Lords Sitting of 8 July 1909

Preamble
The EARL OF SELBORNE—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Committed for Tuesday next.
TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 5th and 26th of May last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
PONTYPRIDD WATER BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 28th of June last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

DUNOON BURGH BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Address of the 24th of June last), and to be printed. (No. 103.)

MILK AND DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for amendment of; of the County Council of the County of Forfar; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL. [H.L.]
Petition in favour of; of the Company of Merchants of the City of Edinburgh; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) FUND.
Petitions for an Address to His Majesty, praying him to withhold his assent to the Minute of the Council of Education in Scotland, dated 3rd June, 1909, of the Secondary Education Committee of the parish of Govan;—School Boards of the following parishes: Neilston—Govan;—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
METROPOLITAN COMMONS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  SEA FISHERIES (TEES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Moved, That the order made on the 18th day of May last, That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 30th day of June next be dispensed with, and the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly and committed.
GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Moved, That the order made on the 18th day of May last, That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 30th day of June next be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed for Tuesday next.
ARDROSSAN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

TRAWLING IN PROHIBITED AREAS (PREVENTION) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, your Lordships will remember a discussion on this subject which took place at no more distant date than last November. At that time this Bill had been introduced in another place, but no progress was made with it last year. It was re-introduced at the beginning of this session and now comes before this House in a slightly altered form, but it comes here, so far as I am aware, and certainly according to what occurred in another place, as an agreed Bill. Both sections of opinion interested in this measure, the last stage in a somewhat long controversy, are agreed that the Bill represents a desirable and even a necessary step in the matter.
Your Lordships are aware that by an Act of some twenty years ago the Fishery Board for Scotland acquired powers to prohibit by by-law the method of fishing called trawling in certain areas of the sea off the coast of Scotland. These areas were closed by by-law after the passing of that Act, and while for several years that closure was effective, about five years after the by-law was first enacted a foreign trawler appeared in the Moray Firth. There have always been accidental and occasional foreign trawlers fishing in the Firth. About the years 1897 and 1898 and onwards to 1900 a practice sprung up of fishing in the Moray Firth by British subjects, who, in order to effect this purpose, registered their trawlers under a foreign flag. This difficulty increased as
208
years went on, and after every effort had been employed by administrative means and by carrying out the statutory powers then in force to check the evil, the matter was carried to the High Court in 1906, and the High Court declared the law to be that it was illegal for foreigners to fish in these prohibited areas. That was declared to be the law, but, as your Lordships are well aware, it was not possible to enforce that law as against the subjects of other nations.
This is a Bill to effectively close these waters. They are closed, let me say parenthetically, in the general interest—in the interest of the protection of the supply of fish in the North Sea; and this closure has, as a subsidiary result, the effect of giving some protection to the line fishermen who dwell on the shores of these waters. This closure is infringed, in the first place, by occasional genuine foreign trawlers, and, in the second place, to a very much larger extent—to an extent so large as to constitute practically almost the whole of the evil—by those pseudo foreign trawlers which are financed and in many cases owned entirely by British subjects or British companies fishing under a foreign flag. There is another feature of the position which must be noticed and it is this, that practically the whole of the fish caught by these pseudo foreign trawlers is landed at English ports. It is not landed at Scottish ports for the reason that the Act of 1889—the original foundation of this closure—prohibited the landing in Scottish ports of fish caught in these prohibited areas. The prohibition has been enforced, and no such fish is now landed at Scottish ports. But these trawlers are able to evade the law by being still permitted to land their fish at English ports.
The method of this Bill is to extend to English ports the prohibition of landing such fish which is now operative in Scotland. In the opinion of those concerned—and I have already mentioned that both sections of opinion unite in supporting this Bill, the details of which they have worked out—this will be an effectual step, and will succeed in preventing the illegal fishing which now goes on in the Moray Firth. A doubt has been expressed that the purpose of this Bill may be defeated by the development of what now goes on in a very small degree—namely, the catching of fish in

209
the Moray Firth and shipping them to foreign ports. Such fishing as goes on under those conditions—that is to say, of landing at foreign ports—is occasional, is seasonal, and is confined to certain classes of fish not, properly speaking, the subject of trawling. The main object of these steam trawlers is to catch flat fish, soles, plaice, and other fish of that character which are valuable in the markets. But there is a second reason which is held by those having great experience and authority in this matter to be, if not conclusive, almost conclusive, against the probability of the establishment of any such industry as a regular fishing in the Moray Firth. It is known as a fact by those who hold this opinion that the Moray Firth is not prolific or extensive enough to afford the basis of the establishment of an industry simply to fish the Moray Firth. To come across from ports on the other side of the North Sea, or even to come from Grimsby, and to carry the fish, not to English markets, but across the North Sea involves not only time but extra expense, and to support such extra charges the fishing in the Moray Firth would have to be far more regular and far more productive than it has hitherto proved to be. Though it is, of course, not possible to exclude altogether a doubt on this point, all the probabilities indicate that the proceeding proposed under this Bill will be effectual for the purpose in view.
The controversy has been a long one, and it is a satisfaction to His Majesty's Government to find that the two parties to the controversy are agreed that this Bill deserves consideration and should pass into law, as being, if not the final stage in this controversy, at any rate an obvious and necessary next step to be taken. I understand that there is no general desire that the discussion of this Bill should be prolonged at this stage, and therefore I have ventured to confine myself to outlining the situation. If the information which I have given is too scanty, I shall be glad to supplement it, but I understand that there may be Amendments proposed in Committee, and possibly that may afford a more convenient opportunity for going into any of the details which, in your Lordships' opinion, still require consideration. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a— (Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of placing any obstruction in the way of the progress of this Bill. At the same time I cannot help thinking that indirectly there is a very serious matter involved in the Bill which requires consideration. I think it becomes very important in these days to see what are the principles upon which it is supposed that foreign vessels can come into the Moray Firth and fish. The purpose of this Bill, I think, is one to which all would agree, and, as I have said, I do not speak for the purpose of obstruction in any way; but it has to be remembered that the whole principle upon which the idea of the three-mile limit was based was the right that every nation possessed to protect its own shores. The area over which that right of protection existed was limited to the ultima vis armorum, and it would be absurd to say that the ultima vis armorum was now limited to three miles. There is no apparent admission by this country of the limitation of the area within which we can actually prohibit; but it may be hereafter used as an argument that we were so well aware of the limit that international law would place upon the right of prohibition that this indirect means of preventing it had been resorted to. I only wish to say that, so far as I am concerned, I have never myself, as a Judge, admitted that the three-mile limit is one that international law recognises. It is not the limit which some other countries themselves adopt and insist upon. But, be that as it may, as long as the principle upon which the right of protection to our shores exists is limited to the ultima vis armorum it is necessary to make a protest, in passing such legislation as this, against its being taken as an admission that we do acquiesce in that limitation, if it is not a subject of agreement, as it is in some cases between two other countries. There is no international law which would prevent a much larger limit being taken if the public interest required it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I shall forbear from saying anything at all about the three-mile limit, for the reason that I think we should walk very warily in this matter. Many of our best fishing districts are within ten miles of the coast of our neighbours. The question is not merely one of what is to happen to our fisheries within ten miles of our coast, but of how many of our own

