Lords Sitting of 20 September 1909

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

South Africa.

Labour Exchanges.

Trawling in Prohibited Areas (Prevention).

Superannuation.

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Gas and Water Orders Confirmation.

Tramways Orders Confirmation.

Buckie Burgh and Buckie (Cluny) Harbour Order Confirmation.

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation.

Clydebank and District Water Order Confirmation.

North Eastern Railway.

Glasgow Corporation.

Dunoon Burgh.

Taff Vale Railway.

Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Stamford be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Farnham; read, and agreed to.
IRISH LAND BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 28 th instant (The Lord Privy Seal (E. Crewe)). (No. 177.)

DISTURBANCES AT BUDGET PROTEST MEETINGS.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY*THE EARL OF MALMESBURY rose "to call attention to the recent disturbances which have occurred at meetings arranged to protest against the Budget; which disturbances, it is alleged, have been systematically organised for the purpose of unfairly influencing public opinion in favour of the financial proposals of His Majesty's Government."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel that I owe your Lordships some apology for at this late period of the session calling attention to a matter which might, perhaps, at first sight seem to be of no very great importance, but I am sure your Lordships will grant me your kind indulgence even if I fail to make good my case. Your Lordships have very little time at your disposal, and therefore I shall put my case before you as briefly as I can. I was reminded the other day by a contemporary that a question of this sort was somewhat unusual, but perhaps I may be allowed to reply that proceedings of the kind to which my Notice refers have, I am thankful to say,

3
been most unusual in the past. There is no attempt on my part to anticipate the discussion of a measure which is still being considered in another place. That forms no part of my argument. It is a matter of perfect indifference to me what is the cause for which these meetings have been held. It is a matter of moment to me that freedom of speech is being curtailed and open expression of opinion suppressed.
It is altogether distasteful to me to bring before your Lordships a question which may in any way be taken as showing a want of courtesy or want of consideration to noble Lords who sit opposite. I assure noble Lords opposite that I wish to treat them with every courtesy, and that anything I may say, either as regards their own utterances or as regards any course of action which members of His Majesty's Government may have taken is put with the very best intent on my part. That these things have occurred cannot be denied. There is hardly a day when we take up a newspaper that we do not read of disorderly scenes and of speakers being interrupted, and that resolutions in favour of the object for which the meetings were held have not even been able to be put. Such scenes and such disturbances as have occurred introduce a weapon of the very grossest tyranny, and they seriously endanger freedom of thought and speech in this country.
I do not for a moment wish to suggest that the noble Earl opposite or other noble Lords who sit with him are responsible for these disturbances, but at the same time it is rather difficult to persuade oneself that after so much mud has been thrown some mud should not attach itself to some of those in high office. Noble Lords will say, What has this got to do with these disturbances? I do not suggest for a moment that any member of the Government has been directly responsible for saying, "Go and break up these meetings"; but what I do maintain is this, that certain allegations have been made over a long period of time which have never been denied by those in responsible positions in the Budget League. The Budget League, which has been directly challenged, as I hope to prove in a moment, on more than one occasion, has remained perfectly silent. Its chiefs have expressed no regret, no apology for things which have occurred. I quite admit it may be difficult to prove direct interference on the part of the Budget League, but your Lordships
4
know perfectly well that the Budget League has a very close connection with those who at the present moment enjoy the confidence of His Majesty. Sir Henry Norman, who I believe is the moving spirit of that League, has used words to this effect. He spoke, in taking over the care of the Budget League, of the "honourable burden which had been laid upon him by the Prime Minister."
Then we go a step further. Who is the President of the Budget League? The President of that League, as far as I am aware, has not come out into the open to express regret for anything which has occurred at meetings held to protest against the financial schemes of the Government. Challenge after challenge has been hurled down, allegation after allegation has been made, and not one single responsible Minister of the Crown has come forward to deny them. I might go further and say that neither the noble Earl opposite nor any other Minister, not even the Prime Minister himself, has ever said, "We prefer to leave this measure, irrefutable in its excellency, to rest upon its own merits, and we therefore deeply deplore the disturbances to which our opponents have been subjected." It is a strange thing that those in high office should be so dead to the higher responsibility which rests upon them, that they should not come out to condemn, which they might have done long ago, disturbances and acts which have directly interfered with the peace and good order of this country.
I have before me—it has just come into my hands—a document which, with your Lordships' permission, I will quote. The noble Earl who sits on the Front Ministerial Bench and other noble Lords opposite need have no fear whatever although this document is headed "Votes for Women." That heading is followed by the words, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"; and then follows a conversation—an imaginary conversation, I take it—in which two distinguished members of the present Government are made to discuss the recent disturbances at political meetings. They are congratulating themselves on the result and one of the Ministers observes—
"Very glad these meetings have been interrupted, but do not let any one hear us say so. We tell the suffragettes that such action is an attack on the sacred rights of free speech and displays a degree of moral turpitude incompatible with the possession of a vote."

