Lords Sitting of 19 July 1909

Preamble
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:
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
PRESTATYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 18th day of May last, That no Private 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: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FOLKESTONE, SANDGATE, AND HYTHE TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 3a and passed.
OXFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SWINTON AND MEXBOROUGH GAS BOARD BILL.
  PONTYPRIDD WATER BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COLLOONEY, BALLINA, AND BELMULLET RAILWAYS AND PIERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS, &c., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GREAT YARMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LISBURN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
ALDERSHOT GAS AND WATER BILL.
  AMMANFORD GAS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY 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Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 30th of June last and the 6th instant discharged, and Bill committed for To-morrow.
HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY 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Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 30th of June last and the 6th instant discharged, and Bill committed for To-morrow.
NORTHALLERTON 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 3rd and 26th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
(Unopposed Orders.)
Reported, with Amendments.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
(Whitworth Urban District Council Order.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LLANELLY WATER BILL.
  GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore) be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and that the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore) be the Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
PRESTATYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Great Western Railway (General Powers) Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Prestatyn Urban District Council Bill and the London County Council (General Powers) Bill; read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM ACT, 1908.
Statutes made by the Commissioners under the University of Durham Act, 1908: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 107.)
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) FUND.
Petition 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 burgh of Aberdeen; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committees made: Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

ALIENS IN THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
LORD MUSKERRY:My Lords, I rise to call attention to the number of aliens serving in British ships, and to the national danger they would present in time of war; to ask whether any precautions have been adopted, and, if so, of what nature, in preventing alien masters or officers of British merchant ships from obtaining confidential information from British naval authorities in war-time; and to move "That in the opinion of this House it is inimical to the interests of the Empire that aliens should be permitted to command or officer British ships."
When last I introduced this question the noble Lord who opposed me remarked that it was a very favourite question of mine; he mentioned the number of times I had brought it forward, and added that on no occasion had I been successful. If I may say so, this want of success was due, not, I feel, to any want of sympathy on the part of your Lordships, but to that

581
stubborn opposition of the Board of Trade with which I am almost invariably faced. I am convinced that there is not one amongst your Lordships who does not, at least, agree with the abstract principle that no alien, especially when certain quasi-magisterial capacities are vested in him, should be allowed to command or officer a British merchant ship.
The noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade dwelt on my pertinacity in bringing forward this subject and on the vain efforts I have made. But, speaking in all humility, I would venture to submit that I have not been quite as unsuccessful as he appears to think. In the Bills which I had the honour to submit for your Lordships' consideration there was one important section framed with the object of preventing aliens from obtaining pilotage certificates for British waters. These Bills were rejected, aliens were still privileged in regard to British pilotage certificates, and, similarly, aliens still supplant Britishers in commanding and officering British ships. But the curious feature about it is that only a little later the Government themselves adopted—or, shall I say, appropriated? —my provision as to alien pilots. An exactly similar section was introduced into the Merchant Shipping Bill of 1906, and the clause limiting the granting of pilotage certificates for British waters to British subjects was carried unanimously. I have not the remotest wish to claim any personal credit for this, but I must at least submit that, in view of what has transpired, the Bill which I introduced was worthy of much more consideration than it then received.
Having themselves abolished alien pilots, I am now anxious that the Government should go a little further and deal in an equally decisive way with what is a far greater national evil. We may forbid aliens obtaining British pilotage certificates but we cannot, in the slightest degree, prevent them from making themselves familiar with everything concerning the shoals and shallows of our coasts and the lights and various navigational safeguards. But where it is a case of an alien commanding or officering a British merchant ship, then I do most earnestly contend that he is a menace to the interests of the Empire and a grave danger to the State.
It is hardly necessary for me to point out to your Lordships that it is on our
582
merchant service that this country primarily depends. For what reason I am totally unable to fathom, agriculture is very frequently described as our premier industry, but the products of the agriculture in this country would not suffice to keep us alive for two months. It is upon our merchant service and upon the food and other supplies which it brings into this country with such unfailing efficiency and regularity that we are absolutely dependent. Cut these supplies off —and it is not a process of such very great difficulty—and we would be starved into submission in no time. Your Lordships will probably agree with me that it is our merchant service which is mainly responsible for the vastness and paramountey of our Empire, and the noble Earl who represents the Colonial Office would, were he in his place, possibly agree with me that the wonderful development of British possessions abroad is due more than anything else to the work of British merchant ships, which are the lines of our trade communications throughout the world.
The source of our present Royal Navy was, as everybody knows, the merchant service. Merchant captains and officers have frequently rendered great national service to their country. Without our merchant service the war in South Africa could never have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Even the latest and one of the very finest achievements in the field of exploration has been performed by a merchant shipmaster, Lieutenant Shackleton, formerly an officer in the Union-Castle Line, and now holding a commission as a lieutenant in the Royal Naval Reserve. I merely mention these matters to illustrate of what immense importance our merchant service really is, and yet, extraordinary to say, it is the one service which Parliament and the public seem to treat the least seriously. When first I introduced this subject of alien captains, officers, and pilots, it was only necessary to say that my proposals would tamper with the principles of Free Trade to make my case hopeless. I notice that allusion to Free Trade has, of late, been carefully avoided, presumably because otherwise it would greatly strengthen my case in the eyes of some of the noble Lords on this side of the House. How letting aliens supplant our own countrymen in our merchant ships can be considered part of the principles of Free

