Lords Sitting of 13 September 1909

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that he had received from the Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court of Justice a certificate under the Seal of the said Court stating that he had read the original order of discharge in the case of the Right Honourable Charles Douglas Richard Baron Sudeley, and that by such order his Lordship was granted his discharge as from the 16th day of November, 1903.
BURY CORPORATION BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 30th of August last discharged, and Bill committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; (viz.),

E. Derby (chairman),

V. Hill,

L. Zouche of Haryngworth,

L. Farnham,

L. Abinger;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 21st instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  DUNOON BURGH BILL, [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
EDUCATION (PHYSICAL TRAINING) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for physical training in elementary, secondary, and continuation schools—Was presented by the Viscount Hill; read 11, and to be printed. (No. 167.)
DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for the payment of fees to veterinary surgeons and practitioners for notification of diseases of animals—Was presented by the Earl Carrington; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 168.)
LUNE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Moved, That the order made on the 18th day of May last, That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 30th day of June next be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read a second time, agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

SUPERANNUATION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this is a Bill of some considerable importance to the Civil Service, and therefore, I think, merits a few words of explanation. It is, I may say, the outcome of dissatisfaction that has been felt by Civil servants for some years past with regard to certain grievances caused by the working of the existing system of pensions. In 1903 a Commission, presided over by my noble friend Lord Courtney, inquired into this matter, and drew up a scheme which was eventually submitted to the Civil Service, and which, I may say in passing, appears to have received the approval of Mr. Austen Chamberlain when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I said, this scheme was submitted to the Civil Service, but for various reasons no definite result was arrived at till the year 1907, when a plebiscite was taken of Civil servants throughout the country by a body known as the Deferred Pay Committee, and this resulted in a majority for what is known as the Courtney scheme as against alternative schemes. This Bill really embodies, with certain modifications and alterations, the recommendations of the Commission presided over by my noble friend. A committee of actuaries was appointed by the Treasury, and they reported that they were able to recommend certain improvements in the scheme which would give better results for the men themselves than

1075
the recommendations of Lord Courtney's Commission. This Bill was regarded as a non-contentious Bill in another place. Really all it does, or seeks to do, is to distribute in a slightly different way certain charges which appear annually on the Votes; and therefore I trust it may have a smooth and a rapid passage through this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denman.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I understand that this Bill is the outcome of a long series of negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the 'members of the Civil Service, and that it has behind it the high weight of authority derived from a Commission presided over by Lord Courtney. Therefore I am quite prepared to regard the proposals contained in it as proposals which are virtually agreed to. But there is one which I must say seems to me so novel that I think a word of explanation with regard to it might be desirable— I mean the proposal which is to be found in the sixth clause of the Bill. I interpret that clause as having this effect, that whereas until lately, at all events, it was usual to give, under the old Superannuation Acts, special compensation to members of the Civil Service whose office was abolished by the act of His Majesty's Government, that special allowance will no longer be given. The wording of the clause suggests that where the office held by a member of the Civil Service is abolished he will not be entitled to receive any compensation exceeding that which might be granted to him if he retired on the ground of ill-health. Now, my Lords, I must say that prima facie there seems to me to be all the difference in the world between the case of a man who, owing to his own misfortune, is obliged to retire from the service, and the case of another man whose retirement is imposed upon him by the action of the Government of the day. The second case is one certainly of exceptional hardship, and I am surprised that it should have been thought proper to deprive those Civil servants who are the sufferers from events of that kind of the special consideration which certainly in the time when I knew anything about these matters they used to receive. Perhaps some member of His Majesty's Government may kindly enlighten us on that point.
LORD DENMAN: I believe that these considerations were carefully gone into by the Treasury, and the recommendations have the endorsement of the men themselves. I think it would be best that I should inquire into the particular point which the noble Marquess raises, and give him at a later stage of the Bill the information desired.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

TRADE BOARDS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I make no apology to your Lordships for saying one of two words upon this stage of the Bill, because there were several details with which we did not deal on the Second Reading. Moreover, I understand that it is for the convenience of His Majesty's Government that I should raise one or two points at this stage rather than in Committee, especially as there are no Amendments on the Paper to the clauses to which I desire to advert. Clause 3 is in its nature to some extent an excrescence on the Bill. The remainder of the Bill has to do with the fixing of a minimum rate of wages in the special trades, but in Clause 3 a different provision is made under which a report may be called for from a Trade Board upon any matter with which the trade in question has to do. I do not say that that is, in itself, an objectionable clause, but as I do not think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill referred to it on the Second Reading I should like to ask to what kind of subject it is proposed to apply this power to demand a report. There is a certain anxiety felt amongst employers that this clause may be used in an inquisitorial manner, and that they may be called upon to disclose matters which in the course of their business they much prefer and which they are entitled to keep secret—I mean things which have to do with secrets of the trade, which, of course, it is part of their interest to keep to themselves lest their rivals should take advantage of them. And your

1077
Lordships will notice that under Clause 14 there is a general power to appoint officers to carry out the Bill when it becomes an Act. The words are very general, and it is thought that these officers would be invested under that clause with almost universal power to, if I may use a colloquial phrase, poke their noses into matters which do not concern them. I am sure that is not the intention of His Majesty's Government, but it would reassure public opinion if the noble Lord could make a statement as to the kind of topic which would be the subject of this report, and the kind of way in which this clause would be used.
Then I have a word or two to say on a more important clause—Clause 5. This is the clause which provides part of the machinery for carrying into effect the establishment of a minimum rate of wages. The provisions of the Bill are rather elaborate. In the first place, the Trade Board consider the question of the establishment of a minimum rate of wages and then give three months notice of their intention to fix a particular scale. Then, at the end of that three months, so far as the Trade Board are concerned, their resolution becomes absolute. But that is not the end of the matter. Then it passes to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade consider it, not for three months but for six months, and it is not until after the end of the six months that the minimum rate of wages becomes absolutely fixed and part of the law of the land. Now, my Lords, speaking without having heard what the Government have to say in defence of that arrangement, they will allow me to make the observation that it seems unduly clumsy. In order to fix the minimum rate of wages there has to be an interval of nine months, during which no one will know for certain what the rate of wages is going to be. Upon the face of it, any uncertainty in the rate of wages is a mistake, and I think the Government themselves are conscious of it, because there are certain other provisions inserted with the view of mitigating the effect of this long delay.
In the first place, it is proposed that after the Trade Board have provisionally fixed the rate of wages although it shall not be absolutely the law of the land yet it shall have a certain validity. It shall have a validity wherever the Government employ a contractor—employ an employer, if I may use the term. It shall also have a validity everywhere unless the employer
1078
and his workpeople come to a written agreement to the contrary. I am quite unable to see the advantage of such an arrangement. If the confirmation of the Board of Trade is necessary at all, it evidently implies a certain doubt on the part of the Government as to whether the Trade Board are entirely to be trusted; otherwise they would not make the provision at all. So that we must assume, without desiring in any way to derogate from the reputation of these Trade Boards, that as a matter of policy and prudence the Government do not trust them altogether, because if they did they would not propose a confirmation by the Board of Trade at all. If they do not trust them altogether it seems to me a very great mistake that the rate of wages should have any validity until it has been confirmed by the Board of Trade. There is no reason why, because a man is working for His Majesty's Government, he should have to pay a rate of wages in which the Government have not got complete trust.
Then, again, there is the provision as to the written agreement. When you come to consider the class of workpeople who will have to come to these agreements, is it not obvious that anything in the nature of a written document is out of the question? It is absurd to expect these poor women to decide whether they ought to make a written agreement with their employers as to their rate of wages. Therefore the provision is, on the face of it, in need of very great defence. The Government are so conscious of the clumsiness of this interval of nine months before the rate of wages becomes definite that they have a most wonderful subsection in Clause 5—subsection (4)—which proposes that in certain cases, wherever they like, the Board of Trade can give a blank cheque to a Trade Board before they know what the rate of wages is which the Trade Board may arrive at. And not only are they to give this blank cheque to the Trade Board to come to any decision they like, but positively that power is given, not to an existing Trade Board, but to a Trade Board which is about to exist and of which they do not even know the constitution. That is a very remarkable provision, and it shows to what straits the Government were put in order to diminish the interval of time which they themselves have provided. Under this subsection the period is diminished from nine months to six months. I suggest to the Government that all this is a mistake,

1079
The time is too long. If we agree—and we all agree—that something in the nature of this Bill ought to be passed, surely the people interested can come to a conclusion in something under nine months; and if the three months notice of the Trade Board itself were left, as it ought to be left, the consideration of the Board of Trade should be diminished enormously—it should be diminished certainly to three months; I think it could be diminished to one month. And in these circumstances the whole period for fixing a minimum rate of wages would be a much less formidable affair, and the advantage would accrue that not only would people get their minimum rate of wages at once but you would cut out of the Bill all these complicated provisions. I submit that that would be a far more workmanlike piece of legislation than the kind of compromise which His Majesty's Government propose. If the Government will be good enough, therefore, to enlighten us as to the meaning and effect of Clauses 3 and 5 I think your Lordships would be able to enter upon the Committee stage of this Bill with much more profit.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I must first of all thank the noble Marquess for having given me notice of his intention to raise these points, which are not dealt with by any Amendment on the Paper. First of all, with regard to Clause 3, that clause does not give any kind of compulsory powers to the Trade Boards. It merely states that they may be consulted by a Government Department if the Department wishes for any information regarding that particular trade, and I should have thought that quite a reasonable proposal. There is nothing inquisitorial in it, and I really think the noble Marquess's fears are without foundation. I will give an example of the sort of thing on which information might be asked for. Information might be sought regarding the amount of unemployment. That is a matter which would probably be within the knowledge of the members of the Trade Board, and one on which they could, I think, very rightly and usefully give information to a Government Department.
Then the noble Marquess criticised Clause 5. I know from what he told us on the Second Reading of the Bill that his criticism is in no way hostile. Indeed, the criticism is of a kind to which' we are not altogether accustomed on this side of
1080
the House. The noble Marquess criticises us because he thinks we are going too slowly. That is a great compliment to the Bill, and I am glad to think the noble Marquess regards our scheme as so perfect that it might be put into operation without a moment's delay. But, as the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition observed on the Second Reading, the Government are proceeding extremely cautiously in this matter, and if we have committed any fault at all it is certainly due to excess of caution and not to the reverse. But I do not think that in reality there is any excess of caution. The question which the noble Marquess raises really divides itself into two points. First, he asks whether the perod of six months between the fixing of the rate and the issue of the compulsory order is excessive, and then he asks what should be the position of the rate fixed by the Trade Board before such compulsory order is made.
The first of these questions was very carefully considered. It is a matter which has been given, perhaps, more consideration than any other point in the Bill, and the conclusion arrived at was that the period of six months so far from being excessive was, if anything, the reverse—that it was as short as it could be made. As the Bill was originally introduced provision was made for a longer period—that is to say, at least six months was to elapse before the Board of Trade were to take the matter into consideration. Therefore the period occupied would probably have been eight or nine months at least; but eventually, as the result of inquiries and negotiations, the inclusive period of six months was arrived at. The object of this six months interval is not at all the same as the object of the three months notice which the Trade Board must give of its intention to fix the rate. That three months notice is to enable the Trade Board to hear objections to the rate. When, however, a rate is definitely fixed by a Trade Board the actual amount of the rate is final so far as the Board of Trade is concerned. It is not intended that the Board of Trade should revise a rate fixed by a Trade Board, but merely consider whether the circumstances of a case are such that it is inexpedient or premature to enforce that rate by legal compulsion on all employers and workers. In the opinion of the Government it is only fair to give some time before a compulsory