5
I venture to hope the noble Earl will tell us afterwards that all those who have taken an active part in interrupting our meetings are likewise not fit to have possession of a vote. But, instead of this, it seems to me that the supporters of the financial policy of His Majesty's Government have themselves donned those habits which have been woven by more fairylike hands. These political disturbances, therefore, must either be taken as the direct outcome of the Budget League, which is closely associated with His Majesty's Government, or else they are what may be called political riots of the utmost gravity—riots which I venture to think His Majesty's Government, as representing the highest authority, should deal with as being against the peace and good order of this country. I was told only yesterday by a working man that night after night when he walked round to enjoy his pipe he saw meetings called to protest against the Budget invariably broken up, whilst meetings convened by the most extreme partisans of the Government were allowed to be held without molestation.
I pass to the character of these organised riots. I have here a short summary of the principal points which show the similarity of the character of these disturbances. There is a similarity of questions and interruptions; there is the same rule of procedure; there is the fact that these demonstrators go about in groups, many of them in the majority of cases imported from elsewhere; and there is also the evidence of forged tickets. The Budget Protest League and other kindred leagues which have for their object the holding of meetings against these proposals have on all occasions declined to allow retaliatory measures to be adopted. I can tell your Lordships on the best authority that on every occasion when the leaders of the Party of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House have protested against the conduct to which they have been subjected and have been asked by their supporters for permission to go and do the same at their opponents' meetings, they have returned a stern refusal—that has been the case from the President of the Protest League, Mr. Walter Long, down to the most junior ward chairman. Although possibly there may have been instances—I do not know of any—in which noble Lords opposite or members of the Government who sit in another place have suffered from inconvenience of this sort, may I assure them that I have evidence, and know it to
6
be true, that on all occasions the promoters of such meetings as I have referred to have given strict orders that those of their opponents were not to be interrupted?
I have here a host of evidence of the more important meetings which have been interrupted, but as time is short I will deal with one which has a most serious aspect—the meeting at Bournemouth. In connection with that meeting forged tickets were used. There was no reason for these forged tickets; in fact, originally the meeting was convened irrespective of politics; and it was possible for members of either side to obtain tickets to listen to the speakers without going to the trouble to which they did. I have always understood that it was an invariable law that when you held a ticket given to you by the promoters of a meeting you went there as guests and with a determination to behave in a perfectly constitutional and orderly manner. May I say that since I came into the House to-day I have been reminded that a sub-agent of the Liberal party in the neighbourhood was at this meeting. That is sailing near the wind. Another point is that after a certain time the meeting was an open one. I was not there myself, but I believe the meeting was billed for eight o'clock, and after a quarter to eight the hall was thrown open without tickets; but in order to secure their presence in the hall these gentlemen, who made speech impossible in spite of the fact that they were only about twenty per cent. of the audience—these gentlemen, by means of forged tickets, forced their way into the room and took up the most prominent positions. I have here a letter giving particulars, in which the writer says—
"I have been informed that the forged tickets could be had at the Liberal Club."
In another passage he says—
"A quarter to eight was the time fixed for opening the doors, but long before that time over one hundred Liberals came in, and these were the gentlemen who held the forged tickets."
I could go on quoting indefinitely to show that the majority of those who held the forged tickets were not extreme Socialists but bona fide Liberals and members of the Liberal Club in the constituency in which the meeting was held.
I have the forged tickets here. They are of three kinds. The platform tickets were white, the gallery tickets yellow, and the tickets for the body of the hall pink.

