Lords Sitting of 26 July 1910

BARON DEVONPORT.
The Right Honourable Sir Hudson Ewbanke Kearley, Baronet, having been created Baron Devonport of Wittington in the county of Buckingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Port of London (Port Rates on Goods) Provisional Order.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PONTYPRIDD WATER (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
The Lord BALFOUR informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
Reported without amendment.
MIDDLETON CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (.No. 3) BILL.
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PORT OF LONDON (REGISTRATION OF CRAFT) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; (viz.),

D. Northumberland (chairman),

E. Westmeath,

E. Wharncliffe,

L. Saye and Sele,

L. Crawshaw;

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

LLANELLY HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and. sent to the Commons.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read. 3ª, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION BILL.
  FALKIRK CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Brought from the Commons.

PRIVATE BILLS.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, the Amendments to the Standing

423
Orders which appear on the Paper in my name are, with one exception, purely of a formal character. The exception to which I refer is No. 30A—
30A. Where by any Bill the construction of a work of any kind is proposed to be authorised by which street traffic or the regulation of street traffic in the Metropolitan Police District may be affected, a copy of so much of the plans and sections required to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments as relates to such work shall be deposited at the office of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill.
That particular addition to the Standing Orders I do not propose to move to-day, but as I am told there may be some discussion upon it I will postpone it at any rate for a day or so. But with regard to the other Amendments, they have all been carefully looked into by the Chairman of Committees. I have done my best to follow the statements made for the alterations. The Standing Orders as they now stand involve the production to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries of a number of returns and plans which are not found to be useful. The alterations proposed will get rid of those while keeping such plans and deposits as have been found useful in the past. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders be amended as follows:
NOTE.—The words in brackets in small capitals, or struck through are to be omitted, and the words printed in Italics are to be inserted.
26. In cases where tidal lands within the ordinary spring tides are to be acquired or in any way affected a copy of the plans and sections shall on or before the thirtieth day of November, immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited at the Office of the Harbour Department, Board of Trade, marked "Tidal Waters"; and on such copy all tidal waters shall be coloured blue; and, if the plans include any bridge across tidal waters, the dimensions as regards span and headway of the nearest bridges, if any, across the same tidal waters, above and below the proposed new bridge, shall be marked thereon; and in all such cases, such plans and sections shall be accompanied by an Ordnance map of the country over which the works are proposed to extend, or are to be carried, with their position and extent, or route accurately laid down thereon:
[AND, IN CASES WHERE THE WORK IS TO BE SITUATE ON THE BANKS, FORESHORE, OR BED OF ANY RIVER, SO MUCH OF THE PLANS AND SECTIONS AS RELATES TO SUCH RIVER SHALL, ON OR BEFORE THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE APPLICATION FOR THE BILL, BE DEPOSITED—

(1) IF THE RIVER IS IN ENGLAND OR WALES, AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES; OR

(2) IF THE RIVER IS IN SCOTLAND, AT THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND; OR

(3) IF THE RIVER IS IN IRELAND, AT THE IRISH OFFICE, WESTMINSTER, AND AT THE OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND, DUBLIN; AND

(4) IF THERE BE A BOARD OF CONSERVATORS CONSTITUTED FOR THE CONSERVANCY OF THE RIVER, AT THE OFFICE ALSO OF SUCH BOARD;

AND, IF THE PLANS INCLUDE ANY TUNNEL UNDER OR BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER, THE DEPTH OF SUCH TUNNEL BELOW THE BED OF THE RIVER, OR THE SPAN AND HEADWAY OF SUCH BRIDGE SHALL BE MARKED THEREON; AND SUCH PLANS SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ORDNANCE MAP OF THE COUNTRY OVER WHICH THE WORKS ARE PROPOSED TO EXTEND OR ARE TO BE CARRIED, WITH THEIR POSITION AND EXTENT OR ROUTE ACCURATELY LAID DOWN THERE-ON.]
26A. Where under the 'powers of any Bill it is proposed to make, extend, or enlarge any dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary in England or Wales, or any sewer discharging into any such river or estuary, a copy of so much of the plans and sections as relates to the proposed dam, weir, obstruction, or sewer, shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited at the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and at the office of any fishery board having jurisdiction over the river or estuary.
26B. In cases where any work proposed to be authorized is to he situate on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river in Scotland or Ireland a copy of so much of the plans and sections as relates to the portion of the work by which the banks, foreshore, or river-bed may be affected

425
shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited—
[(1) IF THE RIVER IS IN ENGLAND OR WALES, AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES; OR]

(1) If the river is in Scotland, at the Office of the Secretary for Scotland; or

(2) If the river is in Ireland, at the Irish Office, Westminster, and at the Office of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, Dublin; and

(3) If there be a Board of Conservators constituted for the conservancy of the river, at the Office also of such Board;

and, if the plans include any tunnel under or bridge over the river, the depth of such tunnel below the bed of the river, or the span and headway of such bridge shall be marked thereon; and such plans shall be accompanied by an Ordnance map of the country over which the works are proposed to extend or are to be carried, with their position and extent or route accurately laid down thereon.
Deposits on or before the 21st of December.
33. ON or before the twenty-first day of December a printed copy shall be deposited
(5) Of every Local Bill affecting foreshore or tidal lands within the ordinary spring tides or relating to any dock, harbour, navigation, pier, port, or tidal waters, at the Office of the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade, marked "Tidal Waters";
[(6) OF EVERY BILL OF THE SECOND CLASS WHEREBY IT IS INTENDED TO AUTHORISE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY WORK ON THE BANKS, FORESHORE, OR BED OF ANY RIVER, AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES, AND AT THE OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATORS OF THE RIVER (IF ANY);]
(6) Of every Bill whereby it is proposed to authorise in England or Wales the making, extending, or enlarging of any dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary, or of any sewer discharging into any such river or estuary, or the abstraction of water from any river, at the Office of the Board of Agriculture
426
and Fisheries and at the Office of any fishery board having jurisdiction over the river or estuary.
64. IN the case of every Bill brought from the House of Commons in which provisions have been inserted in that House empowering the Promoters thereof, being a company already constituted by Act of Parliament, to execute, undertake, or contribute towards any work other than that for which it was originally established, or to sell or lease their undertaking or any part thereof, or to enter into agreements with any other company for the working, maintenance, management, or use of the railway or works of either company, or any part thereof, or to amalgamate their undertaking or any part thereof with any other undertaking, or to purchase any other undertaking or any part thereof, or any additional lands, or to abandon their undertaking or any part thereof, or to dissolve the said company, or in which any such provisions originally contained in the Bill have been materially altered in that House, or in which any such powers are conferred on any company not being the Promoters of the Bill, the Examiner shall report as to compliance or non-compliance with the following requirements:
The Bill as introduced or proposed to be introduced into this House shall be submitted to the proprietors of any every such company, at a meeting held specially for that purpose:
A. [IN THE CASE OF EVERY BILL WHEREBY IT IS PROPOSED TO IMPOUND THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE WATER OF ANY RIVER OR STREAM, AND TO GIVE A FLOW OF WATER IN COMPENSATION FOR THE WATER SO IMPOUNDED, THE COMMITTEE ON THE BILL SHALL INQUIRE INTO THE EXPEDIENCY OF MAKING PROVISION SO FAR AS MAY BE PRACTICABLE, THAT THE WHOLE, OR A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF SUCH COMPENSATION WATER SHALL BE GIVEN IN A CONTINUOUS FLOW THROUGHOUT THE TWENTY-FOUR HOURS OF EVERY DAY.]
110A. In the case of every Bill whereby it is proposed to impound or abstract the whole or any part of the water of any river or stream, the Committee on the Bill shall inquire into the expediency of making provision, so far as may be practicable, for giving a flow of water in compensation for the water so impounded or abstracted, and for giving the whole or a minimum amount of such compensation water in a. continuous