211
fishermen may be prevented from going to their present fishing grounds within ten miles of a foreign coast if we seek to extend our jurisdiction beyond the three-mile limit. It is a very serious matter, and we ought not lightly to pass from any convention or any fishing custom that has been hitherto observed. It is delicate ground and I do not wish to commit myself regarding it, but merely to safeguard the House from expressing any opinion in favour of extending the three-mile limit.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, in the very few words which I wish to address to the House I shall not touch upon the immensely important question of international law raised by my noble and learned friend beside me and discussed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I venture to think that the general feeling of the House will be that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave us good advice when he suggested that we should walk warily in dealing with that matter. I shall endeavour to walk warily by altogether avoiding the dangerous ground. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a few days ago rather complained of our pedantry on this side of the House for desiring to extend to Scotland legislation which we regard as suitable to England, but which, in his view, was not equally applicable across the border. Here is a case in which Scottish legislation is being applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. I congratulate the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, because this really is a triumph of the policy of the Scottish Office over other competing policies which have found favour at different times. I agree in thinking that your Lordships would do well to offer no obstacle to the passing of this Bill. It is, at any rate, an attempt to extricate us from a most difficult and embarrassing position.
The position, roughly speaking, is this. Under our municipal law we are unable to prevent foreign trawlers from frequenting the waters of the Moray Firth, although that municipal law renders liable to very severe pains and penalties British trawlers found fishing in these waters. That is naturally regarded, particularly by our own fishermen, as an intolerable situation, and the time certainly has come for endeavouring to find some means of escape
212
from it. The impatience with which the present state of things is regarded is no doubt increased by the fact that, as the noble Lord observed, a good many of these so-called foreign trawlers are not really foreign trawlers at all, but British vessels masquerading for improper purposes as foreign fishing boats. I suppose that at first sight we should all of us be inclined to say that the best mode of escaping from these difficulties would be that some international agreement might be come to as to the conditions under which fishermen of all kinds might resort to the waters of the Moray Firth. But, of course, we all know that, while it is a very simple matter to talk about international arrangements for such a purpose, an international arrangement which we should be in a position to accept would be by no means a simple thing to obtain. As was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, our fishermen frequent waters in other parts of the world with regard to which the adjoining territorial Powers hold no doubt very much the same kind of views as those which we hold with regard to the Moray Firth, and there can be no doubt that if we were to endeavour to bring about a transaction with the foreign countries concerned we should have to meet counterclaims on behalf of their fishermen which would be of a very inconvenient nature and which might result in a bargain by no means favourable to our own fishing industry.
This Bill proposes to put a stop to fishing by foreigners in the Moray Firth by means of arrangements for excluding any fish which they may catch in those waters from admission to British ports. Such fish is already excluded from Scottish ports; the exclusion is to be extended to British ports. I am bound to say that while I am in favour of making this attempt, I do not feel very sanguine as to the amount of success which is likely to attend it. The remedy seems to me rather a clumsy remedy, and I am afraid it may prove to be an ineffectual remedy. I should be inclined to say that perhaps the strongest argument in favour of the Government's proposal is that by making it we shall, to a certain extent, strengthen our own hands if we should hereafter have to approach foreign countries in order to come to some arrangement with them. This Bill is, at any rate, an earnest that we ourselves are doing all we can to put an end to what we regard as an undoubted abuse.

213
But, my Lords, when we come to the machinery set up in the Bill it does seem to me that there may be very considerable difficulties in applying it successfully. In the first place, there is the possibility—and I am afraid we must regard it as a possibility—that fish taken by these illegal trawlers may be marketed in foreign ports. The noble Lord—I was glad to hear him say so—has apparently satisfied himself that the danger of this kind of evasion is not such a real danger as many people suppose; but in these days when fish is carried from place to place in very fast steamers, and when, as we know, ice is used for the purpose of packing fish, it does seem highly probable that fish which is excluded from a British port will be taken to the nearest foreign port, and there are ports available for that purpose.
There is also the difficulty, which seems to me to be a real one, of identifying these poaching vessels. The whole machinery for their identification rests with the Fishery Board for Scotland. I presume the Fishery Board will keep a cruiser or a gunboat of some kind in the waters of the Moray Firth. That gunboat will have to endeavour to watch the whole of the waters—something like 2,000 square miles—in the Moray Firth; and it will have to satisfy itself—those are the words of the clause—that these boats are really engaged in illegal practices. That seems to me to be no easy task. The boat once identified is to be reported to the Customs authorities, and the Customs authorities will then destroy or confiscate the fish when it is landed at a British port. That part is simple enough, but where I foresee considerable difficulty is in the process of identification by the agents of the Fishery Board. These seem to me to be real difficulties. I shall be glad if, in Committee, or at some other time, the noble Lord is able to show us that they do not exist. I certainly do not desire to offer any objection to the passing of the Bill. It is an attempt to make the best of a very difficult situation, and I sincerely hope that the attempt may be more successful than some of us are inclined to believe it will be.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

HOPS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, the Bill which I have the honour to ask your Lordships to read a second time to-day is a small agricultural Bill, but at the same time it has a certain amount of local importance. It is a Bill that has been very much asked for, and I trust that your Lordships will give it your favourable consideration. It will be within the recollection of the House that last year the subject of the hop industry was brought before your Lordships' notice, and a very strong Committee was appointed to inquire into the question. I need not go into that. The Report has been before your Lordships' House on several occasions. The chairman of the Committee was Sir William Collins, and the members represented the various interests concerned.
The Committee came to the conclusion that there were two legitimate grievances in this branch of the agricultural industry. First, the Committee thought that hop-growers had a grievance owing to the use of what are called "hop substitutes," and, secondly, they considered, and I think justly, that there was a grievance owing to the importation of foreign hops in unmarked bags or pockets as they are called. On December 8 last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a Bill to try and remedy in some way these grievances, but on December 17 it was withdrawn as there was no hope of passing it owing to its being opposed from both sides of the House, chiefly, I think, because the Bill itself was not properly understood. But in February of this year I happened to receive an invitation to address a large meeting at Canterbury, and there I was empowered by the Government to announce that we were prepared to reintroduce the Bill, and, if possible, to bring it into line with the general opinion on the subject and with what would be acceptable to both parties.
The chief provisions of this Bill—it is a very short one—are contained in two clauses. Clause 1 contains a prohibition of the use of hop substitutes in brewing, and Clause 2 contains a prohibition of the importation of hops except in bags properly

215
marked. Clause 1 is intended to deal with the prohibition of hop substitutes at any stage of the brewing or preparation or preservation of beer. I have been told that that is not sufficiently clear in the wording of the Bill. If that is so, I shall be quite prepared to submit an Amendment or Amendments to effect the purpose. I have had several informal discussions on the subject, and some people interested in this trade are anxious to prohibit the use of preservatives altogether. They make no secret of it. They wish to prohibit the use of preservatives altogether; but, of course, I need hardly say that to that the Government cannot agree. Our intention is to prohibit the use of preservatives when the necessary preservation can be obtained by the use of hops. That is the intention of the Bill.
I need hardly say that I hold no brief for the brewers, but I am informed that doing away with preservatives altogether would really mean the destruction of a great trade in certain classes of beer intended for export to hot countries, owing to the fact that hops alone cannot be used in these cases for preservative purposes. I think I ought here to remind the House that the Bill I have the honour to submit is one to prohibit the use of hop substitutes and in no way a Pure Beer Bill. If preservatives prejudicial to health are used, that naturally is very objectionable and very dangerous; but, as regards that, I would remind the House that the provisions of the Public Health Act already apply to protect the public in this way, and, therefore, no amendment of the law in that direction is necessary. With regard to the provision in Clause 2 prohibiting the importation of hops except in bags properly marked, the intention of the Government—I think it is a perfectly legitimate intention—is to place foreign and home hop-growers on an equal footing, and not to give any preference or advantage to either side. Therefore, the marking clauses in my Bill have been drawn as far as possible on the same lines as the Hops Act of 1866.
In Clause 2, subsection (1), paragraph (a), we say that the name of the owner, planter, or brewer who packs the hops into the bag or pocket should be placed in legible letters on the bag or pocket. This follows precisely the English Act. Secondly, we say that the name of the country and district in which the hops were grown should be marked. In the English Act the parish and county are required to be stated, but as we do not know
216
whether there are parishes in the foreign countries where hops are grown we use the words "country and district." Further, we insist on the year in which the hops were grown being placed on the pocket. That exactly follows the English Act. We also require the net weight of the hops in the bag or pocket to be stated. In the English Act the gross weight is placed on the bag, but it is supposed to be more convenient, and the Customs authorities have no objection, that the net weight should be placed on the bag in this case. I have to express my obligation to my noble friend below me (Lord Eversley) for bringing in the first definition, and I gladly adopt it. I think I can safely say that this puts the foreign hop-grower in practically the same position as the English hop-grower. I think that is fair and right, and I hope there will be no objection at any rate to that part of the Bill. I do not think I need detain the House further. I shall be perfectly ready, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, to answer any questions concerning its provisions when we go into Committee. I may say, in conclusion, that in my opinion this Bill is an honest attempt to assist an honourable, resolute, hardworking class of men and a body of farmers who have for some time been passing through a very critical period.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I rise to enter briefly my objection, as I did when a similar Bill was last before the House, to proposals which I can only describe as simply protectionist. When the other Bill was before us the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, while giving general approval to the Bill, expressed a doubt as to the inclusion of preservatives. In spite of the explanation which has just been given of the Bill, nobody can read subsection (3) of Clause 1 without seeing that the operation of this provision is simply protectionist. The object of this clause is to compel the brewer to use hops instead of something else which he might use equally well. The noble Earl who brought in this Bill drew a sort of distinction. He suggested that the Bill was not as bad as it might seem because he prohibited using hop substitutes as substitutes for hops. He seemed to suggest that there might be beer brewed for consumption in hot climates