7
Here are the genuine and the forged tickets, and they are so near one another in colour and appearance that it would be quite impossible at night for the stewards taking the tickets at the door to distinguish the difference. I feel inclined to suggest that these tickets should be handed over to the librarian for safe custody among the relics kept in the Library of your Lordships' House. Now I come to other meetings. The case of the meeting at Bournemouth is by far the worst, and I hope we shall hear from the noble Earl the Leader of the House, or from whoever replies on behalf of His Majesty's Government, something which may remove the impression which many of us must necessarily hold in connection with this matter.
There was also the meeting in Wales at which a distinguished ex-Minister spoke and of which various accounts are given. That is one serious aspect of this matter, that not only do you have meetings interrupted, but you have a willing Press distorting into an entirely false and visionary anecdote an account of those proceedings, and in fact imposing upon all those who read the accounts of those meetings a gigantic hoax. It is very easy to break up meetings, and it is still easier to write what account you choose of them. That is, as I say, one of the most serious aspects of this question, that not only are meetings broken up, but accounts appear in the Press which lead the general elector, the man in the street, to believe that those who held these meetings against the Budget had no support whatever on their side. Then I come to the meeting which was held at Portsmouth, and which was also addressed by a very distinguished Member of the other House. I have it from the distinguished Member himself and from others who were these that at this meeting method, were adopted exactly similar to those adopted at other meetings. There were the usual four gangs posted at stated intervals over the hall. At certain moments you had exactly the same form of interruption, and, although I do not wish directly to accuse His Majesty's Government of being a party to these proceedings, we have heard that remarks such as we were taught in the days of our childhood were the cause of the death of Sir Thomas a'Beckett are sometimes useful.
I could quote without number the meetings which have been interrupted by those who officially, or, at all events, morally,
8
represent His Majesty's Government in the country. I have already cited Bournemouth and Portsmouth and the meeting in Wales. I could give instances of meetings at Barrow, Manchester, and other places. One of the most important for my purpose was a meeting to have been held at Market Harborough, and I should like to read this quotation from a letter signed by a gentleman who lives at Market Harborough—
"A few days ago you published a paragraph with the above heading, referring to the police having refused to allow a Budget protest meeting to be held in Market Harborough."
Apparently a meeting was proposed to be held at that place, but the police declined to allow it to be held. The writer continues—
"What happened? Only last night a Socialist meeting was held at this very spot, and the promoters had the assistance of a gramophone. It was impossible to walk on the pavement on account of the crowd, and three policemen watched the proceedings without either protest or interference."
I venture to think that such a state of things is a very serious breach of freedom of speech and an entire breach of personal liberty, and in the interest of purity of public life it ought to be stopped.
I have, I hope, to some degree justified my bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. We live in days when we are governed by the group system. Day by day that group system is being extended, and surely it is all the more important that popular and free discussion should be allowed. In these days, too, when Parliamentary discussion has been so greatly curtailed, it is all the more important that public opinion should be free and open. And may I say, my Lords, that it is doubly important that this should be so in the interests of your Lordships' House, because it has always been held that your Lordships should know public opinion without hindrance and without interference. Your Lordships have ever in the days that have gone by been regarded as the final court of appeal, and I venture to think that, for this reason, this is a very proper time for your Lordships to hear the views of the people of this country openly expressed. There have been in the past great giants of Liberalism, whose doctrines we all admired—Liberalism which has won for this country freedom of speech, freedom of action, and all those other blessings which a free country enjoys. I speak with the greatest respect of those giants of