1081
order is made, if only to enable employers to complete their contracts. That, I think, is a reason which will appeal to the noble Marquess as being a fair one.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But how does that fit in with the written agreement which must be come to between the workman and the employer?
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: If the contracts have to be fulfilled I suppose that a written agreement would be entered into.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: A written agreement cannot be entered into unless the workpeople are willing. Therefore if the answer of the noble Lord is to be taken, the employer would be bound under contract to do certain things and the Government would have given him six months in order to do so, but when he comes to try his workpeople will not sign the agreement.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: In that case he would not be able to enter into the agreement. He would have to make other arrangements. It is also necessary that the general attitude of the trade and the circumstances may be sufficiently known to enable the Board of Trade to judge of the expediency of making an order. If for the above purposes the period of six months is not excessive, and if at the expiration of that period the Board of Trade may further postpone the application of general compulsion, the question arises what should be the operation of the rate fixed in the meantime. It may, perhaps, be suggested—and I think it is suggested by the noble Marquess—that unless and until the rate is made legally obligatory on all it ought not to be recognised in any way.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: There might be some plausibility in that contention if the Board of Trade were entrusted with the duty of revising the rate, but the Board of Trade is not entrusted with that duty; and it must be assumed that the rate is a fair one having been fixed by the Trade Board composed of representatives of the trade drawn both from employers and from
1082
employed. In the opinion of the Board of Trade, therefore, this rate, as soon as fixed, should become the minimum standard, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, between the parties to a wages contract, and, further, in the case of public contracts subject to the fair wages clause this rate should be at once recognised as the minimum standard of fair wages. In some cases Departments such as the War Office and the Post Office actually stipulate the minimum rates in their contracts, and we think it is right that the minimum rates fixed after exhaustive inquiry by the Trade Board should immediately become the standard minimum for purposes of contracts of this kind, independently of the question whether the Board of Trade have made a compulsory order applicable to all employers. That is a statement of the reasons on account of which we think it is necessary that this intermediate stage should be retained in the Bill, and I hope that they will satisfy the doubts which the noble Marquess has expressed on the subject.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved an Amendment providing that Trade Boards "shall as far as possible" fix general minimum rates of wages for piece work, instead of "may if they think fit." He said the policy of Clause 4 was to establish a time-rate of wages in every case, but a time-rate could never apply to home-workers or out-workers in whose behalf the Bill was really to be passed. The time-rate was only a step towards a piece-rate of wages. They began with a time-rate and then ascertained what an "ordinary" worker—though what an "ordinary" worker was he could not conceive—would do in the time, and, though it was not efficiently carried out in the proposal of the Government, that was what they conceived ought to be the piece-rate of wages. It was evident that wherever a piece-rate of wages could be fixed it ought to be fixed, because it was the piece-rate alone which protected

1083
the home worker. The clause provided that the Trade Board must fix a time-rate, but might also, if they thought fit, fix a piece-rate. He quite agreed that there were conceivably cases when it might not be possible to fix a piece-rate because of the immense variety of the processes in the trade, but in the normal case where it was possible to fix a piece-rate it ought always to be done.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'may also if they think fit' and to insert the words shall also as far as possible.' "—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said he was compelled to resist the Amendment. The noble Marquess had said that piece-rates should invariably be fixed as well as time-rates. As the clause stood, it was provided that the Trade Boards must fix a time-rate, and might, if they thought necessary, fix a piece-rate. It might very often happen that it was unnecessary to fix a piece-rate. The processes might be so complex and might change so frequently that it would be really a waste of time to fix a piece-rate. He believed that this was particularly the case in certain parts of the tailoring trade which were liable to fluctuations of fashions. In such cases they did not think that the Trade Board should be compelled to fix a piece-rate, and that it was much better to leave the matter open and voluntary as in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am not quite sure that the noble Lord apprehends the exact purport of the Amendment. My noble friend does not suggest that the Board should be compelled to fix a piece-rate. We assume that you are to have a time-rate. It follows from that that, as far as possible, you should have a piece-rate which would correspond approximately with the time-rate, and therefore as far as possible my noble friend wishes a piece-rate as well as a time-rate to be fixed. Is the noble Lord in charge of the Bill really prepared to tell us that in cases where it is possible to fix a piece-rate it is not desirable to fix it? It seems to me that my noble friend's Amendment really tends to make the Bill more in accordance with the intention of the framers.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): Surely the noble Marquess who has just sat down has somewhat overstated his case. If what he said is to be taken literally, the Amendment of the noble Marquess would have no effect at all, because I understand him to say that the Amendment places no obligation on the fixing of a piece-rate further than those who have to fix it may think possible. Well, we assume that if they think it possible to fix a piece-rate they will do so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why assume that?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Surely it is only reasonable. Where there is a demand for fixing a piece-rate and it can be done, we must assume that they will do it; but if they are to be left to be judges in their own case as to whether it is possible, the Amendment leaves the Bill where it stood.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said it did not follow at all that the Trade Boards would fix minimum rates for piecework in every case, for the time-rate alone was quite sufficient for factory work. The Government, however, were dealing with trades in which there was competition between time work and home work, and the danger of the Bill was that they would favour the factory worker at the expense of the home worker and crush the latter out of existence altogether. The Trade Board might be dominated by factory workers and no piece-work rate might be fixed, or, if one was fixed, it might be so unsatisfactory as to concentrate work in the factories. It was very important that the piece-rate should be fixed at the very beginning, and if it could be done it surely ought to be done.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said that when the noble Marquess stated that the Trade Board might be dominated by representatives of factory workers who might wish to crush home workers out of existence, he had evidently forgotten that there was a provision in the Bill which was an adequate safeguard against such a danger. Supposing such a case existed, it would be equally to the advantage of the employer of the home workers that that work should be kept going.

1085
If this work was brought to an end his business would also come to an end, and therefore it might be supposed that he would do his best to keep it going. Under Clause 4, subsection (5), he was entitled to apply to have a special minimum piece-rate fixed, and it might be presumed that he would come to the Trade Board and ask that a special minimum piece-rate should be fixed. Therefore if the Trade Board adopted the course which the noble Marquess anticipated the result would be that all these employers would be continually coming to them asking for special minimum piece-rates to be fixed for every one of the articles they manufactured. They would become so importunate that he thought that in the case of the most hard-hearted Trade Board, if such existed —and he confessed that the noble Marquess's idea of Trade Boards differed materially from their own—there would be no difficulty in getting a general piece-rate fixed.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL hoped their Lordships would insist upon the Amendment. The refusal of the Government to accept it was as suspicious as it was unaccountable. What possible objection could there be to telling the Trade Boards that they were to do a certain thing if it was possible to do so, more particularly seeing that that certain thing was essential for the object of the Bill? The whole object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Home Work,' and the whole of those recommendations were that the protection of Trade Boards and of minimum wages should be given to home workers.
LORD AVEBURY*LORD AVEBURY said the Bill was a very novel experiment and it was better to proceed slowly. It would he thought be safer to leave the decision to the Trade Boards. He was afraid that the words proposed by Lord Salisbury would have an opposite effect to that intended. Lord Salisbury was wisely anxious to protect the home workers, but if their wages were fixed too high they might lose their employment. As the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had said, the tendency of the Trade Boards would be to fix those minimum rates of wages, but it was very difficult to fix the rate of wages for piecework done at home, and if the Board did not see their way to do that it did seem to him to be a rather dangerous experiment to put com-
1086
pulsion upon them. The result might be to crush out the home worker whose interests the noble Marquess had so much at heart.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY said he was a little afraid that the adoption of the Amendment might have an effect slightly different from that which was intended in the case of those trades where, owing to the vagaries of fashion, the possibility of prescribing a piece-rate almost disappeared owing to the fact that the fashion changed practically from month to month. He suggested that the object aimed at would be achieved by deleting "if they think fit," which would be sufficient to show that they were not giving an absolute discretion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that so long as he achieved his object he had no desire to force any particular words upon the Government, and if the Government preferred to take the words suggested by the most rev. Primate he would offer no objection. The phrase "may if they think fit" was consecrated by usage as giving absolutely unfettered discretion. It was almost an invitation to people not to do a thing if there should be the least reason against it, and that seemed to him quite the wrong spirit in which to approach this clause.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL accepted the Amendment in the form suggested by the most rev. Primate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY then withdrew his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 34, to leave out the words if they think tit.'"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to omit the word "universally" ["those rates of wages may be fixed so as to apply universally to the trade "] and to substitute the word "generally." He submitted that the word "universally" was inaccurate. No Act of Parliament applied universally. Throughout the Bill the phrase "general" rate was used, and therefore it would be more appropriate to use the word "generally" here. This was merely a verbal Amendment, but he ventured to think it was a necessary one.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 38, to leave out the word universally,' and to insert the word 'generally.' —(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL did not think the difference between "universally" and "generally" very great. The reason why the word "universally" was used here was to avoid confusion with the general minimum piece-rate which occurred repeatedly throughout the Bill. The Government did not feel very strongly on the matter, but they thought the clause was clearer as it stood.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved the insertion of a new paragraph providing that the general minimum piece-rate should be such as would yield in the circumstances of the case to an average worker at least the same amount of money as the minimum time-rate. He understood, from the course of the debate on Second Reading, that this interpreted the views of the Government. He asked across the Table whether the Government intended that in every case the piece-rate should correspond exactly with the time-rate, and the noble Lord in charge of the Bill signified his assent. There was only one difference between his words and the words in the later clause, and that was that he used the word "average" instead of the word "ordinary." He hoped the Government would accept the word "average," for it was impossible to say what an "ordinary" workman was. Supposing, for instance, there were five categories of work-people, one earning 10 s. in a given time, one 11 s., one 12 s., one 13 s., and one 14 s., and that there were about equal numbers in each category—in that case which would be the ordinary worker? The phrase "ordinary worker" was not really capable of accurate interpretation. What the Government really meant was an average worker, and that was the phrase he ventured to use in his Amendment. The Act would have to be interpreted, not by a public Department, but by a magistrate. It was when the employer was alleged not to have paid the minimum rate of wages and was brought before the magistrate that the word would have to be interpreted. He could not conceive how a magistrate would interpret the word "ordinary" in this connection.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, after line 3, to insert the following new paragraph: 'The general minimum piece-rate shall be such as would yield in the circumstances of the case to an average worker at least the same amount of money as the minimum time-rate.' "—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the noble Marquess had quoted him as having said on the previous stage that the minimum piece-rate would in every case be calculated on what an ordinary or average worker would be able to earn at the time-rate. He did not think he said in every case. At any rate, that was not his intention. That would be the standard which any sensible Trade Board would undoubtedly adopt and it was the standard adopted in a later part of the Bill, but they did not wish to fetter the judgment of the Trade Board. Though, as he had said, they believed that this would be the standard which would be adopted in fixing the piece-rate, they wished to leave the Trade Board a certain amount of elasticity. The noble Marquess was deeply interested in the welfare of the home worker. It might easily happen that in some exceptional cases it might be well to raise the wages of home workers gradually and not with a big jump. It was possible that they might be able to improve the conditions of home workers if they went very carefully and slowly to work, but if they compelled the Trade Board to adopt a hard-and-fast standard he thought there was a great danger of producing exactly the result which the noble Marquess feared. For that reason the Government preferred the slight elasticity given by the Bill. The point as to the difference between "average" and "ordinary" was dealt with by an Amendment standing in the name of Lord Ampthill in a later stage of the Bill. The Government preferred the word "ordinary" to "average," and he would explain why when that particular Amendment was reached.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY intimated that he would not press his Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to add to subsection (5)—
"(5) A Trade Board shall on the application of any employer fix a special minimum piece-rate to apply as respects the persons employed by him in cases to which a minimum time-rate but no

