Lords Sitting of 19 July 1910

APPEAL COMMITTEE.
Second Report from; read, and agreed to.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
The King's answer to the Address of Tuesday last, reported by the Lord President (E. Beauchamp), as follows—
"I have received your Address, praying that I will withhold my assent from the words or diminishing' in Section VIII (4) (c) of Ordinance No. 5 (Regulations for Degrees in Medicine), made by the University Court of St. Andrews, under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, Section 21.
"I will comply with your advice."

MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
LOCAL FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the resolution of this House communicated to them on the 5th instant on the subject of the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894, as desired by this House.

OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY (BAY OF Fl RTH) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, relating to a several Oyster and Mussel Fishery at the Bay of Firth—Was presented by the
286
Lord Pentland; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 118.)

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Electric lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill and other Bills, do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
PAISLEY GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  CLYDEBANK AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD EVERSLEY*LORD EVERSLEY moved to amend Clause 4, subsection (1), by omitting from paragraph (a) the words "religious profession," which were inserted in Committee on the motion of Lord Newton. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my Amendment is to reverse the decision given by your Lordships' House a few days ago including in the provisions of this Bill the taking of a religious census. The House will recollect that in the course of the debate which took place on that occasion the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition spoke strongly in favour of Lord Newton's Amendment for the purpose of including a religious census, but at the close of his speech the noble Marquess somewhat obscurely hinted that if the Government should be firm on the question and should be unable to assent to the Amendment in another place he would advise the noble Lord to be content with the discussion which lie had raised and not divide the House. Later the noble Marquess, at the conclusion of the debate, put a pointed question to the Government, and the noble Earl who leads the House replied that it must be assumed that the Government would oppose the Amendment when it got to the other House.
When the Division was called I observed that a kind of stampede took place on the Benches opposite. The leaders of the Party opposite who sit on the Front Opposition Bench left the House and took no part in the Division, and a great many of the Peers sitting behind them followed their example. Sufficient remained on the Back Benches, however, to enable Lord Newton to defeat the Government by a majority of seven, and to carry his Amendment.
I have consulted the Journals of the House, and I find that there were fifty-nine Peers who generally sit on the opposite side of the House who were present on that occasion but did not vote. It is, of course, possible that seine of them may have been called away on business and were unable to remain in the House, but it is quite certain that the great bulk of them abstained purposely from voting, and either left the House when the Division was called, or did not come in from the Library or the Lobbies in order to take part in the Division. It is certain, therefore, that a large majority of noble Lords sitting on the opposite side of the House were unwilling that the Division should take place, and the thirty-eight Members who supported the noble Lord's Amendment formed a minority of the Opposition Peers who were in the House on that occasion. Lord Newton will pardon me for saying that I think he was about the last person in the House who one would expect would lead a revolt of noble Lords sitting on the Back Benches against the advice of his leaders for the purpose of defeating the Government. The noble Lord has been a party to a Report on the constitution of this House, in which he admitted that the Government were entitled to a substantial support from the House; and I think if he will look at the names of those Peers who supported him in carrying his Amendment in Committee he will find that, with the exception of four or five, none of them would in all probability have seats in this House if the noble Lord's scheme were carried into effect.
I must remind the House that what took place in the other House on this question was not dissimilar from that which occurred here, with the exception that the Government were not defeated. A similar Amendment was moved in the House of Commons, a long debate took place, and eventually
288
a Division was called, but there, just as here, the leaders of the Opposition left the House and took no part in the Division, and the minority who supported the Amendment was exactly the same as the number here—namely, thirty-eight. Therefore it turns out that only thirty-eight members of the House of Commons out of a total membership of 670 voted for the Amendment, and only thirty-eight Peers out of a membership of 550 or 600 voted for the Amendment here. It is clear, therefore, that this Amendment would go to the other House with very small authority, and I take it to be beyond all question that it would not be accepted in the other House. I would venture, therefore, to suggest to the noble Lord and those who supported him whether it is really worth while that an Amendment of this kind, which has received such a small modicum of support, should be sent down to the House of Commons with a certainty that it will not be accepted.
On the merits of the case I will not detain the House at any length. I think the subject was very fairly and fully debated. But I should like to say, as a matter of personal justification for my action in raising the question again, that a good many years ago when I acted as President of the Statistical Society I gave a great deal of attention to the subject of a religious census, and I came to the conclusion, after long consideration, that it would be entirely misleading and of really no statistical value. It is absolutely certain that there are a very large number of people in this country, especially in the larger towns, who are not in the habit of attending any place of worship, and who cannot be said, therefore, to belong to any religious persuasion; but when asked the question whether they belong to any religious persuasion or not they would hesitate to say No, and would probably range themselves under the ample mantle of the Church of England. And by declaring themselves to be members of the Church of England they would not be asserting that which was untrue, because, in point of law, they are all members of the Church of England whether they wish it or not.
As an illustration I will quote the statistics which have been given in the Report of the Prisons Commissioners. In the case of the prisons there is already a religious census,

289
and the Report of the Prison Commissioners shows that out of the total number of 25,000 criminals, not in the convict prisons but in the ordinary prisons of Great Britain, on a particular day of the year mentioned, 16,000 declared themselves to be members of the Church of England, 5,000 declared themselves to be members of the Roman Catholic Church, about 1,500 to be members of the Presbyterian Church, 500 said they were Methodists, and there were about 120 belonging to other sects. Nobody for a moment believes that these statistics are of any value whatever. It is quite certain that a very large number of those criminals who described themselves as members of the Church of England for various reasons are persons with no religious persuasion of any kind, and who have only pronounced themselves to be members of the Church of England for some reason that one cannot exactly estimate. What has taken place in the case of criminals would probably take place in respect of a. very large number of people if this religious census is carried out. For my part I feel confident that the result will be misleading and of no value whatever, and will give a very misleading appreciation of the difference in numbers of the people belonging to the Church of. England and to other persuasions in this country.
For my part, therefore, I fully sympathise with the Nonconformists who have always strongly objected to this proposal for a religious census, and whose remonstrances hitherto have been listened to by both Parties in the State. The Conservative Governments in 1890 and 1900, in deference to the objections raised by Nonconformists, refrained from including a religious census in their Census Bills, and I feel very little doubt whatever that if the Party opposite were again in power and a census was to be taken, say in the year 1920, they would come to the same conclusion. At all events it is quite clear that the leaders of the Party opposite, in both Houses of Parliament, have been unwilling to commit themselves, by voting in favour of this Amendment, to any such policy in the future, and have kept themselves free to give any decision they may think fit; and I feel confident they will follow the example of all Governments for the last forty or fifty years and refrain from including a religious census in the ordinary census. I venture, therefore, to hope that
290
the noble Lord will take the advice on this occasion of the leaders on the Front Bench opposite, and that he will be satisfied with the discussion which has been raised and allow this Amendment to drop, and not put the other House to the inconvenience of having a further discussion on this matter. It is absolutely certain that if there is another discussion in the House of Commons the decision will be against this proposal by probably the same majority as before. In these circumstances I venture to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 2, lines 3 and 4, leave out (" religious profession ").—(Lord Eversley.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, with regard to the question of being satisfied as to the result of the discussion which took place upon this particular matter when the Bill was in Committee, I can assure the noble Lord opposite that I am amply satisfied, not only with the discussion but with the result. As far as the discussion went, the arguments being entirely upon one side it is not very probable that I should feel any dissatisfaction with regard to the course of the debate. But I cannot refrain front expressing my unbounded surprise at the action of the noble Lord, and I sincerely hope that the Amendment which he has put on the Paper will not be assented to by the House. The course which the noble Lord has taken is one which, perhaps, can be justified by precedent; but at the same time I submit that it is a course of an extremely unusual and unsatisfactory nature. If this practice were habitually adopted, it is quite evident that any noble Lord might lie low, so to speak, during the preliminary stages of a Bill, he might form an ambush, and one day he might come down with his friends and supporters on one of the subsequent stages of the Bill, when it was supposed to be in a perfectly safe condition, and either destroy it or mutilate it.
I want to know, if this is a matter of such great importance, why it is that the Government are not able to protect themselves. If it is desirable that this provision should be excluded from the Bill, why is it that the Government not only have not done the work themselves, but, so far

291
as I understand, have not even issued a Whip in support of the noble Lord? For a good many years, both in this and in the other House, I have sat opposite to the noble Lord who brought forward this Amendment, and I confess it never till this moment occurred to me to look upon him as otherwise than a serious politician. I now recognise him as a hardened practical joker. The noble Lord, in a spirit of irrepressible frivolity, comes down to the House and deliberately asks us to revise a decision at which we arrived the other day after two hours of about as serious and solid discussion as I have ever heard, conducted largely by right rev. Prelates, upon a question on which they have a right to be heard above any persons in the United Kingdom.
Now the noble Lord comes down, and, in this airy and frivolous spirit, says that surely the Division of the other night ought not to count as a serious Division. The noble Lord says he has looked into the Division List and found that a number of noble Lords for whose opinion he has profound respect, including noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench, did not vote for the Amendment. I am quite aware of that fact The Front Opposition Bench did not vote for a very excellent reason, because they have a proper sense of proportion, and because they do not wish to attach exaggerated importance to a question of this character. For the noble Lord to look into the Division List to search out the names of the people who voted and class them as, so to speak, political sheep and goats whose opinion is not to count at all, is a most unheard-of way of looking at a Division. I imagine that if there is a Division again the persons who abstained upon the last occasion will abstain again, and I do not blame them in the least for it.
What I wish to call the attention of the House to is this, that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, in the course of his speech the other day, said that he did not regard this question as a Party question. The noble Earl having made that announcement, I felt that I was perfectly safe in asking the House to give its opinion on the subject. And let me say that I rather resent the charge made against me by the noble Lord that I am an undisciplined mutineer who leads astray persons
292
on the Back Benches and elsewhere. I wish I could. I wish I had the power. But I am of sufficiently modest a disposition to know that what I say probably carries remarkably little weight in this House or elsewhere. What pressure can I put on noble Lords to vote for me? Noble Lords sitting on this side of the House are just as capable of forming an intelligent opinion on this matter as Members of the House of Commons or as the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment. I did not ask them to go into the Lobby with me: they went of their own accord. And the noble Lord now comes down and says that because he does not approve of these names the Division is not to count and must be reversed.
I wish to return to this point. The noble Earl told the House deliberately that this was not a Party question. Now are the Government going to take up the attitude that the moment this House ventures to express an opinion upon a question it immediately becomes a Party question? I believe most things of the Government, but I decline to believe that of them. I apologise for having caused all this trouble, but I do wish to point out that if we are going to do what the noble Lord wants we shall absolutely stultify ourselves. The noble Lord has not adduced any sort of argument in favour of reversing our decision. All lie says is that it is likely that upon this point we may find ourselves in disagreement with the House of Commons. It is possible that we may, and if we do find ourselves in disagreement with the House of Commons, then will be the time. to decide what we shall do. Meanwhile, why on earth should we be afraid of expressing our opinion, more especially when we have been told that this is not a Party question?
For my part, I regret having put the House to this trouble, but at the same time I am not the least ashamed of my action in this matter. I am no more ashamed of what I have done than I should be of describing what my religious profession is upon the census sheet if I had the chance to do so. I repeat that if any persons have a right to be heard upon this question it is the occupants of the Episcopal Benches opposite. I do attach some value to consistency, and I cannot imagine anything much more undignified or more inconsistent than that this House