9
Liberalism who have gone. But to-day we live under the œgis of a Liberal Government. Liberalism and liberty were once synonymous. Freedom from molestation is one of the first principles of liberty, and I venture to think that if these scenes are to continue, if the subjects of the King are not to be allowed to hold meetings under whatever conditions they choose, whether with ticket or without ticket, then liberty in this country is altogether doomed. I have to thank your Lordships for the kind indulgence and the generous hearing you have given me, and I hope that what I have said has justified my bringing forward this matter.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl opposite for having communicated with me to know whether this was a convenient day on which he should bring this matter forward. We also, I think, have to be obliged to him for the restraint which he put upon himself in not entering at any length into the details of the financial proposals of the Government, because I should not have been able to follow him had he done so. Nor do I propose to follow him in the somewhat general disquisition on liberty with which he concluded his observations. We also have to thank the noble Earl for being so kind as to say that he absolves us on these Benches from having given direct instructions to any bodies of people in the country to break up meetings attended by the noble Earl and his friends. That is very kind of him.
But at the same time there ran through his speech a tone of innuendo which conveyed a degree of offence of which I think he was himself hardly conscious, because he seemed to indicate that although His Majesty's Ministers ought not to be held directly responsible for these unhappy occurrences yet there was some soft of central organisation or body which, so to speak, gave the word for the disturbance of these meetings. The central body which has been carrying on a propaganda in the country on the Government side is the Budget League, and that body has already been directly accused of having taken some part in the disturbances at meetings held by the opposite organisation, the Budget Protest League. That charge appeared, amongst other places, in a distinguished paper, the Pall Mall Gazette, and on August 20 Sir
10
Henry Norman, a distinguished member of Parliament, I think generally respected by all parties, who is the hon. secretary of the Budget League, wrote to the Pall Mall Gazette as follows—
"Sir,—I have read with amazement your article to-night on what you call the methods of the Budget League. A more preposterous and baseless charge as far as our knowledge goes has never been made. Never directly or indirectly, by ourselves or by our agents, by letter, word, suggestion, or hint, has the Budget League been a party to the disturbance of any public meeting. Free and uninterrupted public speech I personally always held to be one of the most precious of our common rights, and I have never in my whole political life done otherwise than discourage in the strongest manner, both privately and from the platform, any attempt to disturb an opponent's meeting."
Therefore when the noble Earl says that no person in any responsible position has expressed disapproval of the practice of disturbing meetings he is not accurate. Sir Henry Norman continued—
"So far as Mr. Arthur Lee's Portsmouth meeting is concerned, if the charge could be more ridiculous in one case than another it would be in this case, for Mr. Arthur Lee has been an intimate and much-valued friend of mice for twenty years. I cannot sufficiently express my astonishment that a paper of the standing of the Pall Mall Gazette should publish such a statement."
Then the editor wrote this note—
"We have never for a moment intended to convey that Sir Henry Norman or the central committee were guilty of such tactics, but that the members of the League in the provinces have organised such disturbances cannot be seriously disputed."
Now, my Lords, it is important to notice the terms of the noble Earl's Notice. It runs—
"To call attention to the recent disturbances which have occurred at meetings arranged to protest against the Budget; which disturbances, it is alleged, have been systematically organised for the purpose of unfairly influencing public opinion in favour of the financial proposals of His Majesty's Government."
That I take to be a repetition of the charge of systematic organisation by a central body, and not merely to mean that certain people in a particular locality in respect of a particular meeting have combined together to take the course of disturbing the meeting. It is important to draw the distinction because, as I say, throughout the noble Earl's speech there ran the innuendo that there was some central systematic organisation for the purpose of breaking up these meetings.