583
Trade is a mystery to me. If it is a part of Free Trade principles, then to be logical Free Traders ought to let aliens supplant our own countrymen in the Royal Navy, the Army, the Civil Service, the Police, and other public departments, but I have not heard of their doing so yet.
I will try to state, briefly, the objections of the Board of Trade to my proposals, for it is in the Marine Department of the Board where the opposition really lies. I am, of course, assuming that the noble Earl who is to-day representing the Board intends to oppose me as usual. The first objection is that the number of alien captains and officers is very small; secondly, that they are of different nationalities, and that, in any case, we have the shipowners on our side; thirdly, we are told of the desirable qualities of aliens in regard to foreign languages; and, fourthly, there is the fear of retaliation on British captains and officers serving in ships of other countries. I hope to deal with each of these objections in turn as shortly as possible. In the first place, if the number of alien captains and officers is comparatively trivial, then the other objections raised by the Board of Trade become trivial also. For your Lordships' information I should state that, according to the latest official returns, the total number of aliens employed in British merchant ships is 37,694, or nearly twenty per cent. in proportion to Britishers. In addition to this alarming fact there are 44,604 Lascars and Asiatics serving in our merchant ships. I think the time has arrived when Asiatics should not be classified with Lascars. There is a vast difference between the two, and whilst Lascars are British subjects, Chinese are even worse than other aliens. The practice of carrying Chinese crews on British ships is now becoming a very common one, and forebodes serious results in due time.
Then, again, according to the latest returns, there are 472 alien masters and officers serving in British merchant ships. Since this return I have heard of a Japanese subject who has passed and got his certificate as captain of a vessel, so that would make 473, and there are 108 alien skippers and second hands in our fishing vessels. There are also 3,297 alien petty officers, representing over thirty-five per cent. of the petty officers serving in the ships of our mercantile marine. It is quite probable that many of these petty officers are aspiring to higher
584
positions and to obtain British Board of Trade certificates. I find also that there are eighty-one alien apprentices on British sailing ships, and ten on British steam vessels. It is almost a certainty that these apprentices will, on completion of their qualifying time, present themselves for second mate's certificates. This extract from a letter I have recently received will illustrate what I am stating—
"My son informed me yesterday that there were two Dutchmen, a Swede, a Norwegian, and an Italian up at the South Shields School for either mate or master; this is a bit rough for Englishmen, and the sooner these certificates are given to Englishmen only the better."
The actual percentage of alien captains and officers in our ships is, no doubt, small, but they number 473, and, in the interests of the Empire, this is exactly 473 too many, for reasons which I hope will prove sufficiently convincing to command the support of your Lordships.
As to the second objection, no doubt these aliens are of different nationalities, but I cannot see what difference that makes. In war-time even one alien master who is a subject of a hostile Power might do incalculable damage, as I will illustrate shortly. As to the owners being on our side, this is a. trumpery argument, for when their ships are at sea in time of war they would have no more power over them than we would, or, rather, not nearly as much. The third objection is the desirability of alien masters and officers as linguists. Such an argument is absurd in the extreme, and displays a totally inaccurate perception of the way in which our merchant ships are run. Take, for example, a vessel carrying an alien officer. The master is, obviously, not likely to transact his business through an officer, and in the case of an alien master his business is invariably conducted in the English tongue through the British Consulate and through the agents of the ship at the different ports abroad, all of whom speak English. On the last occasion we were told that at the Levantine ports, for instance, it was extremely important, in the interests of the owners, that one officer, at least, of a ship should be able to speak the different dialects. A more extraordinary suggestion I never heard of. The business of British ships at Levantine ports is always carried on in the English language, and to talk about aliens—probably Germans or Scandinavians—being more familiar than our own officers with the different dialects prevailing

585
at Levantine ports is, on the face of it, absurd.
Taking the fourth, and last, objection, retaliation is feared on British captains and officers serving in ships of other countries. The Board of Trade are really very solicitous. To this objection the reply is simple. The number of British captains and officers serving in foreign vessels is infinitesimal. They are almost all serving in American vessels, and they cannot obtain a master's licence in the States without in the first place becoming a naturalized American subject. If they choose to forswear allegiance to the English flag then they must take all the responsibilities for so doing. Your Lordships were not informed that practically all other maritime Powers confine the commanding and officering of their merchant ships to their own subjects.
Having, I hope, disposed of these objections, I now propose to turn to the national aspect of the case. When the late Lord Ritchie (then Mr. Ritchie) was President of the Board of Trade he told us that if, in war-time, the Royal Naval Reserve were called out our merchant ships would be wholly manned by aliens. We may talk about naval scares, but this is one which would stagger any but an easy-going and careless nation such as ours. We depend upon the food supplies brought us by our merchant ships. What, then, might we reasonably expect, in time of war, of such ships carrying alien captains or officers, with the whole of the crew aliens? Are they going to be loyal to the flag under which they serve or to the flag under which they were born? The answer is obvious.
I will take a further striking illustration which will show the grave dangers to which we are exposing ourselves by allowing aliens to command and officer our merchant ships. In the course of last session I addressed what, at the time, may have been construed as a very innocent question to His Majesty's Government. I asked whether any official notices had been issued to the effect that, in the event of war, certain instructions would be placed in the hands of captains of British merchant ships; and, if so, what form these instructions would take? Also, I asked at the same time whether the Admiralty had invited the captains of British merchant ships to supply information concerning the movements and doings of vessels belonging to foreign maritime Powers; and, if so,
586
whether the Admiralty would supply information as to the text of the communication containing this invitation.
The reply of my noble friend the Earl of Granard, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, was more brief and concise than it was satisfactory to me. His response was that no official notices of the character referred to had been issued by the Admiralty, and that the Admiralty at that time had no intention of issuing notices of the type suggested by me. This was on November 10, 1908. Not for one moment would I question the veracity of the noble Earl who made this reply; it was prepared for him, and I will, therefore, dispose of it so far as the noble Earl is concerned. But I have a little more to say about those who framed this reply, and I must once again protest against the evasive way in which matters that I take the liberty to bring to the notice of your Lordships are sometimes replied to. I do not intrude upon your time without in the first place making myself familiar with the questions I bring to your notice. From His Majesty's Government we have had practically a denial of any confidential matter being entrusted to the captains of British merchant ships in time of war. Let me tell your Lordships that it is far the reverse. To show you whether the observations of merchant shipmasters, even in time of peace, are considered of some value, I may say that I have in my hand a copy of a letter which, at the instigation of the Admiralty, has been addressed by Lloyd's to the shipowners of this country. It is dated April 2, 1908, and reads as follows:—
"Dear Sir,—I beg to inform you that a book entitled 'Block Sketches of War Vessels' has been prepared at the Admiralty for use in the mercantile marine in order to enable the masters and officers of merchant vessels in peace time to practise themselves in recognising war vessels at sea, and reporting them, when possible, to naval authorities.
"The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are desirous of securing the co-operation of shipowners in this object, and the Committee of Lloyd's have been asked to assist in the distribution to shipowners of copies of the book in question and to invite shipowners to instruct their captains to report, as far as is practicable, to the naval authorities the movements of any warships which may be observed during their voyages.
"In anticipation that you will be quite willing to assist the important object that the Admiralty have in view, I am forwarding under separate cover a sufficient number of copies of the block sketches for distribution to the captains of the principal vessels of your fleet.
"It is desired that the captains of the vessels to whom the copies are supplied should be invited to

