Lords Sitting of 6 May 1909

PONTYPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SOUTH WESTERN AND ISLE OF WIGHT JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
INDIAN RAILWAYS (SINKING FUNDS INVESTMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDMy Lords, the Bill of which I desire to move the Second Reading to-day is virtually the same Bill which I introduced in your Lordships' House seven years ago. It is a very simple Bill, and, I venture to think, long overdue. It proposes to prohibit three highly objectionable forms of sport—the hunting, coursing, and shooting of animals which have been kept in confinement—which more and more every year are felt to be an offence to the public conscience. I am sorry to observe that a noble Lord opposite—Lord Newton—proposes to move the rejection of the measure. I sincerely hope he may be able to tell us that he will not persevere in that intention. Knowing as I do the sincerity of the noble Lord, I am a little surprised that he should set himself against this much-needed Bill, the more so because, so far as I remember from what he said on the previous occasion, his views are in no sense on the side of those sports. Therefore I wonder the more that he proposes, while he does not approve of the sports, deliberately to assume responsibility for perpetuating them.
  814
  I ask myself why it is that the noble Lord takes this paradoxical attitude. He told us on the previous occasion that he did not himself approve of any one of these three practices, but that he had some conscientious difficulty. He had the feeling, which is, perhaps, a very generous and natural feeling, that it is not more cruel to shoot a pigeon let out of a trap than it is to shoot pheasants and partridges. Again he said, I think, that there was no more cruelty in hunting a carted stag than in hunting a wild Exmoor stag. It might be said, on the same lines, that there is no more cruelty in the tearing to pieces of a poor rabbit just taken out of a crate than in hunting down a wild rabbit. I think the noble Lord has overlooked the shock which these things give to the public conscience. The public, whether rightly or wrongly, do see a difference between shooting a pigeon which is let loose from a trap and shooting a wild bird living its natural life; between the hunting of a semi-domesticated, and, perhaps, petted deer which is brought to a starting point in a cart, and hunting the deer on its native haunts; and they also regard rabbit coursing as a degrading amusement. I therefore still entertain the hope that the noble Lord may see his way to let this Bill be accepted so far as he is concerned in this House. I recognise his difficulty; but all his arguments tend, not to the rejection of the Bill, but to the strengthening of it. If the noble Lord believes that there is objectionable cruelty in the shooting of pheasants, for instance, then I say the natural tendency of his argument should lead him to add a strengthening Amendment to my Bill. It is really a plea for extending the operations of this simple Bill. I do not wish to extend its operations at this moment for various reasons.
  If the Bill is passed in its present form it will satisfy the conscience of the community generally, and will not interfere with any single one of our manly and legitimate sports. I fail to understand, therefore, why the noble Lord and those who agree with him should have this difficulty. It is due, no doubt, to a certain tenderness of conscience. They feel that there would be a certain suspicion of inconsistency if they supported this Bill and yet continued to pursue their own sports. I venture to think that any member of this House may vote for this Bill and pursue all his ordinary manly sports with regard

  815
  to wild animals with a very clear conscience. In all seriousness, I do hope your Lordships will give a favourable consideration to this Bill, for, although it is a small and modest measure, it is one which, if passed into law, would be a worthy addition to the series of beneficent Statutes which have done great credit to both Houses of Parliament. The purpose of the Bill is clearly described in the Memorandum which I have prefixed to it. It aims at the abolition of certain spurious kinds of sport, and thus at the protection of those animals which, though nominally wild, are in fact kept in confinement and released for the immediate purpose of being hunted, coursed, or shot.
  This Bill, as I have said, is only one of a series of Acts which from time to time have been demanded by the public conscience. The present Bill is, in fact, only an extension of the Wild Animals in Captivity Protection Act, 1900, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord James of Hereford, was successful in passing through your Lordships' House without opposition. I hope I may have the influential support of the noble and learned Lord on this occasion, with an equally satisfactory result. But that Act has proved to a great extent a dead letter, mainly, indeed, because of the want of the extension which is proposed in this Bill. The Cruelty to Animals Acts, 1849 and 1854, excepting one section which relates to fighting and baiting, apply exclusively to domestic animals; and the Act for the protection of Wild Animals in Captivity, 1900, does not apply to the hunting or coursing of any animal unless it has been liberated in a mutilated or injured state, in order to facilitate its capture or destruction, so that at present the animals which this Bill is intended to protect enjoy no legal protection whatever from any kind of cruelty in sport.
  I think I shall be able to show that two of these sports, at any rate, are liable to exhibitions of cruelty which shock the public conscience. In my view cock-fighting, which our forefathers abolished sixty years ago, was a manly sport compared with rabbit coursing. On the previous occasion I had in my hand a memorial in favour of the Bill—I think it would still be supported by every one who signed it—from 467 persons engaged in education at Oxford and Cambridge and in our great schools. Those who signed
  816
  this memorial comprised seventeen heads of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, fifty-three professors there, 136 college tutors and lecturers in those two Universities, and 261 headmasters of public and grammar schools. Then I have the testimony of the very influential memorial which was addressed not so long ago to the late Prime Minister. That memorial was signed by sixty-five members of the other House, and by thirty-six distinguished persons who are not in the other House. At the head of that list I find the name of Field-Marshal Viscount Wolseley, and I might mention many others well known to your Lordships. I have in my hand another memorial exactly similar, which was quite lately addressed to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; and I hope we may hear the Lord Chancellor's view on the question this afternoon.
  Then, again, I have other testimony which I think ought to be brought before your Lordships. Almost all the best of our newspapers when they allude to these sports do so with deprecation. The Field, the country gentleman's newspaper, has not a word to say on behalf of them. I have here a letter from a highly respected incumbent in Sussex bringing to my notice what happened near his own house the other day. He says that a stag with its horns cut off and with one foot hanging owing to the near foreleg having been broken, probably by wire, was worried past his gate and down the lane beyond by the Surrey stag hounds. The poor brute endeavoured to stand at bay in a garden, and then hobbled on its three legs down the lane to a stable-yard, where it was despatched by the huntsmen. My correspondent adds—
  "A more revolting case of cruelty could hardly he conceived; and, needless to say, it created no small resentment among respectable people all round who saw it."
  Another case of which I have particulars occurred the other day in Somersetshire, and is reported in the Cheddar Times under the heading "Savagery at Cheddar." It appears that a deer was imported on March 29 from the district of Surbiton. The animal, a tame semi-domesticated creature, was let loose upon the beautiful Cheddar downs on March 30 to be hunted. The deer had no chance to run far. Timid, strange, and frightened it had proceeded but a short distance when the hounds

  817
  caught it and bore it to the ground. This however—continues the newspaper account—was not the intention of the huntsmen, who called the dogs off. The deer, bleeding heavily from a torn flank, then sped away and doubled back, and finally ran into the river where the dogs soon surrounded it. The animal was, however, rescued from its terrible position, and being in a state of collapse was given whisky to revive it. Its wounds were sewn up and it was removed, to be patched up apparently for use on some other occasion. This account, as was not at all surprising, was followed by a series of letters to the newspaper from persons remonstrating against such an exhibition of degrading cruelty being possible in this country. It has been said that this account is not a true one, but I have in my hand a letter from the editor of the newspaper in which he says that in every respect it is substantially true, and that he is prepared to stand against any proceedings that may be taken with regard to it.
  I return for a moment to the sport of rabbit-coursing, which, I am bound to say, is far and away the most degrading of all. This sport is a favourite one, I am told, in certain districts; it used to be so on the commons around London, especially on Sunday mornings, but, owing to the vigilance of the police and their being able to bring it in as a public nuisance, I am told that it has lessened in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. But that is not the case in some other districts. On the Tyne it is, I am told, very popular. In South Wales it retains its popularity, and nothing, I venture to think, would be more revolting to your Lordships than some of the scenes in these rabbit-coursing competitions. I have here a letter from a retired colonel in the north of England who is a Justice of the Peace. He says that these rabbit-coursing competitions are generally got up by some low-class publicans and betting men, and are of a cruel and degrading character. He says—
  "The training of young dogs for this sport is even more cruel and revolting than the sport itself. … The rabbits are conveyed to the place of meeting very often in large crates; they remain crowded together in the crates for some hours possibly, and are taken out by the neck, dangled in front of the dogs, and then thrown out to be captured."
  I noticed in the Newcastle Chronicle the other Saturday no fewer than seven
  818
  advertisements of different meetings of this kind for the purpose of rabbit-coursing immediately around Newcastle. The prizes offered varied from £5 to £30, and at the end of some of the advertisements were the words, "plenty of rabbits." I venture to think it is high time that this kind of exhibition should cease in a civilised country like ours.
  Then, with regard to South Wales, I have exactly the same kind of testimony. A man in a high position in one of the Welsh Universities states that he is afraid that this degrading sport is even on the increase among the miners of South Wales. I think we shall all agree that it does not imply special cruelty in those who follow these practices. The real fact is that they do not think. Their thoughts are concentrated on the sport and they forget the suffering. It is surely our duty as legislators to see that these cruelties no longer remain as a shock to the humane feelings of the more enlightened part of the population. I venture to think that if there is any place in which it is appropriate that such a Motion as this should be moved and adopted it is your Lordships' House, which is noted as an assembly of fine sportsmen; and in as much as that is the character of this House it is specially incumbent upon such a body of men to see that sport is not degraded. Legitimate and manly sport is one of the preservatives of the finest elements of English life, and we should be specially careful to keep it from the stains that such practices as these cast upon it. Corruptio optimi pessima. Your Lordships are in a particularly favourable position for initiating a beneficent motion of this kind, for you are independent, have time to consider it, and wide experience on the subject. By approving the Second Reading of this Bill you will purify English sport, remove a discreditable stain, strengthen the hands of the police in all parts of the country, and satisfy enlightened public conscience. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  LORD NEWTONrose to move the rejection of the Bill. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in response to the appeal made to me by the right reverend Prelate, whose honesty and consistency in this matter I do not doubt for a single instant, I should like to say that I have carefully