1089
general minimum piece-rate is applicable, and may as they think fit cancel or vary any such rate either on the application of the employer or after notice to the employer,"
the words "such notice to be given not less than one month before cancellation or variation of any such rate." Their Lordships would see that subsection (4) gave power to the Board of Trade to cancel or vary the minimum rate fixed under the foregoing provisions. If this power was retained the Bill ought also to contain some provision for giving notice to the employer so that he might have a reasonable period in which to make the necessary business arrangements in regard to his establishment. The subsection itself pre-supposed that the employer was a decent sort of fellow, because it assumed that he might apply to have this piece-rate fixed. He did not see in those circumstances why the employer should not have the benefit of such notice. It seemed to him not only a reasonable but a necessary provision to make.
Amendment moved —
"In page 3, line 28, after the word 'employer' to insert time words such notice to be given net less than one month before cancellation or variation of any such rate.' "—(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MILNER*VISCOUNT MILNER moved to add the following new subsection to the clause—
" It shall be competent to any employer to make application that a special minimum piece-rate shall be fixed for him by the appointed members only of a Trade Board, provided that he can show to the satisfaction of such appointed members that the value of the article in respect of which such application is made lies principally in the secret nature of the pattern or process employed, and provided also that such special minimum piece-rate shall continue for a period fixed by the appointed members, but which shall not exceed six months unless so extended by special order of the Board of Trade, and shall be subject to revision by the whole of the Trade Board at the expiry of that period."
He thought the adoption of this Amendment might possibly help to remove what might well be a difficulty in the working of the Bill. The success of the Bill would depend largely upon the cordial co-operation of the better class of employers with the authorities and with the representatives
1090
of the workers, and it was desirable to remove from the working of the Bill anything which could cause a legitimate sense of grievance on the part of the employers or put a genuine difficulty in their way. He thought any one who had studied the evidence given before the Committee on Home Work would see that the question of changing and secret patterns was one which was constantly referred to as representing a real difficulty. In many of the sweated trades, and certainly in one of the trades already included in the schedule, the number of these patterns was very great. Schedules of minimum piece-rates existed which included hundreds of them, and the framers of the Bill had undoubtedly taken this matter into consideration by the arrangements which they had made in order to enable special as distinct from general minimum piece-rates to be rapidly and easily fixed. Subsection (5) of Clause 4, especially provided for these, and their Lordships might also observe that in a later stage of the Bill it was provided that the district committees of the Trade Boards might deal with the case of special minimum piece-rates independently of the Boards themselves. That was, no doubt, rendered necessary by the frequent changes of patterns, and by the necessity of having some expeditious way of fixing rates of payment for them. That was well; but there remained this great difficulty, that in regard to these frequently-changing patterns, for each of which a piece-rate had to he fixed, there were a number the value of which consisted in their being secret, and if an employer who desired honestly to carry out the provisions of the Bill wished to get one of these special piece-rates fixed he was obliged to go to a body on which his competitors were represented and to give away the secret. That was a real hardship. It might be a real injustice even to the best of employers, and if there was any way of removing this difficulty without in the least injuring the interests of the workers they ought surely to adopt it. He did not for a moment pretend that the wording of his Amendment was the best way of meeting the difficulty, but the suggestion in his Amendment was that in these cases, where the whole value of the new pattern to an employer consisted in its secrecy, he should be able to go to some person who was not in the trade, and yet was a person whom all could trust, and get a special piece-rate fixed by that person. There were to

1091
be members of the Trade Boards appointed by the Board of Trade, and they would, no doubt, be persons of special experience who could be trusted—men like Mr. George Askwith, whose experience and knowledge in these matters was as unrivalled as his sympathy with the workers was unquestionable. Therefore there would not be the least danger that these people, to whom the fixing of the special piece-rate was entrusted, would do anything injurious to the worker or anything calculated to hamper the operation of the Bill, and at the same time the employer would have protection. He hoped the Government would see their way to get over this difficulty by adopting his Amendment or by some other method.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 28, after subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection: It shall be competent to any employer to make application that a special minimum piece-rate shall be fixed for him by the appointed members only of a Trade Board, provided that he can show to the satisfaction of such appointed members that the value of the article in respect of which such application is made lies principally in the secret nature of the pattern or process employed, and provided also that such special minimum piece-rate shall continue for a period fixed by the appointed members, but which shall not exceed six months unless so extended by special order of the Board of Trade, and shall be subject to revision by the whole of the Trade Board at the expiry of that period.' "—(Viscount Milner.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL assured the noble Viscount that this point had not been lost sight of and that it had been carefully considered. It was felt that a secret process would not be likely to be given out for home work. It would naturally be kept in the factory. The Government did not like the Amendment because it was a departure from the principle of the Bill that rates should be fixed by Trade Boards upon which employers and employed would be equally represented, and the responsibility should be with them. If the noble Viscount had in his mind any cases of special hardship and would confer with him, they would go into the matter and might arrange an Amendment for the next stage of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said the point of the Amendment was a very real one, and there was a great deal of evidence before the Select Committee bearing out what the noble Viscount had said. What the employers in these cases
1092
were afraid of was that they would have to expose to their rivals the trade patterns which they were about to bring out and which depended for their value on the fact that they were novelties and were not to be found in any other manufactory or works. The fact that there were on the Trade Boards other employers made the difficulty. He hoped that on reconsideration the Government would find themselves able to meet the noble Viscount to some extent at any rate.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said it was not necessary, in the case of an employer who had a secret pattern, that he should apply for a special minimum piece-rate at all. If he had a factory he might carry on the manufacture in the factory, when the workers would come under the general time-rate but if the work had to be sent out, there was no necessity for him to have a minimum piece-rate fixed by the Trade Board. He could fix his own rate for the home workers, and all that he was asked to do by the Bill was to pay them such a rate as would not be less than they would receive if they were working on time work. As long as he complied with that provision there was no necessity for hint to apply for the fixing of a special minimum piece-rate. Therefore if an employer was afraid of giving information to his trade rivals it was to be presumed that he would follow that course. As he had said, he would be very glad to confer with the noble Viscount on the subject.
VISCOUNT MILNER VISCOUNT MILNER said he had no wish to press the Amendment as the Board of Trade were willing to consider the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to leave out, from the end of subsection (2), the words "but the power to order the payment of wages under this provision shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any right of the person employed to recover wages by any other proceedings." His object was to raised question concerning which some doubt had arisen. In the circumstances he would

1093
not press the Amendment if an explanation were given. It appeared to some people that under this clause it might be possible for wages to be recoverable twice over—once under the order of the Court provided for by the subsection, and a second time in an ordinary action to recover wages. He knew that the question was raised in the House of Commons, and that His Majesty's Government held that there was no reason for this doubt; but the answer given on behalf of the Government had not satisfied a great number of people, who still felt rather doubtful on the point. He had placed the Amendment on the Paper with the object of giving the noble Lord in charge of the Bill an opportunity of explaining rather more clearly why there was no reason for the doubt entertained by persons interested in the matter.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 5, to leave out from the word 'rate' to the end of subsection (2)."—(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL had no hesitation in saying that there was not the slightest fear that anybody could recover wages twice over by the words as they stood in the Bill. Counsel's opinion on that point was absolutely clear. What would happen would be that there would be one prosecution, and if a master were convicted other workmen could recover as for a civil debt. If the words were omitted from the clause they might be prevented from recovering as for a civil debt, and would have to institute further prosecutions. Therefore the master would be subjected to a series of prosecutions, whereas as the Bill stood one prosecution would be sufficient, and the remaining wages could be recovered as a civil debt.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN suggested that in the lines proposed to be left out the words "be in addition to, and "should be omitted, and the word" be "inserted after "not." The words would then read, "but the power to order the payment of wages under this provision shall not be in derogation of any right of the person employed to recover wages by any other proceedings."
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL was prepared to accept the Amendment in that form.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL thought the alteration proposed by Lord Camperdown an excellent one, and withdrew his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN then moved the Amendment he had foreshadowed.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 6, to leave out the words be in addition to, and' and to insert, after the word not,'the word he.'"—(The Earl of Camper-down.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to insert, after the word "employed" at the commencement of subsection (3) ["if a Trade Board are satisfied that any worker employed"] the words "or desiring to be employed." The clause as drafted applied only to a worker actually employed on time work. It surely could not be intended that the unfortunate worker who was out of employment probably owing to the very disability to which the subsection applied should not be granted a permit. He felt certain it was merely an oversight, and that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 9, after the word employed,' to insert the words 'or desiring to be employed.'"—(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to amend subsection (4)—
"(4) On any prosecution of an employer under this section, it shall lie on the employer to prove by the production of proper wages sheets or other records of wages or otherwise that he has not paid, or agreed to pay wages at less than the minimum rate,"
by inserting after the word "section," the words "after the prosecution have shown a primâ facie case of a breach by the employer of the provisions of this Act." He ventured to think that this was an important Amendment. As the Bill stood, the whole onus of proving his innocence was thrown on an employer in any prosecution