427
flow throughout the twenty-four hours of every day. —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh. )
On Question, Motion agreed to: Standing Orders amended accordingly, and to be printed as amended. (No.134.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion that stands in my name. I ought to explain to the House that it is in respect of the Appropriation Bill. As sometimes happens owing to the course of business in another place, these matters are run very fine, and in order to provide the funds for the public service we have to ask your Lordships to pass the Appropriation Bill through all its stages on the same day. I ought to add that the Bill contains no special features of any kind.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for this day's sitting.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Read 1ª: Then (Standing Order No. XXX1X having been suspended) Bill read 2ª (The Lord Herschell): Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed.
FALKIRK CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 135.)
  HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMTION BILL. (No. 136.)
  Read 1ª; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2ª (The Lord Pentland); and reported from the Committee.
WATER PROVISIONAL WIDER BILL.
Read 3ª (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this is a small Bill and merely relates to a matter of administration. It is to extend to trustees in Scotland a power which trustees in England already enjoy —namely, the power to invest trust funds in the purchase of Consolidated Stock created by the Metropolitan Board of Works or by the London County Council, and of Metropolitan Water Stock created by the Metropolitan Water Board. The Bill has passed through the House of Commons, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As Standing Order No. XXXIX has been suspended for this day's sitting, I propose, unless your Lordships see some objection, to take the remaining stages of this small Bill to-clay.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal expressly stated that the suspension of the Standing Order was moved only in respect to the Appropriation Bill. As a matter of fact, of course, the suspension is applicable to every Bill. But if there are no Amendments I do not see that this Bill will be prejudiced by standing over and taking its usual course.
Bill committed to a. Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ALDERNIEN IN MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Liverpool.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I have given notice to move the insertion of a new clause. I do not know bother the noble Earl in charge of the Bill wishes to make any statement with respect to my Amendment. Perhaps I had better move it pro formâ, and hear what he has to say.
Amendment, moved—
After clause 1 insert the following new clause:
2.—(l) In the election of aldermen of a municipal borough or county council a person entitled to vote Wray vote for one person and no more.
(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4) of section sixty of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882:
"Every person entitled to vote may vote for one person and no more by signing and personally delivering to the chairman a voting paper containing the surname and other names and place of abode and description of the person for whom he votes."—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I hardly think that my noble friend in moving this new clause and also later on proposing to move to alter the title of the Bill is -within the question of order, but perhaps I might, in a few words, state the reasons why the Local Government Board object to the insertion of this new matter. The Bill, as your Lordships are aware, simply desires to apply the principles laid down in the Local Government Act of 1888 to the election of aldermen and mayors in municipal boroughs. My noble friend's Amendment would go very much beyond the range of this amending Bill. The Bill, as it refers to the election of aldermen, is designed only to limit the persons who may vote for aldermen in municipal boroughs. The Amendment would alter the whole system of election. Secondly, the Bill is limited in its scope to the election of aldermen and mayors in municipal boroughs. The Amendment would affect
430
the election of aldermen in the case of county councils and apparently also of metropolitan boroughs.
I think your Lordships will realise that these alterations go entirely outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill passed through another place with no Amendments at all, and, as I have said, it desires to assimilate in these two small particulars the procedure in municipal borough councils to that in county councils and metropolitan borough councils. On the Second Reading the noble Lord said he was in sympathy with the Bill, but I think his Amendments not only introduce entirely new matter into this very bumble and unpretentious Bill, but would cause a certain amount of difference of opinion with reference to the provisions laid down for county councils and metropolitan borough councils as regards the election of aldermen. In these circumstances I venture to hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, in the observations I addressed to your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill I explained pretty fully the process by which I propose to enlarge the provisions of this Bill, and I stated the reasons which led me to believe that that process was quite legitimate. It is a surprise to me, therefore, to hear the statement, which the noble Earl has just made. I took some pains to consider the matter, and what I propose to do appeared to me to be perfectly in order. Nor do I understand from the noble Earl that he ventures the opinion that the Amendments are out of order. He says they are inconvenient, but nothing more. I think it would be unfortunate if your Lordships were to consent to the opinion that this proposal was out of order, because it would fetter your action very seriously in regard to other Bills which might be held to be of more importance than the present one.
What is the situation? This Bill proposes to deal with the election of aldermen in the provincial boroughs of England, and it provides that whereas at present aldermen and common councillors have equal rights in the election of aldermen, in future aldermen should be denied the privilege of joining in the election of aldermen and that it should be confined to common councillors alone. That is the

431
scope of the Bill, and the title of the Bill as introduced into the other House was so closely prescribed that it was impossible by the rules to make any alteration there in the provision contained in the Bill as introduced. My noble friend said that no Amendment was made in the other House. But, as I have said, the adroitness of the draftsman of the Bill prevented the introduction in the other House of any Amendment such as I am now moving. What I propose to do is to continue the provision that only common councillors can elect aldermen by adding that each common councillor shall have only one vote in the election of aldermen, so that the aldermen elected should correspond to the composition of the common council.
What is desired in the election of aldermen is to bring in, if possible, expert knowledge and experience which cannot be introduced by the ordinary process of election. By my Amendment that would be secured in a full instead of in a partial way as proposed in this Bill. The alteration contained in the Amendment is a very simple one in the body of the Bill, and it is necessary to alter the title in order to correspond to that alteration. But that is not out of the power of your Lordships. It would be irregular to go entirely beyond the scope and purpose of this Bill, but you may enlarge it by adding to the provision that only common councillors shall vote a prescription as to the way in which those councillors shall vote. I am unwilling to go into the arguments regarding the merits of this Amendment because this embarrassing question has been raised. I do not wish to enter into conflict with the general opinion of your Lordships. It. may be that the subject I have raised in this Amendment is one which should be deferred for further consideration, and if I assented to the negativing of my Amendment it would be on that ground and on that ground only—namely, that it is desirable that the matter should be further considered by the municipal corporations throughout the country. It is unfortunate that in regard to an Amendment such as this we should be confronted with an official attitude of pure negation. I said in my speech on the Second Reading that the process of carrying a Bill through the Legislature now is a series of manœuvres, and the way in which this Bill was drafted and piloted through the other House of
432
Parliament by the Department concerned was most adroit. I hope your Lordships will not assent to the suggestion that to insert my Amendment is beyond your Lordships' power. Negative it, if you like, on the ground that the question should be further discussed, but do not, I pray you, negative it on the ground put forward by the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I should not have risen but for a remark made by Lord Courtney when he introduced this subject on the last occasion, and from which 1 am afraid your Lordships might derive an idea entirely at variance with the facts. The noble Lord based this Amendment largely on what he described as the recent action of the London County Council—
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I mentioned that incidentally. I did not base the Amendment upon it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: As the noble Lord mentioned it incidentally, perhaps I may be allowed to show incidentally what the effect would have been in that particular case if the plan contained in this Amendment had been carried out. I will not trouble your Lordships with past procedure, though I could have shown that as long as the Progressives were in a majority in the London County Council it was their practice to attach to themselves aldermen more or less of the same way of thinking, just as was done by the other side recently. I quite sympathise with the noble Lord opposite, who would all through, if he could, have introduced the principle of proportional representation; but he is endeavouring now to build on a foundation a superstructure which really it will not carry.
The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment in the case of the last London County Council election would have been this. At the last election in March there was practically a tie, sixty members being elected on the one side as against fifty-eight on the other. But those sixty members were elected by a majority of 79,000 erectors. Yet bad the noble Lord's plan been in operation and had it been impossible for the sixty members to obtain more than a majority of one in the aldermen over the fifty-eight members, you would literally have had the government of London being

433
carried On by two parties within two of each other in the division lobby, although a majority of 79.000 electors had supported the party which was supposed to be in power. That would have meant an absolute deadlock. I am not going to discuss what I believe to be the entire undesirability of these battles being fought out on Party lines, but the fact remains; and I urge that, unless your Lordships were prepared to go into the whole of this question, very serious inconvenience would be caused if at the last moment the noble Lord were allowed to take the ease of the aldermen as a single instance out of the rest and proceed to apply to them a principle which is entirely at variance with the majority principle established with reference to the rest of the representation.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): The noble Viscount has brought in incidentally the question of what happened after the last election to the London County Council, and I understood him to say that the Progressives did very much the same thing in days gone by. Well, I have had the honour of serving on the London County Council for fifteen years as a member of the Progressive Party; I have fought five of, perhaps, the fiercest fights that were ever fought in connection with that body, and I most unhesitatingly declare that the statement of the noble Viscount is inaccurate in the highest degree. He said that very much the same thing was done by the Progressives in the past as was done by the Moderates on the last occasion. This year the election resulted in a tie, and on a recount the Moderates had a majority of two. And how was that obtained? It was obtained on a recount by a single vote-But, contrary to an acknowledged custom that has prevailed in the London County Council, the Moderates took to themselves all the aldermen. They did not give the Progressives one single aldermanic vote. The result was that this gave them a total majority of seventeen. So far from this having been anything like the policy of the Progressives in days gone by, w hat happened on the last occasion was one of the worst instances of political juggling that has ever discredited municipal life in London.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am afraid that after that ebullition of feeling on the
434
part of the noble Earl I must trouble your Lordships again. Will the noble Earl carry his mind back to his statement at the beginning of his remarks, that what I had said was inaccurate in the highest degree? Will he deny that when his party were in a majority in 1889 they took all the aldermen? And that in 1892 they again took all the aldermen? And will he deny that in 1895, when there was a tie and the Progressives were in a minority of 29,244 at the polls, they took such a number of aldermen as gave them a majority of seven in the council? Will the noble Earl say I am inaccurate in that statement? [No answer.] Then I hope he will withdraw the previous remark he made.
EARL CARRINGTON: I was not talking about the number of votes in London, I was talking about the number of votes in the London County Council, and every word I said was absolutely accurate.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I do not wish to continue the animated debate which has arisen out of my Amendment, but in view of the situation in which we are now placed I think it would probably be better if I asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL (CHAPEL) BILL.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

MIDWIVES (No.2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Central Midwives Board.
1.—(1) As from such day as the Lord President of the Council may fix, the Central Midwives Board shall consist of—

(a) two persons (one of whom shall be a woman) to be appointed by the Lord President of the Council, and one person to he appointed by the Local Government Board;

(b) four duly qualified medical practitioners, one to be appointed by the Royal College of Physicians of London, one by the Royal College of Surgeons of England, one by the Society of Apothecaries of London, and one by the British Medical Association;

(c) two certified midwives to he appointed, one by the Incorporated Midwives Institute, and one by the Royal British Nurses Association;

(d) four persons to he appointed, one by the County Councils Association, one by the Association of Municipal Corporations, one by the Society of Medical Officers of Health, and one by the Queen Victoria's Jubilee Institute of Nurses.