  819
  examined my own conscience on the subject of this Bill, and it is because I am conscientiously unable to support it that I find myself compelled to take the step of moving its rejection. This Bill is an old friend which, after appearing under many aliases, is, in fact, really nothing but the Spurious Sports Bill over again. It is, as the right reverend Prelate has informed us, the same Bill which was introduced here by him seven years ago and which this House rejected, the right reverend Prelate apparently being not able to secure a co-teller with himself even though he represented that many of the unfortunate rabbits whose sufferings he described came from his own diocese.
  I am informed that this Bill is drawn in so faulty a manner and that so much mystery and doubt attaches to those well-known terms "place" and "enclosed place" that it would be almost impossible to carry it into effect. But I do not wish to enter into these legal technicalities. I desire to oppose the Bill upon its merits, and will leave the task of dissecting its legal weaknesses to some subsequent speaker. Although, no doubt, the Memorandum attached to the Bill is not absolutely accurate, it at all events blurts out the actual purpose of the Bill—namely, that this is a Bill not to prevent cruelty to animals, but to brand what are called spurious sports and to draw a line between what is genuine and what is spurious—a thing which, for my own part, I am not in the least inclined to do. And behind what I can only term this general attack on sport it is not difficult to see in the background the Humanitarian League and those persons who look upon zoological collections as immoral institutions and who raise shrieks of agony at the spectacle of Eton boys actually running with live beagles after a live hare.
  The right reverend Prelate, if. I did not misunderstand him, appealed to me, as a so-called sportsman, to support him in his endeavours. I do not lay any claim to be a sportsman, although I suppose I have the same vicious inclinations as most of the noble Lords whom I see sitting around me. I am not at all sure that I know what a sportsman is. A man who shoots big game is a sportsman; a man who rides a steeplechase is undoubtedly a sportsman; so apparently is a man who passes day after day watching what is
  820
  known as first-class cricket—an occupation which, to my mind, is even less exhilarating than that of sitting on a Private Bill Committee and productive of even less excitement. A man is described as a munificent sportsman who, perhaps, invests several thousands on buying a two-year-old, and who very likely in the course of a few days' time would be unable to tell it from half-a-dozen horses of the same colour if he saw it among them; and the man in a lower walk of life who goes round the corner and backs, at starting price, a horse he has never seen and never will see, having ascertained first what has won the race, is looked upon as a dashing sort of sportsman. For my own part I give it up. The only method of deciding what a sportsman is would be for the right reverend Prelate to move for a Select Committee of this House to be appointed, with the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, as Chairman, assisted by capable assessors. For my own part I am quite incapable of defining a sportsman, and I doubt whether my right reverend friend can do so either.
  And if it is difficult to define a genuine or spurious sportsman, it stands to reason that it is equally difficult to draw the line between what is termed spurious sport and what we may call legitimate sport. As a matter of fact, all sport in this country, with the possible exception of rat hunting, is more or less artificial. It becomes more artificial every year, and it also becomes more expensive. In fact, it has become so artificial and expensive that it would not altogether surprise me if the present Budget were to put an end to a vast amount of so-called legitimate sport in this country. Take for instance, the standard sports. Take shooting. Nothing is more artificial than shooting as it is conducted in this country at the present time. What, I should like to know, would there be to shoot if you were to do away with your keepers, your watchers, your patent foods, your pens, your incubators, and all the paraphernalia necessary for the purpose of producing and rearing what are humorously called the ferœ natureœ.
  Let me take another sport—that of hunting. Hunting, again, is one of the most artificial and at the same time one of the most expensive forms of sport which exist. I gather, from an interesting article contributed by a noble and sporting friend of mine who, I imagine, would be recog

  821
  nised as a legitimate sportsman—my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke—that his poultry fund expenses alone amount to no less than £1,000 a year, and that no fewer than 10,000 chickens, valued at 2s. a-piece, were necessary in order to keep the highly artificially protected animal, the fox, in existence; and I do not think anything can demonstrate the artificiality of hunting better than this, that now I understand that the fences which it is safe to jump are carefully designated lest any mistakes should be made.
  Take the case of fishing. The industry of supplying and breeding fish and eventually turning them out for sporting purposes is now a large and elaborate industry; yet, under this Bill, supposing you had reared trout or whatever it may be upon the patent foods, horseflesh, and various nutritious diets provided by experts in these matters and you were to take one of these fish out and fish for it within a fortnight, you would come under the lash of this Bill and render yourself liable to fine or imprisonment—that is, of course, if you were lucky enough to catch one. What we are asked to do under this Bill is to brand certain forms of sport which are not so dissimilar from what I may term legitimate sport as the right reverend Prelate would like us to believe.
  There are three so-called spurious sports aimed at. One of them is pigeon-shooting. Now pigeon-shooting is not an amusement in which I indulge. I have no admiration for it, and I do not think I have ever shot at a pigeon since I did so when an undergraduate at Oxford with very small success. But, after all, is there any essential difference between the production of pigeons for shooting purposes and the production of pheasants and partridges? The three species are reared for sport, and there is no deception about it. As a matter of fact there is considerable deception in the matter, because in each case the bird, from his earliest moments, is taught to regard himself as the object of man's special care and solicitude, and even up to almost the last hour of his life he still receives the careful ministrations of man, and then, no doubt to his inexpressible horror and amazement, man proceeds to attempt to kill him.
  Everybody who shoots knows that it is a very common practice to rear what are
  822
  called wild ducks. These ducks, unless they are treated in an extremely intelligent manner, are apt to develop lethargic and sluggish habits, and in order to counteract this tendency it is frequently found necessary to take these birds to, say, the summit of a hill, place them in a pen, and then liberate them and shoot at them, I do not say invariably with success. I do not contend that this is a particularly inspiring thing to do, but, at the same time, from the sporting point of view, surely it is superior to shooting these what I have termed sluggish birds whilst they sit quacking on a pond, which is the only alternative. What, I ask, is the essential difference between this practice and pigeon shooting?
  I pass from pigeon-shooting to what the right reverend Prelate calls the hunting of the carted stag; and, frankly, I have no hesitation in saying that I do not think there is any greater instance of misapplied energy than the crusade which is directed against the so-called carted stag. I look upon the hunting of the carted stag as a meritorious and laudable amusement. It is a form of sport which provides an enormous amount of enjoyment and causes a substantial amount of money to be spent in a useful way. To my mind it is a much more creditable thing to gallop after a carted stag than it is to pursue most forms of sport. It requires some courage to gallop after a stag, whether he be tame or wild; it requires no courage at all to follow the legitimate sport of a pheasant shoot or even a grouse drive, armed with a couple of guns and assisted, by a loader. The only danger which you run in that case is the danger which you may possibly incur from unskilful legitimate sporting companions.
  I should like to remind the right reverend Prelate of the evidence given upon the subject of the carted stag by my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale in the course of the debate which took place some years ago. Lord Ribblesdale stated that the stag, hind or buck, whatever it may be, was the object of universal interest and general attachment, and there is no denying the fact. The tame stag is so much a favourite that certain animals have become well known and enjoy exceptional popularity; so much so that just as star performers will draw a large crowd at theatres or operas, when it was known that a certain

  823
  well-known stag or hind was going to be produced on a certain day the field always showed a corresponding increase in numbers. I would recommend anybody who feels any doubt on the subject to study the interesting work by Lord Ribblesdale, and from that he will gather that these tame deer are kept in the best of condition, given the best of food, and live on such good terms with their surroundings that there are instances of one of these much commiserated animals actually coming home in a sociable and amicable way accompanied by the hounds which had been pursuing him all day. There is an equally authenticated instance of a deer which was on such exceptionally good terms with the hounds that he actually fed out of the same trough with them; and in the three years during which my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale was Master of the Buckhounds he states that only four accidents took place, which I think is a sufficient reply to the charge of cruelty in connection with this sport. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that the charge of cruelty in connection with tame deer hunting has about as much foundation as a charge which I heard a foreigner once make against fox-hunting in this country. This gentleman said—
  "Fox-hunting is an extremely cruel amusement. At the very first fence which I jumped I spurred my unfortunate horse's eye out."
  I pass to the third so-called spurious sport—rabbit coursing; and here I must admit that the position is not quite so strong as I should like. Speaking selfishly, speaking on my own behalf and probably on behalf of many noble Lords who sit around me, I should be very glad to see this sport put an end to, because it is not only an undesirable form of amusement but a great incentive to poaching. As an instance I may mention that purveyors of this amusement have called upon me and actually had the impertinence, when I refused to sell them rabbits for coursing, to tell me that they would have them taken if I refused to accede to their request. There is practically nothing to be said in favour of this sport. At the same time I am disposed to think that the scenes of revolting cruelty which the right reverend Prelate alleges take place are somewhat exaggerated. In view of the fact that the law is sufficiently powerful to prevent even the overcrowding of goldfish and carp, as has been proved, I find it impossible to believe that it would
  824
  be hopeless for the various societies which occupy themselves with questions of this kind to interfere with success; and, if it comes to a question of cruelty, I doubt very much whether rabbits coursed by dogs suffer in reality greater pain than those rabbits, wounded in the case of legitimate sport, which expire probably in great pain at the bottom of their holes, or whether they really suffer more than those rabbits which pass hours caught in steel traps, or a rabbit which has its blood sucked from it by a ferret.
  But what weighs with me is not only the question of relative cruelty, but the fact that, in spite of what the right reverend Prelate says, this is most emphatically the sport of a class; and it seems to me that something more is needed than a mere, if I may say so, sentimental objection to justify us in suppressing a thing of this kind whilst we permit other forms of sport to be indulged in by the wealthier classes and by people who are able to choose whatever form of sport they prefer. The line of distinction between these classes of sport appears to me to be too narrow for legislation, for logic, or, I would even say for common sense; and I think it would not only be illogical, but extremely presumptuous, on our part if we were to dictate to the working classes as to what form their amusements should take. It is extremely difficult to argue with those convinced and honest persons who are sincerely opposed to all forms of sport, and who object to the taking of life for the purposes of pleasure; but I must say that I entirely fail to discern those signs of the public conscience being outraged by these exhibitions to which the right reverend Prelate alluded.
  The memorial which the right reverend Prelate produced for our edification conveys very little to me. It was obviously a memorial signed principally by dons, by schoolmasters, and, presumably, by divines. As far as I can see, very little interest is actually taken in this question. Not a single person has written to me on the subject of this Bill, except one association which asked me to oppose it. What evidence is there, I should like to know, that the conscience of the democracy is outraged by these so-called spurious sports? I admit that it is always difficult to ascertain what the opinion of the demo