1095
under this section. As the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition had pointed out during the debate on Second Reading, this was a departure from the ordinary provisions of the English Criminal Law, which required the prosecution in all cases to prove that the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. He was aware that the reply made on behalf of the Government was that the only possible means of proof were the employer's books and records. That might be so, but he thought it should at least devolve upon the prosecution to establish before a magistrate that a breach of the Act had actually taken place before the onus of proving his innocence was thrown upon the employer. Incidentally this provision in the Bill threw a very serious burden on employers, who were very often in a small way and illiterate—namely, that of keeping regular books and records of their business transactions; and in the circumstances it seemed to be very desirable that they should not be exposed to any further liability or responsibility than was necessary.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 23, after the word 'section,' to insert the words after the prosecution have shown a primaâ facie case of a breach by the employer of the provisions of this Act.' "—(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL could not accept the Amendment. As he had explained at the last stage of the Bill, this was one of those cases where they thought the onus of proof must be placed upon the defendant. He admitted that this procedure was a departure from the ordinary principles of law, but it was not an entire novelty. The noble Lord's proposal would, in fact, retransfer the onus of proof to the prosecution. It was easy to imagine what would happen in a case of this sort. The Trade Board would receive information that some employer was in the habit of paying less than the standard rate of wages, but it would be difficult to get proof of this. The work-people would be very reluctant to come forward. If the employer chose to keep books, and there was no apparent reason why he should not, he would at once be in a position to refute the charge against him. If he did not keep books, what would happen would be this. Some workman or workwoman, who was particularly bold, would come into Court and swear that he or she had been paid less than the standard
1096
rate of wages. On the other hand, there would be the evidence of the employer, who would swear that he had paid the standard rate of wages. It would be impossible in that case to obtain a conviction without a provision such as that in the Bill. If an employer did not keep books, there was no reason why he should -not be a loser by his neglect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY thought the doctrine of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill rather a hard one. Some of these employers were very small people themselves.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: That makes it all the easier for them to keep books.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that books were not always easy to keep. Though he agreed that an employer in a well-managed business should keep books, yet they were dealing with many very small people indeed. If the least reason was shown to the magistrate that there had been a breach of the Act the books would be at once called for. All that the Amendment provided was that before an employer was brought up on a criminal charge the prosecution should show a primâ facie case against him. The moment the primâ facie case was shown the proof would follow from the books, which would be produced by the magistrate's order. The real question was whether a man ought to be brought up on a criminal charge unless there was a primâ facie case against him. That was one of the foundations of British liberty.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said that in any case of this sort the prosecution would be bound to make out a primâ facie case before it could go on. If there was no case, there would be nothing to defend and no answer would be necessary. Therefore the words could make no possible difference. The prosecution would be bound to show that there was a case against the employer of not having paid wages up to the proper amount, and then he would be obliged to produce his books. It seemed to him that the Amendment would not make the slightest difference.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord who has just sat down has more or less anticipated what I was going to say. I was

1097
going to ask the noble Marquess opposite what is meant by a primâ facie case. What I suppose would happen in these cases would be that some worker would make an assertion that he or she had received less during a particular period than the minimum wage. He or she could not, I think, prove that in any way. It would be a bare assertion. Would that bare assertion be a primâ facie case? If not, the effect would undoubtedly be to transfer the burden of proof to the worker affected. That is exactly what we do not want to do. That assertion having been made, which in my view constitutes a primâ facie case—at least it is the only case you can get—the next step would be to call for the books. What case can there be that is not a primâ facie case? If no such assertion is made, there surely can be no such case at all. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. We assert very strongly that we do not wish to transfer any portion of the burden of proof from the employer to the worker.
VISCOUNT MILNER*VISCOUNT MILNER was afraid that if the Amendment was adopted it might present formidable obstacles to the working of the Bill. He could not help feeling that the magistrates might experience some doubt as to the interpretation of the words. If a poor woman who really had no evidence to give came forward and stated that she had not been paid what she was entitled to, were they sure that the magistrate would hold that that was a primâfacie case? He might do so, but he thought a magistrate would be quite justified in asking what evidence the woman had. If these poor workpeople came forward, he could not see that it was at all unreasonable that the employer should be called upon to disprove their assertion. This he could do by the production of the wages sheet. The worker very often had nothing but his or her bare word, and he was sure that any magistrate would be justified in ruling that the mere assertion was not a primâ facie case. That was a danger which ought to be avoided.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY asked the noble Lord not to press the Amendment. It might lead to the very kind of danger against which it was intended to guard. He thought it
1098
had been forgotten that they were only dealing in this clause with prosecutions which came from the Trade Board itself. Therefore there was the requirement first of something in the nature of a primâ facie case prior to its coming before the magistrate for decision.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The point we are discussing is one which I ventured to lay some stress upon in the debate on the Second Reading, and therefore I do not like to desert my noble friend behind me while this conversation is in progress. A great many of us were shocked by the appearance of this Bill, because it certainly is so drafted as to suggest the idea to a lay reader that the employer in all these cases is to be presumed to be guilty until he has proved the contrary. That is a presumption which does not seem fair or reasonable; but, after hearing what has been said in regard to the particular formula of words which my noble friend has drafted in order to meet the point, I do think that he probably would be well advised not to press his Amendment. We are at rather a disadvantage this evening because what we are discussing is really a somewhat legal point, and neither of our Front Benches at this moment has the assistance of expert legal opinion. If my noble friend will not press his Amendment this evening and consider whether the matter should be further dealt with on Report, we might have another opportunity of discussing it.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL, in deference to the weighty opinions that had been expressed, withdrew the Amendment. But he thought that a Bill which suggested even the possibility of this danger to a mind like that of his noble friend Lord Lansdowne must be rather ill-drafted. If the Bill had been well drafted, there surely ought to have been no occasion for apprehension.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MILNER*VISCOUNT MILNER moved to add to the clause the following new subsection:— "The term employer shall include any person (not being remunerated by a fixed rate of wages or commission) by whom payments are made to the worker, or by whom material is given out in pursuance of a contract for work to be executed thereon." He was afraid this might appear to be a case of fools rushing in where angels feared

1099
to tread. It was quite evident to his mind, after reading the evidence given before the Home Work Committee and also this Bill, that there was a difficulty here which the framers of the Bill, though aware of it, had not seen their way to tackle. It might be impossible to find any form of words satisfactorily to get over the difficulty, and, as he had said in the case of a previous Amendment, he did not feel at all certain that the form of words he had devised was the best. But the difficulty was there, and unless something could be done he was afraid it would operate in many cases to prevent some of the most dependent of the home-workers from benefiting under the Bill. The difficulty to which he referred was that occasioned by the existence of the middleman or middlewoman. An employer might pay the minimum rate of wages, but through the intervention of an agent who deducted some part of the wages, the workers might not receive that which it was the intention of the Bill to secure for them. The suggestion had often been made, and he believed that in New Zealand it had been carried out by legislation, to suppress the middleman or middlewoman altogether. That suggestion was several times made before the Committee, but some of the most experienced of the witnesses, and certainly some of those who were not lacking in sympathy with the workers or in anxiety to see Trade Boards established, expressed the opinion that in many trades the middleman or middlewoman, if not absolutely essential, served a useful purpose, and could not be dispensed with under present conditions if home work was to go on. He would only quote one illustration—that of the immense amount of time which would be lost to many workers if they were required to go to the factory and were kept there for hours in order to get the materials on which they were to work. If this loss of time was obviated by some person going round and distributing the work at the homes of the different workers, it was an immense benefit and worth paying something for. Therefore he did not think they could contemplate the suppression of the middleman altogether, but it was the presence of that intermediate agency which constituted the greatest danger to the successful working of the Bill. The ideal system would be that the employer who used the services of some one intermediate between himself and the actual worker, some distributor of the articles to be worked upon, should pay that person by a fixed com-
1100
mission or rate of wages, but it was impossible to legislate for that. As long as such persons existed it was necessary to take steps to secure for the actual workers the minimum rate of wages. He did not see how that could be done unless responsibility were fixed, not only upon employers, but upon the persons who actually made payments to the workers.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 27, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection: 'The term employer shall include any person (not being remunerated by a fixed rate of wages or commission) by whom payments are made to the worker, or by whom material is given out in pursuance of a contract for work to be executed thereon.' "—(Viscount Milner.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL hoped the noble Viscount would not press the Amendment. The point had received a great deal of attention from the framers of the Bill and in the course of the discussion in another place, and there had been the greatest anxiety to achieve the end which the noble Viscount had in view. But after long consideration it had been thought impossible to do more than was done by the Bill—that was, to leave the word "employer" to be interpreted by the Courts according to the ordinary law. The introduction of the words of the Amendment would give rise to many anomalies. For instance, without some such limiting words as "by way of trade" the clause would cover a private person giving out materials to be made up. Then, again, the persons to whom payments were made or material given out might be agents of the employer and ought not to be liable. Again, there were employers who were paid by commission and who under the Amendment would be exempted. In some respects the Amendment was too wide, and in other respects it was too narrow. For instance, it would make a pay clerk an employer, and it would at the same time exclude any employer who was paid by commission.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Any middleman paid by commission.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the man would be a middleman, of course. He would have some one above him from whom he would get the work, and he would give it out and might receive his payment in the form of commission. He could assure

1101
the noble Viscount that the matter had received the closest attention, and it had been found absolutely necessary, in the interests of the working of the Bill, to leave it in the simple form in which it at present stood.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY thought Lord Milner would be very easily satisfied if he were satisfied with the reply he had just received. The noble Viscount had endeavoured to define employer in order to cover the case of the middleman. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill did not deny that the case of the middleman ought to be covered, but said that he and his advisers had not been able to find a satisfactory definition, and therefore he thought it was not advisable to define employer at all, but to leave the Courts to make what they could of it. He thought their Lordships would be better equipped in discussing this point if they knew what had passed in the House of Commons, but there were no reports of what took place in Grand Committee. Therefore, they had no resource but to bring this forward in their Lordships' House, and ask why it was that the Government had not attempted to cover the middleman. The Government having practically admitted that some kind of definition was necessary, he suggested that between now and the Report stage the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and his advisers should endeavour to frame some form of words which would cover the case of the middleman.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH urged that, if this question was left undealt with, most of the good which the Bill sought to promote would be undone. He could not help thinking that the point was capable of adjustment.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL was of opinion that the objects which Lord Milner had in view were covered by Clause 9 of the Bill; but he would very much like to know what view the noble Lord in charge of the Bill took upon that.
VISCOUNT MILNER*VISCOUNT MILNER said he had carefully studied Clause 9 and could not see that it met the case he had in mind—the case, a common one, of the party through whom the work passed making deductions from the wages by way of charges for his services. Clause 9 dealt with a totally different class of case—namely, with the case of shop-
1102
keepers, dealers, or traders who, by way of trade, made any arrangement, express or implied, with any worker in pursuance of which the worker performed any work for which a minimum rate of wages had been fixed under this Act. He did not think the middleman or middlewoman distributor could be regarded as a shopkeeper, dealer, or trader. He was aware that the Board of Trade had done their best, as he was sure the Grand Committee of the House of Commons did their best, to tackle this most difficult question. But the result was not satisfactory, for, he was convinced, there was a very large number of cases which would not and could not be met by any interpretation of the word employer, and they would escape altogether. If the Government would seriously consider the matter, he would not press his Amendment now. He would, however, refer to the matter again on Report, and unless the Government could do something more satisfactory than they had done hitherto he should press this or some similar Amendment. He would rather make even his clumsy attempt to deal with the matter than leave it as it stood at present.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER doubted whether the words which the noble Viscount had suggested would have the effect desired. The words in parentheses, "not being remunerated by a fixed rate of wages or commission" would exclude a large number of people and leave out those middlemen and middlewomen who made so much by giving a less wage than that allowed to them. A middleman remunerated by a fixed rate of wages or commission would not come under the term employer.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL admitted that this was a very difficult point, but he did not think all the difficulties that some noble Lords had seen existed in it. It ought not in most cases to be difficult to say who was the actual employer. In some cases it would be the individual who had been alluded to as the middleman, and in other cases it would be his superior. He took it that what it would depend upon would be who was the person who actually fixed the rate of remuneration paid to the worker. It that was done by the superior employer, and if the man who actually gave out the work was paid by means of commission, then there would be no great difficulty in determining that the man who fixed the rate of wages was the man who would have to be dealt with if those wages

