they could obtain it I am afraid that there would be a great deal of trouble and expense involved in obtaining the returns asked for. The Ecclesiastical Commis-

963
sioners have been communicated with on this subject, and they state that they have not in their possession the materials for furnishing this information, and have not any means of procuring it. I am afraid that it would involve a very large inquiry locally into the tenure and conditions of holding property. I am sorry, therefore, that the Government are not able to promise the information which the noble Lord desires.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, had the Question been asked as it appears on the Paper and received the inevitable reply which has been given to it by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I should not have said a word. But the speech of the noble Lord imparted a different complexion to the Question. The noble Lord spoke of this as being a tax on certain persons, and he looked upon it as being unfair if the taxpayer, as he described him, happened not to belong to the Church of England as at present established in this country. But there is no tax in this matter at all. The noble Lord or those who went before him acquired certain property subject to certain liabilities; but those liabilities are not a tax. A certain amount of land, for example, is bought subject to the liability to pay tithe; but this liability for tithe is no tax. Persons are liable to pay this tithe and they would be presumably called to account if it was not paid. The grounds on which they pay tithe are precisely similar to those upon which the noble Lord or any other owner of rectorial rights is liable to certain charges. The property was liable to certain charges when it was acquired, and those charges remain on the property as long as the holder owns it.

THE COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) ACT.
LORD NEWTON: I rise to ask whether it is the intention of His Majesty's
964
Government to introduce during the present session a Bill to amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908. In putting this Question I merely desire to observe that this Act only came into operation on July 1 last, that the reduction in output on the average amounts, I understand, to something like nine per cent., and that at the beginning of July when a Cabinet Minister was seeking re-election he found the effect of this particular Act so unpopular that he was obliged to promise an amending Act on the earliest available opportunity. I should rather doubt whether in the history of Parliament there has ever been an occasion upon which no less than a week after an Act has been in operation a Minister of the Crown has had to go down to his constituents and promise that it shall be altered in order to get himself returned. Personally I am all in favour of amending the Act, but I am rather wondering how it is to be carried out, and I ask this Question to ascertain whether the amending Act will be introduced in this House or in another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to spoil the picture which was drawn by the noble Lord, and which I think was more entertaining than accurate. But, as a matter of fact, it is the intention of the Government to introduce a very small measure at an early date. The measure is designed to meet a point of difficulty that has arisen under the operation of the Act with regard to the time of beginning work. It is understood to have the general assent of both employer and employed, as far as opinion on the subject has been expressed. It is hoped that after all it will prove to be a non-contentious measure, and have a happy passage through both Houses of Parliament.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday, the 16th instant, a quarter-past Three o'clock.