  825
  cracy may be upon any given question. The best opportunity for obtaining their opinion, we are always told, is the annual meeting of the Trade Unions Congress. At those congresses all sorts of extraneous subjects are discussed. I have even seen this House condemned, and I think I can remember numerous instances in which they condemned the Established Church. They have condemned such things as militarism; but I cannot recollect one single instance in which any view was expressed about the immorality or the degrading nature of these so-called illegitimate sports which we have been discussing this afternoon. When I see a genuine condemnation of them by the working men, and when I see a measure brought in by them and passed through the popular House, then I confess I should be much inclined to modify my opposition to Bills of this kind.
  All I have to say, in conclusion, is that I recognise the sincerity and the honesty of those persons of whom I have spoken who have a conscientious objection to taking life for the purpose of amusement. They are perfectly consistent, and some day their efforts may result in that beneficial change at which they are aiming. Some day any noble Lord who sticks a hook in a worm or a gentle, or who liberates a rat from a cage for the purpose of being worried by a terrier, or who even, without taking sufficient precautions, puts his foot upon a blackbeetle may be looked upon as a sort of outcast of society. But at the present moment we are a long way from reaching this, if I may call it so, angelic elevation. At any rate I know I am unregenerate so far, and I cannot help feeling a profound conviction that many of my noble friends are in the same position, and if we assume the attitude that we are to select our own amusements, that we are to go on pursuing any sports we like irrespective of the suffering caused, and at the same time we attempt to prescribe the forms of amusement of persons less fortunate than ourselves, it would not only be an act of presumption but it would be an act of hypocrisy. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—

  "To leave out the word 'now' and to add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day six months.'"—(Lord Newton.)
  LORD RIBBLESDALEMy Lords, I should first like to associate myself with what fell from the noble Lord as to the sincerity which I feel certain inspired the right reverend Prelate in bringing this Bill before us to-night. I remember very well that, if I may say so, the Bishop of Hereford was a great pet with Lord Spencer on account of his fondness for horses and his liking for horsemanship. I quite agree with Lord Newton that the word "sportsman," like the words "young person," is almost incapable of definition and interpretation, and I do not know whether, on account of his liking for horses, we can call the right reverend Prelate a sportsman. At all events, that fact brings him into direct and active ympathy with many members of your Lordships' House. I did not know that this Bill was coming on till yesterday, and, unlike the noble Lord opposite, I have not been at much pains to examine my conscience about it. I am inclined to agree with the late Sir Leslie Stephen when he said that in the ordinary affairs of life most men over fifty should have established a modus vivendi with their conscience. But though I have not done that, I have tried to exercise such a degree of practical sense as I possess, and in those circumstances, I shall support the noble Lord opposite in voting against this Bill. I confess that if I supported this Bill I should feel considerable hesitation in going to hunt with a pack of staghounds, and I may add that I hope to have that pleasure with the hounds of a noble Lord whom I see in his place, Lord Rothschild.
  For the purpose of this debate I shall confine my few remarks to stag-hunting, which is the only point on which I am entitled to give any sort of opinion. I have never gone pigeon-shooting and have never witnessed rabbit-coursing. I think that a difficult proposition has been laid down. It is like the proposition which declares all wars to be wicked. You may say that all sport is cruel. I agree with the noble Lord who has moved the rejection of this Bill that it is difficult to say where sport ends and cruelty begins. What we have to look at is more or less the way in which people regard it in this country, and how far a Bill of this sort interferes with legitimate amusement.
  Lord Newtonwas kind enough to allude to a book which I wrote, and he referred

  827
  to a gentleman who hunted carted deer and whose deer were on such good terms with their surroundings that they trotted together with the hounds and fed out of the same trough. That is quite true; but the Winchester gentleman in question—Mr. Neville—had great powers with animals, and it is impossible to generalise from an exception of that kind. There is no doubt that in a badly-managed establishment there might be a good deal of cruelty associated with the hunting of carted deer. In stag-hunting the field always go out to ride, and when things go wrong it is due to the fact that the deer is a weak one or that the pack is badly managed. Directly that happens the sport is, of course, at an end, and the people in the hunt are just as disgusted as anybody else.
  The little hunting of which I have personal knowledge was done in a large way. We had splendid wild deer, bred in Windsor Park, and plenty of money to keep them as fit as fighting cocks, to which the right reverend. Prelate referred with comparative admiration. It is quite true, as Lord Newton said, that during the time I was Master of the Buckhounds we had only four or five accidents with the deer, and there was only one occasion when the hounds got at the deer. The other accidents were such as would have been equally likely to happen had the deer been wild. I do not go so far as to say that the deer actually enjoy being hunted, but I do say that the occurrences which the Bishop of Hereford has brought out are exceptional; and I ask your Lordships to dismiss the case of the Surbiton deer, or at least to retain it in your minds only as an exception and not as a common occurrence.
  The noble Lord was quite right when he said that the deer in good establishments are regarded with great solicitude. I remember one cold December day one of the Queen's deer jumped into an icy cold pond, and Lord Cork, who was then Master of the Buckhounds, with two of the hunt servants, jumped into the pond after the deer. Being encumbered with boots and leathers they found it very difficult to put into action their aquatic accomplishments, and the whole field had to help to drag them out as well as the deer. That shows that stag-hunting is not altogether without its element of danger to those who pursue it. I remember
  828
  that when we went out of office, in 1895, I was consulted as to what I thought about the future of stag-hunting in Berkshire. I said then that I thought Berkshire was wanting in some of the qualities essential for hunting carted deer; it was no longer wild country, and I said that on this account I could understand giving up stag-hunting. But speaking from actual and close experience—and I do not think I missed a day during the whole time I had anything to do with that establishment—I say that this general charge of cruelty in stag-hunting cannot be supported by any one who understands the question; and I would be very sorry if any one were to run away with the idea that what the right reverend Prelate has stated, though, no doubt, perfectly accurate, is what usually takes place in stag-hunting.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKEMy Lords, I desire to join with Lord Newton and Lord Ribblesdale in saying how much I appreciate the sincerity with which the right reverend Prelate has brought forward this Bill; and I am certain that, when we vote against the Bill, he, on his part, will acquit us of any wish to countenance cruelty to animals. I, in company with the two noble Lords who have just spoken, will yield to no one in the desire to oppose cruelty to animals. The right reverend Prelate has rested his case rather on the violation of the public conscience than on the cruelty to the animal. I am not myself an expert either on rabbit-coursing, stag-hunting, or pigeon-shooting—the three sports threatened—though when I was an under-graduate I took part freely in all three; but I honestly believe that the miners who indulge in rabbit-coursing and those who take part in pigeon-shooting do not do so in order to gratify any brutal instincts. With regard to stag-hunting, it has been abundantly proved by the last two speakers that there is very little cruelty attached to it.
  I was very glad the right reverend Prelate referred to the case of a stag which had been impaled on spiked railings. If there is one thing more than another which requires to be seen into, and, if possible, overhauled by legislation, it is the putting up of spiked railings in a hunting country. Noble Lords laugh. I am not going to make use of this debate for a defence of the sport in which I am interested. I am glad to say that at this time of day it requires no