1103
were too low. In other cases it would be held that the middleman who received a lump sum for the manufacture of the article and who fixed the remuneration for the person who actually did the work would be the employer. It was, however, a very difficult point. He quite appreciated the desire, of the noble Viscount that this important matter should be dealt with, and he would be happy to consult with the Board of Trade between now and the Report stage and see whether they could arrive at a form of words which their Lordships would consider satisfactory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to amend the proviso—
"Provided that in case of any public emergency the Board of Trade may by order, to the extent and during the period named in the order, suspend the operation of this provision as respects contracts for any such work being done or to be done on behalf of the Crown as is specified in the order,"
by omitting the words "on behalf of the Crown." The meaning of the paragraph was somewhat obscure, but if this proviso was to be acted upon it was not at all clear why the suspensory power should only apply to Government Departments. Subsection (c) provided that no Government Department or local authority was to give a contract to an employer who had not expressed his willingness to pay the minimum rate of wages. Why, then, in this provision in case of public emergency, were the local authorities to be left out, and why was the suspensory power only to be applied to Government Departments?
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words on behalf of the Crown.' "—(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL explained that the clause was inserted at the instance of the War Office and the Admiralty, and the kind of emergency which it was designed to meet was the emergency of war. Local authorities did not make war, and, therefore, were not included. It was based on an exactly similar section—sub-
1104
section 1 of Section 150—of the Factory Act, which permitted exemptions from the provisions of that Act in the case of public emergency as respects work for the Crown, but did not exempt local authorities. Without this provision a Government Department might find itself in the hands of a ring of contractors.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL expressed satisfaction with the explanation and withdrew the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY desired before Clause 7 was added to the Bill to put a question to the Government. Their Lordships would remember that during the provisional state of things the minimum rate of wages applied under this Clause unless a written agreement was arrived at between the workpeople and the employer. The Government had explained, though he did not pretend to be satisfied with the explanation, that that ought to be so while the Board of Trade were considering whether to make the rate of wages compulsory or not. But the Bill went further than that. There was a power in a clause already passed under which the Board of Trade had authority to suspend the effect of the minimum rate of wages. They might prolong the period not only for six months, but for a further six months, and so on for ever if they liked. That must mean that for some reason or other the Board of Trade were convinced that the minimum rate of wages was premature, improper, or in some way objectionable. Yet this elaborate provision about agreements would apply, not merely during the first six months consideration, but after the six months consideration was over, and when the Board of Trade had resolved to suspend the matter sine die. Surely the Government could not intend that. The intermediate state of things continued and a written agreement was necessary between the workpeople and the employer if the minimum rate of wages was not to be enforced, and Government Departments were forbidden from employing a contractor who did not accord this provisional rate of wages. Had the Government considered that point? Did they intend that the provisions of Clause 7 should apply in the case of a suspensory order in the same way as they applied in the case of the first six months consideration by the Board of Trade?
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL asked the noble Marquess to bring the point up at a later stage of the Bill.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to amend Clause 8. The clause ran—
"An employer shall, in cases where persons are employed on piece work and a minimum time-rate but no general minimum piece-rate has been fixed be deemed to pay wages at less than the minimum rate—

"(a) In cases where a special minimum piece-rate has been fixed under the provisions of this Act for persons employed by the employer if the rate of wages paid is less than that special minimum piece-rate; and

"(b) In cases where a special minimum piece-rate has not been so fixed, unless he shows that the piece-rate of wages paid would yield, in the circumstances of the case, to an ordinary worker at least the same amount of money as the minimum time-rate."

The Amendment was to substitute the words "an average worker" for the words an ordinary worker." He explained that in the first instance the object of the Amendment was that it should be consequential on the Amendment proposed by his noble friend below him, which he had hoped would have been accepted; but there was besides that a special reason for changing the word. The word "ordinary" meant nothing at all, whereas the word "average" implied that there had been some sort of calculation, which he ventured to think was assumed by the terms of this subsection.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 40, to leave out the word 'ordinary' and to insert the word 'average.' "— (Lord Ampthill.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the Government very much preferred the word "ordinary" to the word "average." It was quite true that the word "average" implied a calculation, the sort of calculation which the noble Marquess made when he mentioned the matter earlier in the evening. That was not a calculation which was very easy to make over a large trade employing many thousands of workers, and therefore it was probable that no accurate mathematical calculation of that sort would be made. Therefore the word "ordinary" would seen to be a more appropriate word to use in this place. There was another
1106
consideration which had weighed with the Government in selecting the word "ordinary"—namely, that if the word "average" was used it might be possible for employers, in their own interests and so as to work up the average rate in the trade, to discharge all their slow workers and employ, for a time, at any rate, until the average had been arrived at, none but very quick workers and medium quick, and by that means raise the average to a point considerably above that which it ought to be. On the other hand, the Government considered that the ordinary worker was a person who was well known to everybody engaged in the trade, and that the speed at which these men would work would be easily arrived at by the technical members of the Trade Board. It was a term which would be understood by them and which would be more satisfactory in every way than the one proposed by the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said the explanation that had been given seemed to him rather an odd one. The noble Lord had said that the word "average" a great deal of calculation, but that calculation he (Lord Camperdown) presumed would have to be made by the technical members of the Trade Board. The noble Lard then said that if the word "ordinary" was used a calculation could very easily be made.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: It would not involve any calculation at all.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As it involves no calculation, will the noble Lord tell me what an ordinary workman means?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said he would put another case. Supposing there were two sets of workmen of equal numbers, each set earning different amounts in the time. Which would be the ordinary workmen? The question was evidently not capable of an answer at all, whereas the average was quite easily arrived at. Then the noble Lord said the word "ordinary" would be interpreted by skilled workers on the Trade Board. It would, in the first instance, but it had to be arrived at by the magistrate. The magistrate was the person who had to determine it. It would be a question whether the employer paid the rate of wages which an ordinary workman would

1107
have earned in the time. Their Lordships were all magistrates and were just the people who would have to interpret this. Therefore he ventured to think the word used should be capable of accurate interpretation.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL submitted that there was a distinct difference between the two words. Take the case of ten persons. The average of those ten would be obtained by an accurate calculation. But it might happen that there were four or five abnormally quick people in the ten, or four or five abnormally slow people. He thought the term "ordinary worker" would be understood by any ordinary person. Their Lordships employed a large number of men themselves and knew what work an ordinary man would do in a day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that all his men differed in this respect.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL admitted that it was rather a fine point, but said the Government much preferred the word in the Bill. As far as the magistrate was concerned, he would not have to form his own opinion as to what an ordinary or average worker was. He would receive evidence upon the subject, and would form his opinion upon that evidence.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not know whether my noble friend will press his Amendment. I certainly think we are entitled to point out that this is another illustration of the great fondness of the authors of this Bill for shirking an awkward question when one presents itself. This is the third occasion this evening when we have found ourselves face to face with rather a difficult interpretation, and when we have been told to be content with vague and indefinite words because the intention is so difficult to carry out. There was the case of fixing the minimum rate of wages for piece-work. That has been left in a fluid state. Then a few moments ago we had the definition of the employer, and now we have the definition of the ordinary worker. I do not know whether it is inevitable, but it is to my mind unsatisfactory that these important questions should be dealt with in such extremely vague language.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL did not wish to continue hair-splitting with Lord Hamilton on the question of a single word, especially as the noble Lord had been so pathetic in his reiteration of his preference for this word. Seeing that the Government were responsible for the drafting of the Bill, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to omit subsection (2)—
"(2) Before taking any proceedings under this Act on behalf of the worker, a Trade Board may bring the case to the notice of the employer, with a view to the settlement of the case without recourse to proceedings,"
and to insert—
"(2) Before taking any proceedings under this Act on behalf of the worker the Trade Board shall bring the case to the notice of the employer with a view to the settlement of the case if the Trade Board think fit without recourse to proceedings."
He hoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had not been instructed to reject this Amendment. Most of their Lordships who had expressed an opinion of the Bill had criticised it as one containing very novel provisions, and that being so he thought it behoved the Committee to be careful. The employer should have an absolute right to receive a communication from the Trade Board before he was prosecuted. He could not think why an elementary courtesy of this kind was made permissive. As an illustration of its necessity, he pointed out that the employer might perfectly well be able to show that the difficulty had been caused by inadvertence or something of the kind without its being necessary to resort to all the odium and publicity of an ordinary prosecution.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, lines 17 to 20, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert: 'Before taking any proceedings under this Act on behalf of the worker the Trade Board shall bring the case to the notice of the employer with a view to the settlement of the case if the Trade Board think lit without recourse to proceedings.'"—(Lord Ampthill.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Amendment is really a longer one than is necessary, because all that the noble Lord proposes to do is to leave out the word "may" in order to insert "shall," and to insert the words "if the Trade Board think fit."
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL said this was not so; the subsection was quite recast.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said this was a point on which the Government did not really differ from the noble Lord, and if Lord Ampthill would withdraw his Amendment now he thought an agreement on the point might be arrived at before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL asked why it could not be settled now.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said he was quite prepared to give his views on the matter, but he did not think a clause could be drafted across the Table which would meet the views both of the noble Lord and of the Government. The objection to making it compulsory in every case that notice should be sent to a man who was supposed to have evaded the provisions as to the minimum rate of wages was that an employer might deliberately evade paying the minimum rate of wages until he received a communication from the Trade Board. He might do that deliberately and as a regular matter of business, and would chance the thing coming to the ears of the Trade Board. He might be one of the worst offenders in the district, but it would be impossible to get a conviction against him. He thought that would be very undesirable. Again, it might be possible, in the case of some small master tailors who existed, he believed, in the East End of London, that on receiving notice that the Trade Board were considering the matter they would at once flit, and again a prosecution would be impossible. Those were the reasons why the Government objected to making it imperative. They quite agreed that it might often be useful that this notice should be given and that in the majority of cases matters might be satisfactorily adjusted without, going before the Court at all. If the noble Lord would postpone the matter, he thought they might agree to a clause which would be generally acceptable.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL said that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had not comprehended the effect of his Amendment any more than the noble Earl the Lord Chairman. The Lord Chairman had said that it was merely a matter of substituting "shall" for "may." It was nothing of the kind. There was a very important difference. His Amendment proposed that it should be imperative on the Trade Board to give notice, but it was a matter for their discretion whether they should have recourse to proceedings or not. That met the difficulty raised by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. He would, however, avail himself of the noble Lord's suggestion and leave the Amendment over until the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend subsection (1)—
"(1) The Board of Trade may make regulations with respect to the constitution of Trade Boards which shall consist of members representing employers and members representing workers (in this Act referred to as representative members) in equal proportions and of the appointed members,"
by adding at the end of the subsection the words in his Amendment. The object was to make it clear that the Board of Trade need not make the same regulations in every case. In its present form the clause seemed to give the impression that the Board of Trade were to make one set of regulations which were to be applicable to all Trade Boards. That was not the intention. It was thought desirable that the Board of Trade should be allowed to make different regulations to suit different trades. That was the reason of this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 26, after the word 'members' to insert the words any such regulations may be made so as to apply generally to the constitution of all Trade Boards, or specially to the constitution of any particular Trade Board or any particular class of Trade Boards.' "—(Lord Hamilton at Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to amend subsection (3)—