217
in which a preservative other than hops would not be a substitute but an independent preservative. But I do not see that we have anything to do with that. I can well imagine that, if five shillings worth of hops are used, as good a preservative may be got as if half-a-crown's worth of something else were used. This Bill will compel the brewer to spend twice as much as he otherwise would. It is not said that the substitutes now used are in any way injurious to health. Indeed, if they were the noble Earl has explained that the offence could be dealt with under an existing Act of Parliament. Therefore we must take it that the other preservatives are used by the brewer as a matter of economy in his trade. The object of this Bill is to do a good turn to an industry which the noble Earl described pathetically as a suffering industry. I think it is a very dangerous thing that a Government which calls itself a Free Trade Government and is fighting resolutely to maintain the advantage of the consumer against the advantage of the producer, should bring in a Bill of which every line is based upon protectionist principles. Therefore if any noble Lord will join with me I shall certainly divide against the Second Reading.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, in the first place may I be permitted to congratulate the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture on having at last, though somewhat tardily, introduced the Government's Hops Bill. My only regret is that, in the interests of agriculture, he did not do so months ago. In saying this, however, I trust that I am right in assuming that His Majesty's Government now fully recognise the extreme and sad plight of this great industry, which, as your Lordships are aware, is allied to many hundreds of other trades throughout the country, and that it is the noble Earl's firm intention to do all he possibly can to resuscitate it and thereby check the widespread ruin which is now devastating and fast depopulating the hop-growing districts in six counties in England.
In thus congratulating the noble Earl I do so upon what I hope is the object of his Bill. I am basing my belief on the good intentions that have been so often expressed, not only by the noble Earl as Minister for Agriculture, but by other members of His Majesty's Government rather than upon the actual wording of the
218
Bill. Personally I welcome the Bill, and I do not wish to cavil or to quarrel with the noble Earl as to whom belongs the credit for having introduced a Hops Bill, for I can assure him that I am fully prepared, as also are many noble Lords on both sides of the House, to do all that is possible to assist in passing this Bill rapidly into law, provided that certain Amendments are agreed to in Committee in order to make the provisions of the Bill clearer than they are at the present time, and to check abuses which have been so frequently demonstrated and which His Majesty's Government have so continually proclaimed that it is their wish to remove.
In the course of the debate on the Hops Bill I had the honour of introducing in your Lordships' House a short time ago I was accused—I think somewhat unfairly—of having arrayed myself in the feathers of His Majesty's Government, and at the same time of having stolen the clothes of the noble Earl while he was bathing. My Lords, I plead not guilty to both charges. The feathers of His Majesty's Government and the clothes of the noble Earl have now been produced to your Lordships, and although they are very much alike in appearance to those which I have been accused of having purloined, I venture to think that when your Lordships scrutinise them in Committee you will discover that there is a great deal of difference between the clothes which the noble Earl now claims as his own and those which I am supposed to have stolen from him. In appearance, I admit, they are very ranch alike; but on closer inspection your Lordships will, I think, consider that mine are the better fit. In fact, I think you will have very little difficulty in discovering that my Bill is my own and a good fit, whilst the Bill of the noble Earl now before the House is not quite the same thing, and is, if I may say so, somewhat of a misfit.
I believe I am right in asserting that the primary purpose for which both of these Bills were designed was to prohibit the use of hop substitutes in the brewing and preservation of beer, and, at the same time, to secure that all foreign hops marketed in the United Kingdom should be liable to the same restrictions, no more or no less, as English hops are rightly subjected to according to the laws of this country. Such being the case, I am bold enough to think that my Bill, which has already

219
passed through the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, would carry out that purpose in both instances, and, with due respect to the Minister for Agriculture, I do not think his Bill is quite so clear. I do not, however, wish at this stage to take up the time of your Lordships by entering into any minute criticism with regard to the details of this Bill.
But I would like to point out that Clause 1, which deals with hop substitutes, appears to me to be somewhat vague. I submit that, with the present wording, the Bill would undoubtedly effectively prohibit the use of hop substitutes, whether preservative or flavouring, in the brewing of beer, but it would leave the brewer or the publican a free hand to use either of these substitutes subsequently in beer. If such is the case, the Bill would be absolutely useless to the farmer or hop-grower for whose benefit it has been professedly designed. I trust, therefore, that the noble Earl will allow us to so amend the Bill when we go into Committee as to insure that all hop substitutes, whether chemical, preservative, or flavouring, are as effectually prohibited in beer as in brewing.
I would also like to point out one other weakness in this clause as regards the term "hop substitute." In my opinion the expression "hop substitute" should be clearly defined as "any bitter article or substitute or preservative other than hops capable of being used in the brewing or preservation of beer." In the Government Bill the term "hop substitute" means "any article capable of being used in the brewing of beer as a substitute for hops either for flavouring or for preservative purposes." Only last month I read an article in a brewers' trade journal which showed the weakness of this phrase, and which pointed out that if this section were passed without any alteration those who used these preservative substitutes might still be able to do so by claiming that the preservatives were not substitutes for hops. I suggest this alteration in the Bill, for I feel sure that the noble Earl is desirous of preventing misapprehension and expensive litigation in the future.
I submit that Clause 2, which deals with the marking of bags or pockets of hops, also requires alteration so that all foreign hops dealt with in England shall be subject
220
to the same restrictions as English hops. Under the present wording, the Bill would undoubtedly favour the foreigner by allowing the substitution of the name of the "owner" on the packets of hops for the name of the actual "grower." This, in my opinion, would be a gross and unfair preference to the foreign dealer who competes with the English grower. Although these alterations are small ones, they are, in my opinion, vital, and absolutely necessary in the interests of the English hop industry and in fulfilment of the promise given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade to the hop deputation which waited upon them in July last. With these reservations as regards future action in Committee, I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill; and I wish to assure the noble Earl that I will give him all the assistance I can to make this Bill, what I believe he desires it to be, an act of justice to a long-suffering and down-trodden English industry.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I do not rise to speak against this Bill. It was most interesting to notice the Free Trade shot which was fired just now from the Back-benches opposite at the noble Earl who proposed the Second Reading of this Bill. Clause 1, subsection (2), provides that if any brewer for sale uses any hop substitute in the brewing of beer, or receives or has in his custody or possession any article in contravention of the section, he shall incur an Excise penalty. The clause then goes on to define the expression "hop substitute" as meaning any article capable of being used in the brewing of beer as a substitute for hops either for flavouring or for preservative purposes. Now, I daresay the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has received a copy of the paper which I hold in my hand from the Brewers' Society, containing reasons against those particular words in the section. It seems to me that there is a great deal of common-sense in the statements contained in this paper. If the definition in the Bill of a "hop substitute" is allowed to include a substitute used for preservative purposes, the brewers in this county will have to change their method of brewing.
I have read the debates which took place earlier in the session upon Lord Hardinge's Bill, and I find that Lord Hardinge stated that German brewers used no preservatives whatever. The truth is that German

221
brewers preserve their beer for home consumption by fermenting it at a very low temperature; but when the beer is exported certain preservatives have to be added, and the preservatives used are more deleterious than those employed by brewers in this country. As the noble Earl has invited us to bring forward Amendments in Committee, I hope he will consider this question when it is raised. Brewers would much rather have a schedule of things which could or could not be used. If the particular words now in the Bill remain they will have the effect of compelling brewers to alter the whole system of brewing as now carried on in this country. If the preservative substances are harmful, the Excise authorities have power to deal with the matter most efficiently. Then the noble Earl mentioned that the necessary preservative could be obtained by hops and hops alone, but he went on to say that doing away with preservatives altogether would ruin the foreign trade. Then the foreigners are to have English beer with preservatives in it but English brewers are to alter their system of brewing altogether and only to use hops. That is hardly a consistent statement. I say that with all respect to the noble Earl, and I hope that when the Bill goes into Committee he will either define it more clearly himself or give those interested a chance of moving Amendments for that purpose. The beer leaves the brewer in a fit state to be consumed, but when it gets to the public-house the publican can put what he likes in it, and nothing will prevent him from putting in all sorts of substances which are harmful to the human system. I think the Bill a most excellent one, and I must congratulate the noble Earl upon bringing in a measure which is decidedly for the protection of a very important industry in this country—I say an important industry because I have always read that Englishmen fought and conquered on beef and beer.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I am unwilling that the debate should close without another protest being entered from this side against the entire conception of this Bill. The two noble Lords on the other side of the House who have spoken have referred to it as a Bill to protect the farmer and the hop-grower, and the noble Earl who has just sat down emphatically spoke of it as a Bill entirely designed for the protection of the farmer.
222
That is the character of this measure. I do not think my noble friend will receive any congratulation upon this Bill from anyone who has at heart or understands the principles of Free Trade.
What is the scope of this Bill? It is a Bill to prevent a manufacturer of beer using one article instead of another in the process of its manufacture, no suggestion being made that the substitution is in any way injurious to the health of the consumer. It is, therefore, a direct infraction of the liberty of production on the one side and the liberty of consumption on the other. Every step in the industrial development of mankind is a step associated with some change which throws hardship on particular persons who up to the introduction of that step had been engaged in some particular method of satisfying the process which is then simplified or improved. No step is made without somebody suffering, and one sympathises with those who have to undergo suffering as the result of change. Is there any suggestion that the measure now before your Lordships' House differs in principle from any measure to prohibit the introduction of foreign wheat, or foreign barley, or foreign oats, or foreign vegetables, or foreign butter? There used to be an advertisement years ago of orange marmalade as a substitute for butter. You might as well introduce a Bill to prevent the use of orange marmalade, inasmuch as its use as a substitute for butter injures the dairy farmer.
Every step, as I have said, has involved some hardship, some penalty, some painful experience on particular classes of producers who up to that time had been engaged in satisfying the wants of the community in that respect; but the community has benefited by the simpler and easier method of satisfying its wants. Now we are deliberately asked by the Government to support a Bill the principle of which is entirely opposed to the principle on which the Government was founded. If there was one thing more than another on which the last General Election was taken, it was on the issue of Free Trade, and it is upon the maintenance of that issue that the continuance of the Government in power depends. In those circumstances, the Government are absolutely violating all the conditions under which they came into office in proposing a Bill of simple, un-