293
should deliberately within the space of one week reverse a decision which it had previously arrived at. For that reason I regret to say that, although I am afraid my action may cause dissatisfaction, if I can find anybody to support my view I shall divide against the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment referred so pointedly to the part which I took in the proceedings the other evening that I am constrained to say a very few words with regard to them. I shall not follow his example and again discuss the merits of the Amendment. They were fully entered into the other evening, and I remain of the opinion which I then expressed. I share the view of the noble Lord behind me with regard to the merits of the Amendment. Nor shall I follow the example—not, I think, a very good example—set us by the noble Lord at the Table (Lord Eversley) in pursuing his investigations into the composition of the Division List the other evening. Whatever may be in store for this House hereafter, at present we are all members of this House sitting in it on a footing of absolute equality, and I do not think the noble Lord or anybody else has a right to balance the intrinsic value of one Peer's vote against that of another.
What happened the other evening was, I think, this. The noble Earl who leads the House, in reply to an interrogation from me, told us very distinctly that His Majesty's Government were not likely to accept the Amendment of my noble friend behind me. That being so, and it being also evident that this House was not likely to throw out the Census Bill altogether, it did appear to me that we were rather courting a rebuff by adding these words to the Bill, and I therefore said that for my part, and I believe some of my noble friends near me agreed with me, I should not vote for my noble friend whatever I might think with regard to the merits. But I can quite understand that my noble friend and other noble Lords should have thought differently, and that they should have desired by their votes to enter upon the proceedings of this House a protest against the attitude of His Majesty's Government. And having made that protest, I cannot see upon what ground they should be asked
294
this evening to retreat from the position which they then took up. I must say frankly that if I had been one of those who had made that protest, nothing would have induced me to withdraw from it now.
This House has, after all, a right to express independent opinions of its own, and we all of us understand. I think, that there should be occasions when the body of the Peers may desire to take a line not perhaps entirely in accordance with that suggested to them from the Front Bench. The occasion of the Committee stage of this Bill, which was described by the noble Earl opposite as anything but a Party measure, was certainly one of those occasions when there was room for great latitude of opinion. I was not surprised that a variety of opinion should have been manifested. and I see no reason why those who then took a line different from that which was taken by the Front Opposition Bench should not adhere to the course which they then adopted.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I have sincerely to apologise to your Lordships for intervening in this discussion, especially after the speech a the noble Marquess who has just sat down. This is a question which has engaged the attention of the House of Commons during many decades, and has always been determined in one manner. The taking of a religious census has been proposed in connection with many Census Bills, but has always been rejected. I hope I may say a word or two upon the merits of this question. The narrow majority of seven surely justifies a reconsideration of the decision of your Lordships' House last week. Often upon Report a decision arrived at in Committee has been reconsidered.
I will not enter into the composition of the majority or the minority, but I do ask the House, even those who voted with my noble friend Lord Newton, to consider what can be the result of the step that has been taken. My memory goes back vividly to the debate in the House of Commons in 1880, when a similar Amendment was proposed. The debate which then took place was one full of eloquence. I recollect the opposition to that clause by

295
the Government representative, and I recollect a quotation from Voltaire when it was argued that you cannot find the religion of the people of this country. Voltaire said that England was a terrible country; it had 100 different religions and only one eatable sauce. I remember a magnificent speech delivered by Mr. John Bright on behalf of religious independence. He denounced the idea that any citizen had the right to ask a fellow citizen what his religious views were, and from that time to this the question has never been maintained with any force.
LORD NEWTON: It is done in Ireland.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I will tell the noble Lord why it is done in Ireland. The arrangement exists there by agreement between the two parties. The Roman Catholics, being in an enormous majority throughout the country, wish this census because they desire to show how strong they are. The Protestants of Ireland, localised, wish to show how strong they are in their localities. The only people who could fight the Roman Catholic interest were the Ulster Protestants, and they said, "Give us this census so that we can show how strong Protestanism is in Ulster," and so it was done in Ireland by virtual agreement. I have stated that in 1880 this proposal was discouraged in the House of Commons. In 1890 a Conservative Government introduced a Census Bill, of which Mr. Ritchie had charge. An Amendment was moved to set up a religious census, but the Conservative Government of the day deprecated it on the ground that the country would not tolerate such a census, and the Amendment was withdrawn at the request of the Minister in charge of the Bill in the House of Commons. In 1900, again, a Conservative Government was in office. Mr. Chaplin had charge of the Bill on that occasion. This Amendment was moved by Lord Hugh Cecil, and Mr. Chaplin replied that it was useless, and that the matter had been determined and could not be reopened. Lord Hugh Cecil said he felt that that was so, and he yielded to the appeal of the Conservative leaders and withdrew his Amendment.
In these circumstances I ask Lord Newton, does lie think there can be
296
any other result now after these constant decisions of the House of Commons and without any new argument whatever being brought forward in favour of this census. To be consistent the Conservative leaders in the House of Commons as well as the Government will have to oppose this Amendment. And what will be said then? It will be said that at a moment when there are delicate matters for consideration between the two Houses we are asserting this view by a narrow majority against the expressed will, over and over again asserted, of the House of Commons. I ventured to ask your Lordships some months ago to consider the action you were about to take. I did not expect that my words would be listened to then, and I do not expect they will be listened to to-night; but I think it is a calamity that, without any hope of success, you should in this way assert yourselves with nothing but futility. There are two great reasons against this religious census. In the first place, you cannot gain the information you wish to gain; and, in the next place, you ought not to gain it if you could.
LORD NEWTON: Oh !
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I repeat that no man has a right to ask another to make public what his religious views are.
LORD NEWTON: It is done everywhere else.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: You may tell me that it is the State that does it, but the State has no more right to inquire into a man's private views on religion than an individual.
THE EARL OF MAYO: It is done in Ireland.
LORD NEWTON: And in nearly every other country.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I have explained why it was done in Ireland. It will be said that there is a proviso under which no man is compelled to answer this question. I know you do not compel a man to answer, but you compel a man to say that he will not answer, and that is an inquisitorial proceeding. I therefore hope

297
your Lordships will accept Lord Eversley's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken will not think me disrespectful if I do not follow him into the greater part of his speech. It was a speech which would have been perfectly in order on the Second Reading; but with regard to the Amendment now before the House, I think it was entirely apart from the question. The only part of the noble and learned Lord's remarks which appeared to me to relate to the question was this—that he said it was undesirable that we in this House should express an opinion, and should give an effective expression of our opinion, if that opinion is different from the opinion of the majority of the House of Commons. Are we never, then, if we have a strong opinion, to give expression to it? Pray what is the use of this House? I am one of those who supported Lord Newton, and I quite fall in with what Lord Lansdowne said. Nothing in the world will induce me to say that the ease which I heard the other night was a good case against this Amendment.
What decided me in voting with Lord Newton was the speech of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. No one has a greater respect than I have for his ability and the admirable way in which the noble Earl puts his cases; but when I listened to his ease and heard his arguments against a religious census I said to myself, "Well, if there is nothing better than this, clearly it is a case in which the merits are all on the other side." I do not wish to repeat what passed the other day. But what did the noble Earl say? He said this religious census would serve no useful purpose. The purpose, of course, is quite plain. The purpose for which this is desirable is with reference to the question of the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, which we have been told over and over again is going to be taken up in the immediate future. Then the noble Earl said that in Ireland the return was taken by enumerators, and he added that he did not expect that my noble friend behind me would think that there was much in that. My noble friend quite agreed with him. Then the noble Earl said that in Ireland there were 300 objectors in 1891, and that in the year 1901 there were 700 objectors.
298
I do not think that really was a serious argument.
Then the noble Earl said that if we wanted to know the real religious opinions of the people of Wales we ought to go to the Welsh Members. I have a great respect for the Welsh Members, but I do not think that either their very best friend or their greatest enemy would impute to them the charge of being impartial. And with regard to their representing the opinion of all Wales, I see Lord Courtney in his place, and I am sure that that ardent apostle of proportional representation will at once rise and say that there probably is not a minority so badly represented or so unduly misrepresented as is the case in Wales under the present system. I really heard no argument from the Government at all, and therefore I voted with my noble friend Lord Newton. Why am I to change my opinion? Am I to say I think a good case was made out when I think there was no case at all made out? And why are we always to be talking and always to be thinking of what is going to happen in the House of Commons? The House of Commons is perfectly well able to take care of itself. I am sure we have seen plenty of proof of that. Suppose we adhere to this Amendment of my noble friend. It goes to the House of Commons. The House of. Commons will pronounce its opinion with regard to the Amendment. Very likely—most likely, perhaps—it will disagree with this House. Then will be the time for your Lordships to consider whether you are going to adhere to the Amendment with the possible result of losing the Bill, or whether you will give it up. But if your Lordships then give it up, you will, at all events, have shown this, that there is no case whatsoever against the Amendment. All Lord Newton's Amendment does is to say that a man, if he wishes, may record what his religious profession is, and, if he does not choose to record it, he need not. It is said that under no circumstances can this be agreed to, and that no useful purpose will be served, when at the same time in the other House the Welsh Members are pressing upon the Government to disestablish the Church in Wales. For that reason it is very desirable that anything we can obtain in the direction of impartial and accurate information on this subject should be obtained. I submit that there is an over-

299
whelming case for the Amendment we inserted in Committee.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, it would scarcely be respectful to your Lordships' House if His Majesty's Government allowed this interesting discussion to go by without expressing some opinion on the question which your Lordships are now discussing. It has been stated by the noble Lord who originally was responsible for the Amendment inserting the words "religious profession"—and we on this side of the House entirely agree with him—that this is not, strictly speaking, a Party question. This is a matter of administration; and I would point out to the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition what an admirable example this is of the constant difficulty which His Majesty's Government meet with in trying to carry on the administration of the country, being a Liberal minority in a Conservative House of Lords. Here are His Majesty's Government introducing a Bill, exactly the same, so far as regards this point, as the Bill for which the noble Marquess was responsible in 1890 and 1900; and although it is the same, without any fresh facts or any fresh circumstances having taken place in the interval, when His Majesty's Government now bring in an exactly identical Bill, the noble Marquess's followers refuse to give approval to it. Surely it is all the stronger because it is not a Party question but a matter of administration; and I do not know that we can find a better example of the difficulties which His Majesty's Government have in carrying on the administration of this country.
I venture to think that this opposition is really entirely factious, and the noble Lord, I think, hardly expects that he will be able to secure that religious census which is really the subject of our discussion. I am afraid I am hardly able to follow the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in his theory that on such an occasion as this the body of the House has an opinion which deserves to be supported without criticism, and for this reason. The body of the House took no part, or very little part, in the discussion, and took a very small part in the Division on this Amendment. Only seventy members of your Lordships' House out of a total membership of 600 voted upon the question, and I do not think, when you consider that out of that number only thirty-eight voted in favour of the Amend-
300
ment, that that can be described as being the body of your Lordships' House.
May I say, in passing, that if this House adheres to the Amendment which was carried in Committee there are one or two drafting Amendments which I should like to put down for the consideration of your Lordships on Third Reading. They are purely drafting, and are not in any way meant to minimise the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment; but as the Amendment has been carried by this House it is thought, and I think rightly thought, that it should go to another place in a proper shape which should not be disapproved of by the draftsman. The noble Lord asked us why no Whip was issued on this occasion. I think the answer to that is that the Amendment of Lord Eversley only appeared on the Paper this morning, and therefore it was not possible. May I say one or two words in answer to the noble Earl who has just sat down, whose flattering remarks I should like to thank him for. But I cannot expect to succeed where the late Lord Salisbury failed. The noble Earl himself tried to persuade Lord Salisbury to include a religious census on a previous occasion—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think if the noble Earl will refer back he will see that what Lord Salisbury objected to was not my proposal but the time at which it was made. The Bill was not before the House. What I suggested to the House was that when the Bill came up a column should be inserted containing this religious matter. The late Lord Salisbury stated that that, in his opinion, was not according to order, and Lord Granville said the same, and the Motion was then withdrawn. That is what happened.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes, I agree. But why did not the noble Earl proceed with the matter on a more suitable occasion when the Bill did come before your Lordships' House? I can only imagine that the noble Marquess, who threw cold water on the noble Earl's proposal, was so effective in the ridicule which he poured upon it as to deter the noble Earl from bringing it forward on a subsequent occasion. May I say that this Amendment is not likely to give us any really useful statistics with regard to disestablishment. In Wales the mere fact that a man is a member of the Church of England will not necessarily make him for or against