587
report the movements of war vessels observed, either—

1. By signal to any of His Majesty's ships passed on the high seas;

2. To the naval intelligence officers at Gibraltar, Malta, Colombo, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the assistant paymaster in charge at Bombay;

3. To the boarding naval officer at ports where vessels are boarded by British officers; or

4. If not already reported through any of the above channels, on arrival at the terminal port of the voyage, where no intelligence officer is stationed, to the Commander-in-Chief or Senior Naval Officer of the Station in which that terminal port is situated.

"The report in this case should be sent by post if the Commander-in-Chief or Senior Officer is not at the port.
"It would be preferred that any information of this description supplied to the naval authorities should be furnished by the captains of your vessels on plain paper, not on the printed Lloyd's forms which are issued for the purpose of reporting on merchant vessels spoken at sea."
My Lords, I should be the last to bring forward a letter of this character had I received a satisfactory response to my inquiry, but I am not to be put off by evasion, and I want to know whether, in view of this letter, the Admiralty attach no importance to the masters of merchant ships in reporting matters affecting our national welfare and safety. What is likely to be the result if a letter such as I have read falls into the hands of an alien master of one of our ships, which it will be sure to do?
If I remember rightly, the Prime Minister not long ago said that he did not include the United States in calculating the two-Power standard. Let me give you a little incident which has been brought to my notice which shows not only what may be thought by the Americans of the new book of Block Sketches of Men of War which has been put into the hands of merchant shipmasters, but the way it may be looked upon by other maritime Powers. I have a letter in my hand written by a member of the merchant service who draws my attention to the letter from Lloyd's which I have read. He states that the first copy was sent to his ship at New York and was confiscated and destroyed by the American Government officials. I offer no commentary on this incident, but leave your Lordships to draw your own conclusions.
I have not done with this phase of the situation yet. In view of the reply I received last session I should like to point to the notices which have been issued
588
as to the desirability of the interchanging of signals as much as possible between merchant ships and His Majesty's ships. But the gravest question of all which I ask is how the Admiralty reconcile their reply to me last year with the general notice to mariners which has been issued by the Board of Trade for some time? This is a notice stating that, in the event of relations becoming strained between this country and any naval Power, an examination service may come into force at the different ports or localities in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's possessions abroad. Masters are warned that before attempting to enter any of these ports they must, in their own interests, strictly obey all instructions given to them by the vessels which will be charged with the duty of examining ships desiring to enter the ports and allotting positions in which the ships shall anchor. The institution of an examination service at any port will never be publicly advertised, but at all times when the relations of Great Britain with foreign Powers are known to be in a state of tension especial care should be taken, in approaching the ports by day or by night, to keep a sharp look-out for the examination steamer, and to be ready to "bring to" at once when hailed by her or warned by the firing of a gun. The notice in itself is very comprehensive and minute, but what I have read of it will be enough to enable your Lordships to understand the nature of it.
I understand that the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, representing the British captains and officers of the service, state that they have received no satisfactory reply whatever to their inquiry addressed to the Admiralty as to an alien master of one of our ships being given information of the strictly confidential description in the official notice. To give this information away to one single alien might be the means of inflicting incalculable mischief upon ourselves, and I venture to say that no reply can prove to the contrary. Again, I would ask what encouragement we are giving to our loyal and patriotic subjects in the merchant service when we allow aliens to dominate over them in our ships. Is this calculated to in any way remove the stain on our Red Ensign caused by the alarming number of aliens serving under it? From this point of view alone I would urge that my Motion is worthy of your Lordships' support. But I do not rely