223
adulterated, naked Protection. I cannot, permit the Bill to pass without a protest, and I join with my noble friend in opposing the Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has introduced this Bill must, no doubt, have expected to be good-humouredly rallied by my noble friend behind me on the facility with which he has assimilated principles commonly accepted on these Benches but not so popular on the Benches opposite. It is really an interesting illustration of the manner in which public opinion is moving to find the noble Earl opposite recommending a Bill to the House on the ground that it is intended to place foreign and home hop-growers on an equal footing. That is a sentiment which within our recollection would have been regarded as a most heretical sentiment by members of the Party opposite, but we now find that it is a sentiment entirely acceptable to His Majesty's Government. It was really touching to see the two noble Lords on the Back Bench opposite—my noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Courtney—lonely and pathetic figures, alone protesting against this labefaction of principle on the part of their friends.
I agree that this Bill should be read a second time, and it seems to me that the points which have been raised, very interesting and important points, are points probably better suited for discussion in Committee than in a Second Reading debate. But they are points of considerable moment. I notice two in particular. There is the question of the conditions under which preservatives are to be used. Lord Stanley of Alderley was quite correct in saying that upon a former occasion I raised a note of warning as to the kind of provisions that might be inserted in this Bill with regard to the use of preservatives, because it does seem to me conceivable that there may be perfectly innocent and indispensable preservatives without which certain classes of beer cannot be properly brewed. That is, however, a point which we may well discuss on a subsequent occasion.
The other point raised by Lord Hardinge seems to me more important still. Lord Hardinge took exception to the wording of the clause with regard to the marking of packages containing hops. Lord
224
Carrington said that the packages were to be properly marked. That was his expression. Now, what do we mean when we talk of a package of hops being properly marked? I take it that the object is that the mark should be of a kind to afford evidence as to the origin of the particular parcel of hops, and, therefore, my noble friend Lord Hardinge in his Bill desired that the package should be marked in such a way as to show who had grown the hops. That is a very substantial point, and it is an entirely different thing to say that the mark shall reveal, not who grew the hops, but the owner of the hops, because it is quite clear that a dealer may become possessed of hops of all kinds of qualities and different origins, mix them together, and put them into one package so that the public may be misled. The point has been raised before, and we were certainly under the impression that His Majesty's Ministers agreed with my noble friend Lord Hardinge. I find, in the report of the proceedings when the hop deputation waited upon Mr. Lloyd George, that in addressing the deputation Mr. Lloyd-George said—
"I have no fear of the principle which has been impressed upon me by Mr. Bannister—that you should compel these gentlemen to mark their hops with the country of origin and the date of origin. There is nothing unfair in that."
Then he was interrupted by a member of the deputation. The report proceeds—
"Mr. BANNISTER (emphatically): 'And the name of the grower, sir; exactly the same as we have to do in all particulars.'
"Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: 'Quite right. Whatever conditions you impose on the British grower should be imposed on the foreigner. That is not a departure from Free Trade.'"
A very welcome admission. I mention that because I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be prepared to deal with it when we come to Committee. Meanwhile I can only congratulate my noble friend Lord Hardinge that his Bill, with these few alterations, has been appropriated by His Majesty's Government and has apparently a very good prospect of becoming law.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, if my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture adopted the recommendation of the noble Viscount opposite and excluded the word "owner" he would make a distinction between the law now prevailing in England as regards the

225
marking of hops and the law under this Bill for foreign hops. The noble Earl has followed the wording of the Hop Marking Act of 1866. Under that Act the name of the owner in substitution for that of the grower may be marked on the bag. Of course, as a general rule the name of the grower only is marked on the bag, but in the rare cases where the grower sells to any person who dries the hops in his own kiln then the name of the person to whom the hops are sold—namely, the owner—can be marked on the bag instead of that of the grower. If my noble friend representing the Government were to adopt the recommendation of the noble Viscount and exclude the word "owner," insisting that in every case the name of the grower should be on the bags, the effect would be to exclude a very large quantity of hops from the Continent. Hop-growing on the Continent is a very different industry from what it is in England, because Continental hops are grown by small cultivators who cannot possibly have their own kilns. As a rule, they dry the hops partially on hurdles, and they are sold in that state to brewers for immediate use. But when the hops are sold for the purpose of export to England they are purchased ĩn small quantities by merchants, who sort and send them to central establishments where they are kiln-dried and exported to this country. Therefore if the noble Viscount's suggestion were adopted the result would be to exclude hops from a very large part of the Continent, and that, in effect, would be a prohibition in the nature of Protection, and it would be far more serious, in my opinion, than even a duty on hops. I think, therefore, that the noble Earl behind me has done wisely in inserting the word "owner" as well as the word "grower." I believe that if the clause in the noble Earl's Bill were assimilated to that in the measure of the noble Viscount the Bill would not have the remotest
chance of passing the other House, because it would be regarded as a purely Protectionist Bill.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have no reason to complain of the reception that my Bill has received, nor of the very good-natured banter in which the noble Lords opposite have indulged. I deny the statement made by my two noble friends behind me that this is a protectionist measure. It is a matter of opinion. If I had thought it a protectionist measure, or that it constituted any serious interference with the doctrines of Free Trade, I would never have taken the liberty of introducing it in your Lordships' House. The object of noble Lords in insisting upon the word "grower" is to do all they can to hamper the introduction of foreign hops likely in any way to affect the hop industry. I do not quarrel with them on that account, because they are open Protectionists, but the effect of putting the word "grower" on the pockets would be to keep out all German hops. These hops are grown on very small plots of land, and it is really impossible to put all the names of the growers on the pockets. Not only would such a provision hinder the possibility of German and Bavarian hops being brought here, but it would prevent a great firm like Bass and Co. from pursuing their somewhat unpatriotic course of using fifty per cent. of Bavarian hops instead of English hops in the production of their beer, after having educated John Bull's palate to the use of Bavarian hops. That is all I have to say in reply, and I trust that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 62; Not-contents, 5.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Camperdown, E.

Morley, E.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor)

Carrington, E.

Northbrook, E.

Wolverhampton, V.(L. President.)

Cawdor, E.

Plymouth, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Craven, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry,)

Northumberland, D.

Cromer, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Darnley, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Dartrey, E.

Cross, V.

Bath, M.

Ducie, E.

Falkland, V.

Camden, M.

Halsbury, E.

Falmouth, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Mayo, E.

Halifax, V.

Hardinge, V.

Clonbrock, L.

James, L.

Hill, V.

Coebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Killanin, L.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

St. David's, L. Bp.

Digby, L.

Lawrence, L.

Dunboyne, L.

Lucas, L.

Alverstone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Muskerry, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Eversley, L.

Newlands, L.

Barrymore, L.

Granard, L. [E. Granard.]

Newton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Haversham, L.

Pentland, L.

Herschell, L.

Sanderson, L.

Clinton, L.

Hindlip, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Selby, V.

Courtney of Penwith, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Armitstead, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday, the 20 th instant.