301
any particular Bill. Because a man is a member of the Roman Catholic Church he will not necessarily be for or against the disestablishment of the Church of England, and you cannot be sure when you have got the religion of the people that you can tell what their attitude will be with regard to a measure which is wholly political in its character. The disestablishment of the Church is really a political matter, and the religious opinions of the people do not necessarily have any relation to the political standing of the Church. That is why I think we are justified in taking the opinion of the Members of the House of Commons, who are returned as the representatives of the people, as being more likely to afford a real guide as to the wishes of the people of Wales than would their religious opinions.
But I cannot sit down without expressing regret at the attitude which was taken up by right rev. Prelates. It seems to me a matter of deep regret that right rev. Prelates should have used their privileged position in this House to try and force upon the people of this country an inquiry into their religious convictions which is very much objected to by a large section of Nonconformists up and down the country; and I cannot help hoping that before the matter is finally decided, when I suppose it will come back again from another place, right rev. Prelates will see their way to withdraw their opposition to the Bill as it was originally introduced by His Majesty's Government. This matter, of course, is one for your Lordships' House, and His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any active steps upon the present occasion. Their Bill as it was approved of by previous Governments has been before your Lordships' House, and they leave it to your Lordships to act as you think best after they have placed their views in the Committee stage before you. Whether your Lordships prefer to experience at the hands of the other House a rebuff, which seems to be anticipated, I think, by every single speaker who has taken part in this debate, or whether you will yourselves delete this Amendment is a matter to which His Majesty's Government are comparatively indifferent, and which they leave entirely in the hands of the House.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S: My Lords, the challenge which the noble
302
Earl the Lord President threw out to the occupants of these Benches compels me to make one or two observations. It is, I think, always accepted that duty is the correlative of privilege, and if we hold a privileged position in this House I conceive we should try to the best of our ability to do our duty. I do not quite follow the noble Earl's criticism, for I understood that the noble Lord who carried this Amendment last week carefully provided that any one who did not wish to return his 'religious profession need not do so. It is based absolutely on the voluntary principle, which I am quite sure the noble Earl in many applications approves of. Then I was very much astonished at the noble Earl's argument. He said that the Government thought that the opinion of the Welsh Members of Parliament was a great argument for their great project. If they had remained content with that argument, we should have had nothing to do but to meet them on that ground. But they did not do so. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, certainly did quote the opinions of the Welsh Members of Parliament, but he also quoted statistics. Our contention is that the argument of statistics is a feeble and irrelevant argument for breaking up the historic unity of the Church of England; but if you use the argument of statistics, then you ought to take every possible pains to have that argument fair and sound. I do not intend to trespass upon the time of your Lordships by entering into the merits of the question, but may I quote a precedent? Last week was not the first time your Lordships carried this Amendment. It was carried in 1870 by a majority of four, and no one on that occasion took the course which the noble Lord at the Table has taken to-night of asking the House to change its opinion within a week. What happened then was that the Amendment carried in this House was not accepted in another place; reasons were given for not accepting it, and this House did not insist upon the Amendment. After what the noble Earl said I felt bound to say a few words by way of meeting his challenge. I hope your Lordships will support Lord Newton's proposal to-night as you did last week.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-contents, 29.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Westmeath, E.

Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.)

Clonbrock, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Cross, V.

Colchester, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Goschen, V.

Inverclyde, L.

Ridley, V.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Bathurst, E.

Tredegar, V.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Camperdown, E.

Ravensworth, L.

Cromer, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Sempill, L.

Dartmouth, E,

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Sinclair, L.

Halsbury, E.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

Mayo, E.

Morton, E.

Addington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Barrymore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Airedale, L.

James, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. President.)

Armitstead, L.

Lochee, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Balfour, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clinton, L.

Pentlaud, L.

Carrington, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Craven,E.

Denman, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Liverpool, E.

Eversley, L. [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L. [Teller.]

Farrer, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Morley of Blackburn, V.

Glantawe, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Tennyson, L.

Acton, L.

Hemphill, L.

Welby, L.

Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

MIDWIVES (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this Bill, which I beg leave to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this afternoon, is a Bill to amend the Midwives Act which was passed in the year 1902. That Act set up a precedent in a good many directions, and, as is often the case with new legislation, experience has shown that it is desirable that there should be amendment in one or two directions. It is in order to carry out these amendments that this Bill is introduced. There are one or two results which I should like to mention to your Lordships; they are partly the effect, I think, of the Midwives Act of 1902.
During the last few years there has been a remarkable decrease in deaths of a character which might be prevented by competent and skilled midwives. We do not by any means wish your Lordships to imagine that we ascribe the whole of
304
this to the Midwives Act, but we say that this is one of the various tendencies all working in the same direction. In the year 1902, before this Act came into force, there were 2,000 deaths from puerperal sepsis, and the rate per million of women living was 118. In the year 1908 the figure had gone clown to 76 per million women living, which is a very considerable reduction. Taking the rate of mortality in the same disease calculated in proportion to 1,000 births, the figure has gone down from 2·12 to 1·48, which, again, is a considerable decrease. The death-rate per thousand births from puerperal sepsis and accidents in child-birth in 1902 was 4·6; last year it was only 3·57. So that your Lordships will see there has been a very real and considerable decrease since the Act of 1902 came into force. A Departmental Committee was appointed to see how far the Act had been a success, and the amendments embodied in this Bill are substantially founded on the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the admirable work which is being performed by Sir Francis Champneys, the Chairman of the Midwives Board, who has devoted a large amount of time to successfully working the Act. The discharge of their functions by the Board has, I think, earned general commendation, and that is very largely due to

305
the judgment and tact shown by the 'Chairman, upon whom His Majesty was lately pleased to bestow a Baronetcy. During the whole of the seven years Sir Francis Champneys has devoted his time and energy unremittently to the service of the Board over which he presides, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is fortunate that the Board should have bad the guidance of a man who at once enjoys the confidence of the medical profession and has a disinterested care for the objects of the law which the Board is called upon to administer.
I now come to the clauses in the Bill. The first clause deals with the constitution of the Board. With regard to that matter I may say at once that a considerable quantity of correspondence has reached me on this subject, and representations have been made by various bodies, some of which are anxious to increase their representation on the Board. That is not, strictly speaking., I suppose, a Second Reading matter, but rather one to be dealt with in Committee: but in this matter I shall throw myself wholly upon your Lordships' mercy. Nobody who has had experience of this matter can be ignorant of the fact that there is nothing more difficult in the world than to secure the properly-balanced proportion of various interests on a body that you want to be thoroughly representative of those various interests. There are a number of considerations to be taken into account, and the nicely balancing of the various interests concerned makes it very often a difficult matter, and if once you admit any alteration in the scheme it is very difficult indeed to know where to stop. Admit one alteration and then the other bodies concerned come and ask for further alteration. That becomes an exceedingly difficult matter, and I wish, if any noble Lord is going to move an Amendment on Clause 1, that he could be persuaded at the same time to explain to your Lordships how he would also deal with the other interests concerned. It is easy enough to move that a certain body should have representation, but the effect which that must have on the other interests concerned should be explained. And therefore I hope that if any Amendment of that kind is discussed it may be combined with a general scheme for the reorganisation of the Board.
I might mention, in case any noble Lord has any fears with regard to this, that we
306
have in the second clause a provision under which the Privy Council, if after a certain length of time they find the various bodies are not sufficiently represented, take power, after bringing the matter before your Lordships' House, to alter the constitution of the Board. In this matter we follow the precedent in the Medical Act of 1886, which has been found to work satisfactorily. Your Lordships will see that if we find after the Act has been working for some time that there is any real ground for complaint, we take power to make an alteration in any direction which may seem advisable. In Clause 3 we deal with the finance of the Bill, and after the discussion which we had last week on the subject of the rates I am anxious to explain to your Lordships that it really is not a very large charge that we propose should be borne by the rates of this country. Take the Report of the Departmental Committee which went into the question, and your Lordships will there see in parallel columns, on page 33, the amount which is paid by the various authorities under the existing scheme, and alongside of it the amount which would be paid if the scheme which is proposed in this Bill were adopted in its place. I will take the large county of London. London would have to pay an amount of only £77 11s. 8d., and that on the rates of London does not involve a serious or heavy charge. I next take my own county, which is a rural county. The county of Worcester would pay £34, which, again, even in the case of a rural county, cannot be described as a large amount to pay for the benefits derived from this Act.
Clause 7 is, perhaps, the next important clause, and that provides for the imposition of an annual registration fee of a shilling upon every midwife who wishes to keep her name on the roll. The Committee were informed that the roll was not in a satisfactory condition, and we think that by imposing this fee, which is not a large one, we shall be enabled to keep the roll better, and that the midwives will derive benefit from their names being upon the roll. Your Lordships will see that under the general scheme of the Act the midwives enjoy a monopoly of practice, and I do not think it is very much to ask them to pay this fee considering the advantages which they get from the existence of the Act.