  829
  defence whatever. But is not all sport cruel? I admit most frankly that all forms of sport, and all relations of man to animal when he is pursuing it, must necessarily partake of the nature of cruelty, and one kind of cruelty cannot be separated from another by Act of Parliament. There are two sorts of cruelty. There is the physical pain inflicted upon the animal, like that which, no doubt, the fox feels when he is being torn by hounds, which is momentary, and there is the pain which a lot of well-meaning people think that an animal suffers because its surroundings appear to them to be of an unjust and cruel nature. You will never be able to settle how much the animal in question feels the injustice of its position. For my part I do not believe that a pigeon in a trap knows that there is a blood-thirsty man with a gun ready to shoot it the moment it is liberated. I feel that it is very difficult for us to say how far the surroundings in which it is placed can enter into the consideration of the animal itself.
  There is a form of cruelty which I think, might very well be dealt with by legislation. The amount of vermin which die lingering deaths in steel traps is very horrible to contemplate, and I, for one, would join heartily with any band of reformers who would turn their attention to that particular branch of cruelty. There are other things which we would like to include, but I do not think that a measure of that kind would have any more chance of passing into law than this Bill. There is, for instance, the erection of barbed-wire fences in hunting country with the full knowledge that people are certain to ride over them. That is an un-English thing to do. But if there is one thing more un-English than that, it is the kind of practice that has been alluded to—namely, the putting up of danger signals to warn people that certain fences are dangerous to eldest sons or heirs to landed estates who ride to hounds. I hope that the right reverend Prelate, in his future consideration of the question of cruelty to animals, will seriously consider the question of steel traps. That is a matter which ought to be looked into by the Legislature, and I, for one, would give my hearty support to any attempt to deal with it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LORE BURN)My Lords, this is a subject in which I have interested myself ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, and therefore I ask permission to say a few words on this Bill. I cannot sufficiently admire the adroitness of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I have often admired it before, but never more than on this occasion. The noble Lord has succeeded, I think by reason of the discursive spirit in which he regarded the proposals in the Bill, in so attracting the attention of the House to other very interesting topics, urged with admirable humour, that we seem to have forgotten the nature of this proposal and what is the justification for it. The noble Lord, in the first place, distinguished between, or challenged others to distinguish between, those who are sportsmen and those who are not. I was sorry to observe that he regarded as being more or less in the same category people who sympathise with first-class cricket and those who were in the habit of putting money on a race after they knew the result.
  Does the noble Lord not know that one of the main characteristics of sport in this country regarded as essential by all men worthy of the name of sportsmen is that of giving the animal fair play? I will not say anything about stag-hunting. I have never been out stag-hunting myself, and do not intend at any time ever to go. It is a very small matter. There are very few stag hunts in this country, and therefore we need not trouble ourselves much with them. The main point is that of rabbit-coursing. The noble Lord himself did not attempt to defend that. He knows perfectly well that nothing would induce him to take part in it. Why? Because he knows it is not sport at all. It is not a sport, but a cowardly amusement—a disgusting amusement. It is all very well to say that poor people cannot afford to have the luxuries of the rich. That is no reason why they should indulge in a cowardly and degrading amusement.
  Rabbit-coursing is indulged in mostly for the purpose of betting, and betting is spoiling most of the sports and games of this country. There is nothing finer in the world than a horse race. Nobody enjoys witnessing one more than I do, and yet whenever I do attend a race meeting I am always horrified at the betting

  831
  adjuncts on the course. One result of the evil is that servants are induced to steal the silver spoons and forks from the side-board, in order to pay their betting debts. County Court Judges will tell you how betting agents persecute servants and others who do not wish it known that they have been betting. Gate-money is also doing great harm to cricket. Sport is a very fine thing provided you keep it as genuine real sport. It is no use seeking for further distinctions. Every one knows the difference between genuine sport and that which is not genuine; and I am quite sure Lord Newton would draw the line at rabbit-coursing. Rabbit-coursing is unnecessarily cruel and must be degrading to the people who take part in it. I do not know in the least how many of your Lordships are disposed to give a Second Reading to this Bill, but I sincerely hope there are some. For myself, I shall certainly vote with the right reverend Prelate.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, I do not know whether my right reverend brother intends going to a Division, but in case he does not—and it was, I think, by his own wish, and not through the failure to find a co-teller, that on the previous occasion he did not divide the House—I should be sorry to remain silent. Of course it is always easy, when a discussion of this kind arises, to ride off upon the difficulty of defining the exact line that ought to be drawn, and the precise phraseology which would cover those who stand on this or that side. While no one could have treated this subject with more skill and grace than the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, yet even Lord Newton in his inimitable way admitted that the so-called sport of rabbit-coursing, against which this Bill is mainly directed, is an undesirable form of amusement, and that nothing was to be said in favour of it. This is one of those matters upon which public opinion necessarily grows from generation to generation. We have advanced upon the views of our grandfathers. I venture to think that most of us have in our own experience grown somewhat in the views we should adopt upon a matter of this kind quite apart from the mere question of advancing years. I am afraid that I myself ought to stand here in a white sheet after a good deal that has been said,
  832
  because I possess an insignificant cup—I think it is only honest to say it—which in my undergraduate days I won at pigeon-shooting. I think there are one or two noble Lords in the House who were my competitors on the occasion when I won the cup. I simply mention that as an argument to show how completely, as has occurred in my own case, a man's views may change as regards what is, and what is not, a legitimate form of sport. I find it hard now to realise that I could have looked upon this matter in the careless way in which one was apt to regard such matters years ago. To go back a few generations, bull-baiting used to be an extremely popular sport in this country. Objections were, as we know, taken to it long ago, but we all remember Macaulay's phrase, that the Puritans objected to bull-baiting, not because it hurt the bull but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. The other day I came across, in some of our Lambeth records, a protest raised by the inhabitants of Lambeth, who urged that the bull-baiting taking place in Vauxhall Gardens ought to be stopped because of the unpleasantly mauled condition of the terriers that were thrown on the ladies' laps by the bulls. We have drifted as far from that as it is possible to conceive; and I firmly believe that fifty years hence it will be found as impossible for the then members of your Lordships' House to realise why we refrained from taking exception to rabbit-coursing as it is pursued to-day as we now find it difficult to understand why a hundred years ago exception was not taken to things like bull-baiting. We are growing from generation to generation in the understanding of these matters, and I believe that by now and then expressing our abhorrence of things which are felt to be disgusting and cruel we help to stimulate public opinion on matters on which public opinion is somewhat sluggish. This discussion should prove helpful in that way, and our thanks are due to the Bishop of Hereford for having brought in this Bill. If my right reverend brother goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
  VISCOUNT CROSSMy Lords, I rise to say but one word. No one is more fond of sport than I am, but I look upon rabbit-coursing as cruel and degrading, and will do all in my power to stop it. I shall, therefore, vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.
  THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP)My Lords, I rise to explain the line which the Government take with regard to this Bill. This Bill or a similar Bill has been before both Houses of Parliament on various occasions. Different personal opinions have been expressed by different Home Secretaries upon the Papers in the Office, but the line the Home Office has adopted all through has been not to put the weight of the Government either upon the one side or the other. On this
  Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (QUALIFICATION OF CLERGYMEN) BILL. [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MONKSWELLMy Lords, this is a Bill to remedy what I hope your Lordships will agree is an indefensible anomaly with regard to the eligibility of clergy to serve on municipal bodies. The present
  834
  occasion the Government do not propose to depart from that line of action. Therefore, so far as their supporters are concerned they hope they will take just such action as they desire to take, without feeling that His Majesty's Government wish to influence them in any way.
  On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—

  law disqualifies clerks in Holy Orders and regular ministers of dissenting congregations from serving on municipal bodies, but at the same time clergymen are eligible to sit on county councils, even on the London County Council, which is the largest municipal body in the world, and they are also eligible to sit on the twenty-nine London borough councils. They can also sit on the councils of the University towns of Oxford and Cambridge, and they are eligible to be co-opted on the education committees of bodies to which they do not belong. It appears to be part of the duty

  835
  of clergymen to concern themselves in education, and surely it would be far better if they were allowed to sit on the bodies which form the education committees instead of having to be co-opted from outside. If they sat on these bodies they would be able to justify in the full council the policy of the education committee of which they were members.
  The present state of the law seems to me to be indefensible from any point of view you may take of the duties of the clergy. There are two views with regard to the duties of the clergy. One is that they should confine themselves entirely, or very nearly entirely, to the exercise of their spiritual functions and should mix as little as possible in politics, either municipal or Imperial. Another view is that, even with regard to the exercise of their spiritual functions, it is just as well that clergymen should be to some extent men of the world and should understand mankind; that it is good for them and for their flocks that they should, to some extent, mix in the world. I submit that it is good for the community in general as well as for himself that any clergyman who feels that he has a vocation for municipal work should have an opportunity of doing that work. It seems to me perfectly clear that the present law is in a transitory phase, and that in this matter we must either go forward or backward. In 1882 the law forbade clergymen to serve on any municipal bodies, but in 1888 and in 1894 a different view prevailed in the Legislature. In 1888 they were made eligible to sit on county councils; in 1894 they were made eligible to sit on the London borough councils. The prohibition was then partially removed. It was removed in an absolutely illogical manner. I do not complain in the least of the Legislature. The legislation of 1888 and of 1894 was in the nature of an experiment, and what I say is that the present law is an unstable compromise between two absolutely different schools of thought with regard to the clergy, and that it is time now to settle which view shall prevail.
  I contend that experience has amply justified the experiment of allowing the clergy to sit upon municipal bodies, and that we may usefully make them eligible for all municipal bodies. It was said at one time, before we had any experience of the matter, that if we permitted the clergy to serve on these bodies they would
  836
  have such an ascendancy over their congregations that they would have an unfair advantage over their lay competitors and the result would be that the spiritual element would be predominant in these local bodies. That has not turned out to be the case at all. On the contrary, very few clergy have sought to sit on these bodies and very few have been elected, but those who have sat have shown that they were capable of doing excellent work. I sat on the London County Council for eighteen years, and can only call to mind—I may have forgotten one or two—five clergymen of all denominations who served on that Council during that period, and those who served did excellent work. I have it on the authority of Canon Jephson that there have been eight clerical mayors in London—namely, in Marylebone, Southwark, Finsbury, Wandsworth, Hammersmith, Fulham, Lewisham and Chelsea. In the case of Marylebone the Rev. Russell Wakefield was re-elected because of his excellent work as mayor—an unusual honour; and with regard to Chelsea, I can speak from personal experience of the excellent work of the Rev. Henry Gamble. I do not agree with him in politics and am not prejudiced in any way in his favour, but I say it is of great advantage to Chelsea that Mr. Gamble is the Mayor.
  Canon Jephson also informs me that there is at least one clergyman on every one of the twenty-nine London borough councils. Three or four per cent. of these councillors are clergymen; that is not a large percentage, and not one likely to swamp the lay element. The clergy have acted with great discretion in this matter. Only those clergymen have come forward who have a vocation for this kind of work, and they have shown that they can do it admirably. The Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time is very much wanted. I have in my hand a very long printed list of clergy of all denominations, many of whom have served on local bodies, who are very desirous that this Bill should pass. I regard this question exclusively from the English point of view. I know very little about the circumstances of Scotland or Ireland. I therefore propose, in Committee, to restrict the operation of the Bill to England. I beg to move.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Monkswell.)
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 25; Not-contents, 62.