11
The noble Earl mentioned various meetings. He mentioned the Portsmouth meeting, to which Sir Henry Norman has alluded. He also mentioned a meeting in Wales at which Mr. Long attended, and which has been the subject of acute controversy, the controversy apparently being that some Liberal speakers or newspapers maintained that the meeting had been seriously interfered with, while Mr. Long all through maintained that it had not. Consequently whatever may be the facts in that case, from the noble Earl's point of view that particular meeting does not appear to support his case. Then he mentioned the case of a Budget protest meeting which ought to have been held at Market Harborough but which was not, whereas a Socialist meeting was held in the same place some time after. I confess I do not see what that has to do with His Majesty's Government. We do not give the orders to the police at Market Harborough in respect of how they should keep order or what meetings they think it necessary to prohibit, I suppose on the ground that they are likely to cause a breach of the peace; and I can only say that if these are the only instances which the noble Earl can produce, his case is not a very strong one.
I do not hesitate, or, if I do hesitate, it is only because it seems to me so absolutely needless and superfluous, to say that I regard the breaking up or disturbance of meetings with the strongest disapproval. The noble Earl was good enough to administer to us what I can only call a lecture on the ground that we had not made formal repudiation of these proceedings. I say that is entirely unnecessary. We all agree that to disturb the meeting of an opponent is both wrong and foolish. It is wrong because it is an offence against fair play, and it is foolish because it is always bound to give the impression that your case is one which cannot be supported by argument and needs, therefore, to be supported by violence. Those are the merest truisms, and represent the opinion of all responsible people on both sides of this House and all responsible people in politics generally. And I may say, in conclusion, that the very last set of people who could be supposed to look without the strongest condemnation on the disturbance of meetings are His Majesty's present advisers, because, as the noble Earl pointed out in the course of his speech, there are those who make it a systematic practice to endeavour to prevent us from making speeches at all. I hope I have dealt finally
12
with the suggestion that there is anything like an organised system of disturbance of these meetings. I regret it greatly if they have been disturbed at all. There was a leading article in a paper of very strong party views—the Daily News—a few days ago, making the same protest on the same grounds which I have just stated.
It is, of course, undeniable, and there are many previous instances of it, that, in a particular district, a meeting held to advocate a cause which is not popular and to which a great many people are opposed is liable to interruption, unless the greatest care is taken to confine such a meeting to those who are known to be in support of the speakers of the evening. That has often happened before when party politics have run high. It happened, as we all know, in a very extreme form during the progress of the South African war. Meetings were broken up then, and speakers were almost, and in some cases actually, subjected to personal violence. That I am certain was greatly regretted by noble Lords opposite, although they thought the speakers wrong. I am afraid, therefore, that it cannot be denied that in particular cases when feeling does run so high disturbances may occur; but I protest once more very strongly and indignantly against any sort of suggestion or innuendo that such proceedings have our sympathy, and still more against any suggestion that we are in any way responsible for them.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure the House must have listened with satisfaction to the emphatic words with which the noble Earl who leads the House condemned the practice of interfering with public meetings held by one's opponents in political life. His statement left nothing to be desired in that respect, and I think the noble Earl who put this Notice on the Paper must think himself fortunate in having elicited such a declaration from the noble Earl. Of course, it never entered into the heads of any one on this side of the House to charge the noble Earl and his colleagues with any responsibility for these proceedings, but as to the facts there is no doubt. It is unfortunately the case that of late the practice of breaking up public meetings has assumed most alarming proportions. What takes place is not the kind of interruption that sometimes rather agreeably varies the monotony of a political gathering—the