589
upon this so much as I do upon the urgent question of alien masters and officers being of the most serious danger to the State and to the Empire, for the preservation of which this country is chiefly responsible. And remember, my Lords, each of these aliens is taking up the place of one of our own countrymen who would be of the greatest value in any time of trouble, while the alien will always be a danger.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is inimical to the interests of the Empire that aliens should be permitted to command or officer British ships. —(Lord Muskerry.)
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, in replying to the noble Lord to-day in the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, who represents the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House, I am at a disadvantage owing to the fact that the Papers have only just been placed in my hands. The subject which the noble Lord has raised has been before a number of Committees; and the Committee on the Supply and Training of Boy Seamen, which reported in 1907, stated that—
"the employment of a large number of foreigners on vessels trading exclusively abroad or opening an agreement at a foreign port cannot well be avoided. As an example we may give the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, who alone employ 1,100 foreigners on board their vessels trading on the west coast of South America. Many vessels so employed in distant parts of the world only return to the United Kingdom at long intervals for overhaul and refit."
The Committee, in a subsequent paragraph, said—
"Therefore we are led to the conclusion that…a large proportion of the foreigners serving in British vessels must be regarded as a constant element in the mercantile marine."
The actual numbers employed as stated by the noble Lord were, I think, approximately correct. From the return of the seamen employed in British merchant vessels on April 4, 1906, it appears that 201,408 seamen were so employed, of whom 128,077 were British, 38,425 were Lascars, and 34,906 were foreigners. Thus more than half of the alien element is represented by Lascars, who are very largely British subjects. Your Lordships must also remember that nearly one-third of the foreigners—10,100 out of 34,906—are drawn from the
590
three countries of Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and without undue confidence it may be stated that these are not countries with which we are likely to have unfriendly relations.
My noble friend went on to ridicule a remark I made some time ago with regard to the Levantine trade. He declared that all the trading there was done in the English language, and that consequently there was no reason whatever why British captains should not be employed on those ships. The information at my disposal is quite to the contrary. I am informed that any company trading entirely in the Levant and in the Mediterranean considers it absolutely necessary, simply as a business proposition, to have some foreign officers for dealing with the different traders in those parts. The British merchant service is a trade that fluctuates considerably in accordance with the prosperity or depression of the trade of the world as a whole. Thus The Times, in its annual review of trade last January, calculated that 1,250,000 tons of British shipping lay idle at the close of 1908. The returns from eighteen of the principal ports in the United Kingdom for the years 1907 and 1908 show that the number of men engaged in those years fell from 427,948 to 414,771. The numbers of foreigners in those totals, other than Asiatics or Africans, were 46,054 and 39,840 respectively. The fact, therefore, emerges that these foreigners formed about one-tenth of the total employed, but that they bore nearly one-half of the decrease made necessary by the year of depression in the world's trade. It would appear, therefore, that the alien may be regarded as having solved for us in some measure the problem of a reserve of labour in the mercantile marine.
The noble Lord went on to refer to the question of retaliation, and stated that, in his opinion, if we limited certificates entirely to Englishmen the retaliation which the Board of Trade feared would not really take place. As a matter of fact, it appears that neither Germany, the. Netherlands, nor Belgium has any such restriction, while Italy, Denmark, and Norway enforce it only as regards the master of a ship. No figures are available to show the number of British subjects serving as officers on foreign ships. Their number must, however, be considerable. Let me touch on the actual number of certificates granted. In the year 1905 there were 4,322 certificates granted; out

591
of that number only seventy-seven were granted to foreigners. In 1906 there were 4,565 certificates granted, of which sixty-six were given to foreigners; and, in 1908, 4,830 certificates were granted, out of which only seventy-six were granted to foreigners. Your Lordships will gather from those figures that there is no great upward tendency in regard to foreigners holding masters' certificates. We naturally regret that our merchant service is not manned entirely by people of British origin, but it must be remembered, in that connection, that we have the largest carrying trade in the world, and that it is, therefore, as all reports state, nearly impossible to man the whole of our ships entirely with Britishers.
The noble Lord proceeded to criticise the answer I gave him last year on behalf of the Admiralty. I can only say that the reply I then gave was based on the facts supplied to me by the Admiralty. I was informed that no instructions had been given of any sort or kind on that point. The letter that the noble Lord has quoted was certainly not mentioned to me at the time. The Board of Trade have written to the Admiralty asking for any observations they might have to make with regard to the Motion of my noble friend, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will read their reply. It is as follows, dated July 15, 1909—
"In reply to your letter of the 2nd instant, inquiring whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have any observations on the terms of the Motion which Lord Muskerry has announced his intention of moving in the House of Lords on the 19th instant, I am commanded by their Lordships to state, for the information of the Board of Trade, that care is taken as far as possible that confidential information from British naval authorities does not come into the possession of alien masters or officers of British merchant vessels in time of war."
Later the Admiralty say—
"It may, however, be taken as certain that naval officers will exercise great care in any communication which they make of an important character, so as to prevent it from being used in a manner contrary to the public interests."
I do not think there is anything more that I can add on these points. This matter has been discussed very fully on many different occasions, and the conclusion arrived at, both by the Board of Trade and by the Admiralty, is that the danger to which my noble friend has referred is not so real as he seems to think.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Earl need not have made any apology to your Lordships for want of preparation in the statement he has just made, for it has been, as usual from him, of a very complete and satisfactory character. But I should have been glad if he could have added one or two more figures as to the progress of the number of foreigners in our merchant service. He did, I think, tell us that, as regards masters and officers, there was no substantial increase, but he did not mention any figure as regards men. If there were to be an increase, I think your Lordships would agree that it was a matter deserving our careful attention.
As I have ventured to say to your Lordships on previous occasions, we have to weigh against one another the two aspects of this question. On the one side there is our trade and the necessity for the proper manning of our ships, and, on the other side, there is our national position and the re-action on our naval service of the personnel of the merchant service. I quite agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down that we must treat our trade and the personnel of our trade with the greatest care, and any extra weight upon the trade is so much against its prosperity and success; but I do not think we can leave out of sight the other side of the question, and my noble friend Lord Muskerry has done good service in reminding your Lordships and the country of the great importance of maintaining, as far as possible, the British character of our merchant service.
The noble Earl said just now that all of us would wish our merchant service to be entirely British manned, and I think that is true. We all regret that it should be necessary to include in the service persons who are not British subjects. I do not say that principally because of what my noble friend behind me has called the confidential character of the position of masters of merchant ships in time of war, although I do not think the matter is so unimportant, perhaps, as the noble Earl made out. There is no doubt whatever that the information to be derived from British ships in time of war would be of great value to the Admiralty. Our ships cover every sea and have an opportunity of acquiring information which is to be acquired from no other source, and