The term of office of a medical practitioner appointed under paragraph (b) shall be one year; in the case of other members the term of office shall be three years. A member retiring at the expiration of his term of office shall be eligible for reappointment. Any vacancy occurring by the retirement, death, or resignation of a member shall be filled by a member appointed by the person or body by whom the member so retiring, dying, or resigning was appointed. The Board may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number.
(2) Section three of the Midwives Act, 1902 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), shall have effect as if the foregoing provisions were substituted for so much of that section as is repealed by this Act.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the tenure of office of any member of the Central Midwives Board who holds office at the day so fixed, except that the members who then hold office as representatives of the Incorporated Midwives Institute and the Royal British Nurses Association shall cease to hold office.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to amend paragraph (c) by omitting the words "certified midwives" in order to insert "persons, one a midwife." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to give two representatives to the Incorporated Midwives Institute and to preserve to them their representation by a medical practitioner which they have found very convenient and valuable in the past. I must say that it seems to me rather shabby to give the Midwives Institute only one representative when you see how little representation of midwives there is on the Board. There are very good reasons, 1 think, for giving them at any rate two representatives. The Midwives Institute is the only incorporated body representa-
436
tive of all the practising midwives in the country, who number at least 15.000, I believe. It was that association which raised the large fund necessary for carrying the Midwives Act of 1902, a measure which is now fully recognised to be one of great public utility. It meant a considerable amount of effort. It took twelve years to get that Act passed and there was all the labour connected with six successive Bills. The Incorporated Midwives Institute have, therefore, good reason to claim that they speak for the practising midwives in the country; and, indeed, there is no other association which can claim to represent the midwives in the same way. I do not know why it is necessary to restrict them to only one representative, and the effect of doing so is to make the unlucky number thirteen the number of the Board. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will be willing to make this small concession, more particularly as past experience has shown that it is very convenient that midwives should have a medical practitioner to speak for them. The noble Earl has strengthened the medical representation on the Board, and I do not think it need be argued that it is easier for a man and a doctor to hold his own against the eminent physicians who will be on the Board than it would be for a midwife.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("certified midwives") and insert ("persons, one a midwife"), and leave out ("one").—(Lord Ampthill.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): Your Lordships will see that this is a Bill for amending the Midwives Act and in order to strengthen the Central Midwives Board. With that in view it was naturally thought by those who were concerned in this Bill that it was very desirable that we should have midwives upon the central body itself. We think we have now reached a stage in the development of the Act when we can count upon midwives whose services on the Board would be of great value. Your Lordships must agree that prima facie there is good reason for putting midwives upon a board which is concerned with the everyday work and duty of midwives throughout the country. That is the first reason why I hope your Lordships will allow this to stand as it is at present. I admit it is quite possible that a doctor would be able also to help the midwives in any case which might come before the

437
Midwives Board if he was there as a representative of the Incorporated Midwives Institute. But, as I think I told your Lordships on the Second Reading, in the case of mixed bodies one can only arrive at their constitution after a good deal of balancing of the various interests, and any alteration is apt to disturb the balance. However, I am not particularly wedded to the form as it appears in the Bill at the present time, and if any considerable number of your Lordships express a. desire to see the first Amendment which the noble Lord opposite has moved adopted, I shall not enter ally strong objection to it. But at the same time I wish to make it quite clear that if this Amendment is agreed to I should only agree to it as an expression of opinion from more than one noble Lord. I should like to be certain that there are several members of your Lordships' House who think that this Amendment is desirable before we agree to it, because the present scheme is the outcome of much consideration and ought not to be disturbed without good reason. The second Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord is that the Royal British Nurses Association should be represented by anybody other than a certificated midwife. I should oppose that. As I said before, we want midwives upon this Board, and the Royal British Nurses Association would be able to send us a. certificated midwife whose services would be of real value. Therefore, though I should like to express once more a preference for the scheme in the Bill, yet if there is a decided expression in your Lordships' House in favour of adding one member to the Board as representative of the Incorporated Midwives Institute I should be willing to agree to that Amendment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I think it is only fair to point out that this Amendment:, after all, is only permissive. It does not prevent the Incorporated Midwives Institute appointing two midwives if they think that they are the two best people they could appoint. On the other hand, it does give them latitude in the case of one of their appointments. If they have a member of the medical profession or anybody else whom they think specially fitted for the business, they are able to appoint him. I should think that this greater elasticity would be bound in the end to work to the advantage of the present proposal. As the noble
438
Earl asked if anybody was prepared to support the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, I may say that I certainly came down to the House with the object of supporting it; and I notice that the form in which my noble friend moves this proposal is the form in which it recommends itself to the Royal British Nurses Association. They. after all, have had considerable experience in this matter, and I hope their opinion will weigh with Your Lordships.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I rise to endorse what has been said by Lord Ampthill in moving this Amendment. I think it would be of material assistance that latitude should be given to enable this body to appoint to the Board a person with some special experience.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: After what has been said I should be willing to agree to the extent I have mentioned with the noble Lord opposite.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved another Amendment to the subsection to give to the Royal British Nurses Association the option of appointing on the Board a representative other than a certified midwife. The noble Lord said: I am sorry the noble Earl seemed to make it a condition of his acceptance of the first part of the Amendment, for which I am very much obliged to him, that the second part should not be pressed; but I had no opportunity of assenting to that arrangement, and I am afraid I must press this second Amendment. It is very much desired, and, as my noble friend Lord Donoughmore pointed out, it is permissive; and it seems to me to be very desirable that there should be a certain amount of latitude and elasticity in this arrangement. By the Amendment already accepted the noble Earl will have one midwife anyhow on the council.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, after ("one") insert ("person"). —(Lord Ampthill.)
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I have received a letter from a lady doctor in which she says that the one thing they arc keen about is to substitute the word

439
"person" for that of "midwife" as their representative on the Board. She adds—
"It is far better for us to have a physician and not a midwife as our representative."
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment on behalf of the Royal British Nurses Association, the body principally concerned by this Amendment. As the Bill now stands they are given one representative on the Board who must be a midwife. The Royal British Nurses Association desire to have the option of appointing such person as they may think their best representative for the time being. There is no suggestion that they would not appoint a midwife. They might appoint a midwife if they considered that their interests would be best represented by a midwife. But upon the Council of the Royal British Nurses Association there are thirty doctors, thirty matrons, and thirty nurses, and the whole society is composed of these elements. They do not, therefore, want to be confined solely to midwives as their representatives. This body is probably the largest and most important nursing association in the kingdom. It is the only body of its kind which has a Royal Charier, and they feel that they are a body quite competent to choose their best representative, and that in many cases they may not be able to find a midwife free and able to
Amendment agreed to accordingly.
act for them on this Board. They therefore attach the greatest possible importance to this Amendment, and I shall certainly support my noble friend in pressing it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am afraid I can only repeat my unwillingness to agree to this Amendment. Here is a Board which you want to deal with midwives. I have agreed already to one Amendment suggested by the noble Lord opposite, adding a doctor on behalf of the Incorporated Midwives Institute. You now have a body of fourteen. It is not unreasonable, I think, to suggest that in these circumstances two out of the fourteen should be midwives. We quite realise the work which is accomplished by the Royal British Nurses Association. We know they include among their members a large number of midwives who would be admirably fitted to serve on this Board. We need midwives upon it, we think the Royal British Nurses Association able to send us a good midwife, and in these circum stances I must insist on the clause as it stands.
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-contents, 26.

CONTENTS.

Ailesbury, M.

Churchill, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Goschen, V.

Hindlip, L.

Cawdor, E.

Hood, V.

Inverclyde, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensherry.)

Hutcliinson,V. (B. Donoughmore.)

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Knaresborough, L.

Halsbury, E.

Abinger, L.

Lawrence, L.

Lytton, E. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L. [Teller.]

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Mar, E.

Balfour, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Morley, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Waldegrave, E.

Colchester, L.

Sinclair, L.

Westmeath, E.

Desborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Courtney of Penwith, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. President.)

Devonport, L.

Northcote, L.

Furness, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Carrington, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Pirrie, L.

Liverpool, E. [Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Shaw, L.

Mayo, E.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Shuttleworth, L.

Ilkeston, L.

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

Airedale, L.

James, L.

Blyth, L.

Langford, L.

Weardale, L.

Clonbrock, L.

Lochee, L.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment of section seven of principal Act as to evidence.
4. The following paragraph shall be added to section seven of the principal Act:—
"A certificate under the hand of the Secretary of the Board that the name of a woman whose name appears in the roll of midwives has been removed from the roll shall be evidence that such woman is not certified under this Act."
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will see that these Amendments to Clause 4 are purely of a drafting character to make the meaning of the clause more clear.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 20, after the second ("roll ") insert ("and of the date of such removal")
Page 3, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("and of" the date as from which she ceased to be so "certified")—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Previsions as to Midwives.
7. Every certified midwife shall on or before the thirty-first of March in each year send to the Central Midwives Board on a form to be supplied by the Board for the purpose her name and address, together with a fee of one shilling, and if any certified midwife in any year fails to comply with this requirement her name shall be removed from the roll and thereupon her certificate shall be deemed to he cancelled; but where her name has been so removed on account of such non compliance she shall at any subsequent time be entitled to have her name restored to the roll and the cancellation of her certificate rescinded on the payment of a fee not exceeding five shillings.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I move to leave out "March" and to insert "January." January is the date selected as that upon which a certified nurse gives notice to the local supervising authority if she intends to act as a midwife, and it would seem much more convenient and less likely to lead to confusion if the same date were selected to give notice also to the Central Midwives Board. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will be able to give us his assistance in this matter.
Amendment moved —
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("March") and insert ("January").—(Viscount Goschen.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is very kind of the noble Viscount to appeal to me for
442
my assistance. I do not think it makes any difference. But I have no objection to offer to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAWRENCE LORD LAWRENCE proposed as an Amendment to Clause 7 that applications by certified midwives to have their names kept on the roll should be sent, not to "the Central Midwives Board," but to "the local supervising authority." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which has the support of the County Councils Association, would have been moved by Lord Belper had he been able to be present this evening. In his absence the Amendment has been placed in my hands, but. I must confess that. I know little about its merits. I hope, however, that the noble Earl will be willing to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("Central Midwives Board") and insert ("local supervising authority"). —(Lord Lawrence.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think your Lordships will recognise that there is a real practical inconvenience suggested in the Amendment. If you turn to Clause 7 you will see that the obligation suggested is that the certified midwife should send to the Central Midwives Board. The object is to keep the roll clean and up to date. The roll is in the charge of the Central Midwives Board, and surely it would be most inconvenient if the midwife were to write to a local authority which had not got the roll in its charge. The Central Midwives Board is the body whose duty it is to keep the roll in order, and it would be a matter of great inconvenience if nurses were to send to authorities not responsible in any way for the roll. The scheme as proposed in the Bill is far more convenient than the somewhat roundabout method suggested in the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Notification of Practice.
11.—(1) Where a woman certified under the principal Act, who has not given to the local supervising authority such a notice as is mentioned in