1111
"(3) The representative members shall be elected or nominated, or partly elected and partly nominated as may be provided by the regulations, and in framing the regulations regard shall be had to the desirability of the representation of home workers on Trade Boards."
by omitting the words "regard shall be had to the desirability of," and inserting at the end of the subsection the words "shall in all cases be provided for." Under the Bill the regulations of which the noble Lord had just spoken were limited in certain respects. Among other things it was provided that there should be representative members elected or nominated, or partly elected and partly nominated as might be provided for, and these representative members were to be half representative of the employers and half representative of the workmen. As he had on several occasions pointed out, the workpeople included two categories—factory workpeople and out-workers. He would not say that their interests were in conflict, but their interests were different. There was this further to be said, that this Bill was really brought in for the home workers. He did not mean that there were not difficulties with regard to factory workers which ought to be met, but the principal reason why they were taking all this trouble was to protect home workers; yet when they came to representation on the Trade Board the home workers were treated almost with disdain. There was hardly anything said about the representation of the home worker. The words were "regard shall be had to the desirability of the representation of home workers." That was a very sparing fulfilment of the obligations under which they stood to see that home workers were properly protected. He did not say that the home workers should have a majority of the representation, but he did think they ought in all cases to be represented. It was the central Trade Board itself that they were dealing with. The out-workers ought to be directly represented in some form on these Trade Boards. The only answer which he could conceive the Government making was that the out-workers consisted of people so poor and ill-educated that they might not be capable of sending representatives to the Board. If that were the answer he would point out that there was nothing in the Bill which required that the representatives were to be elected representatives. All that was called for was that persons should be placed on the Trade Boards who should have it in charge specially to represent the workpeople. The
1112
representative might be a lady of considerable education who took an interest in the subject, and who might be placed on the Trade Board with the special view of protecting the interests of out-workers. The words in the Bill were not nearly strong enough. He did not wish to insist upon the exact wording of his Amendment, but he submitted that something of the kind was necessary.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words regard shall be had to the desirability of,' and in line 33, after the word Boards,' to insert the words shall in all cases be provided for.' "—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL was unable to accept the Amendment in the form in which the noble Marquess had moved it, but not for the reason which he had anticipated. The Government's reason was that there might be so few home workers in some particular trade that without making the numbers on the Trade Board of altogether unwieldy dimensions it would be difficult to give a fair proportion of the representation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not say a fair proportion in my Amendment.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL suggested, as an alternative, that the subsection should read—
"In framing the regulations the representation of homeworkers on the Trade Boards shall be provided for in all trades in which a considerable proportion of homeworkers are engaged."
If the noble Marquess would accept those words, the Government would agree to the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN asked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to define the word "considerable."
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: A considerable proportion, I think, would be a number entitled to one representative on the Trade Board.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY assented to Lord Hamilton of Dalzell's suggestion, although he thought his own form of words preferable. But possibly after the Act had been in operation some time and the difficulties which had been pointed out arose,

1113
the Government would consent to pass an amending Bill.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved the addition of the words "including representation of out-workers." He said this was the same point, and if the Government could accept the Amendment in any reasonable form he would be glad.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 10, after the word 'committee.' to insert the words 'including representation of out-workers.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said it was rather difficult to make the alteration fit in with the words agreed to, but if the noble Marquess would allow the Amendment to stand over until Report he would bring up the necessary words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment providing that the regulations made under the Act should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. He thought that something of this kind was required. If their Lordships would look at Clauses 11 and 12, they would see what important matters regulations were to be made for. In Clause 11 regulations with respect to the constitution of Trade Boards were to be made, and the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had just amplified—
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL apologised for interrupting the noble Earl, but said the Government were quite prepared to accept this Amendment. They would, however, ask the noble Earl on Report to transfer it to a more appropriate place.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 12, to insert the following new clause: '13. Regulations made under this Act shall be laid as soon as possible before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House within the next forty days after the regulations have been laid before that House resolve that all or any of the regulations ought to be annulled, the regulations shall, after the date of the resolution, be of no
1114
effect, without prejudice to the validity of any thing done in the meantime thereunder or to the making of any new regulations. If one or more of a set of regulations are annulled the Board of Trade may, if they think fit, withdraw the whole set.' "—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to provide that officers appointed under the Act should be empowered "to require any person giving out work and any out-worker to give any information which it is in his power to give with respect to the names and addresses of the persons to whom the work is given out or from whom the work is received, as the case may be, and with respect to the payments to be made for the work." The object of the Amendment was to facilitate the requirement of information.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 35, after the word 'thereof,' to insert the words and (b) To require any person giving out work and any out-worker to give any information which it is in his power to give with respect to the names and addresses of the persons to whom the work is given out or from whom the work is received, as the case may be, and with respect to the payments to be made for the work.' "—(Lord Hamilton, of Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend subsection (2):—
"(2) If any person fails to furnish the means required by an officer as necessary for any entry or inspection or the exercise of his powers under this section, or if any person hinders or molests any officer in the exercise of the powers given by this section, that person shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds,"
by adding, after the word "section" [in the exercise of the powers given by this section], the words "or refuses to produce any document or give any information which any officer requires him to produce or give under the powers given by this section." This was, he explained, a drafting Amendment with the object of making the sense of the Bill clearer.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 5, after the word 'section,' to insert the words 'or refuses to produce any

1115
document or give any information which any officer requires him to produce or give under the powers given by this section.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to further amend the clause by the addition of the words in his Amendment, the object of which was, he explained, to provide power to punish more severely persons who knowingly gave false information or produced false records with regard to payments to out-workers or list of out-workers. The words in the Amendment were based on the corresponding provision in the Factory Act.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 6, after the word 'pounds' to insert the words and if any person produces any wages sheet, or record of wages, or record of payments, or any list of outworkers to any officer acting in the exercise of the powers given by this section, knowing the same to be false, or furnishes any information to any such officer knowing the same to be false, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour.' "—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved the omission of the clause. His object was, he said, to prevent the Board of Trade, which would be responsible for the administration of the Act, from transferring its responsibility to the Local Government Board or some other Department. If it did so, the Parliamentary responsibility of the Board of Trade would be impaired. It was the tendency of present day legislation, which had been commented upon by very distinguished men, to continually weaken and impair the responsibility of Parliament and to put greater powers into the hands of Government Departments. He thought that was a tendency which they ought to seize every possible opportunity of checking, and that was his principal reason for proposing that this further encroachment should not be allowed.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 20."—(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL pointed out that whatever public Department might be substituted for the Board of Trade it would be equally responsible to Parliament with the Board of Trade. He did not, therefore, see the weight of the noble Lord's objection. This was merely a clause to facilitate the working of the Act by certain interchanges of powers between public Departments, and he could not see that it could possibly bring about any of the evil results which the noble Lord had anticipated.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said this seemed to him to be a very novel form of legislation. Parliament had before now, under the Local Government Act, enabled powers to be transferred from one Department to another by Order in Council, but he never remembered such a clause as this, enabling any Department of the Government—the Lord Chamberlain's Office, possibly—to perform the duties of a Department specially entrusted with those duties by legislation. If the noble Lord divided he would certainly vote with him in favour of the Amendment.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER submitted that if it was necessary that these powers should be transferred to another Department it ought to be done by Order in Council or in some way of that kind.
THE EARL OF CREWE: There can be no question that it might be for the public convenience for certain powers under this Bill at certain times to be administered by different Departments, but I think there may be some force in the objection raised by noble Lords opposite as to the manner in which it is proposed to be done; and therefore before Report we will consider whether the wording of the clause might not be amended.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
Schedule:
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend the Schedule by inserting the words "The making of boxes or parts thereof made wholly or partially of paper,

1117
cardboard, chip, or similar material." The object was to include all paper boxes, such as match boxes, which were only partly made of paper and might otherwise be held not to be included under the definition in the Schedule.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, to leave out line 15, and to insert: '2. The making of boxes or parts thereof made wholly or partially of paper, cardboard, chip, or similar material.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 169.)

RULE COMMITTEE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I shall be able to move the Second Reading of this Bill in two or three sentences. It repeals Section 4 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure) Act, 1894, and provides that the persons in whom the power of making rules of Court under the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1894, is vested shall include four persons, of whom two shall be practising barristers, being members of the General Council of the Bar, and two shall be practising solicitors, one such solicitor being a member of the Council of the Law Society and the other being a member of the Law Society and also of a provincial Law Society, to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose in the same manner as the four Judges referred to in Section 19 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1881. This small change is recommended by the House of Commons, and as it is a reasonable change, I hope the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, and I will very briefly explain its provisions. In the first place, it applies solely to Scotland, and deals with a question which hitherto has not been treated in the Party sense as controversial. The letting of houses in Scotland is not regulated by statute but by custom, but the help of Parliament is invoked on this occasion on account of the hardship which is felt by tenants of small houses in Scotland under the existing system. For twenty years, I should think, or snore, this question has been before Parliament in one form or another. Many Bills have been introduced by private Members in the House of Commons in the endeavour to deal with it, and some two years ago the present Government appointed a Committee to consider the question, which took evidence throughout Scotland upon the subject, and that evidence and the Report of that Committee are the foundation of the present Bill.
The grievance is as follows. The existing practice in many of the large towns in Scotland is that in February intending tenants are asked to fill up a form which is in effect a binding agreement to enter upon a tenancy in May—that is to say, four months notice is actually required before a tenant can secure the prospect of entering a house for a year. And the mention of a year brings me to the second part of the grievance, which is this—that the tenancy of these houses by practice is for a year in Scotland. Scotland is peculiar in this respect. Long ago the conditions of house letting in England adjusted themselves to the more modern conditions of life and labour of the large working class population. Your Lordships will easily perceive how great a hardship it is to individuals of humble means—mechanics, artisans, working men of all kinds, and even small shopkeepers—to find themselves, no matter what change may occur in their circumstances, held and bound to the occupancy and to the payment of rent for the house for so long a period as twelve months. Not only is I the hardship felt keenly by working men,