307
Then we come to Clause 17, which deals with a difficulty of perhaps the greatest importance. Under the rules of the Central Midwives Board a midwife was required, if she noticed certain symptoms of danger or complication, to advise the woman or her relations to send for a doctor. Her responsibility was entirely confined to giving that advice, and she was not hound to secure the doctor's attendance, although as a matter of practice she very often was willing to relieve the family of trouble by communicating with the doctor herself. But the difficulty which arose was this, that the doctor who so attends is at present under no secure expectation of receiving payment for his professional services, and in some cases the medical man has refused to attend unless his fee is paid beforehand. In other cases he has only attended after so much delay that the life and health of the mother and child may have been in danger. Apart from this there has been a movement set on foot by which medical men have pledged themselves not to attend in such cases unless the fee was either paid beforehand or guaranteed by some responsible authority. The Local Government Board issued a Circular in 1907 on the subject, but the matter has been dealt with in different ways. In Liverpool and Manchester the city councils have taken the matter into their own hands, and have provided for the payment of doctors called in under such circumstances; but that is purely a voluntary proceeding on their part; and what is applicable in a city like Manchester or Liverpool is not applicable in a large and scattered area. A considerable volume of evidence was laid before the Departmental Committee on this question, and it was quite conclusive as to the necessity of some intervention by the State so that a doctor—and I think quite rightly—should be assured of receiving his fee from some public authority if he could not secure it from the woman or her relations. The only question which was at all open to doubt was with regard to the particular authority which should make the payment, and the Local Government Board, in a Memorandum, expressed themselves very strongly in favour of designating boards of guardians as the responsible authority.
This particular provision was subjected to very severe criticism in the original form in which the Bill was introduced by my noble friend Lord Wolverhampton,
308
and as it stands in the present Bill Your Lordships will see that some alterations, which I hope will be considered important, have been introduced. Clause 17 provides that where a duly qualified medical practitioner has been summoned upon the advice of a certified midwife attending a woman in child-birth to render assistance in a case of emergency, he shall be entitled to recover from the board of guardians of the Poor-law union in which the woman resides such fee in respect of his attendance as may be prescribed; and such fee may, if the board of guardians think fit, be recovered summarily as a civil debt from the patient or person liable to provide the patient with medical aid. Relief of this nature, whether recovered or not, will no in any case entail disfranchisement, and we hope there will be no disagreeable incident connected with it. If no provision was made for the recovery of the money, gratuitous medical attendance at the cost of the State would for the first time be introduced, and whether that be right or wrong it did not seem that an amending Bill of this nature was the proper occasion for allowing such a provision to be entered on the Statute Book. An endeavour has been made to make this Bill as far as possible non-contentious by avoiding raising any large issues connected with Poor-law relief, and I hope the course we have taken will secure that result.
The other matter to which, perhaps, I ought to allude is one which is not directly referred to in the Bill, but one upon which some communications have reached me. I refer to the omission from the Bill of any reference to Ireland. I would point out that one reason why there is no mention of Ireland in this Bill is that this is an amending measure. We only propose to amend the Act of 1902, within the scope of which Ireland was not included. As Ireland was not brought within the scope of that Act it is not desirable in an amending Act to introduce any new principle, or such a great change as the inclusion of Ireland would be. That is the first reason we have for not including Ireland in this Bill. Our second reason is that the system in Ireland is quite different. In that country there are dispensary midwives, and we do not think it would be easy to work that system in connection with the Central Midwives Board in London. But if any noble Lord would introduce a Bill relating specifically to

309
Ireland we would be glad to place at his disposal all the information which we have concerning the subject.
LORD ASHBOURNE: That would be a private Bill; this is a Government measure.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If a strong opinion were expressed by your Lordships in favour of such a Bill I would make representations to the Irish Office on the subject. I think it is a matter which ought to be dealt with by that Office rather than by the Department which deals with this country. I hope your Lordships will allow me to take the Committee stage of the Bill next week. The original Bill was introduced into this House in March of this year, so that I do not think we can be accused of dealing with this matter with unnecessary or undue hurry. The matter has been fully before those who are interested in it for something like three months, and being anxious to get the Bill through during the present portion of the session I hope your Lordships will allow me to take the Committee stage one clay next week.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate had I not received representations from Belfast bringing before me reasons why it is hoped that the case of Ireland will be considered in connection with this measure, and that benefits similar to those which this country will receive from the passing of this Bill will be extended to Ireland. The subject is not an entirely new one with regard to Ireland. A Question was put to the Chief Secretary in another place, and he replied—
"I do not propose to introduce legislation on the subject, at all events during the present session. 1 would point out that there is not the same urgency in the matter in Ireland as in England, having regard to the powers boards of guardians in Ireland already possess."
I do not think that answer would satisfy the gentlemen in the North of Ireland who have brought their case before me, claiming that Ireland beyond all doubt ought to have the same benefits as are proposed in this Bill with regard to England. The noble Earl said that the Act of 1902 did not include Ireland. I cannot agree with that statement. If the noble Earl
310
will refer to the Act of 1902 he will see that Section 2 included a certain amount of relief for the people of Ireland, but it was provisional for only two years, and. after the two years Ireland was left entirely out of the benefit of the Act. It is on these grounds that these gentlemen ask that their claim may be recognised at the present moment.
I would ask your Lordships to allow me to read an epitome of what was put before me when I was in Ireland. I ask for that indulgence because your Lordships never like any document to be read, but my frends who put before me very clearly their requirements only sent me their views in writing shortly before I entered your Lordships' House, and although I have run through the epitome of what they want I have not got the points clearly in my mind. Therefore I ask your Lordships to allow me to read the views they put forward. The reasons the Irish people think they have a grievance at the present moment are as follow. They say—
"At the present time the Midwives Act only applies to England. By this Act it is enacted that after April 1, 1910, it is an offence for any woman not a legally qualified medical practitioner, unless certified under the Act, to attend women in childbirth, habitually and for gain, except under the direction of a medical practitioner, unless in case of emergency, under a penalty not exceeding 220. The result is that a fully-trained Irish midwife who has passed the examination and holds the certificate of an Irish Maternity Hospital, suffers no disability so long as she is attending a case along with a doctor; but if she has not, in addition to an Irish midwifery diploma, the certificate of the Central Midwives Board, she is not legally qualified to conduct cases herself in England, nor to accept an appointment as midwife under the local supervising authority of an English county, a borough, or an urban or rural district. If she attempts to do so, notwithstanding that she holds an Irish midwifery certificate, she is liable to be penalised.
"Also it is now an almost universal requirement in advertisements fur appointments in the Colonies that the State degree must be held. Unless, therefore, an Irish midwife is prepared to go to the expense and inconvenience of crossing to England, remaining there for ten days, and spending money for a diploma, thus contributing to the support of the English Board, she is practically debarred from receiving a Colonial appointment. Further, the military authorities at the Curragh when advertising for a midwife in this, the very centre of Ireland, require that she should hold a diploma from the Central Midwives Board.
"The injustice is all the more pronounced since the Irish midwifery training is even more thorough than that given in England. The Central Midwives Board in England require a period of only three months study, while in the Rotunda Hospital, the Belfast Maternity Hospital, and all other training schools in Ireland a six months period is the length required. Further, the Central Midwives Board

311
require only fifteen lectures to be given to midwives, while in the Irish Maternities the number of lectures is greater, the pupil midwives are more closely supervised, they have opportunities of seeing more cases, and are trained only in sufficient numbers for the efficient care of he patients in the Irish Maternities; in other words, no nurses are trained who are not kept busy constantly throughout the whole six months course.
"These facts show that the Irish certificated midwives have a distinct grievance, and that the limitation of the Act to England inflicts upon these trained midwifes a clear injustice. The remedy lies either in introducing a Midwives Bill for Ireland, though from Mr. Birrell's answer to a recent Question in the House of Commons there would seem to be but little prospect of this, or an Amendment might be made to the present measure providing that the Central Midwives Board in England shall certify those Irish certificated midwives who apply, so long as the training and examination for the Irish certificate does not fall below the standard adopted by the English Board. The latter would seem to be the easier method of removing what must be acknowledged to be an unmerited restriction on trained and certificated Irish midwives."
I do not propose to say any more in bringing under your Lordships' notice this document, except to express the hope that after what the noble Earl has said he will consider the points I have ventured to read to him, and will hold out a hope to Ireland that something will be done by the Government to do away with what seems to me unfair treatment and hardship on these Irish midwives.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords. I wish to support in every way the speech which has been made by my noble friend who has just sat down. He said very much what I intended to say in support of the view that this Bill should be extended to Ireland. I am fortified in the opinion that it would be well to do so from communications I also have received from people who are very well able to judge. The Royal College of Physicians, the Academy of Medicine, the Rotunda Hospital and the other medical bodies in Ireland are all in favour of this, and I may say I have received a letter from Sir William Smyly, the eminent physician in Dublin, in which he says—
"The Act is a good and useful one, and will tend to reduce the mortality from puerperal fever in England. In this country Ireland, the deaths from this cause are lamentably frequent. The inclusion of this country under the Midwives Act would be of the greatest importance, and as the Act is at present undergoing revision in the House of Lords it appears to be a favourable time to propose that it should be extended to Ireland."
I think that is a manifest proof that it would be of great advantage to Ireland to
312
have the Act extended to it. I have heard it stated that there are difficulties in the way, owing to the fact that the Privy Council in this country have no jurisdiction in Ireland; but surely this might be met by the Privy Council here appointing certain qualified people in Ireland—say, for instance, three to be appointed by the Local Government Board, one of whom should be a woman, and the other two medically qualified, and one duly qualified medical practitioner to be appointed by the College of Physicians.
There is no doubt about the question that my noble friend raised with regard to the present position of Irish nurses. I may say that I received very much the same kind of memorandum from the Rotunda Hospital—it is almost in the same words—as that which the noble Marquess read, pointing out the excessively unfavourable position in which these midwives, who have been trained in a school certainly second to none, are placed. As my noble friend stated, the military authorities at the Curragh when advertising for a midwife require that she should hold a diploma from the Central Midwives Board, thereby excluding Irish midwives. I feel so strongly on this that I should like at the next stage of the Bill to propose an Amendment which would as far as possible bring Ireland within the scope of this Bill. The matter is so important and affects Ireland so closely that I hope His Majesty's Government will either consent to this, or will introduce a Bill for Ireland separately. If the Government will undertake to bring in a Bill with the same provisions as in this Bill and affording perfectly reciprocal treatment to nurses in England and Ireland, the end will be attained. But when will that take place? How long may we have to wait before a Bill is introduced by His Majesty's Government? That is a point to be considered. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will look indulgently on the Amendment that I intend, in Committee, to propose.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I should like to say a few words with regard to this Bill. First of all, let me congratulate the noble Earl on his very clear description of the Bill. I quite understand that this is an amending Bill, amending the Act of 1902, and I appreciate the difficulty there would be in applying the whole of the Bill to Ireland. Let me say—and I say it with some pride—that we consider the midwives