443
section ten of the principal Act attends any woman in child-birth in any capacity other than that of midwife, and a duly qualified medical practitioner is not present at the time of the birth, she shall, with in forty eight hours from the birth, give to the local supervising authority notice in writing of the fact that she so attended, and if she omits to do so shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, but nothing in this section shall be construed as exempting any woman practising as a midwife, or holding herself out as so practising, from the obligation to give any notice which, under section ten of the principal Act, she is required to give.
(2) Where a woman certified under the principal Act has given a notice in compliance with section ten of that Act and subsequently changes her address, she shall, within seven days after such change, give notice of the change to every local supervising authority to which she had previously given notice under that section, and if she omits to do so shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding two pounds.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, after the word "Act" ["who has not given to the local supervising authority such a notice as is mentioned in section ten of the principal Act"] at the commencement of the clause; to insert the words "or a woman not so certified." The noble Earl said: This clause is really founded upon Section 93 in the Report of the Departmental Committee. The real fear was this, that monthly nurses and so on who are not certified midwives would act nominally under a doctor, but that the doctor might not be present at the moment, and that some danger might accrue to the mother in those circumstances. We thought it desirable to make the Central Midwives Board acquainted with the fact if it became a habit in any district. The method, I admit, is clumsy, but there is no other way of doing it. Naturally the Midwives Board would take no notice if it happened occasionally; but if there was a sign of its becoming a habit they would be able to take such steps as might seem necessary. The objection which has been stated to me privately is that as the Bill stands at the present moment it does throw a certain amount of duty upon the certificated midwife which would rather act unfairly towards her and might make her employment, perhaps not so popular. For that reason I have put down this Amendment, which I think would put all nurses upon the same footing and therefore give the certificated midwife an equal opportunity with others. I hope that will meet the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who has given notice to move the deletion altogether of subsection (1).
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, after ("Act") insert ("or a woman not so certified.")—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My objections to this subsection are quite met, by the noble Earl's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Reciprocal Treatment of Midwives certified in other parts of His Majesty's Dominions.
12.—(l) 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.
(2) If any question arises under this section as to the right of a woman to be certified under the principal Act the question shall be determined by the Privy Council,
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is an Amendment which 1 put down in order to meet the case as it was mentioned on Second Reading by noble Lords from Ireland. I think we agreed on that occasion that although it was impossible in this Bill to deal with the general scheme in Ireland, it was possible to deal with the grievance as it affects individuals; and I hope I have done that to a greater extent than in the Amendment which is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clonbrock.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, after ("evidence") insert ("either—" (a)")
Page 5, line 42, after ("terms") insert ("or
"(b) that she is qualified to be appointed as a "midwife by a Board of Guardians in Ireland "under any regulations of the Local Government "Board for Ireland for the time being in force").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD CLONBROCK: I wish to say that I quite concur with the noble Earl, and if the present Amendment meets with the approval of your Lordships I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment. As to the general question of the inclusion of Ireland in the Bill, I stated on Second

445
Reading, that it was very much desired by people well qualified to judge in Ireland, and that. I therefore had the intention of moving Amendments to include Ireland in the provisions of the Bill as it stands. But it has since been intimated to me that there are great difficulties in the way of doing that owing to the difference of the Poor-law system in England and Ireland as regards nurses and medical officers. I have also been informed that the Government are inclined to bring in a special Bill for Ireland next year embodying the provisions of this Bill. I very much hope that is the case, and I trust that the noble Earl will definitely announce that this is the intention of His Majesty's Government. I know that people whose opinion is most valuable in Ireland are very much in favour of this Bill in the interests of the public health, and would welcome an announcement that a Bill of the same character will be introduced for Ireland.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page line 4, after ("dominions") insert ("or, "as the case may he, under such regulations of the "Local Government Board for Ireland as afore" said."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK had given notice to move the insertion of the following new clause—
13. Any woman who holds a certificate in midwifery granted to her from the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, or the Coombe Lying-in Hospital and Guinness's Dispensary, or the Rotunda Hospital for the Relief of the Poor Lying-in Women of Dublin, or from such other training authority as may be approved by the Central Midwives Board, stating that she has been trained as a midwife and certified in Ireland, and who claims to be certified under the principal Act, shall be so certified.
The noble Lord said: I do not now intend to move my Amendment. But T. hope the noble Earl will tell us whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for Ireland next year.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: As the noble Lord knows, the introduction of a Bill for Ireland dealing with this matter is not in my province, but I am assured by my
446
right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he will be glad to deal with this matter. He is unable to promise what lines the Bill will take, or whether it will follow exactly the lines of this Bill, because the conditions in Ireland are entirely different front what they are in England. I But my right hon. friend will be glad to have the support in that matter of noble Lords opposite.
Clause 13:
Provisions as to Local Supervising Authorities.
13. A local supervising authority may aid the training of midwives, whether within or without their area, and may make grants for the purpose.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved an Amendment to give a discretionary power to the local supervising authorities to make grants in aid of the maintenance of midwives. The noble Lord said: It seems to me that it is a necessary corollary of the legislation which is now established that there should be this discretionary power granted to county councils of making grants in aid of maintenance. I am aware that the idea is that voluntary nursing associations should provide the midwife, but there are parts of the country in which no nursing association exists. The people, then, are in this position. They are compelled by law to employ a certified midwife, and if there is no certified midwife in the district, because it is impossible in ninny cases for these women to make a living wage, they would have to do without one at all. There is no question that in many parts of the country it is almost impossible for a midwife to make a living. I have before me the report of the medical officer of health of my own district, which gives some very interesting figures on the subject. Of forty-two independent midwives practising in the county, four attended no cases and twenty-seven attended less than twenty-five cases each. As the fee in each case varies from 4s. to 10 s. 6d., it is very evident that it is not possible for these women to earn a living wage. As the law compels people to employ a certified midwife, it seems to be a necessary consequence that the Government should put it within their power to obtain the services of these trained women. Your Lordships will notice that the power is only discretionary, and it seems to me that it is one that can safely be entrusted to the county councils. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, after ("training") insert ("and make grants in aid of maintenance").—(Lord Ampthill.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think that on reflection the noble Lord will see that his Amendment in putting a large burden on local taxation would probably be considered in another place to be a very serious breach of privilege. In addition to that, I hope your Lordships will not approve of this somewhat socialistic proposal of the noble Lord's, which becomes even stronger in the next Amendment on the Paper. The noble Lord suggests that the local supervising authority should aid the maintenance of midwives. I have no doubt the noble Lord would probably be one of the first to say that midwives stood in a different category from any other class; that doctors, for instance, were entirely different. But I think a great many noble Lords would not agree. They would say that in scattered districts, where it is difficult for doctors to live, it is just as necessary that the local authority should make grants in aid of doctors as it is that they should make grants in aid of midwives. It is difficult to make any sound distinction between the two if once you throw the cost upon the local authority. I venture to think that in any case this is a very great departure in principle from anything which has been done in this country, and in view of the large charge which it would make and the fact that it is without doubt a breach of privilege, I venture to hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I would ask my noble friend behind me not to persist in this Amendment. I quite see the argument put forward by the noble Earl opposite. In the first place, it would undoubtedly be considered a breach of privilege in another place; and, secondly, it would be adding to the rates, a thing we have always deprecated. In these circumstances I would suggest to my noble friend that it would be wiser not to persist in his Amendment.
LORD AMPTHILL: I cannot admit the argument that this would be a breach of privilege, and I do not think that view would find much support in this House. On the other hand, I admit that the principle of this Amendment is socialistic. But you have got the legislation already,
448
and the legislation is socialistic. You are not proposing to do away with the legislation, and all that this Amendment does is to recognise a necessary consequence of legislation which is firmly established, and which you are now seeking to make just and fair in working. I do not know whether I can count on any support for the Amendment, but I am not inclined to withdraw it if there are any noble Lords who favour it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Payment of Fees of Medical Practitioners called in on advice of Midwives.
17.—

(1) 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 in pursuance of any rule framed by the Central Midwives Board, be shall, on complying with the prescribed conditions, be entitled to recover from the board of guardians of the poor law union in which the woman resided such fee in respect of his attendance as may be prescribed.

(2) Where any such fees have been paid by a board of guardians, the amount thereof 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.

(3) Every board of guardians shall in each quarter send to every local supervising authority concerned a list of the cases within the area of the authority in respect of which fees have been paid by the board of guardians under this section.

(4) The Local Government Board may make regulations with respect to any matter which under this section is to be prescribed and as to the manner in which boards of guardians are to carry out their powers and duties under this section.

(5) The payment of fees by hoards of guardians under this section shall not be considered to be parochial relief, alms, or charitable allowance to any person, nor shall any person by reason thereof be deprived of any right or privilege, or be subject ed to any disability or disqualification.

LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL moved to substitute the local supervising authority of the county or county borough for the Poor-law guardians. The noble Lord said: I think your Lordships will recognise that this Amendment is one of very great importance. The Bill was before the House for some time and was withdrawn by the noble Earl the Lord President, and it was generally supposed that the object of withdrawing the Bill for a while was to amend

449
this very Clause 17 in order to meet the large number of objections which had been raised. But to the great disappointment of all those interested in the Bill it returned to this House with the objectionable clause still standing in it.
The objection to the clause, of course, is that you are bringing possibly thousands of poor thrifty people within touch of the Poor-law authority, a thing which they dread and dislike more than anything else. The noble Earl has sought to remove these objections by inserting a new subsection which declares that the payment of these fees to the doctor is not to be regarded as parochial relief. It seems to me that the very effect of this provision is to remove any possible argument that there may have been for the system of making the payments through the Poor-law guardians. Either these payments are parochial relief or they are not. If they are parochial relief, surely you have no right to say in your Act that they are not parochial relief; hut if, on the other hand, the payments are not in the nature of Poor-law relief, why make it appear that they are so by employing the whole of the machinery of Poor-law relief? It is quite futile to declare by your Act that it is not to be so regarded. You cannot regulate people's sentiments by an Act of Parliament. His Majesty's Government are trying to do a great deal by legislation at the present time, but I venture to say that to regulate people's feelings by legislation is a thing they will never be able to accomplish.
Surely the Government know what the feelings of the poor are in respect of this matter, and how utterly unlikely it is that their strong objection to being brought within touch of the Poor-law should be allayed by a declaration in an Act of Parliament that they are not to regard it as Poor-law relief. Just as well might you send a man to prison and tell him he is not to regard himself as in prison, but only for the time being as one of His Majesty's guests. I hold, therefore, that this new proviso, which is supposed to remove objections, is utterly ineffective for the purpose; but what I want to know is why the Government have gone out of their way to introduce the interference of a second local authority in this matter when there is no apparent reason for doing so. The county councils and the county borough councils are the authorities responsible for the administration of the Midwives Act, for
450
the supervision of midwives, and the regulation of everything that pertains to them. It would, therefore, seem to the ordinary person to be the obvious thing that the county councils or the county borough councils should make the payments which are necessary. After all, it is not a matter of obtaining the money from a different source. The money in either case comes out of the same pockets. There is a very good precedent too. It is the county councils who pay the doctor when the doctor is summoned by the police. It would, therefore, not be any innovation to continue that system.
But what is still more remarkable is that there is absolutely no authority which can be quoted for the proposal which His Majesty's Government have made in Clause 17. It is not a recommendation of the Departmental Committee. The proposals were not supported by any of the witnesses who appeared before that Committee, but, on the contrary, were objected to by an immense weight of authority and by a large number of public bodies who understand the question and are deeply concerned in it. I shall be interested to hear. on what grounds the noble Earl has thought it necessary to maintain these proposals in the Bill. I am in hopes that he has only done so in order that they may be discussed in your Lordships' House before an alteration is made. But, in any circumstance, I hope very much that it is the noble Earl's intention to modify the proposals and to allay the very great anxiety which exists at the present time as to the effect of these proposals, which I wish to impress upon your Lordships have the effect of bringing thousands of poor people whose most earnest effort and hope in life is to keep out of touch of Poor-law relief within the grip of the Poor-law guardians without their consent and without any application on their part; and, what is more, you are compelling them by law to make payments for which they have made no contract, for which they are entirely unprepared, and as to the amount of which they have no say.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("the board of "guardians of the poor law union" and insert ("the local supervising authority of the county or "county borough").—(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I should have thought that the proposal of

451
the noble Lord to vary the incidence and the area of the local charge by shifting it from the Poor-law union to the county was in itself a breach of privilege, for you cannot either increase or vary the incidence of a burden without conflicting with the rights of the House of Commons. The noble Lord told us that he was proposing what was frankly socialistic legislation, and he excused himself by saying that the idea had crept into previous legislation. I must say for myself that I should wish to withstand socialistic legislation whether the thin edge of the wedge had been got in already or not. The noble Lord said that it was impossible to change sentiment by law, but I think his speech shows that he recognises the effect of the law in that direction, because his whole argument was that the idea of getting aid from the Poor-law, even though they are not pauperised through it, is so repugnant that people would abstain from obtaining this relief. It is quite clear that the noble Lord contemplates a very large additional expenditure of public money on the rates as the result of his Amendment. Therefore he is not merely contemplating the shifting of a charge from one local body to another, but a large augmentation of that charge, because he spoke of the thousands and thousands of people who would benefit in one case, but who would refrain in the other.
LORD AMPTHILL: I do not propose any increase in the charge. I merely propose that the fees should be paid by one authority and not by another. That would not increase the amount of the charge.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I do not think the noble Lord recognises the full bearing of his own remarks. He said that there were thousands and thousands of people who would shrink from getting relief from the Poor-law, but who would obtain this relief if they had another authority to appeal to. Therefore it is obvious that he does indicate that the effect of his Amendment would be to bring in a large amount of chargeability on public funds which under the Bill as it stands would not take place. We have too many proposals to give people the benefit of being paupers without any of the stigma. I am quite satisfied that the fact that people are ashamed of getting relief which is Poor-law relief does stimulate a great deal of self-reliance and thrift and
452
many other important virtues. We are having experience in regard to the question of providing meals for school children. That was merely a permissive power. Nevertheless local authorities are using it, and now we find attempts made to secure that children should also be fed on Saturdays and Sundays, and, indeed, all the year round, holidays as well as school time. If a parent is unable to maintain his own family, it is a proper case of destitution and for Poor-law relief, and in substance he is a pauper. I believe in a little hardness and sternness in these matters. By the sort of proposal contained in this Amendment a great deal is done to demoralise and debauch the people, and I therefore hope the Amendment will not be agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I desire to say a few words in support of this Amendment. I am not in the least deterred because to do so lays one open to the charge of supporting socialistic legislation or brings one into conflict with the privilege of the other House of Parliament. It is surely straining words to say that this is a socialistic proposal because it proposes that the payment of the fee of the doctor who is called in on child-birth should be borne by the public health authority instead of by the Poor-law guardians.
LORD SHEFFIELD: The noble Lord who moved the Amendment himself described his proposal as socialistic.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I should protest against the description just as heartily. But I think my noble friend Lord Ampthill described the previous Amendment, which he did not press, as socialistic, not this one. I did not hear him say anything in moving this Amendment about its being a socialistic proposal. I desire to submit to your Lordships that this Amendment is of extreme importance, and that it has claims upon your Lordships' attention on its merits and quite apart from any label you may attach to it. The difficulty hitherto has been this, that in cases of child-birth a doctor has been called in and in a great many cases has been unable to obtain the fee for his attendance. As there has been no provision made hitherto for the payment of his fee, in some cases it has been provided by the Poor-law guardians and in some cases by the public health authority. The Departmental Committee recommend that an alteration to payment by the Poor-law

453
guardians should be adopted, the Government have accepted their recommendation, and that course has been put into the Bill.
I cannot help saying that this is just an instance—a very important instance—of legislating for people and at the same time ignoring altogether their own opinion on the subject. In another important controversy going on in the country at. the present moment we are told that it is unnecessary and undesirable that women should be given a vote at Parliamentary elections because Parliament always considers their interests and legislates for them adequately and generously. This is just an example of where the interests of the class affected by your legislation have been ignored from the outset. On the Departmental Committee there was no midwife and no representative of the class of poor women who will be affected by the Bill, and since the Bill appeared emphatic protests have been made against this clause. There have been protests from the midwives themselves, from the British Medical Association, from the Society of Medical Officers of Health, from the Royal British Nurses Association, from the Women's Co-operative Guild, from the Railway Women's Guild, from the Women's Labour League, and even from a certain number of boards of guardians.
This particular clause in the Bill has met with the greatest possible opposition from the moment it appeared. It was opposed on the ground that it was imposing the stigma of pauperism on people whom you compel by Act of Parliament to summon medical aid in cases of child-birth, and it was largely in consequence of the opposition raised that this Bill was withdrawn, and in the present Bill something has been done to remove the stigma of pauperism. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Sheffield, wants to discourage people from availing themselves of this provision, and he hopes that the stigma of pauperism will act as a discouragement. The Government do not I desire anything of the kind, because they have provided in their amending Bill that the doctor's fee shall not be regarded as Poor-law relief. Although the board of guardians is still retained as the authority who will pay this fee, the Bill declares that the payment is not to be parochial relief. But it does not matter in the least what it is called if the whole subject is still to be dealt with by the Poor-law authority.
454
The homes of these people are to be subjected to the inquisitorial visits of relieving officers, and the people themselves may have to appear before the Poor-law guardians and answer questions as to ability to pay the necessary fee.
I hold that the whole object of this Bill will be defeated if this clause is retained. Hitherto there has been considerable reluctance on the part of midwives and patients to summon a doctor on these occasions, and that will at once spring up again if, by the machinery of this clause, as it stands in the Bill at present, it is realised that to summon a doctor in cases of child-birth involves the intervention of the relieving officer and appearing before the Poor-law guardians to answer their questions. This Amendment I feel to be absolutely necessary if the Bill is to serve the purpose the Government have in view, without inflicting at the same time fresh hardships on the class of poor women whom the Bill is intended to benefit. I therefore strongly support the Amendment of my noble friend, and sincerely hope that the noble Earl will accept it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the Amendment which the noble Earl supports he tells us is absolutely necessary if the Bill is to carry out the objects with which it was introduced. I congratulate the noble Earl on his knowledge of what was in the minds of those who brought this Bill forward, but I can assure him that to carry this Amendment would mean that the Bill would go no further either in this House or in another place. It is true that the Bill has met with opposition in the Press, but it has been just as warmly supported as it has been somewhat ignorantly opposed in various newspapers. I am bound to say that in a considerable number of the comments dealing with this matter there is a most unfortunate assumption, which is wholly inaccurate, that the State lays upon people the absolute necessity of sending for a medical attendant. I am not anxious to labour the point, which has been raised by the noble Lord behind me, how far this Amendment really raises the matter of privilege.
But let me point out to the noble Lord opposite how incomplete his Amendment is, at any rate in its present form. If this Amendment were accepted I suppose the noble Lord would himself suggest that