PUBLIC-HOUSES IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, it is only about half a year ago that I had the honour of presenting to your Lordships a Bill almost in similar form to that which I present to-day. Therefore it is not necessary for me to go at length into the reasons for reintroducing the Bill, or to explain why in my opinion there is necessity for it. Moreover, in the course of the last debate your Lordships were for the most part in agreement with the objects of the Bill, though disapproval was expressed in some quarters of the machinery in the Bill. In the country generally there is, as far as I can gather, a desire for legislation on these lines, and the only opponents are the extreme teetotal people and those whose minds are so imbued with the idea that a public-house can only be a gin palace or drinking shop that they cannot conceive of a public-house run on modern lines.
There is one difference in the Bill as now presented, and it has been made to meet the criticism that if you remove the discretion of the magistrates in regard to alterations and improvements in the structure and general conditions of public-houses, these alterations might take the form of facilitating an increase in the sale of intoxicants. Certainly that was not
228
my object in introducing the Bill, and therefore I have tried to meet this criticism by putting in the proviso which appears at the-end of Clause 1—
"Provided always that no alteration in the premises or fittings, the chief effect of which would be, in the opinion of the licensing justices, to increase the consumption of intoxicating liquors only, shall be deemed to come within the provisions of this section: Provided also that in case of refusal to sanction alterations on the last-named ground an appeal shall lie to quarter sessions."
I hope that will satisfy those who were critics of the Bill as it originally stood.
There was another objection raised last year. The Lord Chancellor objected very strongly to games and music being allowed, stating that that would practically amount to setting up a music-hall in connection with every public-house. I had no desire to see that. What I meant was automatic music. The same with games. I would only allow games in which the customers of the public-house would be the absolute participants. I have no desire to see a music-hall as an ordinary accompaniment of a public-house, and I would be glad to accept any Amendment which would meet the noble and learned Lord's objection. That it is desirable to have places for the recreation of the public is freely admitted, even by such a strenuous advocate of temperance as Sir Thomas Whittaker. In a document which he presented, and which was embodied in the Report of the Royal Commission that sat under the presidency of Viscount Peel, Sir Thomas Whittaker said—
"Places where persons may meet indoors for recreation and social intercourse are a necessity of our modern life."

229
He went on to disclose his plan of meeting this want by further fining existing public-houses so that the community could, at the expense of the public-houses, provide institutes or halls for public recreation. At page 154 of their Report the Royal Commission say—
"It is not, of course, to be inferred that, even if it were possible, people should be prohibited from hearing music or dancing to it, or should be precluded when doing so from obtaining refreshments."
My Bill does not go nearly so far as that, because I expressly exclude dancing. At page 127 the Royal Commission say—
"Public-houses should, is our opinion, be as open as possible to supervision, both from the inside and the outside, and this in the common interest both of licence-holders and of the public."
That is the sole object of my Bill—namely, that public-houses should be more open, not only to police supervision, but the supervision which would be brought about by respectable people being encouraged to use public-houses for social and pleasurable intercourse.
If this Bill were allowed to pass, I do not suppose that there would be a great revolution in the character of public-houses. It is not intended to represent that all licensing authorities are so very narrow-minded in their views. It is chiefly in the large towns, and, perhaps, in London, where they are found largely to hamper improvements in public-houses. These improvements could only be effected at great expense, and therefore it would be a longtime before any large scheme of reform would be carried out throughout the length and breadth of the land. The movement has already taken root through the Public-house Trusts, and only this afternoon before coming down to the House I was told by Mr. Adeane, who is connected with one of these Trusts in Cambridgeshire, how remarkable had been the effect of the improvement in the Trust public-houses. Their object had been to raise the tone of public-houses and render them more open to respectable people, and this had been attended with such success that where any of these improved public-houses were situated the ordinary public-house had to, if possible, follow suit, as otherwise the competition was too severe.
Your Lordships know what, in olden days, was the usual custom in regard to
230
canteens. Now at Aldershot there are large commodious rooms; and by the provision of healthy recreation and other means of enjoyment every encouragement is given to soldiers to frequent them. All that I seek to do by my Bill is to try to improve the conditions now prevailing throughout the country, and I am quite prepared to accept any Amendments so long as they do not injure the principle of the Bill. I think that with the wealth of legal talent we possess in this House, it should be quite possible to pass a Bill which would prevent arbitrary authorities from stopping improvements which would benefit the people and at the same time would not offer greater facilities for the consumption of intoxicants. We know what an improvement has taken place in the structure of ordinary shops throughout the country. Many of your Lordships will remember, as I can, that in former days we saw hung outside butchers' shops carcases covered with flies, against which the people jostled. Now these carcases are housed in tiled shops, with cold water running down to keep the atmosphere cool. Why should not our fellow citizens who frequent public-houses be allowed to enjoy social and pleasurable intercourse in modern and decent surroundings?
I should like to read, as very apposite, a newspaper cutting which I happened by chance to see apropos of the development now taking place la Scotland in the running of steamers on the Clyde on the Sabbath. The writer draws a contrast between the customs that prevailed fifty years ago and those prevailing now, and goes on to say—
"The moral, of course, is: make a thing reasonable and above board, and it is not intrinsically evil, the harm in it will evaporate—a maxim which some people regret was not applied to our national drinking customs."
That puts the whole object of my Bill, the Second Reading of which I now beg to move, and I trust that your Lordships will allow the Motion to be carried.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lamington.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the difficulty which I felt last year in supporting the noble Lord has not been removed by the change he has introduced into the Bill. The noble

231
Lord, I am quite sure, desires to see established something better than the horrid gin palaces that we see in the streets of great cities. I have not the least doubt that his object is to provide something more wholesome, and, if I might say so, more decent, and there is no doubt at all that the habits of the people on the Continent in regard to refreshment houses and cafés afford a very pleasing contrast to the condition of things in our centres of population. How far that is due to the habits of the people, to the difference of climate, or the difference of liquor I do not pretend to say; but it would be a very good thing if a system of open places of refreshment and entertainment were substituted for what we have in this country. I think everybody would agree with that. But the noble, Lord appeared to think that we are precluded from having that now. There never was a greater mistake. I agree that it is practically prevented by the impossibility of getting the land in towns and cities; but it is not prevented by law. The magistrates in each locality have a perfect right to grant this permission if they think it right to do so. It rests with the discretion of the justices in the locality. What the noble Lord wishes to do is to prevent it remaining in the discretion of the justices, and to impose upon them by Act of Parliament the obligation of allowing these things whether they approve of them or not. That is the sting of the Bill of the noble Lord.
Let us see how Clause I deals with the subject. It enumerates five classes of structural alterations, most of them very attractive. The first four are—

(a) The provision of accommodation for the supply of food or light refreshments;

(b) The making of such premises, or any part thereof, more open, airy, commodious, or comfortable;

(c) The improvement or enlargement of the sanitary accommodation;

(d) The substitution of the provision of chairs and tables either wholly or partly in lieu of existing bar accommodation.

Excellent! But the really serious part of these proposals is the fifth, which provides that the licensing justices shall not be at liberty to prevent—for that is what it conies to—

(e) The provision of games, newspapers, music, or gardens, or any other means of reasonable recreation.

232
Let me apply that to any of the public-houses you see in the streets of London. They are to be at liberty to have just what music they like.
LORD LAMINGTON: No; I said automatic.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The proviso at the end of the clause would enact that the discretion of the justices is to be overruled; they are not to be allowed, in exercising their powers as to granting permission for alterations, to interfere with the provision of games, music, and so forth. Are you prepared to say that, whatever the justices may think is right or wrong, they should be obliged to give the facilities specified in every public-house, regardless of the question whether the result is likely to be beneficial or mischievous? The proper course seems to me to be to respect the discretion of the people possessing local knowledge. It is not possible to lay down a hard-and-fast rule. What may be good in a country place may be injurious in a large city. The proviso to which I referred a moment ago runs—
"Provided always that no alteration in the premises or fittings the chief effect of which would be, in the opinion of the licensing justices, to increase the consumption of intoxicating liquors only, shall be deemed to come within the provisions of this section."
If there is something else they are to be deprived of their discretion. I believe the noble Lord has a good object at heart, and therefore I do not like to seem to oppose his proposals. I believe he wants what many of us would be very glad to see, but I do not believe it is right or reasonable to try and effect the object—however good one may think it—by means which are impracticable, namely, by depriving the justices on the spot of the right to exercise their own discretion, and imposing upon them a cast-iron rule that they should not refuse these things whether they think them in the interest of the public or not. I prefer to leave discretion to the people on the spot.
TRE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who introduced this Bill was only stating what is notoriously the case when he said that there was a widespread desire for legislation upon these lines, and I am sure that that desire is widespread not only out of doors but in