13
kind of interruption which gives the speaker an opportunty of relieving his speech by a well-placed retort. What has taken place in these cases has been the interruption of proceedings by apparently organised bands of persons imported from a distance, sometimes obtaining admission by means of those forged tickets of which the noble Earl produced interesting specimens for the inspection of the House. So far as I am aware, these practices, which have attracted a great deal of attention, have not, until this evening, received the kind of emphatic condemnation which the noble Earl has given them.
Nothing could be more appropriate than the terms in which the noble Earl denounced such conduct, or the way in which it was denounced by Sir Henry Norman in the passage from his letter which the noble Earl quoted. Of course, it is the case that sometimes people suffer from the want of discretion and the excess of zeal of their political adherents, and I have no doubt that the words which have been spoken by the noble Earl to-night will have a salutary effect out of doors and will be attended to by some of those who have been responsible for the occurrences which we so much deplore. I venture to think that it is beyond all doubt the duty of both political parties to do what they can to put an end to proceedings of this kind, and perhaps I may say that, at this moment, we, as the weaker political party of the two, have a special right to claim that nothing should be left undone in order to relieve those who desire to make their opinions known in the country from such molestation as they have lately undergone.
I say this because it seems to me that we are living in times when our opportunities of making our feelings known to our fellow-countrymen are becoming more and more limited. Those opportunities are of two kinds—they are Parliamentary and they are extra-Parliamentary. Our Parliamentary opportunities, so far as the other House of Parliament is concerned, are becoming daily more restricted. You have Bills like the two great Bills which are at this moment before the House—I mean the Irish Land Bill and the Housing and Town Planning Bill—brought before Parliament under circumstances which render their adequate discussion quite impossible. The noble Earl himself went very near admitting that the other evening. The whole of the Com-
14
mittee stage of the Irish Land Bill was dealt with in eight days, four of which days were Fridays, days which are not very propitious to full debate.
Then when we come to this House we find that our work reaches us at the very end of the session, when it is notoriously difficult for us to find sufficient time to get through the business that lies before us for transaction. Therefore, my Lords, those being the limitations upon our Parliamentary opportunities, it seems to me doubly necessary—and I think the noble Earl who brought this matter forward had that feeling strongly in his mind—that our opportunities for extra-Parliamentary discussion should be as full and uninterrupted as possible. For that reason I am extremely glad that we have had this short conversation, which I think goes to show that there is no difference between those who sit on that side of the Table and those who sit on this side of it in their detestation of the kind of tactics which deprive our political controversies of that element of fair play and mutual consideration which has been the pride of our political life in this country.

NAVAL GERMAN INTERPRETERS.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to ask the Government whether on the 1st July out of 1,779 lieutenants on the active list only eight had passed as interpreters of the German language, and of these only one was receiving additional pay for having done so; whether at that date only one out of 246 captains and three out of 365 commanders had passed in German, none of whom were receiving any extra pay in consequence; what amount of extra money had been paid to executive officers in their capacity of interpreter of the German language during the last financial year; whether any money had been paid to any executive officer for instructing officers in German during that period, and if so, how much; and whether the Government are not of opinion that a larger proportion of executive officers, more particularly those who have specialised in gunnery, torpedo, wireless telegraphy, and other technical subjects should be acquainted with that tongue, and if so, whether they will consider the advisability of revising the regulations so as to give executive officers greater opportunities for studying, and