  CONTENTS

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Hereford, L. Bp. [Teller.]

  Eversley, L.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  Langford, L.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Lucas, L.

  Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Marchamley, L. [Teller]

  Monkswell, L.

  Cross, V.

  Avebury, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Blythswood, L.

  Reay, L.

  Morley of Blackburn, V.

  Brassey, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Braye, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Coleridge, L.

  (E. Galloway.)

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Bedford, D.

  Plymouth, E.

  Harris, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  Hindlip, L.

  Bath, M.

  Hylton, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Falkland, V. [Teller.]

  Kesteven, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Goschen, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Halifax, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  MacDonnell, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Knutsford, V.

  Newton, L. [Teller.]

  Cawdor, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Cromer, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Durham, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Savile, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Desborough, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Faber, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  LORD ALLENDALEMy Lords, the noble Lord in moving the Second Reading has stated the case for the Bill so clearly that I am relieved of any necessity of going at length into the matter. I may say at once that the Government offer no opposition to the Bill. Lord Monkswell has pointed out that the Bill is designed to remove an anomaly with regard to the eligibility of clergymen and ministers of religion to serve on the councils of municipal boroughs. There appears no reason whatever why that anomaly and disqualification should continue, especially as ministers of religion can already sit on county councils and the councils of metropolitan boroughs. Possibly some people do not look upon clergymen as particularly good business men, but there are, of course, exceptions, and where these exceptions exist and the clergy are capable and willing to undertake these duties there seems to be no reason why their services should not be made use of when available. The Government, as I have said, offer no opposition to the Bill. In fact, they consider the object of the Bill, which is to effect uniformity in the law, a very desirable one.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARKMy Lords, I can speak upon this matter as one connected with districts which are not under this disability, and can certainly confirm what has been said by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill as to the public advantage to be gained from the clergy being able to take part in these duties. I speak as one who is no indiscriminate admirer of clergymen taking up this work. I think in many cases it is very questionable whether a man with heavy burdens of another kind has a right to take on himself these large secular burdens, but there are, I know, cases where, in the circumstances, it is best he should do so. The supply of men highly qualified for municipal work is not in all cases adequate, and it may very well happen that the clergy are in a position to bring what very few men about them are able to bring to the work. Their special qualifications have been of value in regard to many matters affecting the welfare of the community. In a few cases they take an effective part, no doubt, as political partisans; but they also often take a line independent of party, and I think I am right in saying that in almost every case those who have been elected
  838
  have been valuable members of the body which they joined. In those circumstances, though as a Bishop it should be my part to hinder anything like an indiscriminate extension of the discharge of secular duties by the clergy, I do feel strongly that a case has been made out for the removal of the disqualification which is at present placed upon ministers of religion in this matter.
  On Question, Bill read 2a,, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)moved to amend Clause 5—
  "5.—(1) Any local authority company or person authorised to supply electricity in any area may with the consent of the Board of Trade supply at any point within that area electricity for the purposes of haulage or traction on any railway tramway or canal situate partly within and partly without that area and for the purposes of lighting vehicles and vessels used on any such railway tramway or canal but the Board of Trade shall not in any case give any such consent until notice of the application for the consent has been given by advertisement or otherwise in such manner as the Board of Trade may direct and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the Board to be affected of stating any objections he may have thereto.
  (2) The Board of Trade may by Provisional Order authorise any such local authority company or person to so supply electricity to be used for purposes incidental to the working or lighting of the railway tramway or canal other than the purposes aforesaid,"
  by inserting, at the beginning of the clause, the words, "The Board of Trade may by Provisional Order authorise." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will recollect that when this measure was under discussion in Committee I drew attention to the provision in Clause 5, and expressed some surprise that while it should be necessary to obtain a Provisional Order to authorise undertakers to supply electricity for purposes incidental to the working or lighting of a railway, tramway, or canal, it should not be deemed necessary to obtain a Provisional Order—that is to say, to get the sanction of Parliament—for the purpose of enabling local authorities to supply electricity to, say, a railway company. I am

  839
  aware that a railway company, before it can use electricity for the purposes of traction, must apply for the consent of the Board of Trade, and presumably that consent would be obtained within a very short time. But the clause as it stands now is open, in my opinion, to this objection. A railway line running through a great extent of territory would pass through the area of a number of local authorities, companies, and, perhaps, private individuals, who would be able to supply electricity if they could obtain powers from the Board of Trade; and I venture to think it is somewhat dangerous to entrust a Government Department with the absolute power of allowing a small local authority or a small company to put up a vast generating station such as would be necessary for the purpose of supplying electricity to the whole of a railway. I cannot help thinking that in cases of that kind the check which is imposed by the requirement to come to Parliament for a Provisional Order would be a wise precaution in the event of such a thing being attempted. It might, of course, be quite right. The London and North Western Railway Company might desire to utilise the enormous generating station at Willesden for the supply of electricity; but I do not think it would be right that a small undertaking on the main line of a company should be allowed to supply the great amount of electricity which would be necessary for a railway unless it had previously obtained the sanction of Parliament. For that purpose I suggest to your Lordships that these powers should only be exercised on a Provisional Order obtained from the Board of Trade and subject to the control of Parliament.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 35, at the beginning of the clause, to insert the words 'The Board of Trade may by Provisional Order authorise'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLMy Lords, this is one of the points on which the Board of Trade have been in consultation with the noble Earl, and we had hoped it was a point on which we had been able to meet him, more particularly as we agreed to the insertion, on the last stage of the Bill, of the words which appear at the end of the subsection and which lay down that in the event of the Board of Trade making such an order notice must be
  840
  given to all the persons interested so as to afford them an opportunity of objecting. I am sorry that those words have not satisfied all the objections which the noble Earl feels to this Clause. The reason for having in this subsection a simple order of the Board of Trade and having a Provisional Order in the other one is this, that in the second case you are going to authorise an undertaker to supply electricity for lighting purposes within the territory of another undertaker, and we think that that ought not to be done without coming to Parliament by Provisional Order. In the other case we only ask for power to use this electricity which will be taken within the district from a point somewhere outside that district for the purpose of running the line or canal. There is a difference between the two things, because, in the second case, though this electricity may be used in the territory of another undertaker it would be for a purpose for which that undertaker has no authority to supply electricity. That can only be done on the authority of the Board of Trade. We think it is better to leave this to a simple order of the Board of Trade, because we wish to make it as easy as possible for these people to get this order. We wish to avoid expense and trouble and the great delay necessary in getting a Provisional Order. We think that the thing can be very much better done in that way. We are fortified in that feeling by the fact that the Railways (Electric Power) Act of 1903 gives the Board of Trade power by simple order to authorise a railway company to use electricity for the purposes of their line; and as the authority can be given by a simple order to the person who is going to use the electricity, it would seem much more convenient that it should also be done by simple order in the case of giving the authority to the people who are going to supply it. On these grounds I must ask the House not to agree to this Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I do not know what course my noble friend the Lord Chairman desires to take upon this Amendment, but undoubtedly the case is not a perfectly simple one. The noble Lord opposite is quite justified in saying that there is a great public object in avoiding delay and expense in promoting these undertakings; but, on the other hand, I feel strongly the force of my noble friend's objection that the power of