233
this House. Those who followed out the long discussions on the Licensing Bill last year must remember how, throughout those discussions, a desire was expressed again and again that something should be done to deal with this part of the temperance question—that something should be done to make the places in which intoxicating liquors are sold less of the character of mere drinking shops and more of the character of places in which people can obtain reasonable recreation, social intercourse, and harmless refreshments.
My noble friend has made in this Bill an honest and sincere effort to bring about a change of this kind. I certainly came here fully inclined to support him. I should have supported him last year if it had not been for two things—first, that other legislation dealing with the question of the consumption of liquor was imminent; and, secondly, that on that occasion also the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out to us that there were technical difficulties, or I would say, perhaps, more than technical difficulties, in the particular proposals which my noble friend then submitted to the House. I am, I confess, discouraged by the statement which has just been made by the noble and learned Lord. I am not going to be so presumptuous as to question his statement with regard to the present condition of the law; but, quite apart from the present condition of the law, is it not notorious that the practice of the magistrates has been to discourage, or, at any rate, to give no facilities for, alterations in public-house premises designed to bring about the kind of improved conditions which my noble friend desires to promote? I make the suggestion with very great deference, but feeling as we do so strongly on the subject of the intentions which are expressed in this Bill, is this not a case where the House might safely give a Second Reading to the Bill with the reservation that when we get into Committee we should consider whether we could not overcome some of these difficulties—real difficulties, no doubt—to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has pointed. That is the only suggestion which I have to make, and I lay it humbly before your Lordships.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I had rather hoped to have heard a somewhat fuller
234
exposition on the part of the noble Lord and of those who agree with him of the way in which this Bill would work out in Practice. I join to the full in the tribute which has been paid to the noble Lord for the interest he has taken in the matter, and for the way in which he has put the case, in its elements at least, before us. I am certain that the more this subject and subjects kindred to it are ventilated the better. People should be encouraged to take every opportunity of making experiments and trying different modes of improving, by indirect as well as by direct legislative means, the condition of the liquor trade both as regards the sale and the consumption of intoxicants.
But I cannot help drawing a somewhat clear distinction in my own mind between the admirable object of the noble Lord and others who support the Bill and the practical effect which the Bill would have in face of the conditions in which it would be applied to-day. I am entirely with the noble Lord in his object. I do not think he would accuse me of being one of those who would take exception to legislation of this kind on narrow and bigoted lines, or on the ground that it is going to improve the condition of these places. Quite the contrary. I have been a promoter of the Public-house Trust, and if I had thought this Bill was going to effect the purpose which those of us had in view in promoting the Public-house Trust I would say, "By all means let the matter go forward." But the more I look at it the more difficult I feel it to say that.
I do not think that for what it is proposed to effect by the Bill legislation is really required, or if it be, I believe the practical results would be different from the aim which the noble Lord has at heart. Does experience show that magistrates are to any great extent trying to prevent the establishment of the kind of public-houses which are under discussion? I do not say it may not have happened in a solitary instance here and there, but to say that magistrates generally are trying to prevent this kind of improvement in public-houses—
LORD LAMINGTON: I did not say generally, but in certain places.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: There may be some particular cases in which the magistrates, actuated by arguments not fully before the House, have refused facilities; but I have not found in a considerable range of inquiry, that ordinary experience shows that the licensing magistrates have been trying to use their power to prevent the kind of change in public-houses which the noble Lord wishes to promote. I am afraid the absence of such change has been due to a totally different cause—namely, a belief that it paid better to conduct public-houses on the old lines. If the magistrates were deprived of the discretion they now have in respect to the substitution of chairs and tables for bar accommodation and the provision of means of recreation, I doubt very much whether the effect would really be in the direction which the noble Lord desires. As to the provision of accommodation for the supply of food or light refreshments, the making of public-house premises more open, airy, commodious or comfortable, and the improvement or enlargement of the sanitary accommodation—I can only say that if magistrates have refused permission for such improvements on the grounds stated by the noble Lord I have not come across such cases.
LORD LAMINGTON: I could give you cases.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I, of course, accept the noble Lord's assurance, but I am sure the cases must be few and far between. And when we come to the other proposals referred to it is obvious, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out, that large and difficult questions are raised. They are matters which in practice call for the utmost caution, though I am by no means prepared to say that it would be undesirable that something of that kind should be permitted. I believe that substantially there is no practical legal difficulty to-day in going far in the direction desired, where people are really prepared to make the experiment. It is because I do not think that the result wished for would be produced by the Bill that I find it exceedingly difficult to see what would be gained by giving it a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I confess that I welcomed one of the observations made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—namely, that you should not lay down hard-and-fast lines, but leave a great deal to discretion. That is quite true. But I think the error that has been committed, and which this Bill is intended to remedy, is an error which has arisen through the practice of the magistrates. My noble friend behind me, on the last occasion that this Bill was before the House, quoted the observation of a magistrate when told that a certain proposal would improve the state of the public-houses in his district. He said—
"We do not want to improve them. We want to improve them out of existence altogether."
That, as I understand, is not the policy which the most rev. Primate himself advocates. I fully believe it, and if the most rev. Primate were himself a magistrate deciding this question I should leave it with absolute confidence in his hands.
But, unfortunately, there has been for a considerable period an effort to make public-houses disagreeable, and it has been avowed. I do not think that is within the proper discretion of the magistrates at all; and although I give them credit for having done what they did with every desire for the benefit of the State, yet I think they have proceeded upon the theory that they have a right to establish a policy, and I do not think they have that right. They have to exercise the jurisdiction given them by law, and that does not exist in making things disagreeable, but in providing proper accommodation for the public. The difficulty is that people will have these accommodations, and the result of the, as I think, unfortunate policy of the justices has often been to establish the club in the place of the public-house. The club is not under any supervision or jurisdiction of the magistrates, and the result of that has been to establish a large number of clubs which are by no means useful to the neighbourhood or likely to promote temperance. The effort of my noble friend behind me is to get rid of that, to get rid of the idea that persons in the lower class of life should not have places to which they can invite their friends and in which they can enjoy social intercourse and games. The

237
only way to accomplish this is to allow a reasonable discretion in regard to the provision of such music, games and so forth as may be appropriate. But that cannot be brought about unless in some way the Legislature points out to the justices that they are not there to establish any theory of their own but to administer the law as it stands. Though I believe the magistrates have on the whole done their duty faithfully and earnestly for the public good, they have from time to time entertained the idea that they are going by their policy to improve the temperance of the people. I do not believe they will.
As to the question whether the multiplication of public-houses increases drinking, that has been negatived by statistics. I cannot help feeling that it would be a great advantage, particularly in country districts, to have some place in which the people could amuse themselves. I presided at a meeting on that subject, and read a letter from Lord Roberts, who, speaking from his own experience of the canteens in India, testified to the admirable improvement that had taken place since the introduction of very much the same thing as the noble Lord behind me desires to introduce into the public-houses in this country. If it is a natural and reasonable want the people will have it, and if you do not afford it to them in public-houses, which are subject to supervision, there will be set up clubs subject to no supervision.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to make one suggestion to the noble Lord who has brought in this excellent Bill by which, I think, he could easily get over the difficulties that have been propounded. It is clear, after the declaration by the Lord Chancellor and by the noble and learned Earl who has just addressed us, that no Bill will pass with their assent which in any way hampers the discretion of the justices. I think the general feeling of the House is in favour of the changes which have been adumbrated by Lord Halsbury. The whole House is in favour of doing something, if possible, which would not interfere with the magistrates but improve the public-houses. I think the Bill is an excellent Bill, as it aims at turning public-houses into cafés, such as exist in Vienna and Paris, where working-men and their wives and families can go and spend a pleasant evening with amusement. I
238
venture to suggest that if, in the clause stating that in exercising their powers magistrates should not do so in such manner as to interfere with certain facilities and improvements, the words "not do so in such manner as to interfere with" were omitted and replaced by the words "have regard to" the objection raised by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would he removed, and the way would be paved in a tentative manner for the justices taking the hint given by the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know what view my noble friend behind me takes of the valuable suggestion which has just been made, but it must be clear to your Lordships that the proposal made by Lord Haversham is well worth consideration and that we shall not be able to consider it at all unless we accord a Second Reading to the Bill. Therefore, it seems conclusive that we ought to read the Bill a second time. I do not, without further consideration, desire to commit myself to the precise method which the noble Lord has suggested. It is evident that more than one method might be proposed by which Parliament could place upon record its view that in the general case those facilities should be accorded. Some provision may have to be inserted that the discretion of the magistrates is to be preserved in the last resort and in special cases, but that as a general rule the object of my noble friend behind me should be carried out. All this shows that the Bill should be read a second time, and we on this Bench hope your Lordships will consent to the Motion.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think every member of the House wishes to attain the object of the noble Lord, but the question is, Will his Bill really effect his purpose? What the Bill practically means is to take away the powers of the justices as they at present exist, because it is said, though it has not been proved, that in some cases those powers have been abused, and the justices have made the public-houses disagreeable. We on this side would not in any way attempt to oppose the suggestion which has just been made by the noble Marquess opposite, and we are content to have made our protest against the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall occupy but a short space of time in stating to your Lordships what has to be stated in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The greater part of the Bill consists of clauses which have already received the assent of this House on more than one occasion, and most of them have been borrowed from the proposals of the noble and learned Earl who was my predecessor on the Woolsack. But in the Bill this year there is a proposal which requires a little notice.
It is proposed that in regard to County Courts the jurisdiction shall be without limit subject to two important limitations. One is that a class of cases which has always been considered unsuitable for trial in County Courts, is excepted, and the other is that, though a plaintiff may begin his action in the County Court for any sum of money, the defendant is at liberty, by a very simple process, to require that the case shall be tried in the High Court of Justice as now. The effect is that, if both parties to an action agree, any case, with certain few exceptions, can be tried in a County Court.
The proposal of the Bill in this respect has its immediate genesis in the Report of the Committee presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell, to whom I have to express my gratitude and to whom I believe the public at large is indebted very greatly for the trouble and wisdom with which the inquiry was conducted. But although the immediate genesis of this Bill is to be found in the Report to which I have referred, it must not be supposed that the Bill has not an earlier history. It will illustrate the rapidity with which we approach law reform in this country when I tell your Lordships that this proposal was made by a Royal Commission forty years ago, and a Bill substantially on the lines of that now presented was brought in thirty years ago by no less a man than Lord Cairns, but it was laid aside I do not know for what reason.
240
Upon two subjects involved in the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of County Courts I have designedly not touched in the present Bill. The first is the right of audience by advocates. As your Lordships know, in the County Courts a solicitor can be heard as an advocate, while in the High Court members of the Bar alone have a right of audience. I will not enter upon that subject beyond saying that I entirely agree with what is said in this report by my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell as to the great importance of having a strong Bar in this country. I believe it is a great protection to the innocent, and a great protection also against any encroachment by Judges, if any be designed, upon the public liberties. Although the Bill does not touch upon the subject, I need hardly say that if the Bar and the Law Society, the two branches of the legal profession, agree upon any proposal which would be in the public interest, I would be happy to give it consideration.
Another point requiring notice is that in the Report of Lord Gorell's Committee there were reasoned proposals concerning the extension of jurisdiction in divorce. That is a subject of great importance, and I anticipate that an interesting debate will arise upon the Motion of which Lord Gorell has given notice concerning it. But while agreeing with the proposals which Lord Gorell makes, I know well the nature of the controversy that is likely to arise, and in my opinion it would fatally impede this Bill to introduce those proposals into it. The conditional extension of the jurisdiction of County Courts will, I believe, be welcomed, and certainly it cannot be regarded as a rash arrangement when it is remembered that it had the support of Lord Cairns. It seems possible that it will be a great boon in many cases, and that many people will be likely to have recourse to County Courts to obtain a settlement of their differences. I cherish the hope that the Bill will be passed by both Houses of Parliament without any real difficulty.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I should like, having been Chairman of the Committee to which the Lord Chancellor referred and with regard to the work in