593
I suspect that the Admiralty would rely a good deal on information which reached them from the masters and officers of British ships. If that be so, I think my noble friend is justified in saying that protanto it is a matter for regret that the persons in a certain number of instances through whom this information would pass would not be British subjects but foreigners perhaps in sympathy with those with whom we were in hostile relations at the moment. I do not attribute the highest importance to the point, though I do not think it is to be treated with insignificance, as the noble Earl was, I think, inclined to treat it.
But the main point is undoubtedly that the ultimate reserve of the British Navy must lie in the sea-faring population of the country. I should like to put it to the noble Earl whether the Admiralty have ever really thought out that aspect of the question. They have a splendid body of seamen now serving in the British Navy; they have behind them a most valuable number of the Royal Naval Reserve; but in a great struggle I imagine that not only would the seamen now serving in the Navy be exhausted, but perhaps the Royal Naval Reserve as well, and we should have to fall back on what we could get from the sea-faring population of these islands. I therefore ask the noble Earl and those whom he represents whether they have thoroughly thought out what reserves we really have behind us in the case of a very great struggle. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the importance of maintaining not only the actual personnel of the Navy at the highest pitch of numbers and quality, but also to have the reserve and the ultimate reserve carefully planned out in our minds in case they should have to be called upon.
It is for these reasons that I am never inclined to treat the speeches which Lord Muskerry makes on this subject as unimportant. We are bound to keep a very careful watch on this question, and no doctrinaire ideas of what may be within the four corners of some Free Trade doctrine would ever restrain me for one moment from advocating even the most drastic measures of restriction if they were necessary to maintain the sea-faring population of this country at its present numbers, in order that when a time of necessity arose these men would be available. Therefore, I am indebted to the noble Lord for bringing the
594
question forward, although I do not suppose that on the present occasion he will think it necessary to divide the House on his Motion.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I desire to say one or two words in reply. I should like to point out that the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, run a number of steamers between Valparaiso and Panama, and as they are never off that coast they are naturally unable to get British subjects to man them, but all the officers on board those vessels are British subjects. Then there is one other aspect on which I do not think the noble Marquess touched. The noble Earl pointed out that there is an immense amount of tonnage laid up. That means the throwing out of employment of a number of captains and officers. There are no more loyal and patriotic men in the world than the captains and officers of the mercantile marine, and I ask, Is it fair that they should see their places filled by 473 aliens? As to the other point, I have been in the Mediterranean a good deal and have seen many English vessels trading there, and I do not remember one which was officered by a foreigner. But as the noble Marquess advises me not to press the Motion, I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STAFFS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing the changes which would become necessary in the staffs of the public elementary schools under the several local education authorities in England and Wales, and the cost entailed by making such changes; such Return to be prepared so as to show—

(a) The present salaries of the existing staffs, their staff value under paragraph 3 of Circular 709, and the maximum salaries payable to them;

(b) The average number on the registers for the twelve months ended 28th February last;

(c) The average attendance for the same period;

(d) The staff as re-adjusted so as to satisfy the minimum requirements of paragraphs 3, 7, and 10 of Circular 709, with the

595
salaries payable to such re-adjusted staffs—

1. At the minimum of the scale of salaries in all cases;

2. At the maximum.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON): My Lords, the Board of Education do not possess the information which is required for the Return. They could not give such a Return without calling upon the local education authorities to furnish the materials; and it is practically certain that even the local authorities could not give the information for their respective areas without undertaking a special and elaborate analysis of their records.
Therefore, as regards heads (a), (b),and (c) of the desired Return, the local authorities would probably object to be asked to furnish the mass of detailed particulars involved. There are 150,000 teachers on the staffs of public elementary schools, and consequently head (a) alone may involve as many as 300,000 entries. As regards head (d) it would not be possible to give a Return based on paragraphs 3, 7, and 10 of the Circular showing the direct immediate results of the new regulations, as paragraph 10 will not be in full operation for five years, and paragraph 6 to which the noble Earl does not refer (size of classes and suitability of staff), is in many areas the most important part of the Circular. Moreover, there is this further difficulty, that it would be useless to include those very numerous authorities who do not expect to be affected, and that, in areas where increased expenditure is anticipated, the Board could not reasonably be asked to calculate the increased expenditure, nor would local authorities be likely to accept such calculations, even if the Board could undertake the task.
The Board of Education agree with the noble Earl in thinking it desirable to have definite, and, so far as may be, accurate estimates of the increased cost directly involved in the new regulations, but the problem is not of the simple character suggested in the Motion. In the case of town schools especially it is not merely a question of improving the present staff with a view to the new scale of staff values for the existing number of scholars. Other matters must also be taken into account, such as the organisation of the school generally, the division of the scholars into classes, and the sizes of the rooms, and allowance must be
596
made for the possibility of meeting the new requirements by reorganising schools, reclassifying scholars, redistributing the available teaching staff in the schools in the area, transferring scholars to other schools, or regulating promotions and admissions. Trustworthy estimates can only be obtained when the calculations have been made and scrutinised by persons having intimate knowledge of the schools. The only practicable course is for the local authority to frame its own estimate, which can then be examined and discussed by the Board's inspectors. Estimates thus agreed to by the Board and the authority will be of greater value and give more satisfaction to both parties than calculations made on the lines suggested in the Motion.
Soon after the issue of the Circular, the Board intimated that their officials would be prepared to examine any estimates framed by local education authorities. But up to the present time only twenty-seven out of sixty-three counties, eleven out of seventy-four county boroughs, and three out of 191 non-county boroughs and urban districts have formally submitted estimates. Estimates for sixteen counties have been examined. The remainder are either under examination, or the subject of correspondence between the Board and the authority. The Board hope shortly to present the results of the examination, but except in a few areas where the standard of staffing is markedly below the average, it will be possible to bring the new regulations into operation without any really serious increase in expenditure.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh!
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: The circumstance that so few authorities have thought it necessary to frame precise estimates is in itself evidence that most of them do not anticipate that they will be much affected. The change in the system of grants embodied in this year's Code will materially assist the local authorities in adjusting the organisation of their schools to meet the requirements of the Circular. The Board of Education will at an early date lay a statement showing in a summary manner the estimated financial effect of the changes made in the Code for 1909 in pursuance of Circular 709. The statement will show the estimates made by those local education authorities who have furnished the Board with figures, and will also show the Board's estimate, arrived at