  841
  entering upon the supply of electricity on the enormous scale that might conceivably ensue is a power of such dimensions that it ought not to be capable of being granted except on the authority of Parliament itself. The danger which my noble friend has in view, I gather from his speech, is lest these small local authorities should launch into all sorts of extravagant speculation in the matter of supplying electricity, which is really trading and not a service for the benefit of their own ratepayers. It is a speculative trading matter with which local authorities ought to have nothing to do. Those are the two points of view from which we may regard this Amendment. If I might make a suggestion, it would be this. Personally I should be satisfied if the noble Lord opposite were to give an undertaking, on behalf of the Board of Trade, that they would watch very narrowly the operation of this power and would take care that no such danger ensued as that which my noble friend fears. If such an undertaking were given by the noble Lord, I am quite sure it would be obeyed and followed out; and if, in the early stages of the administration of this Bill, those precedents were set, I do not think they would be departed from in future years. Therefore what we have to protect is the operation of this provision during the next few years, and that would be covered by a solemn assurance given on behalf of the Board of Trade by the noble Lord opposite.
  LORD HAMILT0N OF DALZELLWith the permission of the House, I will answer the appeal made to me by the noble Marquess. In the first place, I do not think there is any great danger of a small local authority engaging in the supply of electricity to a very large railway company, and for two reasons. First, I do not think the Board of Trade would be the least likely to sanction such a proceeding; and, second, there is also the safeguard of the Local Government Board. The local authority could not borrow the money to get the plant for this undertaking without the sanction of the Local Government Board, and your Lordships will see, I think, that it is not at all likely that the Local Government Board would sanction such a proceeding as the noble Earl has indicated. Although I have no authority to give any assurance on this matter, I think I may make the mind of the noble Marquess easy. I am
  842
  quite sure the Board of Trade would not sanction small local authorities embarking on enormous schemes of this kind, and I think this is a matter in which the House may safely trust the two Government Departments concerned to look after the interests of the ratepayers.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWI have not very great confidence in some Government Departments and I have much greater confidence in Parliament. I have, however, some measure of confidence in the action of the officials of the Board of Trade, and I feel that if a matter of this kind can be left safely to any Department it can be left to the officials of the Board of Trade. In those circumstances I do not propose to ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment,
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLMy Lords, I move to add, at the end of Clause 5, this new subsection—
  "(3) A company local authority or body receiving a supply of electricity under this section shall not use the electricity in such manner as to cause or to be likely to cause any interference with Government observatories or laboratories but this subsection shall not apply to any such company local authority or body who by any Act of Parliament or Order confirmed by or having the effect of an Act of Parliament containing provisions for the protection of such observatories or laboratories are authorised to use electricity for the purposes for which a supply is authorised to be given under this section."
  This is an Amendment which I move on behalf of the Commissioners of Works, and its object is to safeguard certain observatories and scientific institutions. It is on the same lines as an Amendment that was inserted in the London Electricity Bills last year.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 10, after the word 'aforesaid', to insert the following new subsection: '(3) A company local authority or body receiving a supply of electricity under this section shall not use the electricity in such manner as to cause or to be likely to cause any interference with Government observatories or laboratories, but this subsection shall not apply to any such company local authority or body who by any Act of Parliament or Order confirmed by or having the effect of an Act of Parliament containing provisions for the protection of such observatories or laboratories are authorised to use electricity for the purposes for which a supply is authorised to be given under this section.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWmoved to amend subsection (1) of Clause 13—
  "(1) If an auditor appointed by the Board of Trade to audit the accounts of any undertakers who are not a local authority reports to the Board that the undertakers have declined or neglected to comply with any of his recommendations or requirements the Board may if they think fit after giving the undertakers an opportunity of being heard make an order directing the undertakers to comply with such recommendations and requirement with or without modifications as may be specified in the order subject to an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners or any two of them who shall finally decide the matter and confirm annul or amend the order as they may think fit,"
  by inserting, after the word "requirements" where it first appeared in the subsection, the words "in so far as they relate to matters affecting the interests of the authority empowered to purchase the undertaking or of the consumers."
  The noble Earl said: It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that some discussion took place upon this clause in Committee as to whether the audit of the auditors appointed to audit the accounts of private companies was such as was satisfactory to the public, and whether the system of audit ought not to be extended equally to municipal authorities. I will say nothing on the latter point for the moment, because an Amendment further down on the Paper in the name of Lord Avebury deals with that question. I understand that the object of this clause is to secure that the accounts of companies shall be kept in such a manner that the undertaking which becomes purchaseable after the lapse of a certain number of years by the local authority shall not be so manipulated in the accounts as to enhance the cost as against the local authority when the time comes for purchase; and, secondly, that the accounts shall be so kept that a proper amount is placed to depreciation so that the sliding scale on which the electricity is supplied shall be such that the public gets the full advantage which Parliament intended. I think that if your Lordships limit the clause to those two points—and that is the object of my Amendment—Lord Avebury will see that, to a great extent, at any rate, an Amendment proposing to extend this clause to municipal authorities will be inapplicable, because in the case of municipal authorities there is, of course, no question of the purchase of the undertaking, nor is there any question of sliding scale affecting dividends.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 32, after the word 'requirements,' to insert the words 'in so far as they relate to matters affecting the interests of the authority empowered to purchase the undertaking or of the consumers.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLThe object of this clause as it appears in the Bill is as the noble Earl has stated; and as representations have been made to the Board of Trade that the words as they stand might be read to give power to the auditors to interfere in the commercial aspect of the undertaking, we accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURYmoved to insert, after subsection (1) of Clause 13, the following new subsection—
  "(2) This section shall also apply in the case of any auditor or auditors appointed under the provisions of the Public Health Act 1875 or the Municipal Corporations Act 1882 or by the Local Government Board to audit the accounts of any undertakers who are a local authority, and where the undertakers being a local authority have declined or neglected to comply with any of his or their recommendations or requirements and for such purpose this section shall have effect as if the Local Government Board was substituted for the Board of Trade."
  The noble Lord said: As I stated the reasons for my Amendment a few days ago, I should not be justified in detaining your Lordships for more than a moment now. I quite agree that the words which have just been introduced on the Motion of Lord Onslow do to some extent, but not by any means entirely meet the objection which those for whom I am acting feel to the clause as it stands. The noble Lord who spoke for His Majesty's Government stated, when we were discussing this matter a few days ago in Committee, that my proposal was a very drastic alteration of the law and hardly germane to the Bill. I need hardly point out that it is a drastic Amendment which is being proposed by His Majesty's Government, and all that my Amendment does is to apply to local authorities the same wholesome provisions that it is proposed to apply to companies. If it is not germane to the Bill in the one case, I submit that it is not germane in the other. It is more necessary to have an effective audit in the case of municipalities than in the case of companies. If a private company is mismanaged and the accounts not fairly kept it is the share

  845
  holders who lose their money; but if a municipal authority mismanages its affairs and does not keep its accounts properly it is the public who suffer. There is a strong impression that the accounts of local authorities are by no means all that could be desired. I admit that a great many of them are thoroughly well kept, but there are exceptions; and that fact came out very strongly in the evidence taken before the Joint Committee. It is said that this is necessary in the one case because municipalities may buy up some of these companies; but we know that there are some cases in which municipalities have found that they could not carry on electrical works at a profit and have resold them to companies. I think that in future we shall see as many instances of local authorities selling their electrical undertakings to private companies as we shall see of private companies selling to local authorities. At any rate, I hope, in the general interests of the public, that that may be the case. A satisfactory system of audit is most desirable. I submit that what is fair in the one case is fair in the other, and if you are going to insist on these strenuous rules with regard to private companies you ought to apply them to municipalities.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 39, after the word 'fit' to insert the following new subsection: '(2) This section shall also apply in the case of any auditor or auditors appointed under the provisions of the Public Health Act 1875 or the Municipal Corporations Act 1882 or by the Local Government Board to audit the accounts of any undertakers who are a local authority and where the undertakers being a local authority have declined or neglected to comply with any of his or their recommendations or requirements and for such purpose this section shall have effect as if the Local Government Board was substituted for the Board of Trade.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHMy Lords, I hope the House will support the Amendment that has been moved by Lord Avebury, and I should like to endorse everything that has fallen from him, especially the remark he made at the conclusion of his speech that what is fair for one side should also be fair for the other. I had the advantage of serving on the Joint Committee which examined into the question of municipal audit, and if there was one thing more clear than another in that inquiry it was that in very many cases—I do not say invariably but in
  846
  very many cases—municipal audits are really very unsatisfactory. The system, as I understand, is that the accounts are audited by auditors elected by the municipality itself. The whole point of an audit of any sort is that it should be conducted by an independent party, and if the accounts of a local authority are audited by a servant of the municipality, who, in many cases, is tempted to "audit to order," if I may say so, it cannot be so satisfactory to the public concerned. Not only do I put that forward as a strong argument, but I submit that if you are going to establish this new form of audit for one party you should certainly adopt it for the other.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLMy Lords, I opposed this new subsection the other day when it was proposed by the noble Lord, and I must again oppose it to-day. I ask your Lordships to remember for a moment what the object of the clause as it appears in the Bill is. It is inserted in order to strengthen the hands of the Board of Trade auditors. Those auditors are appointed by the Board of Trade because the Board have two duties in particular placed upon them in regard to the undertakings of electric light companies. Those are the duties, to which the Chairman of Committees alluded just now, with regard to the safeguarding of the local authority which may ultimately wish to exercise its power of purchase, and also with regard to the fact that the Department may at any time be called upon to readjust the maximum price which may be charged for electricity. Those reasons do not exist in the case of electric undertakings which are the property of local authorities. In those cases there is, of course, an audit of the accounts, but it is part of the general audit of the accounts of the local authority. It is carried out, as your Lordships have been told, in the case of all local authorities, except municipalities, by the district auditors appointed by the Local Government Board, and in other cases by two auditors, one of whom is appointed by the mayor and the other by the ratepayers. The powers of the Local Government Board auditors are very strong indeed. The Local Government Board do not ask that those powers should be strengthened, and, in fact, the passing of this Amendment would not strengthen their hands at all, because their powers are greater than are