241
connection with which he has expressed himself in a very kind way, to say a few words as to some of the points which, I think, deserve consideration in this Bill. There are some matters of omission and some which are inserted which will, I think, give rise to considerable questions. The first one on which I wish to say a word is the extension of jurisdiction in divorce. It formed the subject of very careful inquiry before the Committee over which I had the honour of presiding, but it was felt, in dealing with a Bill which was concerned chiefly with the jurisdiction of County Courts in matters which had been frequently the subject of discussion and which had been very fully considered from time to time, that its introduction into such a Bill was inadvisable, and that it was desirable that it should be left to be dealt with entirely separately. Having that Report behind me, I ventured to put down the Motion which stands in my name for next week, and that is the time at which anything that is worthy of being said by myself on this subject will be brought before your Lordships.
There is one other matter of omission from this Bill—a Bill which, in substance, deals with all the points with which the Committee's Report was concerned, except the extension of jurisdiction in divorce. I wish to draw attention to this because I think it has a very great bearing upon matters which affect the amount of business that can be done in the County Courts. It is that this Bill omits to deal with the question of the committal of persons who have the misfortune to be unable to pay their debts. The reason why the Committee over which I presided did not touch that matter was that another Committee was dealing with it, and with that Committee sitting we felt that it was not within our powers and not desirable that we should touch the question of committal. I think there is a general opinion that the extent of the business of the County Courts, and with that, of course, the amount of work which the Judges can do and might be expected to do, depends very largely on whether the ultimate result is to retain the power to commit or not. If that were not retained, I have been given to understand that a very large portion of the business of the County Courts might find itself at an end; and that, of course, would affect questions which deal with the distribution of County Court Judges' work
242
and the power that they would have to do increased work under the extended jurisdiction proposed in this Bill.
The Bill itself appears to deal with three sets of matters. The latter clauses are mainly concerned with questions which, understand, have already been before this House and have met with approval here, and there really is practically nothing new to say with regard to them. Most of the other part of the Bill deals with matters about which there practically can be no controversy. They are amendments of the procedure in County Courts, amendments of the mode of dealing with its business, and certain increased powers, all of which facilitate the working of the County Courts in the disposal of their business. But Clause 1 of the Bill does introduce an entirely new state of things. It extends the jurisdiction of the County Court to an unlimited amount in all Common Law cases, but gives the power to the defendant to remove a case which exceeds the present limits of the jurisdiction of the County Court to the High Court if he so desires. I wish to make a few observations about that part of the Bill.
The Committee who reported upon this matter had a difference of opinion upon a very vital point in connection with the extension of the jurisdiction. The Committee, if I remember rightly, was more or less evenly divided on this subject, and I wish that the House should understand exactly what that division amounted to and the points to which it gave rise in connection with this subject. The Committee came to the conclusion that there had been a very considerable decline of business in the various branches of work done by the High Court throughout the country on Circuit, and that there had arisen dissatisfaction in the different parts of the country visited by the Circuits because it was considered that the arrangements made for the disposal of Common Law cases throughout the country were not at present up to date. I do not propose to specify at length any of the cases which have led to that dissatisfaction. They are to be found set out in the Report which has been laid before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and circulated to your Lordships. The substance of them is that, with the present-day length of cases, with the heavy work and additional duties which have to be performed by

243
the Judges, it is difficult to give sufficient time on Circuit to dispose properly of the business without hurry and inconvenience. The conclusion the Committee came to was that the Circuit system should be remodelled so as to concentrate the Civil work in centres, and that more time should be allowed and more convenient arrangements made for the disposal of business.
The reason why I draw attention to that is this, that if the state of things is such that people are not able to have their cases satisfactorily disposed of at the Assizes, the extension of the jurisdiction in the way the Bill proposes will naturally tend to drive into the County Courts a quantity of business which, in the view of those with whom I sided on the Committee, ought to be dealt with by the High Court. I might be permitted to read two sentences from the Report, which will explain the difference of opinion that arose—
"We are strongly of opinion that the true remedy to be sought for is not by encouraging litigants to contest their cases in Courts which were not intended to deal with those cases, and must, for the reasons already given, find difficulties and be at a disadvantage in attempting to do so, but to provide that completely adequate facilities should be given by the High Court for disposing of every case which it is reasonable should be both commenced and continued in it. At the same time we have to recognise the fact that a considerable number of cases between £50 and £100 are now launched in the County Court, and a further number of over £100 are taken there by consent, and that some demand appears to exist in some quarters for a further facility to try in County Courts particular Common Law cases suitable to be tried there but exceeding the money limit triable except by written consent, and in which cases written consent is sometimes refused because it is sometimes asked for by the opponent."
The opinion of those who took the view I took on this Committee was that if the suggestions we made with regard to concentration of business on Circuit and other facilities were carried out, then the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the County Court might be accepted. But we did not wish to see extension given without those facilities at the same time being put forward—that is to say, the two improvements should go hand in hand. On the other hand, some members of the Committee took the view that they were two independent matters, that the extension of the jurisdiction of the County Court should be proceeded with entirely independent of the other matter. I wish to put that forward as a subject for con-
244
sideration on the part of His Majesty's Government, because the view, shortly put, of myself and others is that the true remedy in these matters is that the persons who wish it should have absolutely easy and facile opportunities on Circuit of disposing of their cases in the High Court, and that they should not be forced, if they should not so desire it, to go to the County Court because they had not adequate opportunities elsewhere.
I am particularly desirous that this should be brought fully forward because considerable misapprehension has existed on the subject. We were extremely desirous that the general proposals in this Report should be adopted, but that it should be a condition that those which affected the jurisdiction of the County Court should go hand in hand with the reforms suggested in the Circuit system. The Bill at present makes them entirely independent, and. I feel a difficulty in saying very much about this because your Lordships are aware that a Committee has already been appointed to consider further matters which to a certain extent appear in the Report to which I have already referred, and I should hope, if they take a view at all similar to that expressed in the Report, that any such dissatisfaction and difficulty as I have alluded to might be removed. In such a case as that there is no objection that I can see to the extension of the jurisdiction.
There is one other matter on which I would venture to say a few words. It is upon the question of audience. Upon that this Report is also in a sense silent, because it contains no recommendation regarding it. That is so because at that time it was impossible to know exactly what proposals the Government would adopt with regard to this Bill and with regard to the improvement of work on the Circuits. But the Report contains a very strong expression of opinion with regard to retaining the rights of audience in cases where the jurisdiction is to be extended. There was some difference of opinion about it, but the Report contains this paragraph—
"Notwithstanding the difficulties in our system which undoubtedly exist and for which we have been asked to suggest remedies, the fact remains that the administration of justice in Civil cases as well as in criminal is more satisfactory than in any other country in the world, and not only our own countrymen but foreigners respect it and even voluntarily resort to our tribunals. We believe