455
some method of recovery was expedient. Let me point out to him that in the great majority of cases, at any rate outside the area of county boroughs, the local supervising authority has no means of making satisfactory inquiry into the circumstances of the patient. This would either reduce recovery to a dead letter, or else they would be forced to have recourse to the boards of guardians themselves for information and for help and advice as to whether they should proceed further in the matter or not. The noble Lord makes no provision apparently for the ultimate recovery of the fee, either from the patient herself or from her husband. If it was his intention that medical attention whenever necessary should be provided at the cost of the rates by the local supervising authority his recommendation goes a good deal further even that the Minority Report of the Poor-law Commission. The Commissioners who signed that Report definitely recommended systematic recovery from those responsible, if they are able to pay, according to their means.
LORD AMPTHILL: If the noble Earl will allow me to interrupt him I might inform him that, although I have not put it on the Paper, I do propose an alteration of subsection (2) to provide for recovery.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is obviously inconvenient to your Lordships as well as myself to discuss Amendments that are not on the Paper, and, if the noble Lord will pardon me for saying so, I must continue, he not having given notice, as if that Amendment was not before your Lordships. I must further point out that you are dealing with the whole question of whether or not free medical assistance should be given to these people. You are really dealing with the whole question of the Poor-law. How are you going to deal with the Poor-law in future? It is an attempt, not on the part of the noble Lord himself but of his friends not in this House, to prejudge the question, and I am bound to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that is a matter which we ought not to deal with on the present occasion. I am quite sure that there will he no attempt to shirk the issues which will be dealt with when the time comes to deal with them.
On this occasion we are only dealing with an amendment of a particular Act,
456
and I venture to think it would be far more businesslike on the part of your Lordships on the present occasion not to prejudge the larger questions which must come before Parliament in due time, but to deal with the machinery such as it is and make the best of it, and in that way you will not only be more likely to get this Bill through Parliament but you will be dealing more fairly with Parliament itself. Even in the Minority Report of the Poor-law Commission they say it is very desirable that the adjudication should not be done by a local administrative body such as that to which the noble Lord refers these cases in his Amendment. In that Report they say—
"The work of adjudicating upon particular cases—of assessing how much each person should pay, or whether be should be excused on the ground of poverty—appears to us no less unsuitable for a local administrative body than the general decision of whether or not the tax should-be levied at all."
And they conclude that—
"The duty of determining what special assessments are due according to the law, and from whom, together with the decision whether the person liable is of sufficient ability to pay, and the duty of enforcing payment by proper legal process, ought to be entirely separated from the work of administering the public assistance."
If your Lordships look for a moment at Clause 17 you will see that the objections which have been advanced against the board of guardians as the paying authority are to a considerable extent without any real foundation. Subsection (5) expressly declares that the payment of fees by boards of guardians is not to be considered as parochial relief, alms, or charitable allowance to any person, and no person by reason thereof is to be subjected to any disadvantage; and under subsection (4) the Local Government Board may make regulations in respect to the manner in which boards of guardians are to carry out their powers and duties under the section. I venture to think that under these regulations the Local Government Board will be able to make it perfectly clear that none of that inquisitorial investigation which the noble Lord fears will be likely to take place.
Let me point out how very unsuitable these local supervising authorities really are to carry out the duty of investigation. Here you have the local medical man summoned, and it is in our opinion obvious

457
that the near local authority is the proper authority to investigate the circumstances of the parents. Very often probably no investigation will be necessary. But let me take the noble Lord's own county of Bedfordshire. How can the county council sitting in the capital of that county know accurately the circumstances of every cottager throughout: the whole of the county? They have no machinery for doing it, and I think it is perfectly obvious, for the present at any rate, that so long as boards of guardians exist—and it may not be for ever—they are the most convenient authorities for dealing with this question.. But, in any case, I venture to hope your Lordships will not agree with this Amendment if only on this one single, but I think very important, issue—that we do not wish in this Bill to deal with or to prejudge the questions of Poor-law reform. We have the Act of 1902, which has effected a great deal of good throughout the country, and has saved a great many lives. Here in this Bill we see opportunities of amending that Act and making it still more useful, and I should very much regret if this comparatively humble little Bill were to be used as the battle ground of the contending armies of Poor-law reformers. Our object is to use the existing material, to amend the Bill on the lines which have already done so much good, and it is upon those grounds that I venture to hope your Lordships will agree to pass it.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I confess that if anything would encourage me to vote for this Amendment it would be the attack made upon it by Lord Sheffield on the ground of privilege. My Lords, where are we coming to on this question of privilege? We are told that if we alter the incidence of a charge in this Bill we shall be infringing upon the privilege of the House of Commons. The House of Commons has never seen this Bill. This is a Bill which has been introduced in the House of Lords, and we are absolutely ignorant of the opinion of the House of Commons on the point. If we are to be debarred from altering a charge in a Bill brought in by the Government, which the House of Commons have never seen, and to be told that we are infringing the privilege of the House of Commons simply because we are acting contrary to the wishes of the Government, then I say we are reaching a pitch with regard to this
458
question of privilege which even noble Lords opposite have never attempted to maintain before. We are at last beginning to realise that these questions of privilege really mean opposition to the wishes of the Government, and I venture to think that is a thing which your Lordships will remember on future occasions.
In my view this Amendment in no way touches the privileges of the House of Commons. It is an Amendment which must be considered on its merits, and I confess that if I came down here this afternoon prejudiced at all it was in favour of all the Amendments of my noble friend behind me and in advance against any opposition that I thought the Government might make. But, my Lords, I confess I have been converted by the debate that has taken place and by the speeches which the noble Earl representing the Government and the noble Lord behind him have made. It does seem to me that if we accept this Amendment we are deciding offhand a very important question which will have to be decided probably in the near future, but which should be decided in connection with the whole question of the reform of the Poor-law, and I think it would be very unfortunate if we were to prejudge that discussion in any shape or form. The position, as it seems to me, is this. This is a small point, and for the moment the responsible authority, the Government, advise us that it is better to let sleeping dogs lie and to continue on the lines laid down in the Bill. They have supported that position by very powerful arguments, and at the same time have not prejudiced one side or the other in the discussion which will arise in any consideration in future of the reform of the Poor-law. I certainly therefore will have no hesitation in voting with the. Government against this Amendment if my noble friend behind me proceeds to a division.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I do hope your Lordships will not be led away by the specious but exceedingly able argument which has been put forward by the noble Earl. I do protest against the notion that this is in any way prejudging the question of Poor-law reform. I cannot imagine anything more far-fetched than the use of that argument in this connection. This is not a question of free medical attendance for the poor. If your Lordships look at the Bill you will see exactly what

459
it is. These poor people do not ask for the attendance of the doctor. They do not want the attendance of the doctor. The doctor is forced upon them by the local authority for the protection of the midwife.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Will he kindly substantiate and give us the authority for his statement that this medical relief is forced upon them.
LORD AMPTHILL: The regulations of the Central Midwives Board, which oblige the midwife in certain circumstances to send for a doctor whether the patient or the husband desires it or not. That is the position, as I understand it. Therefore it is not a question of free medical attendance. Neither the patient nor the husband has any choice whatever in the matter. I have some personal experience of these things as I happen to be chairman of the midwives committee in my county. I am constantly, therefore, in touch with actual cases of this kind, and great though the noble Earl's experience is, I do not think he has had the same experience of the matter in detail as I have. The doctor is sent for, not in order to confer a benefit on the poor people, not to give them free medical attendance, but for the protection of the midwife, and the midwife is supervised and controlled by regulations for the general protection of the public.
Then the noble Earl went on to say that the local supervising authority had no means of making the necessary inquiries. There, again, I think he is lacking in actual experience. The county council has its midwives executive committee. They have their local medical officer of health. In every district there are the medical officers of health, and counties have an inspector of midwives, who goes round and visits every one of these cases and is in an excellent position to find out the exact circumstances. Next, the noble Earl said that this Bill was continuing on existing lines. There, again, I am afraid I must join issue with him. There are no existing lines in this respect. These fees have been paid in some cases by the local supervising authority and in other cases by the Poor-law guardians. To say that the Bill is continuing on existing lines is to show an entire misapprehension of the facts. You have to choose between the local supervising authority
460
and the Poor-law guardians, and it seems to me to be the more obvious and commonsense method to choose the authority which has the duty of administering the Act and of supervising the midwives, and which is, therefore, in the best position to know the circumstances and to adjudicate in each case. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, and therefore I refrain from replying further; but I must say the noble Earl set up a purely imaginary version of what I said in order to make fun of it. The noble Earl misrepresented my remarks in the most extraordinary manner.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: As the noble Lord founded so much of his argument upon the supposed necessity to send for the doctor I think I ought to correct that at once. There is no such necessity, and if the noble Lord will turn to the regulations of the Central Midwives Board be will find that is so. There is no obligation on the midwife or on the patient or on the parents of the patient to do so. The midwife only advises. That being so, most of the noble Lord's argument falls to the ground.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL did not move his next Amendment, which was to leave out subsections (2), (3), (4), and (5).
Clause 17 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 137.)

LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I have hardly anything to say in commending this Bill on Second Reading to your Lordships' attention, but as I hope we may have more Bills of this kind, perhaps you will excuse me for two or three minutes in briefly explaining what it is. There have been for many, many years complaints about the inextricable confusion of the Statutes relating to licensing, which has

461
been a source of trouble to the oldest practitioners at the Bar, and attempts have been made by the Government to put matters right. In this instance the Bill was brought in by a private Member for the purpose of consolidating the law relating to licensing. It was supported both by those who represent the temperance reformers and by those who represent the licensed trade. The Bill passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons and was then referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Joint Committee did me the honour of electing me as their Chairman, and we bad some five or six afternoons on this Bill. We have put it into shape and suggested certain Amendments, only one of which is a change in the law. I am glad to say that all the recommendations we put forward passed through the House of Commons and were accepted. I am also happy to say that there was not a solitary difference of opinion on any one of the questions before that Committee. The only change which has been made in the law is this, that whereas before it was doubtful whether a licence being granted to a house which at any previous time had a licence was to be treated as a renewal or not, we propose that it should be treated as a renewal if the house has been licensed within a twelvemonth. I hope that your Lordships will give your consent to this Bill, and that its success may encourage other private Members to do the same good work which has been done by a private Member on this occasion —namely, to put the tangle of our Statutes into something like ordinary shape, and thereby enable people to understand what the law is.
Moved, That the Bill be now read (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MINES ACCIDENTS (RESCUE AND AID) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

COMPANIES (CONVERTED SOCIETIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, when this Bill was before your
462
Lordships yesterday on Second Reading the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, who is not now in his place, asked my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for an assurance. I understand that my noble and learned friend is prepared to give the assurance asked for, and I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into the said Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR Of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª on Thursday, next.

CHILDREN ACT (1908) AMENDMENT 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 Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR Of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the Amendments to this Bill which are down in my name look rather complicated, but they are really of a somewhat verbal character, and as I think they do not alter the general sense of the Bill I hope your Lordships will allow me to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("and "subsection (1) of section eighteen")
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after ("or") insert ("unlawful")
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ("prostitution") insert ("and as if the words or been unlawfully "carnally known' were inserted after the words 'become a prostitute,' and section eighteen of the same Act shall be read as if the words or of 'being unlawfully carnally known' were inserted after the words seduction or prostitution'").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as I amended. (No. 138.)

BRITISH INDIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL rose to call attention to the present position of the question of British Indians in South Africa; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—

1. How many Indians have been deported from South Africa.

2. Whether he still maintains that none of those deported were domiciled in South Africa.

3. Whether it is not a fact that about a third of those deported are of South African birth.

4. What is the precise nature of the arrangement made by the Transvaal Government with the Portuguese authorities at Mozambique for carrying out these deportations.

5. Whether it is not unprecedented in the annals of the Empire that British subjects should be handed over for punishment to a Foreign Government.

6. Whether the punishment of transportation is not as obsolete in British law as those of the pillory and the stocks.

7. Whether the speech made by the Governor-General of the Dominion of South Africa at Johannesburg on the 8th July may be taken to indicate that His Majesty's Government have adopted a more decided policy in regard to their Imperial obligations towards His Majesty's Indian subjects; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have not troubled your Lordships with the question of the British Indians in the Transvaal since November last. I understand that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is obliged to be absent now, has been good enough, rather than postpone the Questions, to entrust the answers to my noble friend opposite, the Lord President of the Council. The reason why I have not troubled your Lordships or the noble Earl with Questions during this long period is that I had sincerely hoped that the negotiations with the Transvaal Ministers which were begun about this time last year would have borne fruit, and would have resulted ere this in some satisfactory settlement of this deplorable question. But so far from there being any signs of settlement at
464
the present time, matters have gone from bad to worse, and I should feel ashamed of myself if I kept silence any longer. I must let your Lordships know what is going on, for the unfortunate difficulty in this matter is that it seems impossible to get either House of Parliament, or the Press, or the public to take any interest in a matter which is really one of vital Imperial importance.
The ex-President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt, when speaking at the Guildhall on May 31, made a remark which struck me as singularly true and appropriate. He said—
"You are so very busy at home that I am not sure you realise just how things are, in some places at least, abroad."
My Lords, that is absolutely true of this question, and I feel that not only should I be lacking in duty, knowing the facts as I do, if I refrained from pressing them upon your Lordships on every possible occasion, but also that no excuse is necessary for trying to bring home both to Parliament and to the people of this country the very great risk which they are running if this matter is not going to be settled. Now what is going on at the present time? The Indians who have been contending so bravely all these years and with such devotion and self-sacrifice, not for any personal or political privileges or rights but for the honour of their race, are now being deported from the country. They are being tricked out of the Transvaal by administrative action, and in a manner which allows them no appeal to the Courts of law.
The process, as I understand it, is this. These Indian gentlemen are asked whether they have registered. They reply that they have. The next question is, "Where is your certificate?" The answer is, "I have destroyed my certificate as a protest against the action of the Government when they failed to carry out the promise which we believe they made." Thereupon they are put into the train and carried across the border. As soon as they are across the border of the Transvaal they are told that they are at liberty, but that is only a way of speaking, for while the train is going at forty miles an hour, it is obviously impossible for them to alight and take advantage of the liberty which is said to be given to them. Thus they are conveyed to Delagoa Bay, and

465
there the Portuguese authorities arrest them as undesirable aliens and put them on board ship and send them off to India. I imagine—and this is one of the points that I want information upon—that the Transvaal Government pay the bill of the Portuguese Government for doing this dirty work. When these unfortunate men arrive in India they are met by friends and sympathisers who have been collecting funds all over India in order to relieve the suffering of their fellow-country-men in the. Transvaal and who arrange to have them shipped back again. When they arrive back they are forbidden to land, and the shipping companies are, of course, placed in great difficulty. Your Lordships will see that this process of shipping these men backwards and forwards between South Africa and India cannot go on indefinitely.
I believe—and here again is a point on which I want positive official information for the public—that altogether nearly 300 of these people have been deported since this policy was instituted about a year ago. Certainly within the last two months something like 120 or 130 have been so shipped off to India, and of this last lot all were domiciled and identified; that is to say, all of them had their homes in South Africa and had voluntarily registered themselves. When in November last I asked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of those who had been deported were South African born, he said lie thought that none or them were, and lie said it in a manner Which implied that if any of them were domiciled in South Africa lie would take a very different view of the question, and that it would be a matter which would demand instant and vigorous protest from himself. But the fact which I think is now established beyond doubt is that one-third of these people are actually South African born, and it follows that many of them have never seen India. South Africa is their home. They have never been anywhere else, and when they arrive in India they are naturally completely at a loss what to do. What makes matters worse is that their wives and families are left behind in South Africa, and your Lordships can well imagine what the privations and sufferings of these poor people must be.
I want your Lordships particularly to "note the effect of all this in India. We
466
learn very little about it from the newspapers, because, for reasons which I have been unable to fathom, the subject is one which is not favoured by the Press of this country. But I know, as a matter of fact, that nothing is creating greater discontent or stronger resentment among those in India than the treatment of their fellow-countrymen in South Africa at the present time. At the meeting of the Indian National Congress held at Lahore in January there was only one point which gave occasion for a general demonstration of feeling, and that was when Mr. Bownaghee appealed for funds for their fellow-sufferers in the Transvaal. That was the one appeal at that Congress which met with a sympathetic and really feeling response. Now, my Lords, will any one maintain I hat this is not a genuine grievance, or that it is not a grievance for which we as a nation have to reproach ourselves? The people of India regard the Queen's Proclamation as the great Charter of their rights and their privileges, and it is to that that they are constantly referring, and when they say in this matter—
"Our rulers and Ministers and Governors have departed from the letter and spirit of the Queen's Proclamation,"
I, for one, should be unable to deny that that was the case.
But there have been more definite and more explicit promises made actually in reference to these grievances, and I hold that a promise is a promise and must be kept. If our promises, made through the mouths of responsible Ministers, are not kept, surely we must expect that our credit and our reputation for honour and justice must suffer in India. Besides the general declarations of Statesmen of both Parties in this country and of Statesmen in South Africa, there was Lord Milner's very definite assurance given to the Indians in the Transvaal in 1903 when he assured them that once they registered themselves their domicile was established and no further registration would be necessary, and that that registration gave them the right to be there and the right to come and go. I have repeated over and over again in this House that that promise, which nobody can deny was made, has not been kept. This question is no fad of mine, although, unfortunately, I cannot get any one else to take it up and support me in it. I should like to remind your

467
Lordships of what has been said by some of the leading men in this country. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition himself said, as far back as 1899—
"A considerable number of the Queen's Indian subjects are to be found in the Transvaal, and among the many misdeeds of the South African Republic I do not know that any fills me with more indignation than its treatment of those Indians. The harm is not confined to the sufferers on the spot, for what do you imagine would be the effect produced in India when these poor people return to their country to report to their friends that the Government of the Queen Empress, so mighty and irresistible in India with its population of 300,000,000, is powerless to secure redress at the hands of a small South African State."
My Lords, that referred to the grievance of the Indians at the time of the South African Republic. But that statement applies with even greater force at the present time. If it should have been a matter of surprise and resentment to the people of India that the Government of the Queen-Empress could not secure such redress at the hands of a small South African State, how much more must they feel it when the Government cannot secure redress for them at the hands of what is now a British Colony?
There is not only Lord Lansdowne's fear of these people returning to India and spreading indignation in the country. I could quote Mr. Lyttelton and Lord Selborne. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, put it to us whether it was not our duty to see that our dusky fellow-subjects in the Transvaal, where they had a perfect right to go, should be treated as the Queen in our name had promised that they should be treated. Recently there has been a declaration on the part of the new Governor-General of South Africa. Lord Gladstone, at Johannesburg a short time ago, said he recognised that the Mahomedan and British Indians had claims on his attention, and he could not forget His Majesty's Imperial responsibility or ignore his own. Yes, but why has the duty arising out of these Imperial responsibilities not been discharged during the past ten years? Surely we have had enough of brave words on this subject without corresponding action. As I have said over and over again in this House, there have been many opportunities for settling this question. I fully admit that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies found this question infinitely more difficult of solution when he came into office. The opportunity of
468
the Transvaal loan, and other occasions, had been lost. But the noble Earl, too, has had his opportunities. He had a great opportunity last summer when the Transvaal Ministers were here on the business of the South African Constitution, when he was able to talk the matter over with them face to face, and I must say I am intensely disappointed that nothing has thus far come out of that opportunity.
I cannot help feeling that in this matter, as in other matters, it is a case of where there is a will there is a way. I quite admit that the noble Earl has secured a certain improvement in small matters. The British Indians at the present time are better treated on the railways, and their treatment in the gaols has certainly been improved. But those are not the real grievances. The real grievance is that arising on the point of honour, the grievance which results from the insulting and humiliating manner in which the policy of restricting Indian immigration is carried out. The restriction of immigration is necessary and justifiable. I have admitted that over and over again, and so have the British Indian community in the Transvaal. But what is not necessary and not justifiable—and I defy any one to say that it is—is that the Indians should, for the purposes of this policy, be classed as criminals and that we as a nation should be dishonoured and discredited in India by the action of a Colonial Government.
This is a big Imperial question. The Times remarked a short time ago that there was no truly Imperial question of greater complexity, and at the same time of more vital urgency. I quote The Times because when I have said in this House that this is an Imperial question which is both urgent and vital and which is going to produce difficulties far greater than any of us can foresee it has only provoked a smile, but the time will come, I feel certain, when circumstances will arouse the British public to a sense of the harm that is being done, and when they will demand full information on the subject and require to know why these grievances have remained unredressed and why this deplorable state of affairs has been allowed to continue all these years.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, my noble friend the Secretary of State for