  847
  proposed in the noble Lord's Amendment; so that I think for them there is no necessity for the Amendment.
  With regard to the other auditors, those appointed by the municipality, I know that many Members of this House think that that system might be improved. I think my noble friend the Leader of the House indicated last week that it was his opinion that that system might be improved. I do not wish to say anything about that at present beyond this, that I do not think it is right—I do not wish to use the word "drastic" again, as the noble Lord objected to it—I do not think it is right to put a change of that kind into a Bill of this nature, and, if it were done, it would not be very effective because it would apply only to a small portion of the accounts of these municipalities, and if there were any irregularities taking place it would be very easy to conceal them in the other accounts over which these auditors would have no power. Therefore I do not think this Amendment would have any effect. Moreover, these auditors are not appointed by, and are not responsible to the Local Government Board, and it is, very doubtful whether this clause would really strengthen their hands at all.
  I would make an appeal to the noble Lord. This is an unfortunate little Bill, and it is considerably overdue. It is based on a Report of a Committee which sat eleven years ago, and I suppose that ever since the Report of the Committee this Bill has been lying at the Board of Trade and struggling to become law. It has made several attempts. It made one notable attempt in 1904, when the noble Lord who then represented the Board of Trade here actually got it through this House, but that did not happen until within two days of the close of the session. I suppose the other House, which is not quite so accommodating as your Lordships are in these matters, did not think two days sufficient to give consideration to the Bill. At all events, it did not become law, and it went back to its pigeon hole in the Department where it remained until this year. We have introduced it early this session and hope, with ordinary luck, to get it through; but I need not remind the noble Lord that if he saddles it with a highly contentious question of this kind, which has nothing to do with it, he will seriously impair its chance of becoming
  848
  law and will be doing great injury to people engaged in the supply of electricity in this country.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWI certainly have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment. I do think that the auditing of municipal accounts needs completely overhauling. I think, however, that the interest which I know the noble Lord has more particularly in view at this moment—namely, the prevention of municipal trading—would be better secured by a proper audit of municipal accounts and a better one than is obtainable under the present system. But I doubt whether this Bill, which only touches a fraction of the accounts of a municipal authority, is really the proper opportunity to raise the question. It would be better to deal with the subject in a separate Bill, when your Lordships could give consideration to the matter in its broadest aspect. If the Amendment were carried it would be almost ridiculous, because it would be confined, by the words to which your Lordships have just agreed, to two matters which do not concern municipalities at all. Therefore I join in the appeal which has been made that the noble Lord should not jeopardise the progress of the Bill by pressing his Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, my feeling is very much that of my noble friend Lord Onslow. When the Lord Chairman proposed his Amendment I anticipated that my noble friend behind me (Lord Avebury) would have risen and explained that his Amendment was alternative to my noble friend's, because, although they do not absolutely cover the same ground, they interfere a great deal with one another. As amended the operation of the section is very much more limited than it was as the Bill appeared on your Lordships' Table this afternoon. The earlier subsection, upon which this subsection depends, is now confined to matters concerning the purchase of undertakings and the interests of consumers. I am afraid, therefore, that Lord Avebury's Amendment would no longer do what he hoped it would do, and, in those circumstances, I cannot help joining in the appeal that my noble friend should not press the Amendment.
  LORD AVEBURYIt is quite true that if this Amendment were carried we should

  849
  not get a thorough and complete audit of municipal accounts but we should get an audit as applied to their electric undertakings. That is a matter of very great importance, and would be a step in the right direction. My noble friend suggested that I should bring in a Bill dealing with municipal audit. It is one thing for a private member to get a Bill through Parliament and another to get a clause inserted in a Bill which has behind it the weight of the Government. But, after what has been said, I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD AVEBURYmoved to amend Clause 16, subsection (1), which provided that—
  "Where the undertakers are a local authority they may provide let for hire and fix repair and remove but shall not manufacture lamps meters electric lines fuzes switches fittings lamp holders motors and other fittings for lighting and motive power,"
  by inserting, after the word "may," the words "through a contractor but not otherwise." The noble Lord said: This Amendment in reality raises the question of municipal trading. It has been suggested that there might be cases in which there was no contractor. I have endeavoured to deal with cases of that kind by the subsequent Amendment. It was in the model clause for some time that this work should only be done through a contractor; but the then Chairman of Committees thought there might be cases in which there was no contractor who could undertake the work and therefore the words have been dropped out of the model clause. I submit that there can be no inconvenience to the public if the House accepts my Amendment. If there is no contractor it will be open to the local authority to carry out the work. It has been suggested to me that the word "contractor" is not quite clear, and if the House is good enough to accept this Amendment I will put down a further Amendment for the Third Reading stage defining a contractor so as to meet any doubts on that point. I submit that if your Lordships do not accept my Amendment you will be in reality dealing another blow at that private enterprise to which the prosperity of the country owes so much.
  Amendment moved—
  850
  "In page 8, line 26, after the word 'may,' to insert the words `through a contractor but not otherwise.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWI think your Lordships have to consider, in the first place, the interests of the consumers of electricity. It is extremely convenient to be able to hire fittings from the persons who supply either the electricity or the gas, and I do not think your Lordships would willingly put anything in the way of that very convenient practice. The noble Lord has stated that there may be some doubt as to the exact meaning of the word "contractor," and he is, I understand, ready to bring up words which will widen the interpretation, so that "contractor" may, in practice, cover any man who is capable of undertaking the work of putting in these fittings and supplying the wires. Your Lordships will observe that municipal authorities are already by the clause specially precluded from manufacturing either fittings or wires, and therefore to a large extent the object sought to be attained by the Amendment is already provided for in the Bill. What the noble Lord proposes now is to still further limit local authorities by saying that they shall not fix these fittings or put in the wires in a house except through a contractor. I admit that there is much to be said on the score of the undesirability of allowing municipal authorities to enter too freely into competition with private firms. I have had some experience of this matter, because for some years I was a member of the London County Council, which possessed what it called a works department—a department which carried out the work required by the London County Council without the intervention of a contractor. It was always said that if the council did not have a works department they would have a ring of contractors, and it would be impossible to protect the public against exorbitant charges. What have been the facts? The works department of the council has been done away with. The work is now done by contractors, and a comparison of the estimates made by the officials of the council as to what works in their opinion ought to cost with the actual contract price at which the contractors are prepared to do the work has shown, I believe in every case, a considerable reduction on the official estimates. I think that is the best answer to any argument that an Amendment of this kind is likely to

  851
  lead to a ring of contractors. Therefore if the noble Lord will consider between this and the Third Reading words which will define a "contractor" so as to enable the small man who is working on his own account to come in and do this work on behalf of the municipality, I, for one, shall offer no opposition to the Amendment.
  LORD FABERMy Lords, I rise to support the Amendment on two grounds—first, because I am generally opposed to municipal trading; and, secondly, because I think that in this case there are special circumstances that require the consideration of your Lordships. As I understand Clause 16, it gives the local authority power, not to make electrical fittings and appurtenances, but to become merchants in such things as electric wires, lamps, stoves, and so on. The Amendment is to the effect that a local authority shall not become merchants in these things if there is a merchant in the local area already. I have always thought it dangerous that local authorities should become traders, because, of course, they have not the incentive that a private trader has to look after the concern. The private trader trades with his own money, but the official of a local authority trades with the ratepayers' money and therefore does not care so much whether the matter in which he is engaged is a success or not. Again, a local authority may very easily come into competition with its own ratepayer who is in that particular trade. That is not at all advisable. Another feature in this particular case which deserves the attention of your Lordships is that local authorities have a statutory obligation to inspect electric light wirings and fittings. I do not think it would be reasonable to ask the local authority to inspect fittings they had themselves put into a house. The Woolwich local authority became merchants in electrical fittings with a lamentable result. They lost £25,000 straight off; they continued to lose at the rate of £15,000 a year, and the result was that the business was closed. West Ham were also unfortunate. They increased their stock of merchantable articles in connection with this trade from £3,000 to £25,000. As time went on the stock became obsolete and ought to have been written off, but that has not been done. Therefore that is a bad case, too. I do not think the principle of municipal trading is a good
  852
  one, and if the noble Lord goes to a Division I shall support the Amendment.
  LORD MONKSWELLMy Lords, I cannot allow the statement of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees as to what happened on the London County Council to pass without comment. I sat on that body for eighteen years and knew as much about the works department as probably the noble Earl. The noble Earl stated that it had been proved that the abolition of the works department had been a good policy because several works had been carried out by contractors under the estimate of the council's officials. I would remind him that the works department constantly did work under the estimate of the council's officials. It is very early for the noble Earl to declare that the new policy has resulted in a saving and, that there will be no rings of contractors. How does the noble Earl know that there will be no rings of contractors? It is not likely that they will be form rings at present, but directly they think the thing is safe and that there is no fear of any resurrection of the works department there will be rings. We formed the works department because we had evidence that there were rings of contractors, and we thought that the only way to fight them was to ourselves do work which we could reasonably do. The noble Earl is not correct when he says that the works department carried out all the work required by the council without the intervention of a contractor. We very often employed contractors, and only went to the works department when we thought we could do the work better that way.
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHMy Lords, it seems to me that this Amendment is of such great importance as to warrant its being passed. The Lord Chairman mentioned that it was extremely convenient to be able to hire fittings from the local authority in the event of the local authority supplying the electricity. That may be, but that convenience is a mere flea-bite compared with the importance to the inhabitants of securing that these works are carried on in an economical and proper manner. Where municipalities carry on this trading they have not the same incentive to see that the work is properly done. For these and other obvious reasons I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLThe object which the Board of Trade had in putting this clause in the Bill was to bring the general law into conformity with what has been the almost invariable practice of Parliament in individual cases. In drawing up this clause we followed as closely as possible the words of the model clauses of your Lordships' House. I will let your Lordships into a little secret. I have already said that this Bill has been for a long time on the stocks at the Board of Trade, and I confess that when these words appeared in the model Bill they also appeared in this Bill, and when they were struck out they were also deleted from this Bill last year. As we have followed the lead of the noble Earl in this matter and only desire to bring the general law into conformity with the model clause, we will accept the advice he has given to the House.
  On question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURYI do not think I need trouble your Lordships with the reasons for my next Amendment, because I dealt with them in moving the previous one. The new paragraphs which I move to insert deal with cases in which there may be no contractor immediately available, and I therefore hope the noble Lord will accept them.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 9, line 11, after the word year,' to insert the following new paragraphs:
  (d) Nothing in this section shall in cases where within three months after the undertakers have obtained any loan necessary for the purpose of the undertaking there is or are no firm or firms carrying on the business of electrical contractors within the area of supply prevent the undertakers themselves from exercising the powers given by this section without the employment of a contractor.
  (e) If the undertakers fail to comply with the provisoes (a), (b), and (c) of this section they shall, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the offence is continued after conviction therefore.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWPerhaps I may be allowed to say a word with regard to the observations of my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade. It is quite true that the model clause regarding this matter has varied this year and last year, but the reason was that it was found that if a clause exactly similar to the one in the
  854
  Bill as it has been amended by the Amendment of the noble Lord were put into a Bill promoted by a local authority cases might arise in which there was no contractor who could do the work, and therefore the work could not be done at all. I think that the Bill as amended and as proposed to be now further amended really covers both these points.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI think the noble Lord is to be congratulated on having carried his Amendment to this clause. He will, of course, bring up words defining a "contractor" at the next stage?
  LORD AVEBURYYes.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThe only other Amendment stands in my name. It is a different Amendment, though it touches the same point as the one which I moved in Committee. In deference to the view of the Board of Trade I give up any idea of suggesting that they had power to allow electric plant to be laid across a bridge which carries a railway. The Board of Trade say they have no such power. I accept that, and will say nothing more on that point. On the other point, where a road is carried over a railway at the expense of the railway company, it seems to me that the Board of Trade must accept my Amendment. On the former occasion their argument was that as a county bridge was to overcome a natural obstacle it was right that the county should have protection, but that a railway bridge did not stand in the same position because it was constructed to overcome an obstacle for which the railway company was responsible. But the Amendment inserted in Committee on the motion of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh entirely carries away that argument. If the Bill had remained in the state in which it was introduced there would have been some force in the contention of the Board of Trade, but, as the result of the adoption of Lord Clifford's Amendment, the position is now this. Although, just like the county council, the railway company own part of the main road, subject, of course, to the right of traffic, they are not to have the same privilege as the county council is to have under the same circumstances. There cannot be the slightest logical reason,