15
increased remuneration for the time and trouble involved in the acquisition of that language.
Only twelve out of 2,390 captains, commanders, and lieutenants on the Active List have qualified as German interpreters, and of these only three appear to be receiving any reward for having done so. I am not in favour of a very high standard of German for naval officers. What some people call a courier knowledge of the language is almost sufficient. It is not necessary for them to attain to the high literary standard required by the Foreign Office. On the other hand, they ought to be well acquainted with the technical terms used in chemistry and electricity, in gunnery and steam which are unnecessary for a diplomatist. It is quite a mistake to think that a knowledge of German is of no use at sea except when a senior officer wishes to communicate with some German vessel. The chief value of such knowledge is to my mind the capacity to assimilate German thought in technical matters. A naval officer may well read Goethe, Schiller, Heine, and Schopenhauer for amusement or as a rest from the study of professional subjects, but he ought also to read Von Treitsche and other German historians, so as to know the trend of German thought towards England, and he should study such scientific and engineering works as bear on naval matters. I am not by any means one of those who think that all naval officers ought to be linguists; but if five per cent. of our executive officers could add to their attainments the power of reading and understanding the German language, it would, I think, increase the efficiency of the Service as a whole. I look upon it as a matter for regret that so few of our specialists in gunnery, torpedo, or wireless, should be capable of studying German technical books and be able to draw their ideas from foreign countries as well as their own.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord I have to say that on July 1, eight lieutenants had qualified as interpreters in German; of these, two were receiving additional pay as interpreters and one more had very recently been holding such an appointment. On the same date, there were one captain and three commanders qualified in German; of these latter one was holding an appointment as interpreter. Interpreter's allowance to the amount of £73 18 s. was paid to executive
16
officers in their capacity of interpreter of the German language during the financial year language. 1908–09. No payments were made during 1908–09 to executive officers for instructing officers in German. Forty-seven officers of all ranks were qualified as interpreters in German on July 1; forty-eight are now qualified, and eleven officers (including one captain and four lieutenants) have proceeded abroad to study German since that date. Specialist officers are least able to spare the time for purposes of study of foreign languages abroad, since they are so constantly employed. Steps have recently been taken to extend the facilities for naval officers studying foreign languages in their own time; under existing conditions, if an officer takes lessons in his own time, actual outlay on travelling expenses and tuition fees is payable within an amount of £35. At present not more than five officers in any year may be given the benefit of these facilities. It has, however, been found that the exigencies of the service render it impossible always to have the full number (twenty) of officers studying abroad, and accordingly steps have been taken to increase the number of officers who may be granted facilities for studying in their own time. The Treasury have sanctioned the proposal that the number of officers who are thus given opportunity for the study of foreign languages in their own time shall not exceed twice the difference between the number of officers authorised to study abroad—i.e., twenty—and the number actually studying at any one time. German is included in the curriculum of studies at Osborne and Dartmouth. I may add that apart from the executive officers who have actually passed the qualifying examination there is a considerable number of officers who have a more or less thorough knowledge of the German language.

OATHS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this Bill deals with a matter which is not very important in itself although it is one which enters very largely into the social life of the country. The Bill was first brought into Parliament not as a Government Bill but as a private Member's Bill, but the Home Office approved of it

17
and it is on their behalf that I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading to-day. I think it will be generally agreed that there is real cause for a reform of the present practice. The present practice has been objected to on the ground that it is insanitary, and, in the opinion of many people even rather disgusting. Again, it is far from being dignified, as any of your Lordships who sit often in a Police Court and have seen the oath administered can readily testify. It is the opinion of the Home Office that the oath administered in the fashion prescribed in this Bill would be more welcome and would probably impress a witness more than the present rather hurried way in which it is administered generally in the Courts. The form and manner of administering the oath are detailed in the Schedule, and I may say that this is not introducing a new principle. It was always possible that oaths could be taken in this way, but it was not very much taken advantage of. There was some question whether it was possible to invite the witness to take the oath in this form. Some authorities thought that a witness must suggest it first of all. Your Lordships will see from the Schedule that the officer administering the oath is required to address the person taking the oath in the following form, "You swear by Almighty God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." The witness would reply, "I do." Your Lordships will see that that adds something to the ceremony of taking the oath. At the present moment the witness says nothing himself or herself, and it is not unlikely that the new form will impress the witness more than the present method. In accordance with a promise given, I shall have some Amendments to propose when we reach the Committee stage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

CINEMATOGRAPH BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this is a small Bill to make better provision for securing safety at cinematograph
18
and other exhibitions. I dare say your Lordships are aware that the films used in these cinematograph exhibitions are very inflammable, and special provisions are therefore necessary in order to safeguard the audience. Several serious fires have occurred not only in London but throughout the country. This Bill will, we hope, secure and safeguard the safety of the public. It has been asked for by a deputation from the London County Council, and so far as regards the theatres under his authority the Lord Chamberlain has expressed his approval of the measure.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

TRADE BOARDS BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and, passed, and returned to the Commons.