245
that this is due in great measure to the unique position of the Bar, and that any change in the jurisdiction of our superior and inferior Courts which would substantially alter that position would have very far-reaching consequences."
I would venture to suggest that, although this matter has not been dealt with in the Bill as it at present stands, after what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has said it might be open to those who take the view that it should be dealt with to move in Committee a clause dealing with the subject. I think that where the object of this extended jurisdiction is to put before the Courts which at present have not got that jurisdiction the opportunities of doing work which at present can only be done in the High Court, it might be desirable that the right of audience should be preserved as it is to the extent to which it at present exists in the High Court in such cases. But I desire to have an opportunity of suggesting what might be done on that subject when the Bill is in Committee. At this stage it seemed to me desirable to call attention to those two or three particular points, not with the object in any way of suggesting that this Bill should not be read a second time, but of indicating matters which should be fully considered when the Bill is in Committee of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I suppose no one doubts that this Bill will be read a second time, because it contains a good many valuable provisions. But undoubtedly there are one or two points which it is impossible to pass over without a protest, and when we come to the discussion in Committee the objections to them will be more properly put before your Lordships. I protest most strongly against the extension of jurisdiction. I think County Court Judges have neither the time nor the opportunity for dealing with questions of this sort, which sometimes occupy a great many days. The effect of that on the County Court, which was primarily established for the purpose of dealing with small matters, would be to exclude those small matters from its jurisdiction. I will say more upon that when we reach the Committee stage. I think the other questions to which my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell has just referred are also of very great importance and cannot be passed over when we come to deal with this matter in Committee. On the whole, I should be very sorry if the Bill were not read a second time. It is a valuable
246
Bill, and I should regret it if it were lost; but there are one or two principles in it which it will be my duty to oppose when we go into Committee.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, this Bill raises such very important questions that even at the risk of detaining your Lordships I desire to say a few words. I need not assure the Lord Chancellor that he will have my assistance in passing the larger number of the provisions of the Bill as they effect valuable improvements. With regard to the proposal that any ordinary Common Law action may be commenced in the County Court, of course if there is given an absolute right to a defendant to remove a case into the High Court, not much harm can be done, and probably it may be an experiment worth trying. No one has a greater veneration for the memory of Lord Cairns than I have, but I do not think that with regard to this particular matter we have any evidence at all of what I may call the considered and reasoned judgment of Lord Cairns, nor was it a matter of which he had from his practice any very great experience. If it is going to be supposed that by this Bill there will be a large number of actions tried in the County Courts which, under present circumstances, are heard in the King's Bench, I am satisfied they will create disaster in the work of the County Courts. In such an event the Lord Chancellor would have to face either a complete alteration in the method in which cases are heard in the County Court or a very large extension of the County Court Bench. The business has to be done either in the County Court or in the High Court. If it is to be done in the High Court you must make proper provision both in London and on Circuit, and it must not be thought that by simply allowing any action to be brought in the County Court you are getting over the difficulty of congestion which is staring you in the face.
I should also like to pay a tribute to the admirable work discharged by the Committee over which Lord Gorell presided. But there are one or two matters in this Bill which were not touched by the Report of the Committee. There is the question of the extension of the jurisdiction of the Registrar. Here, again, I think the clause requires careful consideration, though I say at once that the Lord Chancellor has wisely met one of the main objections taken to the extension of this jurisdiction. In all dis-

247
puted cases the litigant in the County Court is entitled to the judgment of the Judge. Again we get into the same difficulty. It is not by giving the Registrar additional jurisdiction that you get rid of any possible congestion of business, and that clause will require careful consideration.
The Bill provides, for the first time, power to have special sittings in the County Court for the trial of special classes of cases. That is a matter which requires careful consideration, and the provisions of the Bill will need to be closely scrutinised when we get into Committee. I hope that, even if the difficulties are found to be such that these particular clauses are not able to pass, it will by no means necessitate the loss of the Bill, but that the remainder of the clauses will be carried. This Bill provides, for the first time, that in cases of appeals between £50 and £100 the decision of the County Court Judge on a question of fact shall not be final. It says that on both questions of mixed fact and law and of fact there shall be a new right of appeal. I should be very glad to see that for many reasons, but it will involve considerable additional labour on the High Court; and if the power is largely exercised of allowing further evidence to be taken it will cause, of course, considerable extra delay in the hearing of appeals.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: What is the number of that clause?
LORD ALVERSTONE: Clause 13, subsection (1). It runs—
"In addition to the right given by section one hundred and twenty of the principal Act to appeal to the High Court against the decision of a County Court on a point of law any party to an action or matter in which the sum claimed or the amount involved exceeds fifty pounds shall have the right to appeal to the High Court against the decision of a County Court on a ground involving a question of fact alone or of mixed law and fact."
The second subsection provides that—
"In section one hundred and twenty-two of the principal Act (which relates to the powers of the High Court on hearing an appeal), after the words 'any inference of fact' there shall be inserted the words 'and where the appeal is an appeal on a ground involving a question of fact to receive further evidence upon question of fact such evidence to be either by oral examination in Court or by affidavit or by deposition taken before an examiner or commissioner.'"
I only mention these matters to show that the Bill contains many points which
248
go far beyond the subjects referred to by the Lord Chancellor as being matters on which there is universal consent, and I hope that an opportunity will be given to discuss and to consider them fully in Committee.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, it is not my intention to prolong this discussion. The Bill is one of the highest importance. It bristles with difficulties, and it is obvious that there has not been time to examine the provisions with the care they deserve. I reserve to myself full right to criticise them at length in Committee. The last topic referred to by the Lord Chief Justice—the question of appeals—is of the greatest importance. At present, as the law stands in England, there is no real right of appeal from County Courts. There never was anything more unsatisfactory than the present system of appeal from those Courts. My noble and learned friend who has just sat down pointed out that this is sought to be widened, but sought inefficiently. This is a point which will have to be fully considered in Committee. In Ireland there is a successful system whereby every suitor who is dissatisfied with the decision of a County Court Judge can appeal on the spot to a Civil Judge, and at very slight expense and in a short time the whole matter is heard and disposed of. I hope that the Bill will be read a second time and will become law after changes have been made in it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will not detain you long in replying. I will say nothing more on the subject of audience, because, as I have said, we leave the right in the County Court as it is, and if the profession could agree to something reasonable we should be prepared to consider carefully any proposals made. Allow me to point out this, that here is a proposal enabling parties, if they both agree to do so, to try their disputes in a cheap local Court. Lord Cairns supported this proposal thirty years ago, and it cannot be supposed that the scheme is going to be opposed now. It is said that it will congest the Courts and overburden the Judges; but I would point out that there are provisions in the Bill for extending the jurisdiction of the Registrar to try small cases under £5. In my belief it is essential to the public interest that people should not be prevented from settling their disputes when they are agreed that a Court cheap and handy at their doors may entertain them.

249
The only other matter I need refer to is the reference to the Circuit system. In regard to that some very valuable suggestions were made by my noble and learned friend Lord Gorell in his Report. The Lord Chief Justice and I have endeavoured, and I hope that we shall succeed, to provide that there shall not be any hurry or congestion on Circuit. I think that our proposals have already given satisfaction. I do not suggest that this Bill deals with the congestion in the King's Bench Division, though I think that it may contribute towards the lightening of the work of that Division. But that depends upon quite different considerations in regard to which there is to be an inquiry by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I am glad that this Bill is to be read a second time. I am anxious above every-
250
thing to make the administration of justice cheap, easy, and handy, so that people may approach the Court without having all the apprehensions of the expense involved in coming from, say, Cornwall or Devon up to London. We do not pretend that we are original in this scheme; on the contrary, I am only following in the footsteps of one of the greatest among my predecessors, and I hope that we shall have real sympathy in advancing this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.