313
in Ireland more highly trained at present than are the midwives in this country. That is to say, they have received a longer training in the Rotunda and the Coombe Lying-In Hospitals. I quite appreciate that to propose to apply the whole of the Bill to Ireland would at this stage of the session jeopardise the Bill; but I think the noble Earl might consider the possibility of inserting an amendment allowing midwives who possess the diploma from these hospitals in Dublin to be engaged as Army nurses, to be employed in the Colonies, and to take their position in this country in the same way as English midwives. That seems to be a provision which would not in any way interfere with the whole scheme of this very important Bill. But, as I have said, I quite follow that applying the whole Bill to Ireland would require a great many changes throughout the Bill. I hope that before we decide on the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Earl will tell us what his views and the views of the Government are with regard to the particular Amendment which I have foreshadowed.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, there is considerable feeling in reference to this Bill in Ireland, not at all by way of disapproval of its provisions or of its excellent objects, but there is a strong feeling that in this case injustice is being done to a large and deserving class in Ireland. It is true that Irish midwives were left out of the Act of 1902 on representations being made not at all dissimilar to those which are now presented from the Government Bench. Nothing has since been done. And now when an amending Bill is proposed covering modifications and developments the Irish nurses who are affected find that still nothing is done for them.
The noble Earl referred to the introduction of a Bill relating specifically to Ireland, and said that if any noble Lord would bring forward such a Bill the Government would place at his disposal all their information concerning the subject. That is not exactly treating us as if we were unwise, but it is not a practical way of dealing with the question. Even to bring in another Government Bill limited to Ireland would not meet the case. If a separate Bill were brought: in with reference to Ireland it might be dropped, or it might not be pressed on with the same insistence that is going to be applied to this Bill. I can see no practical difficulty in so amending this Bill
314
as to extend such of its provisions as can reasonably be extended to Ireland. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Clonbrock) has indicated that he proposes to place. Amendments on the Paper. I am sure the noble Earl will consider them and see if they cannot with advantage be introduced into the Bill. But everything depends on the point of view. If the Amendments are read with a view to giving reasons for not adopting them that is one point of view, and a very easy one for those to take who object to them; but if they are read with the object of seeing how many of these Amendments can be fairly introduced and seeking at the same time to satisfy the natural wishes of Ireland on the subject, that is another point of view.
It is to be borne in mind that although this discussion is important, and although I can see the reasonableness of the noble Earl wishing to pass the stages of this Bill before the adjournment which will now take place very soon, that does not mean the end of the Bill. It has then to go elsewhere and there are many people there who will have their attention directed to this question in as full a way as the attention of some members of this House has been directed to this matter; and I have no doubt that if the case of Ireland is not earnestly considered with a view to adopting some of the Amendments moved, it will be found that the Bill may not have as rapid a progress elsewhere as is desired. I merely say that to indicate that I think there are many reasons which should induce the Government to consider this question, not only with an open, but with a favourable mind. I do not think it would be fair to ask the noble Earl now to indicate in any detail what he would be prepared to do, but I think he might, when he reads the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Clonbrock on the Paper, consider them with a fair and reasonable mind, in concert with his advisers, and with a desire to meet the case of Ireland as far as he possibly can.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, rise to say a very few words with regard to this Bill, and I shall not express any opinion as to the expediency in the abstract of extending the operation of the principal Act to Ireland. From all I hear, similar provisions to this Bill would be welcomed in Ireland; but I think there would be considerable technical difficulties in fitting this Bill, which is an amending

315
Bill to the Act now on the Statute Book, to the circumstances of Ireland. I speak with some knowledge on that point, because had the privilege of piloting the original Bill through this House, and at that time I knew perhaps better than I do at the moment the technical difficulties of applying the same certifying authority to both England and Ireland, and, as a matter of fact, to Scotland.
As one of those responsible for the original Act I heard with the greatest possible pleasure the satisfactory statement of the noble Earl of the results of the operation of that Act during the past five or six years. It seemed to me to be extremely satisfactory and to entirely justify those of us who were responsible for the original Board; and I think the noble Earl did no more than justice in paying what was really a well-deserved tribute to the chairman who has given the most self-denying service to the work of the Board. The noble Earl passed in review some of the clauses of this Bill. I think I appreciate the motives of the noble Earl in withdrawing his predecessor's Bill and bringing in a new one. There were a certain number of Amendments suggested to that Bill, and I think probably on the whole it was a convenient course to the House and more satisfactory to himself that lie should bring in a new Bill rather than attempt to amend the Bill of the noble Viscount. Lord Wolverhampton, in light of the criticisms which it had provoked.
But, my Lords, undoubtedly on some points some of those keenly interested in Lord Wolverhampton's Bill are rather dissatisfied with the amount of effect which their representations have had, and to this extent they think they have a grievance. I do not express an opinion upon it myself. I merely am acting as the mouthpiece for others. The Bill of the noble Viscount having been long before the House and the public and then withdrawn, it was hoped that larger changes would be made in it; and bringing it in at this period of the session in a renewed form and proposing to pass it through this House in some eight to ten days has an appearance, at any rate, of not being altogether fair to those who did not know what was likely to be done when the former Bill was withdrawn. I do not express an opinion. I merely say that these criticisms are made, and I think that if the noble Earl perseveres in his intention to pass the Bill through this House next
316
week, he will find those criticisms more loudly expressed by other noble Lords.
I am bound to say that so far as Clause 17 is concerned—the clause which makes provision for the recovery of the medical fees—I venture to agree with the noble Earl that that clause is a great improvement on its predecessor. The noble Earl in calling attention to the amendment which lie has made, clearly stated the undoubted difficulties which surround the whole subject.; and it is very satisfactory to me, at any rate, and I think to most of those who are interested in the subject, that what I would venture to call the Poor-law taint has been very largely removed. It was one of the points in Lord Wolverhampton's Bill more adversely criticised than any other, and I am bound to say that in the main I agreed in that criticism. But the Poor-law taint is not altogether removed. No penalty attaches to the fact that the family may not be able to pay the doctor's fee, but there is still the undoubted disadvantage that that money has to be found through the Poor-law authority. I am not sufficiently versed in English local government to express a confident opinion as to whether any better substitute can be found. I think it is much more a point for Committee than Second Reading, and I content myself with saying that I rejoice at the direction in which Amendments have been inserted. They are undoubtedly a great improvement on the Bill as it stood although I venture to think the provisions are not yet wholly satisfactory.
There is one other point on which I want to say a word—namely, as to the representation of various bodies upon the Board. The noble Earl threw himself upon the sympathy of the House, and I think the difficulty of deciding between the conflicting claims of various people, all of whom think they ought to have a majority on the Board, will be admitted by any one who has had experience of such matters. The noble Earl said to those of us who are not satisfied with the present constitution of the Board, "If you are going to make a change in one particular, you must make a corresponding change so as to keep up the balance over the whole Board." That would have been a very fair challenge if he had told us the reasons which had satisfied him in producing these provisions in the Bill, but it can hardly be said that criticism is not justified unless you are prepared

317
to produce a wholly complete scheme when you are in ignorance of the reasons uppermost in the minds of those who proposed the scheme before us; and it does seem to me—and this is the only criticism I shall venture to make—that the certified midwives; are rather shabbily treated in only having two representatives, one of whom is to be a. certified midwife. I should have hoped that an additional one might have been added to their representation, so that they, the body so largely concerned with the administration of the Bill, might have had larger representation on the central authority. I fully agree, however, having made that remark, that it is much better that it should be left over for those who are more deeply concerned in it than I am to make the exact suggestion as to the representation which they would like to have on the Board.
There is one other matter. I venture to think that the noble Earl has not paid quite sufficient attention to some of the representations made. I refer to Clause 11, the notification clause. It must, I think, be obvious that many of those actually concerned and practising as midwives are not highly skilled in technical forms, and to impose two or three different forms of notification upon them seems to me to require rather more justification than has yet been given. I frankly admit that this clause is an improvement upon its predecessor. The time before which a practising midwife has to give notice has been extended, and the penalty has been reduced; therefore it is not quite so drastic or terrible an engine as it appeared in the former Bill. But many of these women, excellent as they are in the practice of their profession, are not skilled in filling up forms and giving notices, and I venture to say that the requirements as to this class of writing work should be made as easy and as gentle as possible.
Then, my Lords, those who have made representations to me are also afraid that the particular provisions of Clause 11 will have a very detrimental effect upon the employment of midwives when a doctor is in attendance. It is, of course, an advantage that the nurse who is attending along with the doctor in a case of confinement should as often as possible be a certified midwife, but if all the obligations laid upon certified midwives are to be put upon them even when they are in attendance along with a doctor, it seems to me that the
318
certain result will be that you will place them at a. disadvantage and recourse will be again bad by the doctors to the employment of women as monthly nurses who are not certified midwives. The only quotation I shall read is a representation which has been made to me on the point that I have endeavoured to explain to the House. It is this—
"We suggest that the only effect of this clause will be to induce medical men to abstain altogether from their growing practice of employing a certified midwife as monthly nurse, for the clause operates to compel the certified midwife, under penalties, to report the medical man for being absent front whatever cause at the minute of birth."
If the monthly nurse is not a midwife and not endowed with that power and not put under that obligation, it is quite obvious, it seems to me, that medical men not of the first class will have a tendency to run the risk mentioned. The result of that will be to the disadvantage of the population, and will tend to annul to some extent the advantages of the existing Act which the noble Earl laid before us. I have, perhaps, gone rather too much into detail; but, as your Lordships know, I shall not have, or it is most unlikely that I shall have, the opportunity of speaking at the subsequent stage, and so I thought it best to make these criticisms for the purpose of showing the noble Earl the sort of questions he is likely to have to meet in Committee.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have every reason, I think, to be grateful for the reception which has been given to this Bill. The danger, it seems to me, is that the Bill is likely to be smothered with too much kindness in the anxiety of noble Lords opposite to apply it to Ireland. As to the application of this Bill to Ireland, I think the position is this. The original Act may be described as having a double effect, first of all as a scheme for the general benefit of the country, and also having regard to the individual qualifications of the midwife. With regard to the first, I venture to think there would be serious difficulty in applying this amending Bill to Ireland, or applying the scheme of the original Act through an amending Bill to the whole of that country. But if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, would be good enough to draw up some Amendments, I can assure him they will receive very careful attention.
With regard to the other point., the hardship on the individual, I will be very glad