BOARD OF TRADE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this is another Bill which is concerned with the reorganisation of a Government Department. It is one of some little importance, but I think your Lordships will not expect me to explain it at any great length. The Office of the Board of Trade still remains what it was when appointed in 1786. The Board includes various high personages; it includes the Archbishop of Canterbury, Secretaries of State, Mr. Speaker in another place, and also the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons. The salary of the President—and consequently according to custom of the other officials of the Board—was fixed in the year 1826, and has not been changed since then. Since those days the work of the Board of Trade has grown enormously, as your Lordships know, and various new duties have been thrown upon it. When the salary was fixed there was no suggestion of the existence of a railway, and all the railway work has been thrown upon the Board of Trade. Also, its purely commercial work has vastly increased since those days. New duties have continually

19
been thrown upon it by such Acts as the Patent Act of two years ago, and now a still further extension has been made in its duties by the relations in which the Board of Trade enters with the Foreign Office in respect of the work of our Consuls abroad. Then the two Bills which have been brought up this year—the Bill which has just been read a third time and the Labour Exchanges Bill—also increase both the work and the responsibility of the Board of Trade. This Bill is the outcome of a Committee which sat, I think, in 1904, under the presidency of the noble Earl, Lord Jersey. That Committee recommended that the Board of Trade should become a first-class Department, that the salary of its President should be made equal to that of the heads of first-class Departments, and that fact will also, as your Lordships know, carry some additions of salary to the secretary and others in the Department. The annual increase of cost worked out at the mean of the scale of salaries will be something under £3,000 a year, and the immediate increase will be somewhat less than that. The only other point to which I have to call attention is that the provisions of this Bill do not come into operation during the tenure of office by its present occupant. That carries out a rule which I am bound to say I think is one more of sentiment than common sense, because if the status of the Department ought to be raised the postponement of the operation does not seem to be altogether rational. Still it has been the custom, and on the whole I think a laudable custom, that such increases should not take place in favour of those who are partly responsible for bringing them about, and it has been the particular wish of the present occupant of the Presidency of the Board of Trade that the change should not take place during his tenure of office. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as your Lordships well know, we on this side of the House could have no manner of objection to the Bill which has just been submitted to your Lordships for Second Reading, because it had been our intention, had we survived long enough, when we were in office to pass a precisely similar measure. But it is, as the noble Earl has intimated, more than a purely departmental question.
20
It has, of course, a departmental aspect, because, as the noble Earl has justly said, the work of the President of the Board of Trade has increased, is increasing, and is likely to increase still further, and it has become, if the holder of the office is willing to undertake the burden, one of the most laborious offices under the Crown. But there is more than a departmental aspect, because owing to the fact that a smaller salary attaches to the office of President of the Board of Trade a lower status is supposed also to attach to it. I do not imagine that any of your Lordships, whether in office or likely to come into office in future, would shrink from public duty on any such ground as that; but some difficulty may arise in getting the best man to occupy the position of President of the Board, because, even if he does not regard it in that light, his friends often think that if he has held the office of a Secretary of State he is going down in the official hierarchy in accepting the Presidency of the Board of Trade. Therefore, great difficulties may arise in putting the best man into this position because of its alleged inferior status. What the public require is that the best man should fill the office, and I am sure it will be much easier for a Prime Minister forming a Government not to be hampered by such considerations as those to which I have called attention. Therefore, on these general grounds, as well as on the grounds put forward by the noble Earl that the weight and burden of the office have greatly increased since it was established, this measure can receive nothing but hearty support from those Members who sit on this side of the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

COLINTON TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Colinton Tramways—Was presented by the Lord Denman (for the Lord Pentland) (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, sections 8 and 9); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 178.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.