1119
whose means fluctuate—for instance, they may want a larger house or a smaller house, or a house in a different part of the town—but it also operates very prejudicially as against the necessity which working men feel so keenly of following their trade from place to place. Shipbuilding may be slack in Glasgow and busy in Belfast. I have known cases of men on the Clyde who have had to pay rent for two houses while they have only been able to occupy the one in the place to which the necessity for seeking work has driven them. Therefore, this question, though the scope of it may not be very large, is extremely important to those who are concerned in it and at the same time difficult to deal with.
In order to obtain the fullest information the Government moved deliberately and appointed a Committee, and the remedy they now propose I will briefly describe to the House. I will first deal with the definition of a small dwelling-house. In towns of over 50,000 population a small dwelling-house is defined as a house of £26 rent and under; in towns of between 10,000 and 50,000 population the limit of rent is £21 and under; and in towns of a population under 10,000 the limit of rent is £15. The Bill proposes that no agreement to take a house or to enter upon a tenancy of such a house as falls within the definitions I have given shall be binding which is of longer duration than two months—that is to say, in future, to bring it down to a practical date, no February agreement shall be necessary to take a house in May, as is the present practice, and no agreement to take a house shall be binding if of a length greater than two months before the tenancy which begins at the expiration of those two months. That deals with the first difficulty and grievance—the length of notice which practice has imposed on the tenants of these small houses.
The second grievance is the excessive duration of the tenancy—namely, twelve months. While the practice is one of yearly letting of houses, it is not the practice for the rent to be paid by the year. The rent is frequently paid half-yearly and even at shorter periods, and the Bill proposes that either the landlord or the tenant shall be entitled to give due notice of the termination of a tenancy on the next day upon which the rent becomes payable.
1120
Due notice is defined in the Bill, and it is longer or shorter according to the length of the tenancy. In tenancies which are longer than three months forty days notice must be given to terminate the agreement; in tenancies of less than three months, one-third of that period at least must be given as notice; and in the case of tenancies under one month at least five days notice must be given. But the Bill endeavours to limit the application of this provision to those who really require its protection. In the first place, all such classes of small houses below the rents I have specified that do not properly come within the category of dwelling-houses are excluded. Inns, hotels, houses which are let with agricultural or pastoral land, houses used in connection with land devoted to horticulture, market gardening, and so forth, are all excluded. Existing contracts are, of course, not interfered with, and, further, as well as the exclusion of, so to speak, individual classes of houses, the Bill recognises that in some of the towns in Scotland, notably in some of the smaller burghs, the provisions of this Bill will not be so widely used as in other towns. Therefore the Bill is adoptive. It comes under the category of Acts which may be adopted by burghs with a population of under 10,000.
Then I may briefly mention two or three small changes proposed by the Bill. With the extended facilities which the Bill proposes to give to workmen to follow their occupation is given a limitation of the landlords' right of hypothec, by which the household bedding and the tools and implements of the workman, to the value of £10, are exempted from the landlords' right of hypothec. Then there are certain provisions in the case of house-owners in the direction of the protection of their property and interests. Access is given them to the Burgh Court; they are allowed to take such cases not only to the Sheriff Court but to the Burgh Court where such Court exists. If a tenant becomes seven days in arrear of rent, the house-owner is entitled to an ejection at forty-eight hours notice, and, further, the discretion of the sheriff is limited in the increase of that forty-eight hours notice to cases in which special cause is shown.
There is one other important consequence of the provisions which I have

1121
enumerated. It is this, that when this Act comes into force there must inevitably be, in the view of the Government, a change in the system of the collection of rates. People of small means naturally feel it a great hardship to have to pay their rates once a year in a lump sum. The evidence of the Committee goes to show that so great is that difficulty, so great a hardship is it felt by them, that they would even rather pay slightly more and have the privilege of paying their rates in instalments. Besides that difficulty there is this further one, that if during the year in any particular house there is a succession of tenants or even more than one tenant or occupier, under the present system under which the rate collector visits the house only once a year for the collection of rates, on his visit he would not find the man who is truly liable for the whole year's rates in occupancy of the house. There are two different ways of providing for what the Government consider an unavoidable change if this Bill is to be a practical measure. One method of dealing with, I will not say overcoming, this difficulty would be to impose upon municipalities the duty of making more frequent collection of rates. This has never hitherto been done in Scotland, and it would impose upon municipalities the necessity of employing a veritable army of rate collectors at great expense to the communities which they govern, and though the Committee did not give any very certain opinion on this particular point, when the subject is examined it is really found quite impracticable to adopt this suggestion. Indeed, in my judgment, and that of the Government, it is quite impossible to seek a remedy by any such means as imposing upon municipalities more frequent collection of rates.
The other method of dealing with it is by extending the system of compounding. Under the system of compounding, as your Lordships are aware, the owner collects the rates and pays the rates over to the municipality, receiving an allowance, which in this Bill is to be fixed by the sheriff, for so doing. The tenant pays the rates with his rent. There is a special provision in this Bill, to which I shall allude in a moment, enacting that every tenant shall know when he is asked for his rent exactly what he is paying in rent and what he is paying in rates, though
1122
the two sums are paid together. Nobody likes compounding on its merits or as a matter of theory, but it has really been forced upon Parliament by the practical considerations to which I have alluded. Perhaps I may quote a short passage from the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which deals with this point. The words are these—
"However desirable in principle it might be to abolish compounding, it is generally agreed that the practical defects of collecting and enforcing payment among a large number of the poorer classes of the large towns who are weekly tenants and are constantly moving from one tenancy to another are insuperable.''
The practice, I may further say, is general in England though it is not general in Scotland, but in regard to two rates it is the practice in Scotland. In respect of houses of a rental of £4 and under in Scotland both the county rate and the burgh rate come under this system of compounding.
There are two objections made to the system of compounding. The first is that the tenant's sense of citizenship and responsibility is weakened because he does not actually himself pay the rates. We endeavour to mitigate any evil which may be anticipated to come from this source by the provision in the Bill to which I have alluded. In Clause 17 it is provided that every owner shall deliver to the occupier of a small dwelling-house at the beginning of an occupancy a receipt-book, rent-book, or certificate, stating the amount payable in name of rent and assessments to the owner and indicating separately on the basis of the last assessments for the time being the proportion thereof payable in name of assessments. The objection to any extension of the system of compounding is that in effect it would, by transferring the payment of poor rate from the tenant to the owner, relieve from disfranchisement as voters such small tenants as do not pay their rates. This at first may seem to some a formidable objection, but I would ask your Lordships to consider exactly the limits of it. In the case of tenants of houses of £4 and under this is the system in Scotland in respect of the burgh rate and the county rate, though it is not more general. If under this Bill you reverse that, you will pro tanto be going back, and, in fact, making the passage of this Bill penalise, so far as it goes, those tenants of small houses.

1123
Then I would remind your Lordships that under the Reform Act of 1832, tenants of houses of £10 yearly value and over exercise the franchise irrespective of the payment of rates. Therefore, the people with whom you are really dealing in this Bill, assuming your unwillingness to go back in regard to the £4 tenants and under are the tenants between £4 and £10, and how far do they receive privileges under this Bill which they do not otherwise receive? The £10 people are already exempt from any obligation to pay rates as a condition of their being placed on the voters' roll, and therefore we need not consider them in this matter. It has to be recollected that, after all, these men must and do live somewhere and they will pay their rents—the large majority of them will live and pay rents somewhere. It would be visiting them with an excessive penalty if owing to the lapse of an occasional week, or month even, during the year they should be regarded as not having discharged as well as they could their obligations. I hope I have at not undue length mentioned the principal provisions of this Bill. I cannot believe that it will not meet in principle with your Lordships' approval, and, of course, I shall be prepared to deal in more detail with Committee points in Committee if the Bill should reach that stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I must apologise for addressing your Lordships at this somewhat unseasonable hour. The audience is not very large, certainly it is not very large on the other side of the House; but I can assure your Lordships that the number of noble Lords present is by no means in proportion to the interest which attaches to this Bill. The noble Lord himself, in his speech, appeared to me rather unduly modest. He said that the scope of this Bill was not large, and he made certain other depreciatory remarks, and being influenced, no doubt, like myself, by the hour, he curtailed his remarks and omitted a great many things that appear to me to require to be mentioned in connection with this Bill. With regard to the object of the Bill itself, which is to prevent its being necessary that notice should be given as early as the month of February that you intend to take a hour in May—so far as that goes, I do not think there is any difference of opinion. It was
1124
an arrangement made, not very wisely made, as I think, in their own interests, by the house-owners; but still, when we say that that arrangement is no longer to be made it is adding another to the innumerable interferences with free contract which is, I am sorry to say, characteristic of the age in which we live, and most especially characteristic of His Majesty's present Government. With regard also to the tenure, under this Bill it becomes impossible to have any let which extends up to a year, because, as the noble Lord said, simply by giving notice that on the next payment day the tenure will come to an end, the tenure thereby comes to an end whatever its nominal duration may be, provided always that certain notices, which cannot exceed, I think, forty days at the longest, are given. That, too, is a very great interference with freedom of contract, and I believe will be found in practice by no means convenient to a great many working men. That, again, I am not going to call in question, though I think it is a very unfortunate thing that it is found necessary to do this. Moreover, this is not really a grievance which is felt all over the towns in Scotland; it is especially a grievance of the west part of Scotland and more especially the City of Glasgow. As I have said, I do not propose to call those two matters in question.
But I want to ask the noble Lord whether this Bill is not an entirely different Bill from the Bill which the Government introduced in April last. That Bill—and this is one of the several things the noble Lord omitted to tell us—was limited to £15. The houses were not to exceed the value of £15, and, besides that, the Bill might be adopted or not by any town in Scotland. Therefore the Bill of last April was a Bill wholly adoptive, and in any circumstances it was not to extend to houses beyond £15. The noble Lord told us that this Bill was prepared on the recommendations of the Committee. I assure him it is nothing of the kind. Did the Committee recommend that houses of £21 or £26 should be included? No. On the contrary, they said that the extreme figure to which you could go was £20. Just let me read what they did say. They stated, on the first page of their Report—
"Even in Glasgow a rent of £16 would include probably four-fifths of the houses occupied by the ordinary working men, while in certain other towns that rent would include the houses of all the ordinary working men. Yet, looking to the rising