319
to do what I can to meet the noble Marquess. He called attention to the fact that Section 2 of the original Act did give certain advantages to women who had been trained either at the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland or at the Rotunda Hospital in Ireland. If the noble Marquess introduces an Amendment carrying out that, I shall be very glad indeed to consider it favourably and to do what I can to meet the claims of these individuals. But may I point out that that is one of the objects of Clause 12 in this Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clonbrock, and the noble Marquess will look at that clause. The object of it is to give reciprocal treatment to any women who produces to the Central Midwives Board satisfactory evidence that she has been trained as a midwife and certified in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions. So that one of the objects of the amending Bill is to see that a woman who can produce satisfactory evidence that she has been certified by a public authority qualified to give her the certificate shall come under the Act and receive the advantages of it.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Does the noble Earl think that will cover the individual cases he has mentioned, because I had not noticed that clause.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Subsection (1) of this clause reads—
"Any woman who produces to the Central Midwives Board satisfactory evidence that she has been trained as a midwife and certified in any other part of His Majesty's dominions in which there is for the time being in force any Act or ordinance for the certification and registration of midwives under a public authority, and which admits to its register midwives certified under the principal Act on reciprocal terms, shall on payment of the like fee as is payable in ordinary cases be entitled to be certified under the principal Act; provided that the standard of training and examination required in such other part of His Majesty's dominions is equivalent to the standard adopted by the Board."
I am not prepared to say, without consideration, whether that would apply to the various cases mentioned by the noble Marquess, but if he and his advisers think it will not, I shall be very glad to consider any Amendment, and perhaps in consultation with the noble Marquess, be able to arrive at some agreement before the Committee stage. I can assure the noble Marquess that it was not in our minds to affect adversely any woman from any country so long as she is properly trained.
320
Perhaps I might say, in answer to the two points on which Lord Balfour of Burleigh chiefly spoke, that the object of Clause 11 is to meet certain cases which we are afraid may happen in which women not properly qualified may be regularly employed by a doctor, the doctor himself not meaning to be present at the actual moment. Our idea is to prevent such a practice taking place, so that when the doctor makes a habit of not being present then by virtue of these notifications which will reach the central authority they will become aware of its being a practice and take steps in order to prevent it. But I quite agree with the noble Lord that this is a matter for Committee, and I had in mind a possible Amendment submitted to me with regard to which we may come to an agreement at the Committee stage. Then as to the slight criticism by the noble Lord with regard to the small alterations to the original Bill, might I say that if the alterations are small it seems to me not unfair to ask that the time given to the consideration of this Bill may also be small. If I had made alterations enlarging the scope or revolutionising the effect of the Bill, it would have been only fair to have given several weeks to its consideration; but the amendments being, as the noble Lord said, of a somewhat small character, I do not think it unfair to ask your Lordships not to delay too long before taking the Committee stage.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, may I draw attention to one remark of the noble Earl? I fully recognise the spirit in which he has met the representations from Ireland and our desire to remove what we think a hardship. As to Section 2 of the original Act, he promises that if we bring forward an Amendment based on the lines of that section with regard to Ireland, lie will consider it very favourably. The noble Earl then referred us to Clause 12 of the Bill under discussion, but I would point out this difficulty. This clause refers to the Colonies more or less. It is meant to be reciprocal. It is given to the Colonies because there is an actual ordinance in force. In Ireland there is no actual "ordinance" in force, but only a good system. Perhaps the noble Earl will consider that before he brings the Bill forward again.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR of BCRLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Application to tenancies terminated before commencement of Act.
2. Where a tenancy has been terminated before the commencement of this Act, and the tenant proves to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries that he has incurred any loss or expense for which he would have been entitled to compensation under the foregoing section of this Act if the tenancy had terminated after the commencement of this Act, the Board may, out of the small holdings account, pay to the tenant such compensation for such loss or expense as they think just: Provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made before the first day of September nineteen hundred and ten.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE*THE EARL OF DUNMORE moved to amend Clause 2 by extending from September 1 next to November 1 the time in which the tenant in such cases might apply for compensation for the use of his land for the purposes of small holdings. The noble Earl said: The Amendment that stands in my name is merely intended to facilitate the carrying out of the objects for which this clause was inserted when the Bill was in Committee in the House of Commons. The object of this clause is self-evident; it is to enable farmers whose tenancies have terminated before the commencement of this Act to avail themselves of the benefit of the Act. But as it stands now, they will have to send in their claims before September 1. This Bill may not receive the Royal Assent for some weeks, and I suggest that September 1 hardly gives sufficient time to tenant farmers, at what your Lordships must remember is the busiest time of the year for them, to send in their claims. I trust, therefore, that the President of the Board of Agriculture will extend the time from September 1 till November 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out ("September ") and insert ("November ").—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, I am sure the Committee quite recognise the good intention of the noble Earl, but I have to point out to him and to the Committee that I ant informed this is clearly a question of privilege, and therefore I respectfully hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will give us some further explanation of how this is a question of privilege. It is not a matter of money at all; it is simply a question of the date before which a claim for compensation must be made. The proposal made by the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, is surely a very reasonable one. This Bill will not become an Act much before August, if then, and you give only four weeks for making the claim at the most busy time of the year when the hay-harvest in some cases is proceeding, and in others the preparations for the corn harvest are taking place, and, of course, we know that farmers are not men who are well acquainted with Acts of Parliament or become very speedily acquainted with them. The result is you really leave them only four weeks during which to give their notice. This, of course, was originally an oversight in the Act; it is one of several oversights; and what the noble Earl, Lord Carrington, really proposes to do in some cases is to take away with one hand what he gives with the other. He says he is prepared to give them compensation, but through allowing such a short time within which to make their claim the result is that many people will very likely find themselves debarred; and when persons who really have a right to compensation find themselves debarred because in four weeks they have not put in their claim, the noble Earl may depend upon it that their grievance, which this Bill is intending to remedy, will be renewed and he will have more trouble. I am sure this cannot be a question of privilege; it is only a question of notice. How that can be a question of privilege I cannot understand. I hope the noble Earl will explain.
EARL CARRINGTON: All I have to explain to my noble friend is that I am informed, on the best authority, that this is a question of privilege. It is not for me,

323
being a layman, to explain how or why that is. I have only to state that this Amendment is considered on high authority to be a question of privilege. My duty is most respectfully and most humbly to put that before your Lordships. The matter, of course, is entirely in your Lordships' hands.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend who moved this Amendment will hardly be likely to accept the statement of the noble Earl as quite a sufficient reason for the proposition that this is a question of privilege. I think I understand the point the noble Earl refers to, although certainly I cannot claim to be any authority upon that subject. I suppose the idea is that if the date before which the claim may be made is extended to November, that would enable a greater charge to be put on the Treasury than would otherwise be the case, and that from that point of view it would be a question of privilege. But the question of privilege has been raised in such a very remarkable way on several occasions of late years that I confess I should be very sorry to think that your Lordships were prepared to accept this view of the noble Earl, for which he gives no authority, as settling the matter.
I am anxious to say a word to your Lordships upon the merits of the question. This is a retrospective clause; it is of an exceptional nature, as it allows tenants whose tenancies have been terminated before the commencement of this Act to make a claim under the Act on account of the past termination of their tenancies. I feel very strongly that retrospective legislation of this kind is very often open to grave objection, and I think we ought to limit it as much as possible. How is it limited here? It is limited in this way, that the claim must be sent in by September 1. The noble Earl who proposed this Amendment, I think, had in his mind the view that a farmer who would come under the definition of this clause would never have heard of the clause until the Bill containing it became law. But, my Lords, this question has been mooted in Parliament, and has been known to Chambers of Agriculture all over the country for months past, and I venture to say that every farmer who could possibly be entitled to claim under this clause has known all about it for months. I
324
confess that if the noble Earl opposite opposes this Amendment on its merits, and not as a question of privilege, I should personally be inclined to support him.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, I confess it comes as a matter of surprise to me that His Majesty's Government should oppose this Amendment on the plea of privilege. As the noble Viscount has just said, we have had this plea of privilege brought up on many occasions of late years. Amendments which have been drafted merely to assist the working of an Act have been swept aside on the ground of privilege. I might instance an Amendment which many of your Lordships will recall to mind on the Old Age Pensions Bill. The clause dealing with disqualification for imprisonment was found to admit of possibilities of grave injustice which were never intended by His Majesty's Government. And yet on the plea of privilege our Amendment dealing with this point—a non-contentious point—was rejected.
In these cases Amendments did, to some extent, vary the charge. But this Amendment that I have proposed does not vary the charge at all; it does not alter the number of people who will be able to avail themselves of the benefits of this Bill; it merely gives them a little more time to take advantage of a Bill which I presume the Government intends should benefit them. Even Sir Edward Strachey, who inserted this clause in the Bill when it was in Committee in the other House, said in regard to the limitation of time—
"If the Bill only received the Royal Assent on the 15th August, an alteration of the time at which the provision would come into operation might be made in another place."
Sir Edward Strachey evidently foresaw that it might be difficult for farmers in the time allotted to them to send in their claims, and anticipated that, if necessary, such grievance would be remedied by an Amendment in this House. Now, my Lords, if this contention of privilege is to apply to Amendments which do not in themselves vary the charge but merely enable the people of this country to avail themselves of the benefits afforded by a Government Bill, then I most emphatically protest against the action of His Majesty's Government. I think it is, as Mr. Speaker

325
said in the House of Commons in regard to another Amendment, a case of privilege mad, and therefore I must press my Amendment to a Division.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, may I respectfully ask the noble Earl to consider whether he is not a little ill-advised in refusing this Amendment? This Bill enables any one to make a claim for compensation before September 1. Every one, therefore, who is entitled can come in up to that time. If the Amendment is accepted it simply means that every one who is entitled to come in up to September 1 will be entitled to come in up to November 1. The time will be extended For all those who are entitled to come in. and it cannot mean that one single person more will be brought in. In my opinion, therefore, no rule of privilege can apply. The whole point of the Amendment is that a man who is entitled and who means to claim before September 1 gets a little more time in which to make his claim.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, it is not the practice or the business of members of the Government in this House to discuss whether the House of Commons will make a claim of privilege in regard to a particular Amendment. We may have our opinions upon the subject. If I am asked my opinion I should say I anticipate—whether your Lordships may think it a wise exercise of privilege or not—that the claim will be made on the present occasion if the Amendment is passed. I may prove wrong, but, as one knows, it is practically Mr. Speaker, and in the last resort the House, often interpreted by previous notice on the part of persons officially employed in the House of Commons, that is the source through which the claim is made, and there is an interpretation of the claim which is recognised in the House of Commons. I will not say anything more upon that subject beyond this, that I think it is present to the minds of most members of your Lordships' House at the present time that it is undesirable in the public interest that we should have any unpleasant controversy on questions of privilege with regard to financial matters with the House of Commons. To-morrow or next day it may be desirable in the minds of some people, but unless there is a good reason for doing otherwise I should think it would be better on the whole at the moment to
326
leave a matter of this kind so far as we can in suspense. The noble Viscount on the merits, I understood him to say, was disposed to support the Government in opposition to this Amendment. That is the view of members of the Government, and I hope the noble Earl, after such weighty advice as that of the noble Viscount, will not think it necessary to divide on his Amendment merely for the sake of pressing a question which may lead to unnecessary conflict and unpleasantness.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I agree with almost every word that the noble and learned Lord has just said, but I claim him as an advocate against the President of the Board of Agriculture. The noble and learned Lord says he does not think it advisable in this House for us to commence this discussion of privilege, or as to what would be regarded as privilege in another place, I would ask him who commenced this discussion here? Why, Lord Carrington. He not only commenced it, but he did not give us any reason for his opinion; he did not even tell us who had advised him. His legal advisers, he will remember, have not always been right in regard to this Bill. He does not say that it is the opinion of Mr. Speaker. I quite agree it is much better that in this House we should not discuss these matters, but leave them to the House of Commons to settle. Turning from the argument which has been advanced by Lord Carrington to the merits of the question, it has been pointed out by Lord Alverstone that no man can claim under the Amendment who is not by the Bill as it stands entitled to claim. That being so, what can be the objection to saying that a man is to have five, six or eight weeks more within which to make his claim? If the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, may not think it worth while to persevere with his Amendment, I should say, a fortiori, that there is much more reason why the noble Earl in charge of the Bill should not persevere with his objection, which is founded on a point which the Lord Chancellor, in common, I believe, with, all the rest of us, thinks should not be discussed here.
On Question, whether the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Aldwyn, V.

Sanderson, L.

Beauchamp, E.(L. President.)

Sandhurst, L.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Save and Sele, L.

Carrington, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.]

Welby, L.

Liverpool, E.

Pentland, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Ailesbury, M.

Alverstone, L.

Hindlip, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Balfour, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

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

Saltoun, L.

Harewood, E.

Sempill, L.

Mayo, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Sinclair, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Clinton, L.

Powis, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) [Teller.]

Waldegrave, E.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.
The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 119.)

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments.
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, after ("precedence") insert ("salary and pensions")
Clause 1, page 1, line 19, leave out ("January") and insert ("August")
Clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out ("upwards "of"), and after ("fifteen") insert ("or upwards")
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS (No. 2) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
LORD SAYE AND SELE LORD SAYE AND SELE moved to amend Clause 3, so that it would read—
3. if any horse shipped from any port in Great Britain to any port outside the British Islands has a limb broken or is otherwise seriously injured while on board so as to be incapable of being carried and disembarked without cruelty, the master of the vessel shall forthwith cause the animal to be slaughtered, and every vessel on which a horse is so shipped shall carry a proper killing instrument, to be approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, for that purpose, and it shall be the duty of the owner and master of every such vessel to see that the vessel is provided with such an instrument, and the master, if so required by an inspector of the Board or of the local authority, shall produce the instrument for his inspection.
Amendments moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out the first ("so")
Clause 3, page 2, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("as to be unable to be led away on disembarkation") and insert ("so as to be incapable of "being carried and disembarked").—(Lord Saye and Sele.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 120.)