597
after discussion between their inspectors and officers of the local authorities concerned, of the initial expenditure other than expenditure on buildings involved by compliance with the new requirements. I may add that if there is any further information which the Board can furnish to the noble Earl, they will be glad to do so, especially if he would indicate to them what he would desire to have stated.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, before this discussion closes I should like to say a few words on behalf of some of the county councils who are most seriously affected by this Circular. No doubt, as the noble Viscount has said, it may be difficult to give all the details asked for in this Return without getting very full information from the county councils, but it seems to me that before a Circular of this character was issued it was the duty of the Board of Education to form at all events some sort of idea as to what cost they were going to throw on the ratepayers in consequence of this change in the practice with regard to the staffing of schools.
This Circular was issued at a singularly inopportune moment, namely, the very day after an important deputation had been received by the Prime Minister with regard to the serious increase put upon the rates by the Board of Education in the direction of medical inspection. The next day this Circular was issued, and obviously without any very correct information on the part of the Board of Education as to what its effect would be. Although the Board of Education took considerable exception to the estimates that were made by some county councils with regard to the cost, and although they state in the Code that the first estimates were the result, in varying degrees, of misunderstandings of the Circular which have since been removed, it is quite clear from the statement made the other day in the House of Commons by the President of the Board of Education that he recognises that, at least as far as counties are concerned, a very serious and heavy charge will be put upon the rates.
The noble Viscount said it must be assumed, as so few authorities took the trouble to send in estimates, that there could not be any very great cause of complaint amongst local education authorities. But what is the case? Mr. Runciman stated in the House of Commons the other day that
598
the Board had received forty-one official estimates from local education authorities, but out of that number twenty-seven came from county councils, who altogether number only sixty-three. Therefore, without being especially asked nearly half the county councils sent in estimates with regard to the more or less serious charge that would be put upon them, and I find that amongst those estimates which have been accepted by the Board of Education as formed on a proper basis, there are more than one which will put considerably more than a penny extra rate upon the particular county. In fact, the President of the Board of Education admitted himself that he found that—
"in the case of the counties the cost works out in terms of rates more heavily than in the case of county boroughs or urban districts,"
and he mentioned himself, as an instance, East Suffolk, which he said would work out at about a penny rate. I find, with regard to East Suffolk, that the calculation which is accepted by the Board of Education is that an extra charge of £3,575 per annum, to start with, will be put on the rates. A penny rate produces £2,948; therefore it is considerably more than a penny rate that is being pat on this one county. But I have particulars, which I believe have also been accepted by the Board of Education, with regard to the Lindsey division of Lincolnshire. The Board of Education recognise that the initial increase in the Lindsey division of Lincolnshire will be about £4,600 per annum. A penny rate in this division produces £4,676. There, again, there is a further penny put on the rates at a moment when there have been the greatest complaints possible of the continual charges placed on the county council.
Let me make clear the position which, on behalf of the County Councils Association, I wish to take up. I entirely accept the statement made at the beginning of Paragraph 3 of the Code, that the policy of these changes, from an educational point of view, has met with universal approval by local authorities and other bodies and persons concerned with education. Our contention is not at all that we object to the educational effect of this Circular. No doubt it will be of very great advantage to the children of the schools in the future; but we are placed in a very difficult position by the constant practice, more especially

599
of the Board of Education but of other Departments as well, of, when they find it desirable to introduce some new policy, placing the charge upon the rates. And they do it at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister for Education have declared, in perfectly clear terms, that they think the ratepayers of counties have very great cause of complaint and that they ought to be relieved of some of the rates now put upon them. I do hope that this matter will be further considered with regard to the counties.
I quite admit that in the case of a large number of authorities there is very little difficulty. Where you have very large schools close to one another there is little difficulty in rearranging the number of scholars so as to comply with the regulations in this Circular without having to make any financial charge on the borough; but that is not the case in counties, especially in large counties with a scattered population and a large number of small rural schools; and it does seem to me that, considering the very strong feeling which has been aroused lately in those counties with regard to the extra charges put upon them, some more consideration should be given to cases which entirely differ from cases of boroughs and urban councils. We are placed in a very difficult position indeed. We all admit that this scheme should be carried out, but the thing we really object to is that the charge should be put on the rates and not borne out of Imperial funds. I know it is always said, in answer to us, that it is impossible to find the money in any other way, and that the ratepayer is the sole resort. I understand that the Board of Education are going, at a very early date, to receive a deputation, particularly from the County Councils Association, who, of course, will represent the case of the councils, and I do venture to ask the noble Viscount to use what influence he can to impress upon the Board that it is only fair that more consideration should be given to these particular county authorities, and that, smarting under injustice as they are now, they should not have a further financial burden placed upon them.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps I ought to offer an apology to the noble Viscount and to the House for not having made any remarks prefatory to moving the Motion which I have placed
600
on the Paper, but I did not do so for two reasons. In the first place, I raised this question a month or two ago in your Lordships' House, and I dwelt at that time very fully upon the objections taken to Circular No. 709, which has now for all practical purposes been superseded by the Code for 1909; and, in the second place, I rather anticipated that I might have received from the noble Viscount opposite a more favourable answer to my Motion, and that much of the information for which I asked would be furnished by the Government.
The noble Viscount says that the difficulty in the way of granting the Return is the great labour which would devolve upon the local authorities concerned. Well, my Lords, I should not have put the Notice on the Paper if I had not first of all ascertained that it was not outside the bounds of the energy of a local education authority to obtain all these returns, and I think the noble Viscount will bear me out when I say that this and more than I have asked for has already been obtained by the County Council of Gloucestershire, and very likely by other of the twenty-seven county councils to which he referred. This is not a light matter at all. The noble Lord who has just spoken said that in many cases it would mean an additional penny to the rates. I venture to think that, where an additional penny is necessary to carry out the Circular of a Government Department it is not too much for the Government Department to ask the county councils concerned to prepare a return showing what, in their opinion, would be the cost in their own districts.
I venture to enter a very respectful, but, at the same time, a very serious protest against the growing practice on the part of Government Departments of putting heavy burdens upon the rates. Some time ago it was boldly enunciated that the ratepayer and the taxpayer were the same person. I am glad to think that His Majesty's Ministers admit now that the ratepayer and the taxpayer are two very different people indeed, and it certainly does not seem to me to be right or equitable, or in accordance with the principles of our constitutional government, that the representatives of one set of persons namely, the taxpayers, should put burdens on the representatives of another set of persons, namely, the ratepayers. The