1125
rents of working houses and to the convenience of a uniform standard, we have dealt with all houses up to £20 of rent as falling within our view."
Their Report was entirely limited to houses not exceeding £20 in rent, and £21 and £26 are excrescences for the existence of which no reason whatever has been given to us. As the noble Lord has told us, this Bill is now compulsory on all burghs which exceed a population of 10,000. That, again, is a most important difference. It is only adoptive as relates to burghs below 10,000. The noble Lord omitted to mention this great alteration. But how has this Bill been altered, why has it been altered, and when was it altered? This Bill was read a second time in its original form in the other House, and in Grand Committee the Lord Advocate appeared one day with Clause 2 as it now stands and inserted it in the Bill. The inconvenience of the procedure in Grand Committee has been mentioned to your Lordships already once this evening. Here is another instance of it. Nobody knows what goes on in Grand Committee, and on this particular occasion, so I am informed, no reason whatever was given to the Committee for making the change. Is the noble Lord aware that nearly all the burghs in Scotland are opposed to this?
LORD PENTLAND: Opposed to the Bill?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Opposed to Clause 2 as it at present stands.
LORD PENTLAND: No, I am not aware of anything of the kind.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am very much surprised to hear that the noble Lord is not aware of it, because I think almost every other. Scotsman in this House is aware of it. I have here a petition from the City of Edinburgh, which I will take this opportunity of presenting to your Lordships' House, against it. They protest against the Bill for a variety of reasons. They say, first, that the maximum limit of £26 is excessive and ought to be restricted to £15; secondly, that the compounding clauses are not necessary to the attainment of the purpose of the Bill; thirdly, that under Clauses 12 to 17 the petitioners would require to levy and recover from owners burgh assessments properly chargeable against occupiers and pay to owners the commission fixed by the sheriff; and, fourthly, that this would increase the
1126
burden on the occupiers without any compensating advantage. The way they prove that is this, that any compounding allowance such as is given under the Bill to owners, the amount of which so far as experience goes has not been less than fifteen per cent., will fall to be met by the general ratepayers; and in Edinburgh, so the petitioners state, it would mean, at fifteen per cent., the sum of £12,000, or, in other words, an additional penny on the rates. They state that the system of compounding is open to objection, and that the compounding clauses in the Bill would have an indirect effect on the voters' roll.
If it were not so late, I would enlarge upon these matters. But here is the City of Edinburgh petitioning your Lordships' House against this Bill. The Convention of Royal Burghs is opposed to it. I myself have received within the last four or five days letters from several large towns—from Perth, Ayr, and other towns. The Convention of Royal Burghs sent out a circular-letter shortly after this alteration was made in the Bill, and the answers, I think I may say without exception, were entirely unfavourable to the Bill. Have the Government who altered their Bill given the burghs any opportunity of stating their case? Did they give them any opportunity of stating their case before the alteration was made, and at whose instance was the alteration made? It is said that it was done at the instance of certain members of Parliament; but did those members, supposing that that was so, consult their burghs? At all events, no opportunity was given to the burghs of stating their case against the Bill. The noble Lord stated that the Bill proceeded on the Report of the Royal Commission. I can assure him he is quite mistaken. He went even so far as to say that the Local Taxation Commission rather approved of this proposal of compounding. I do not think that was quite a fair interpretation of the words which the Commission used. The Commission stated that they disapproved fully of the principle of compounding, but they added that in certain cases it might not be necessary to abolish it.
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Lord will see, on reference to the notes which were taken of the words I uttered, that I quoted an extract from the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation and left it to stand for itself.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord did quote the words as they stood, but he omitted to quote other important words. The Commission also stated—
"It is most desirable that all classes of the community should, as far as possible, be made liable to personal payment of rates in order that they may appreciate directly the effect of economical or extravagant administration."
As we are on this subject, let me tell your Lordships that the Royal Commission on the Poor Law have reported in the strongest terms against compounding. The noble Lord, in his speech, did all he could to minimise the effect of this placing of the rates upon owners. I wonder whether he is aware that in Glasgow—I take his instance of Glasgow—the action of making owners pay all the rates on houses up to £26 will have this effect. Out of 175,000 houses nearly 160,000 will be compounded for; in other words, the owners will be made rate collectors for all the rates except in respect of 15,000 houses. The noble Lord might, at all events, have informed us of the enormous change which he was proposing to make. With regard to placing occupiers on the register, is he aware that under this Bill an occupier can easily get on the municipal register without paying rates to anybody? It is not merely direct payment of rates. Supposing that the owner does pay the rates, and then the occupier does not pay him. In that case the occupier is on the register although he has not paid his rates. A state of things like that, it seems to me, is very undesirable.
At this hour of the evening I am not going to protract my remarks, but I must point out to the noble Lord that this Bill will require very serious and thorough examination in Committee, and I hope he will give us plenty of time. I believe that the representatives of various towns are in London at the present time. I hope they will go and sec the noble Lord. At all events, they have made representations to many members of your Lordships' House; and when we are in Committee I hope the noble Lord will give us information as to why the scope of his Bill was altered, and inform us at whose instigation the alteration was made, and whether the burghs who object to it had any opportunity of stating their case.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not propose, to detain your Lordships long, but I must say a word or two in support of what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Camperdown. He has very fully stated the case. The Convention of Royal Burghs represents every royal, police, and other burgh in the whole of Scotland with the exception of one small burgh in the North—I do not know the name of it—and the whole of these burghs are unanimous against many of the clauses of this Bill. That is clearly stated in the Memorandum of the Convention. Besides that, I have a considerable number of memoranda from towns and burghs in Scotland, and they all, without exception, endorse the statements made in the Memorandum of the Convention of Burghs. The Convention not only represents the whole of the burghs in Scotland, but also a population of 2,918,000, which is a very considerable proportion of the inhabitants of Scotland.
There are one or two things which, late though it is, I would like to say regarding this Bill. I will state to the House what the effect of such a measure as this would be upon the rates of the burgh of Ayr. There are 5,531 houses at a rental under £21; of these 674 houses are between £15 10 s. and £21, the total valuation of these being £11,932. The assessments on these houses are £2,349, and the rebatements to occupiers through inability to pay are £30, and arrears of rates, for the same year, £24. This Bill makes provision for rebatements to owners in respect of their paying the tenants' rates. LA us take that at fifteen per cent. The loss to the burgh on the houses between £15 10 s. and £20 at their present valuation would be £352, as against £30, plus £24, now. If we take houses under £15 and deduct fifteen per cent. allowed to the owners, there would be no real gain whatever. In England I believe the rebatement allowed to owners is twenty-five per cent. If the same percentage were given in Scotland, the loss to the rates would be infinitely greater, and this would have to be made up by those who would not benefit by the Bill.
The whole of the burghs from which I have heard and also the Convention object to the clauses which enfranchise those who do not pay the rates. I believe that Scotsmen are quite proud of paying their rates direct, of knowing what they have to pay, and of having the franchise as a result of paying

1129
their rates, and they would be very loath, I think, to the provision in the Bill passing into law. On the municipal voters' list in Ayr in the year 1908–9 there were 5,357 persons with rents up to £21, and there were 1,009 who did not possess votes because they were in arrear and did not pay their rates. This Bill would, therefore, give an addition of nineteen per cent. to the voters. I think there is a great deal in the Bill which will most certainly need careful consideration and amendment, and I hope your Lordships will assist us in amending the Bill when it gets into Committee.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I desire to add a few words. I am afraid that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider that it has not received a hearty welcome from us. I have sympathy with the main object of the Bill—namely, the alteration of the period for which houses can be let. I have no doubt this period in the past has been inconveniently and unpleasantly long. I gather that that has always been the main object of the Bill, and I think it is very unfortunate that the Government should have wandered so far away from that object in bringing in the highly contentious and mast objectionable features of compounding for rates, which have received from us and from most people in the country the very strongest opposition. The noble Lord himself, in introducing the Bill, remarked that he and others were strongly opposed to the principle, but he said that in altering the period of letting it was necessary to alter also the incidence of rate collection. More frequent collection could not, he said, be placed upon the local authority on account of the labour and cost which would be involved, and so he quietly places the cost and labour upon the owners of the houses. Under the Bill the labour is now placed upon the owners of the houses to collect these rates—
LORD PENTLAND: For which they will receive an allowance.
LORD CLINTON: As this loss is to be made up to the owners, what reason is there why the local authority should not undertake the work themselves? They have their experts in rate collecting. I will not say any more at this stage, but I trust that your Lordships will, in Committee, show that you are strongly opposed to any extension of this system of compounding.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: MY Lords, I do not think that any of my noble friends who have criticised the Bill from this side of the House desire to dissuade your Lordships from giving it a Second Reading this evening, and therefore it is not necessary for me to detain you for more than a moment. The Bill certainly contains some provisions which at first sight appear to be of a startling description. At the same time I have no doubt that the noble Lord who introduced it is perfectly correct when he tells us that there is in Scotland what has been felt as a longstanding grievance with regard to the terms upon which house property of the kind which is desired by the working classes can be let in the present condition of the law. There is, I understand, a general desire that what I think is spoken of as the letting season should be shortened, and I understand that that desire is regarded as a reasonable one by most people. But I confess that when in order to meet this grievance, we are told that the owner of a house rented at £26 a year is to be deprived of the power of letting that house to a willing hirer for a period of a year, and that he is also deprived of the power of entering into an arrangement with his tenant three or four months beforehand in order to bring about such a transaction, that does seem to me to be, on the face of it, a somewhat extraordinary proposal, and I think my noble friend, Lord Camper-down, was perfectly justified in reminding the House that this limit of £26 which we now find in the Bill in regard to the larger burghs is really an afterthought, and that the Bill as originally introduced by His Majesty's Government suggested a limit, not of £26, but of £15. There is another very important change which the Bill has undergone since it was first put forward by His Majesty's Government. In its original shape it was, unless I am mistaken, adoptive in the case of all burghs. It now becomes compulsory in the case of the larger burghs. I think it is likely that when we arrive at the Committee stage attention will be particularly directed to those parts of the Bill which deal with the question of compounding for rates. I have heard several debates in this House on the subject of compounding. We had an important debate in 1906, and again, I think, last year, and on all those occasions I have heard it laid down by those most competent to speak on the subject, and by no one with more authority than my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, that compounding was, in

1131
principle, a vicious system, and that every attempt should be made to minimise the evils of that system. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill quoted the authority of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and my noble friend, Lord Camperdown, I think rightly, objected that the quotation really hardly did justice to Lord Balfour's views. May I remind the noble Lord, because my noble friend did not take the point, that Lord Balfour's Commission although admitting the great difficulty of collecting and enforcing the payment of rates, made that observation with regard to the members of the "poorest classes"? I am not at all sure that the Commission had in their mind when they used those words persons inhabiting houses for which a rent of no less than £26 a year is paid. That is not all. The Commission went on to add that the witnesses who had expressed this opinion with regard to the difficulty of getting rid of commutation all considered that the adoption of the system of compounding should remain optional with the local authorities. But here is a Bill which, far from making it optional, makes it, unless I misunderstand the scheme of the Bill, compulsory in the case of these burghs.
LORD PENTLAND: I fully acknowledge the objections in theory to compounding, and my purpose in quoting the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation was to show that the difficulties which we had to meet in this Bill were practical difficulties which the Royal Commission acknowledged to be great.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My reading of the Report of the Royal Commission was that they pointed out the difficulty of getting rid of compounding, but this Bill creates compounding where it does not exist at present. The noble Lord referred to the fact that compounding prevails in England. So it does. It also prevails in certain cases in Scotland, but the fact of the system existing in those cases does not seem to me a sufficient reason for creating the system anew where it does not
1132
exist. The reason for creating it is that the local authorities will find it very troublesome to collect rates from these small householders. I have no doubt they will. That is a serious argument; but I do ask the noble Lord to set against that argument the much greater evils which I believe are due to the existence of compounding where you find it. So long as you have compounding, so long will the people who pay the rates in this country really fail to appreciate the great danger to which as a nation we are liable from the steady growth, the inordinate growth, of the rates; and I think that is an argument which in these days of municipal extravagance we cannot sufficiently lay to heart. There remains the point also made by my noble friend, that this Bill, although it comes to us ostensibly as a Bill intended to meet a grievance felt in many parts of Scotland, is, unless I am misinformed, opposed tooth and nail by some of the most important burghs. But these are all matters which we can bring up in Committee, and I really only rose because I thought it due to the noble Lord to warn him that these points were likely to be seriously taken at a further stage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition for amendment of; of the Corporation of the City of Edinburgh; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to establish a Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith—Was presented by the Lord Pentland; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 170.)
House adjourned at ten minutes past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.