THE SUPER-TAX.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH rose to call attention to the directions required in filling in particulars of income for Super-Tax; and to ask His Majesty's Government on what ground of law and equity they justify these directions.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting this Question to my noble friend who represents the Treasury in this House I think the shortest and best course for me to take to bring the matter as clearly as lies in my power before your Lordships is to refer you in the first place to the Income Tax Act of 1842, upon which all subsequent amendments of the Income Tax have been based. Under Section 124 of the Act of 1842 it is provided in the case of any one who makes a claim for exemption from Income Tax that a declaration so made shall be—and I wish to call your Lordships' attention to these words—
"in such form as may be provided under the authority of this Act declaring and setting forth therein all the particular sources from whence the income shall arise and the particular amount arising from each source."
Those are the words in the Act of 1842, and any one who has studied the last Finance Act will be struck by the fact that in a great many cases for the purposes of convenience the Act of 1842 is referred to as the governing principle to be followed. It rather emphasises my point, that being so, that when you come to Section 72 of the Finance Act of 1910, which deals with this question of the form of

329
the return of Super-Tax, these words are inserted—
"Every person upon whom notice is served in manner prescribed by regulations under this section by the Special Commissioners requiring him to make a return of his total income from all sources,"
and so on. If it had been the intention of Parliament that such a Return should involve the very elaborate and minute directions which have now been issued by the Treasury, nothing would have been easier than to have inserted in the Act a requirement that, instead of a return "of his total income from all sources," he should make a return setting forth all the particular sources from whence his income arose and the particular amount arising from each source.
Speaking, of course, as a layman, it does not seem to me to be the intention of Parliament, having regard to this subsection, that those who make a return for Super-Tax should make any other return than a total return from all sources. In the notice which is sent round in regard to returns for Super-Tax it is specified that particulars of income from trade, property, ownership or occupation of land, bank and other interests, and the wife's income must be given. Now, my Lords, I maintain that if any one honestly makes a return of the totals under those heads he is fulfilling the requirements of the Act of Parliament, and I want to ask my noble friend how, under Section 72, you are going to subject to any penalty a person who makes a return as regards totals but declines to make the very elaborate return required by the Commissioners. Subsection (4) of Section 72 says—
"If any person without reasonable excuse fails to make any return or to give any notice required by this section, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds."
Of course, a person would have made a return; he would not have failed to make a return.
Then if you turn to subsection (5) you will find that it says that if a person fails to make a return under the section or if the Special Commissioners are not satisfied with the return—that is to say, if they consider the return is a dishonest and improper one, and not a return giving a full statement of his income—they are to have the power of making an assessment of the Super-Tax according to the best of their judgment. I do not complain now
330
of that power, but what I say is this. I will take it that I or any member of your Lordships' House make a return giving our total income under the different heads. That return, we will suppose, is not accepted by the Somerset House authorities, who say they consider that we have made an insufficient return. What is the course to be gone through? First, the Special Commissioners in that case assess our income at what they consider to be its real amount. We then say that that is not so, and we appeal from the Special Commissioners to the General Commissioners. I presume that the person who is obliged to appeal cannot be liable to a fine before the matter has been settled by the General Commissioners. But what would happen in that case I What I presume would happen—and it does not seem to me to be an unfair arrangement—would be that the person against whom the charge was made that his return was an insufficient one would be liable to have his books and his accounts examined and searched, exactly the same power as is now possessed under the Income Tax Act of 1842 in the case of persons who are claiming for an exemption of Income Tax. In that case I presume the Commissioners would send down and look into the matter themselves, and I, for one, should not have the slightest objection, if it was considered necessary, to submit to a full investigation of that kind. But that is a totally different thing from obliging everybody every year to make a most elaborate statement of the most minute details regarding each particular item of property, and that is what seems to me most unfair and inequitable. Subsection (8) of Section 72 says that the Commissioners may make regulations for the purpose of carrying the section into effect. But surely that only gives the Commissioners power to make regulations to give effect to the purport and the purpose contained in the section. It does not give them power to make regulations outside the intention of Parliament. Therefore the first contention I wish to submit to your Lordships is that as a matter of law it does not seem to me that the Commissioners have the right, under Section 72 of the Finance Act, to require more than a general statement of the totals.
But it is not merely a question of law; it is a question of common sense. I

331
should like to call your Lordships' attention in a very few words to what a person is asked to do. The direction runs as follows—
"If any part of the total income arises from the ownership of land, tenements, or hereditaments, state the precise situation of each property."
I should like to know what the Commissioners mean by asking for the precise situation of each property to be stated. Would the number in the street be sufficient? Or what do they mean by the words "the precise situation of each property"? Does it mean that they must be furnished with elaborate maps, or what? Then the direction goes on to say that the name of the occupier must be given. With the very best intentions in the world I really do not see how it is practicable for an owner of property let to weekly tenants to give the names when the occupiers are changing perhaps from week to week.
Then, again, take another case of property in towns, especially in large cities, let to a tenant. The tenant sub-lets the house under his lease to a lot of other tenants for chambers. Is it possible in that case for the person who makes the return, the owner of the chambers, to give a precise list of all the people occupying the chambers who are sub-tenants of a tenant of his? The only person he has to deal with is the person who pays him the rent. Let me mention one more point. The direction goes on to say—
"If a ground rent, mortgage interest, or other annual charge is payable on any of the property, particulars thereof should be stated"
in a certain form. That seems to me to show a most extraordinary disregard or ignorance of the system under which a great deal of property is held in large cities. I, and I have no doubt many of your Lordships also, happen to be an owner of town property. What happens is this. A builder comes to me as the ground landlord and says, "If you will grant me a lease of eighty years I will erect. a suitable building upon that land." After I have done that, I know nothing whatever as to what the builder does with regard to his financial operations. The constant habit, of course, is for the builder, upon the security of the lease, to borrow a certain sum of money with which he builds his house, and he again creates a charge to another tenant under him, and so on ad infinitum.
One of the points which was very strongly urged in the course of the discussion upon the Finance Bill in the House of Commons was that these returns were no longer to be considered confidential. It is obvious that the owner cannot give this statement about the mortgage interests. He knows nothing about what the builder does, and I do not believe the builder would give the figures, because it might interfere to a certain extent with his credit. Those are the main points which I wish to impress upon my noble friend; and as there is considerable doubt among great legal authorities as to the right of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to ask for all these details, I would ask him whether, supposing the Treasury maintains the view that they can insist on these details, they would object to have a case stated for the decision of the High Court.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I think there is no doubt whatever with regard to the legal position of the Treasury in this matter. They ground their case on Section 72, subsection (2), of the Finance Act of last year, to which the noble Earl has himself referred. I read out the words in this House on a recent occasion in answer to a Question from the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, on this very point. I would ask the noble Earl to look at the end of that subsection, which says that every person shall, whether he is or is not chargeable with the Super-Tax, make such a return in the form and within the time required by the notice. In addition to that, I would refer the noble Earl to Section 164 of the Act of 1842. He quoted the Act, but not the section. I would ask the noble Earl to read that section in conjunction with Section 66, subsection (2), of the Finance Act of last year. I do not think I should be giving much further information to the House by reading those sections, but I am informed that there is no doubt of the legal position of the Treasury in this matter.
Then the noble Earl asks on what authority the Treasury would in certain cases impose certain penalties. I am afraid I am unable to give the noble Earl the exact reference in the Act, but I have no doubt that the legal position of the Government in this matter also is perfectly sound. Then there is another point which has not been referred to by the noble Earl to-night, but which has been raised in this House more than once, as to which,

333
as it is not irrelevant to the question, I should like to be allowed to give a little explanation to the House. Exception has been taken by several noble Lords that these particulars are unnecessary on the ground that they are already in the possession of surveyors of taxes in the various localities. If the House will allow me, I would make one or two remarks on this point. Surveyors of taxes are not concerned with, and do not know the ultimate recipients of, ground rents, feu duties, fee-farm rents, royalties, easements, way-leaves, and other matters of that kind. Accordingly it would not be possible for them to give any certificate either in gross or detail which would cover income of this character. Secondly, a surveyor's certificate would not extend to cases of partial ownership, or of a, share in a trust estate; and thirdly, with regard to rents other than those which I have just specified, except in the ease of properties in which the landlord pays direct to the collector the Schedule A assessed upon his tenants, Income Tax is paid in the first instance by the tenant and is ultimately borne by the landlord by way of reduction from the rent. In these cases the statement that surveyors have complete information in a readily available form is not a correct one. As a matter of fact, surveyors of taxes would have to ask for just the same information as the Super-Tax Commissioners have asked for, and their difficulties would be increased by the fact that estates are situated in different parishes and different surveyors of taxes would have to collate the different information with regard to one estate, which would be a very difficult matter.
There is one point where a relaxation of the regulations is to be allowed by the Treasury. Where the landlord pays direct to the collectors the Schedule A assessed upon his tenants, the demand note for the Income-Tax would presumably have attached to it lists giving particulars of the properties, and if the landlord was prepared to send up for the retention of the Government these lists for 1908 and 1909, accompanied by the demand note, we would accept them as sufficient evidence with regard to the property specified, whether farm lands or allotments. I think the fact that we have made this concession will show your Lordships that we have endeavoured to meet some of the objections which have been raised in this House by my noble friend Lord Onslow and by Lord Heneage
334
and other noble Lords. I agree that the filling up of the forms asked for by the Super-Tax Commissioners is a rather irksome business, but, as was said by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, the Government were really in this position—either they had to ask for very detailed information or for practically no information at all, relying absolutely upon the word of the individual. Of course, there is bound to be, in setting up a new tax of this kind, a certain amount of friction and a certain amount of creaking of the machinery in the first instance, bat it is the desire of the Government to avoid giving any unnecessary trouble to people who have to make this return. There was one point on which, I think, the noble Earl was not quite correct. He anticipated that this very detailed return would have to be made up and furnished year after year. I think that is not so. I cannot make an absolutely definite statement, but it is very unlikely that anything like such a detailed return will be required again from owners of estates or people liable to the Super-Tax. There are other ways in which we have endeavoured to ease the regulations with regard to the information asked for. For instance, the Super-Tax Commissioners, with regard to estates in Scotland, have accepted a copy of the valuation roll and a summary of the totals as sufficient for their purpose with regard to landed estates in Scotland. And in England many people have sent in copies of their rent roll, and that with a summary of the totals, has in many cases been sufficient to give the Super-Tax Commissioners all the information they require.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: It would facilitate matters if my noble friend could say that it is not necessary to make a detailed statement of each property and each house such as is required in the directions.
LORD DENMAN: I think that is necessary; but the information is furnished in many cases in the rent roll of the particular property. The noble Earl has raised several points of detail and stated several particular cases. I am afraid 1 must ask him either to give me notice of those particular questions, or, what perhaps would be the better way, if they are, as I think he mentioned, cases that affect his own property, to communicate direct with the Super-Tax Commissioners. He will find them always