601
noble Viscount has said that such information as the Board can obtain shall be laid upon the Table of the House. I do not know when that will be, and I do not quite know how soon they intend to bring into force the provisions of the Code of 1909; but I would venture to point out that this Circular was issued in a very sudden manner. It was not issued until after the county councils had prepared their estimates for this year, and I think it would be an act of justice on the part, of the Department if they could see their way to postpone the operation of this alteration in the staffing of schools until August, 1910. That would give an opportunity to county councils to include the cost in their estimates for next year, and we should really know what would be the increased cost that would have to be incurred.
There are a great many supplementary teachers now being employed in these schools, who, under the proposals of the Board of Education, will have to give place to others. So far as I am aware, in most cases these supplementary teachers have given every satisfaction, and I venture to think that another mitigation of the burden the Board is putting on the ratepayers might be found in allowing these supplementary teachers who have proved adequate to the duties they have to perform to remain so long as the local, education authority wish to retain their services. In any case, I think that before the local education authorities are called upon to go to this great expense, and before Parliament allows the Code to pass, Parliament is entitled to know what the cost will be to the local authorities concerned; and I venture to hope that the noble Viscount will urge his Department not to carry the provisions of Circular 709 into effect until Parliament has had an opportunity of judging what will be the increase of the burden that will be put on the local authorities.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I think that the answer which has been given to the noble Earl's Motion is a very striking example of the way in which Government Departments, the Board of Education in particular, are apt to carry on their business. When a Government Department is about to issue regulations which involve the spending of money, it is customary for them, first of all, to consult those whose duty it is to find the money
602
necessary to carry out those regulations; but with regard to local authorities Government Departments seem to think there is no such responsibility upon them. I should have thought that the information for which the noble Earl has asked is precisely that information which ought to have been in the hands of the Department before they issued an Order of this kind at all. When the management of elementary and other education was given to the county council we were under the impression that, being the authority that had to raise the rate, we would be consulted before the duty of raising a rate was imposed upon us; but the Board of Education now think that without the necessary information, without any information, in fact, to guide them as to the way in which their regulations will affect rating, they are in a position to issue these regulations. This is an extremely good instance of the necessity for making inquiries beforehand. In many districts it may be found that the actual staffing of the schools differs very little from what the Board desire to get at. But the county presents difficulties in the way of making these regulations applicable to some of the smaller schools in the area without involving a very considerable amount of expense. The county councils do not complain of the aim and object of the regulations. What we complain of is the way in which these regulations are issued without any consultation with those who have to raise the rate, as to the way in which the burden would fall lightest on the county and the machinery by which it would be arrived at with the least expense. We feel that as we are the authority which has to find the money we have a right to be consulted in the matter.
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: My Lords, I wish to make one or two remarks in reply. I think I may point out the impracticability of consulting all the local education authorities in the country as to what steps they would propose for raising the money necessary for improving the state of elementary education in this country. It would be opening a controversy which would, I think, be absolutely worthless, and at the same time would create a great deal of confusion and mischief. I am in entire sympathy with noble Lords opposite with reference to the unsatisfactory relations between Imperial and local taxation, and I think the sooner that grave public question is settled the

603
better. I think my colleagues in another place have not shown themselves indifferent to diminishing the burden upon local authorities, for, unless I am mistaken, proposals have been made or will be made by which a large branch of the proposed new taxation is to go to the local authorities.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: But it is still levied on real property only.
VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON: That may be an aggravation. I only wish to show that the Government are not indifferent to the unsatisfactory apportionment of public help which is given to local authorities. This is one of the questions which no Government can allow to stand over for any long period. There is constant conflict in consequence of the unfair—I do not shrink from using the word—apportionment as between local and Imperial taxation. With reference to this specific matter, my right hon. friend said in the other House last week—
"I should be one of the last to say that I thought the State was making a sufficient contribution towards the cost of elementary education, but to give a grant in respect of this reform would be deliberately unjust to the best authorities, for remember that the standard I have set up is not a fantastic standard evolved out of my head or created by educational enthusiasts, but it is a standard which is surpassed by many of the education authorities in this country."
I think the sentiments there expressed by my right hon. friend should act as an encouragement to the deputation which will wait upon him, and to which reference has been made, and I can promise, on his behalf, that he will give their representations the greatest consideration. Beyond that I have no authority to go.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am sure we all heard with approval and satisfaction the last remarks of the noble Viscount who has just sat down. As a past Minister for Education I naturally recognise the desire of the Board to improve the system of education throughout the country, but I feel that in order to attain that end they had not fully considered the extent of the expense which is placed on the local authorities. When I was at the Board of Education I was exceedingly careful to avoid any operation that might involve fresh expense to the ratepayers without having carefully considered what that expenditure would be. I cannot but sympathise with the Board in their desire to im-
604
prove the system of teaching, but I also feel that my noble friend was perfectly justified in asking the Department to find out from the local authorities what the expense would be before they made a hard and fast rule in absolute ignorance of the cost, and my noble friend Lord Belper has pointed out that the inquiry was not impossible.
LORD BELPER: Estimates have been already made in respect to a certain number of counties.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If that could be done by certain local authorities I cannot quite understand why it could not be done generally. Would it not, therefore, be well for the proposal of my noble friend who has moved this Motion to be considered, and the matter deferred till next year, or the year after, which would give time for arriving at some accurate idea of the burden which will be thrown on the shoulders of the ratepayers?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I only rise with reference to one point made by the noble Marquess who has just spoken. He asked why my noble friend behind me, the Lord President of the Council, objected to a universal return. The objection of the Department, as I take it, to a universal return is that it does not seem reasonable in a very large number of cases, where the requirements of the Code are actually exceeded, to compel those local authorities to make a return of the very elaborate nature for which the noble Earl asks. The assumption, I take it, of the Board of Education is that by now they have received a return from all those counties who consider themselves most prejudicially, or likely to be most prejudicially, affected, and I understand that a Return stating their estimate, and the criticisms of the Board of Education in cases where they do not absolutely accept that estimate, will be laid by my noble friend. I should have thought that this covered all the necessary ground. I confess I do not see why other local authorities who make no complaint, and, as a matter of fact, will not be affected at all, should be compelled to join in compiling an enormous Blue-book containing information which apparently is of no value to anybody. I am not at the Board of Education, and, therefore, am not competent to answer the noble Lord's question as to