  855
  after Lord Clifford's Amendment, for placing railway companies in a different position from county councils. In common fairness they ought to have the same privileges.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 22, after the word 'out' to insert the words Wherever a main road is carried over a railway by a bridge maintained by the railway company all the rights powers privileges and exemptions conferred upon county councils and the benefit of all obligations imposed upon the undertakers by this section shall for the purposes of rebuilding altering widening or repairing such bridge be extended to the railway company and may be exercised and enjoyed by them as fully as if the railway company were a county council and the bridge were a bridge repairable by such council.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLThis is certainly a logical extension of the principle to which your Lordships agreed at the last stage. But I objected, on behalf of the Board of Trade, to that proceeding, and I must object still more strongly in this case, because on top of the objections which we had to giving this immunity in the case of county roads, there is also the objection which I urged against railway companies to which the noble Lord has already alluded. I cannot allow that railway companies' bridges are on the same footing as county council bridges. As I say, we cannot accept this Amendment, but as we have already had a Division on almost the same subject I do not propose, at this late hour, to put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 51.)

  THE ARMY AND THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEMy Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War—(1) What is the total (a) combatant (b) non-combatant establishment of the Expeditionary Force; what number of officers and men of the Regular Army at present available will be included in this force; (2) what number of officers and men will be drawn from the Special Reserve (a) combatant (b) non-combatant; (3)
  856
  what number of men, if any, will be sent abroad under twenty years of age; (4) what number of officers and men over twenty years of ago at present on the strength of the Regular Army will remain in this country to replace the wastage of war after the Expeditionary Force has left (a) combatant (b) non-combatant; (5) what force could be mobilised at home of men of not less than one year's service after the Expeditionary Force has been despatched, dividing (a) Regulars from (b) Special Reserve, as the existing strength of these Forces.
  In putting these questions on the Paper I did not think that I was asking for information the publication of which could possibly be considered inconsistent with national interests. I was, therefore, somewhat surprised to receive a communication from the noble Lord stating that he could not answer my questions in public, but would do so confidentially. I trust, however, that the noble Lord will be able to give us some of the information for which we ask, or tell us the reasons why he cannot do so.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS)My Lords, the Questions which the noble Viscount has placed on the Paper have been considered most carefully, and it has been decided that in so far as the answers to the Questions reveal to a certain extent our mobilisation plans it is impossible for us to give the answers in public. In adopting that position, we are doing only what is done by every country—for no country reveals in public their mobilisation plans—and it is, I believe, strictly according to the precedents in this country. But I would like to repeat what I said a few days ago, that we do not in the least wish to conceal what the position of the Regular Army is with regard to mobilisation. Although it is not in the public interest to make these figures public, if the noble Viscount will do us the honour of visiting the War Office I will endeavour to satisfy him to the fullest degree. I extend that invitation also to the noble Viscount on the Front Bench opposite (Lord Midleton), who has always taken great interest in this question, and to other noble Lords. We are not afraid to show the figures We are perfectly ready and anxious to satisfy noble Lords, as I believe we can, on this matter, but we cannot, I regret to say, make the information public.
  LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I hope that my noble friend is not going to be contented with the extraordinary answer which he has just elicited. We are to understand this from the noble Lord, that in the interests of the public it is not desirable that this information should be disclosed, but that if anybody here, however ignorant or however inquisitive he may be, chooses to take the trouble to go to the War Office he will be supplied with these particulars. I know this old dodge. The excuse of "public interest" is always put forward when there is something the Government wish to keep back. If the noble Lord had a million men up his sleeve and could produce them at a moment's notice there would be some reason for adopting this attitude. Considering that his chief has been going up and down the country boasting and bragging that the military position of this country is better now than it has ever been, and that we possess a finer Expeditionary Force not only than we have ever had before but than any other country has got, we are entitled to the information asked for. I do not know what my noble and gallant friend proposes to do, but I know that if I were in his place I should keep on pressing for an answer until I eventually succeeded in getting a public statement from the noble Lord.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONI am quite certain that the noble Lord desires to give us all the information which he thinks can legitimately be given in the public interest, but I must remind your Lordships that we have been placed in a most unconscionably difficult position in this matter. Actually at this moment we have before us a Return which had to do with the first of January and which was so long under consideration at the War Office that it was only produced to your Lordships just before the Easter recess and a few days after the discussions in the House of Commons on the Estimates had ceased. Therefore we were unable to take advantage of the facts with which we were favoured for any discussion in the House of Commons. Now, when my noble friend brings the matter before your Lordships by Questions we are told that it is contrary to the public interest to give the facts necessary to elucidate these very unsatisfactory papers. Is there a single one of these facts which is not to be found in War Office documents if it were in our power to collate them? The total num
  858
  bers, combatant and non-combatant, have been given over and over again, as also have the number of officers and men to be drawn from the Special Reserve. But what we want to know is the practical strength on which we are working. Then, again, the numbers over-twenty years of age who will remain in this country to replace the wastage of war can be established from War Office figures which have been laid. But there is and always will be very great doubt as regards the actual numbers, and I do not think much would be gained by our forming an estimate and throwing it across the Table at the noble Lord to be told that the estimate was incorrect. What we wish to arrive at is the number remaining in this country on the present strength, not establishment, after the Expeditionary Force has sailed, and the military value of that force. It is unworthy of the Secretary of State at every public meeting he attends, to throw at us the challenges alluded to by Lord Newton, and then to refuse information to make good his boast. It is, too late to-night to attempt to go into all the points, but I would say this, that when the noble Lord appeals to precedent he should cite precedent. I will give two precedents which occur to me on the spur of the moment. I heard Lord Lansdowne when he was Secretary of State for War state, in the middle of the South African War, in answer to a Question in your Lordships' House, exactly the number of Regular troops which then remained in the country after we had sent out I forget what number. That was at a moment of crisis. I myself, as Secretary of State for War, was asked for in 1902, and I laid on the Table of the House of Commons, the establishment, the strength, and the ages of the whole of the troops forming the three Army Corps which we proposed to send out, together with the numbers here in this country and every detail from which such figures could be made out. Therefore I hope that the noble Viscount will put these Questions again in some pertinent form, and the noble Lord must not complan if we endeavour, by whatever means are left to us since we have not the handling of the Estimates in this House, to obtain what is to us important information—namely, the military value of the force which will remain in this country after the Expeditionary Force has left—and for which we have every right to ask.
  LORD LUCASThe Questions on the Paper go a good deal further than merely an interrogation arising out of statements made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in any of his speeches. To answer the Questions in full would be to reveal to a great extent our mobilisation plans, and I adhere to my statement that there is no precedent for that. I do not in the least admit that there is any analogy between the two cases quoted by the noble Viscount on the Front Bench opposite and the revealing of our mobilisation plans. With regard to the views expressed by Lord Newton, I can only say that had the noble Lord studied more carefully before he made those remarks what the invariable policy of all Governments has been with regard to mobilisation plans he would not have spoken as he did.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONWhat precedent can the noble Lord cite for the refusal of the information asked for which is not mobilisation information?
  LORD LUCASI believe that information of this kind has never been given, and I should be surprised if the noble Vis
  860
  count could quote any instance where it had been given.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEMy Lords, in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply I have received from the Under-Secretary of State for War, I give notice that I shall put the Questions again a week hence. I am deeply interested in the Special Reserve, a force to which I belong, and I fail to see what harm could be done by giving the information asked for in regard to it. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able next week to answer some, if not all, of the Questions.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  LORD LUCASMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn, except for judicial business, until Tuesday next.
  Moved, that the House do adjourn, except for judicial business, until Tuesday next.—(Lord Lucas.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.