335
ready to give any information that may be desired. The noble Earl appears to think that it is an extremely inequitable proceeding on the part of the Government to ask for all these details and this voluminous information. As against that I am in a position to state the opinion of a noble Lord who sits in the same quarter of the House as the noble Earl himself—Lord Faber—who, as your Lordships may remember, spoke strongly against the Finance Bill of last year, and, if I recollect rightly, against the Super-Tax, but who is of opinion that now the Finance Bill has become law and the Super-Tax part of the machinery of raising revenue, it is not unreasonable for the Government to ask for the details which have been demanded.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, perhaps my experience at the Treasury may justify me in detaining your Lordships for a few minutes on this subject. My noble friend raised, in the first place, the question of the legality of the procedure of the Super-Tax Commissioners in calling for such a detailed return as they have called for in the paper that has been sent to various persons whom they suppose to be chargeable with the Super-Tax. He has quoted the words of the Act of 1842, and has shown that they are different from the words of the Act of this year. But I think the noble Lord who has just sat down has fairly answered that by referring to Section 72 of the Act of the present year as empowering the Commissioners to ask for practically whatever particulars they may choose to require. I may add that I do not think they could have condensed their inquiries under fewer heads than the five heads which appear in the return of total income which has to be made. But I think there is still something required with reference to head B of that form—namely, the particulars of income from property. According to what has been stated a return of each house, or something like that—a very minute return—is required to be made; but this evening the noble Lord who has just sat down said that there would be some change made in that respect. If I understood him rightly, he said that where an Income Taxpayer could produce the demand note for the year 1908–9, the items on that demand note would be taken as representing the return which he should make, so that no more details would be required from him under such heads.
LORD DENMAN: That is only in regard to property assessed under Schedule A.
VISCUONT ST. ALDWYN: Quite so. I am thinking of property assessed under Schedule A. But the demand note for 1908–9 is dated some time ago, and I suspect that very many Income Tax payers on property under Schedule A have long ago thrown away those demand notes, and have nothing to show except the receipts for the Income Tax which they have paid. I very much wish that His Majesty's Government would take into consideration what I venture to suggest to them now—namely, that they should be content not to ask for more details than the separate assessments of the Income Tax for 1908–9. Take an ordinary case of the assessment for Income Tax of an ordinary country property. You will find each farm tenant separately assessed. His farm would be separately returned. You will find all the woods in a parish belonging to and occupied by the same owner, although scattered over the parish, assessed under one single head. You will find, again, all the cottages in that parish belonging to the same owner and not occupied with farms assessed under one single assessment. Why cannot the Commissioners be satisfied with those assessments and not require the owners of property of that kind to specify all the details of such property—each wood and cottage separately? I make that suggestion because I am quite sure that the details asked for under this head only give useless trouble to the owners of that class of property, and are quite unnecessary for the fair assessment of the tax.
LORD WELBY: My Lords, I believe the Inland Revenue have made a concession on one point, but on that I do not think the public are quite clear. The paper sent out required a gross return, and I know that in a number of cases people have been a good deal troubled by having to add the Income Tax again to the net income as returned in their pass books after payment of Income Tax. Now I understand that the Inland Revenue, or the Treasury, have made a concession with regard to that point, and a very important one—namely, that the Inland Revenue will themselves add the Income Tax on to the net return as put in by the taxpayer. But I am informed that no order has gone out to that effect, and I would press upon

337
my noble friend whether it would not be a good thing if some order were issued by the Inland Revenue which would make it clear to the taxpayer that he was not obliged to take the extra trouble of adding the Income Tax already paid to the net return defined in his pass book. If such a, concession has been made, I think it is an error on the part, of the Inland Revenue not to make it perfectly clear by some public document that they have made it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise for the, purpose of making only cine remark. Lord Denman, as I understood him, concluded by saying that Lord Faber was now of opinion that these minute returns which have been asked for by tin; Commissioners are reasonable. I do not know what his authority for making that statement is, but I can tell him this, that only the day before yesterday Lord Faber told me that he had sent in the returns under each of the four or five heads mentioned, and that they had been accepted by the Commissioners, and he had been asked Co send a cheque on that basis for Super-Tax. I do not know whether I have made it clear that I mean the totals under those heads, distinct from the directions. Income from trade, profession, and so on, is one head; then there is income from property, from occupation of land, from bank and other interests, annuities, dividends and wife's income. As the noble Lord quoted Lord Faber, I think I am justified in doing the same, and in telling your Lordships that Lord Faber sent in his return, according to what he said to me, under those five heads, giving the totals in each case, and no particulars.
LORD DENMAN: Not giving details?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No; no details.
LORD SEMPILL: Before the noble Lord replies further, I should like to state what happened with regard to an estate in Scotland in which I am interested. Quite recently the factor went to the surveyor of taxes and asked for information as to filling up the schedule. The surveyor informed him that he had received private instructions that he was not to give assistance to any person in filling up these schedules. I must confess to your Lordships that I think a matter like this is not private, and cannot be made private; and I wish
338
to ask whether those are the instructions that are given by the Super-Tax Commissioners.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I think some little allowance ought in fairness to be made to a very hardly pressed, and, as far as I know about it, overworked office at the present moment; but to the best of my belief the Super-Tax Commissioners are perfectly willing to give information. I do not say they are going to assist every individual to fill up his return, but they are quite willing to give information, and I know in a great many cases they have done so in respect of how the returns are to be filled up. If the noble Lord would like to give me details afterwards as to the particular case he referred to, I will make inquiries about it; but if information was not forthcoming immediately, I think it may be due to the fact that these gentlemen are extremely hard worked at the present time, mid it is very difficult for them to cope with the great mass of work waiting in their office.
LORD SEMPILL: I must admit that my own personal communications with the Super-Tax Commissioners have invariably been met with courtesy and prompt attention. The particular case that I referred to had reference to a subordinate.
LORD DENMAN: Then the noble Viscount opposite seemed to think it was a very simple matter for surveyors of taxes to give information without referring to the Super-Tax Commissioners.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: No, I did not mean that at all. My point was this. I understand that hitherto the practice has been to ask owners of property assessed under Schedule A to give a separate return of every piece of land or every cottage occupied by a different person belonging to them in a parish. My suggestion was this, that the Commissioners should be content with the existing Income Tax assessments, and that no further details should be required than are now given for the purpose of Income Tax under each assessment. I put a case where all the woods in a parish are assessed under one assessment, and all the cottages in the parish under another assessment; and instead of compelling an owner to send in a return of each separate wood, or each separate cottage, the Commissioners should be content with the existing assessments.
LORD DENMAN: I will certainly inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the noble Viscount's view on the matter, but, as far as I am aware, I think the concession we have made is the limit of what it is possible for us to do—
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: No, I am sure it is not.
LORD DENMAN: And I cannot hold out any hope that the suggestion of the noble Viscount will be acceded to.

CATTLE FOOD.
THE EARL OF HAREWOOD THE EARL OF HAREWOOD rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture "what was the name of the cattle food which was referred to in this House on June 27 as being composed partly of sawdust; and if it is not a fact that the product referred to was not that made entirely from sugar-cane, which is proving of so much service both to the sugar-cane grower and to the British agriculturist."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Question which I ask the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture does require, I think, a few words of explanation. On June 27 last, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh asked the noble Earl opposite a question with regard to the Fertilisers and Food Stuffs Act, as to why a prosecution was not instituted by the Board of Agriculture in reference to a food stuff which was examined by the official analyst of the Devon County Council and found to consist of forty per cent. of sawdust. In his answer the noble Earl stated that the mixture contained molasses obtained from sugar-cane, and that some absorbent material was added whereby a sort of powder was obtained which was sprinkled over the hay or feeding stuff, a departure from the practice of sprinkling with water. The absorbent material, said the noble Earl, was no doubt derived from wood; there was no doubt at all it was sawdust which had undergone some chemical treatment whereby it became to some extent digestible.
My Lords, I am not concerned with the composition of this feeding stuff, nor am I particularly curious to know its name. I merely ask the noble Earl this Question because it has been brought to my notice by the West India Committee,
340
of which I am a member, that the answer given on June 27 has considerably damaged the sale of two food stuffs which are imported from the West Indies, and which have proved of considerable benefit to agriculturists in this country, and, I believe, also in Canada. Those two feeding stuffs are, first, Molascuit, and secondly, Colco. Into the composition of Molascuit sawdust does not enter at all. It is manufactured entirely from sugar-cane products, and nothing else, and on looking at the analysis which I have in my hand I find that the quantity of indigestible fibre contained in that feeding stuff is 5·91, and the absorbent used for the purpose of absorbing the molasses and rendering it suitable for exportation for cattle food is entirely the interior fibre of the sugarcane finely screened, the greater part of which is digestible. So that no sawdust enters into the manufacture of Molascuit.
Then in the case of Colco, the anaylsis of which I also hold in my hand, the quantity of fibre, which! I presume is the indigestible part of the food, amounts to 12·84; so that it appears that in neither case does sawdust enter into the composition of these foods. The answer which the noble Earl gave on the occasion I have quoted has caused great damage to the sale of these foods, and, as your Lordships know very well, when a portion of the community, especially the agricultural community, get an idea into their heads, it requires a very distinct and public statement to get it out again, and it is with the object of making this as public as it is in my power to make it that I ask the noble Earl this Question.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to the question that was brought up on June 27 last, and perhaps I may in a very few words repeat what I then said. We all know that there are several patented sugar foods for cattle. They are composed, as my noble friend has said, of molasses absorbed into a product called cellulose which is manufactured either from wood or peat fibre. The absorbent to which the noble Earl has called attention is used as a medium merely for absorbing the molasses, and as I am informed is of very little or no feeding value whatever. The appearance of these manufactured foods is, I believe, something like the coarse sugar which is well known to us in shops—
THE EARL OF HAREWOOD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I beg to remind him that the analyses which I have quoted show that neither wood nor peat fibre is a component part of the foods that I have referred to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Earl mentioned the word sugar-cane, and I think that those who have been to a good school will remember that cane is wood.
THE EARL OF HAREWOOD: It is the interior soft portion of the sugar-cane, not the outside.
EARL CARRINGTON: These sugar foods are used in small quantities, not as regular food but as appetisers or relishes. A bullock will eat about a hundredweight of roots and swedes in a day and 15 to 20 lbs. of hay, and as an appetiser 5 to 7 lbs. per diem of these sugar foods. Those figures show, therefore, that these foods are simply used, as I have said, as appetisers or relishes, and not as regular food for cattle. The products in which my noble friend is interested include the refuse, I believe, of the sugar-cane, scientifically treated;
342
the others, as I said before, are prepared from wood or peat. I think the House will agree that it does not fall within my province as President of the Board of Agriculture to make any comparisons or to draw any distinctions in this House between the different forms of patented sugar foods. Still less ought I, I think, to make any statement whatever which might be used either as an advertisement or a disparagement of any particular manufacture. My duty, I conceive, is to see that the provisions of the. Fertilisers and Food Stuffs Act are properly carried out. Therefore I am not prepared to give the name of the cattle food which was referred to in this House on June 27; and as to the value of the cane food which was mentioned in the speech of my noble friend, I do not think, either from the point of view of the manufacturer or the British agriculturist, I ought to be asked to offer any opinion. I therefore very much regret that I am unable to meet the wishes expressed by my noble friend opposite.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.