605
whether the whole of this matter could not be postponed for a period of more than a year. Speaking without special knowledge, I think that must surely depend on the number of cases in which any grievance can be said to exist. If it is found that in the case of a large proportion of the authorities this Circular, admitted by the noble Marquess and by other noble Lords who have spoken to be in itself an educational advance, is to work smoothly and without cost, it does seem a serious misfortune that its operation should be postponed on account of a comparatively few instances, the difficulty of which it may be possible to meet in a different way, and postponed until we are able to deal with the whole question of local taxation, which, as we all know, is a gigantic subject. I was glad to hear from the noble Earl that he does not intend to press his Motion. I have merely made these few observations in order to make clear our position.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not wish to press the Motion, but no doubt the noble Earl will not complain if I ask for supplementary information after I see what is presented by the noble Viscount the Lord President.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MILK AND DAIRIES BILL.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries whether, in the event of the Milk and Dairies Bill not passing through Parliament during the present session, it is the intention of the Board to postpone the date on which the Order recently issued by them in connection with the Bill comes into force; so that the provisions contained in the Bill and in the Order may come into operation on the same date.
THE PRESIDRNT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, the noble Earl asks whether, in the event of the Milk and Dairies Bill not passing through Parliament in the present session, it is the intention of the Board to postpone the date on which the Order to which he refers comes into force. That is the intention of
606
His Majesty's Government, and the Order will be withdrawn if, unfortunately, the Bill does not pass through the other House.

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS BILL. [H.L.]
Debate on the Amendment moved by the Lord Saltoun to the Motion, that the Bill be now read 2a, viz., That the Bill be read 2a this day six months (adjourned on Thursday last under Standing Order No. XXXIII) resumed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Loan LOREBURN): My Lords, I have to inform the House that on Thursday last the question was put "that this Bill be now read a second time," and that after that an Amendment was moved to leave out the word "now" in order to insert the words "this clay six months." The question put was that the word "now" stand part of the question, when the Contents were fourteen and the Not-contents fourteen. Accordingly, under Standing Order XXXIII it was my duty to declare that no decision had been arrived at, and that the matter would stand over until the next meeting of the House. I propose now to put the question that was then put and upon which no decision was arrived at.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Might I suggest that under the Standing Order the debate goes on—it is not the adjournment of the decision that was attempted to be arrived at, but the adjournment of the debate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have expressed no opinion on that subject one way or the other. If any one desires to continue the debate well and good. I shall not call him to order. But if no one rises I propose to put the question.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I believe most of your Lordships have already spoken, but I have not. Therefore I am in order. I think the proper course would be that I should move the adjournment of the debate, and I accordingly do so.
Moved, That the debate be again adjourned.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am under a singular disadvantage, like most other

607
noble Lords who are here, in not having been present on the previous occasion. My work took me away from the House, and though I have a general idea of what occurred I was not present and did not hear the speeches that were made. Therefore if I say anything which has been said before, or which is different from what any noble Lord behind me said on the former occasion, I hope I shall be excused by the House. I understand the position is this. This is a Bill which in substance is not disapproved by the House at large. It is looked upon with a favourable eye by the Department concerned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government announced that it was only looked upon with cool approval.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess. I hope I shall have the advantage of similar corrections as I go on if I mis-state the case in any way. It is regarded, I may say, with temperate approval by the Department concerned.
LORD ASHBOURNE: The words used were "cool and correct."
THE EARL OF CREWE: And they considered that the most reasonable way to deal with it would be to send it to a Committee. Its rejection was moved by the noble Lord opposite, I understand, on the ground of a particular clause relating to Scotland.
LORD SALTOUN: My objection is that this Bill is absolutely impossible of amendment to include Scotland and Ireland. That is the reason I object to its going to a Committee. Again, the title of the Bill precludes amendment in that direction.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I should have thought that point could have been met by enlarging the reference to the Committee to some extent in order to include consideration of the subject, which is not an infrequent course. It certainly does seem to me that the course proposed is a hard one to apply to a Bill which in its main operation apparently meets with little or no opposition.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: That is not so.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps I put it too highly. At any rate it is approved by a very large number of people, and it seems hard to deem it impossible to consider the Bill merely on the absolutely subsidiary issue of a particular clause relating to Scotland. As I understand the matter, it is this. There are several bodies of accountants in Scotland who have a chartered right to practise in England. This Bill provides that on application they may be registered accountants to practise in England. Well, that hurts their amour propre. It apparently takes away something from them which they already possess. That may be so. I should think that their amour propre could be saved by their starting a register of their own and saying no English accountant should be permitted to practise in Scotland unless he asked for leave to be placed on that register. That would involve complete reciprocity between the three countries. But whether that is a feasible plan or not it certainly does seem to me to be a very strong order to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill on this very minor point. I should have thought a reasonable course would have been to have read the Bill a second time and not to have proceeded further with it this year if it be so desired, because there are, I think, very strong objections to sending any Bill even of this moderate degree of complexity to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament at this very late season of the year. I should think that a reasonable course would be to read the Bill a second time on the understanding that it would not be proceeded with further, and then for the whole matter to be brought up again in the ensuing session with a view of then sending the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
On question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned sine die accordingly.

STAGE PLAYS (CENSORSHIP).
Commons Message of Friday last considered (on Motion).
Moved, That a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with the Committee of the Commons, as mentioned in the said Message (The Lord Denman); agreed to:
The Lords following were named of the Committee:

E. Plymouth.

L. Willoughby de Broke.

L. Newton.

L. Redesdale.

L. Gorell.

Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman: Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to inform them of
610
the appointment of the said Committee by this House, and to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A. on Wednesday next at One o'clock.

TRADE BOARDS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 108).
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Ten o'clock.