469
the Colonies is unfortunately unable to be present this evening, and I desire on his behalf to express his regret for his absence, which I am sure I. regret as much as any noble Lord, because naturally he has a much more intimate knowledge of this subject than I can possibly have. I will endeavour to answer the Questions of which the noble Lord has given notice, but I am sure he will recognise that it is impossible for me to answer any of those various points he has mentioned but of which he has given no notice.
To the first Question, as to the number of Indians deported from South Africa, the answer is 257 since March 11, when the deportations commenced. In the last three months the numbers are— May, 39; June, 11; July, 4. The noble Lord next asks whether it is still maintained that no Indian domiciled in South Africa has been deported. It is stated by the Union Government that every opportunity was afforded to individuals of proving their domicile, but all failed to do so. In many instances persons ordered to be deported refused absolutely to give any information, while some stated that they desired to co to India. Whenever it appeared that a person had been resident or born in any other part of South Africa, lie was returned thither. In every case where a person to be removed claimed to have a wife and family, he was allowed facilities to take them with him at the public expense, but only in one instance was this taken advantage of.
Next the noble Lord asks whether about a third of those deported are not of South African birth. Particulars of all these cases are not available. Particulars of sixty-nine cases have been submitted to the Colonial Office, and fifty-six of these have been reported on by Ministers through the Governor-General. It is stated as an illustration of the difficulty of dealing with the question that no trace can be found of twenty-three of the names given. Twenty-five of the fifty-six were stated to have been born in South Africa, and it is reported by the Union Government that eleven of these twenty-five cannot be traced, that twelve of them refused to give any means of identification, ten stating that they did not claim South African domicile. The same statement was made by six of the others in the list who were not alleged to have been born in South
470
Africa. In only one case outside the lists is there independent evidence in the Colonial Office records tending to establish domicile in Natal, and in that case the man was removed to Natal and not to India.
In reply to Question 4, I have to say that the operative document in this matter is a by-law of the township of Lorenzo Marquez, issued on July 15, 1909, which is as follows:—
"All Asiatics entering the district by land, no matter from whence they have come, who are not provided with official documents authorising them to reside in the district or in the neighbouring colonies shall he obliged to leave this port by the first boat immediately after their entry into the township."
The noble Lord asks whether it is not unprecedented that British subjects should be handed over for punishment to a foreign Government. Might I, in the first place, say that I am not quite sure that I agree with the noble Lord in his use of the word "punishment." The actual fact is that under the Transvaal laws these Indians are put over the border of the Transvaal province and are then dealt with under the laws either of other provinces of the Union or of Mozambique. The position of Mozambique vis è vis the Transvaal is without precedent, as it contains, though a foreign country, a port—namely, Lorenzo Marquez—which is becoming to an ever increasing extent the port of the Transvaal. So long as Portuguese legislation is not differential and applies to all Asiatics alike, it is difficult for His Majesty's Government to protest.
As to Question 6, "transportation" is, think, in this connection something of an attempt to raise prejudice, and the question of British law hardly affects the case. The deportation of persons who are held to be undesirables by reason of transgression of the laws or otherwise is a recognised part of the Colonial law, not only in South Africa, but in other parts of the British Empire—Canada, for instance. With regard to Lord Gladstone's speech and the policy of His Majesty's Government, I have to say that His Majesty's Government have always recognised the gravity of the situation, and have steadily and continuously tried to find a solution. They have brought all allegations of the ill-treatment of prisoners immediately to the notice of the Transvaal and Union Governments. Endeavours to effect a.

471
settlement were made when the Transvaal Ministers were in England in connection with the Union Act. Almost as soon as the Union was inaugurated the Governor-general was requested to urge on his Ministers that a happier commencement could not be made than by arranging a settlement acceptable to all parties. The present position is that the Union Government are carefully considering the question of policy in respect of Indians lawfully resident, though they cannot agree to unrestricted immigration, and hold themselves bound to enforce the law in every case where Indians not resident with proper authority endeavour to enter or reside. As to the publication of Papers, Papers will be laid if the Union Government agree, and they will be pressed by His Majesty's Government to agree. I think that covers all the points which have been raised by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I only rise to say a word on behalf of those who sit on this Bench, because my noble friend behind me has a little assumed that he speaks alone in this House, and he regretted that he had almost a monopoly of feeling on this subject. I cannot allow that to pass on behalf of my noble friend who is not present, Lord Lansdowne, because he has spoken himself with great sympathy and feeling on this subject in previous debates. My noble friend addressed a very eloquent appeal to the House, but he stopped short of the point of telling His Majesty's Government, what it was exactly that he would desire them to do, and what course he would recommend them to take. I think he must recognise that this is a subject of very great difficulty for any Government, especially having regard to the present situation in South Africa.
I do not rise to do more than press this Upon the Government, that the whole of the Papers which have been published are very uncomfortable reading to many of us, and I should think probably to the Government themselves. We cannot help feeling that there is force in what has been urged by my noble friend behind me that an opportunity of obtaining some permanent assurances on this question was lost, at the time the Union was granted, as also at the time when the very large sum of thirty millions for which the Transvaal was indebted was remitted, and a further
472
loan of five millions was granted to them. I think that that would have been an opportunity to bring before the Government of the Transvaal the very serious feeling there is with regard to these Indian subjects of the Crown, and to press upon them that some regulation which would prevent these undoubted cases of hardship should be adopted.
I know that it is at this moment almost impossible for His Majesty's Government to give any pledge except that which the noble Earl has given on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. But I am sure my noble friend will remember that in the case of these questions of races of different colour the difficulty is not confined to South Africa. Questions have arisen in other Colonies and in other Dominions of the Crown, where a position has been taken up by the local Government as to which His Majesty's Government may not find themselves altogether in accord. But if they have not taken steps in those cases, as in this, it may, I think, be reckoned that there is no question of want of sympathy, but that any attempt to impose on a people to whom you have given free institutions any law or regulations of this character might, and probably would, be deeply resented. From the office which I had the honour to hold I personally had the opportunity of becoming specially aware of these questions which the noble Lord has so admirably voiced in this House with regard to the feeling which exists in India, and I do hope that His Majesty's Government will go as far as they reasonably can to secure to the full extent the observance of the pledges which have been given in the past, and that they will take care that what. I think my noble friend is right in saying may become a dangerous state of feeling in India should not be accentuated by any apparent remissness on the part of His Majesty's Government. I do not wish to detain your Lordships further, but I hope it will be clearly understood that if we do not speak in any more vehement fashion on this subject it is only because we do not want to make more embarrassing an already very difficult situation, and that it is from no want of sympathy with those who have suffered an undoubted hardship.
LORD AMPTHILL: I hope your Lordships will allow me to say two or three words in reply. In the first place, I want

473
to correct a slight misapprehension on the part of the noble Viscount who has just spoken. The last thing I had in my mind was to make any complaint that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition had not taken an interest in this question. I may say that he is the only member of your Lordships' House who has taken notice of it. What I complain of is that there is not a much more general interest taken in this question, such as, for instance, is taken in the management of the island of Vatersay. The noble Viscount reproached me for not suggesting a solution of the difficulty. It was not my province on this occasion to do that. I was merely asking for information in order to ascertain what the present position of affairs was. I have on many occasions had the privilege of acting as negotiator between those interested in the case of the Indians and His Majesty's Government, and I have made suggestions; and if there were occasion, and I had the opportunity, I should be able to make other suggestions again for settling this matter finally.
The noble Lord said that it was a hopeless difficulty to try and settle this matter, because we should cause resentment in the Colony. If that be a sound argument it follows that we may allow not only any Colony but any foreign nation to inflict a vital injury on us without our being able to do any thing to defend ourselves, or to prevent an injury, for fear of raising resentment. That surely is a view which your Lordships cannot accept. With regard to the answers which the noble Earl was good enough to give me, I only want to make this remark. The Transvaal Government apparently have reported that those who were deported have failed to prove, or refused to prove, their identity. That is one way of putting the case. But what actually happens is this. All these men are registered. The Transvaal Government know exactly who they are. They have got all the particulars on record, so that it is a mere pretence to say that they are not identified, and that they do not know who they are. The Transvaal Government say they do not know who they are, and therefore they must turn them out of the country. The Indians say, "You have got us registered, and you know perfectly well who we are, and therefore it is unnecessary for us to produce these certificates"; and the certificates they do not produce because they
474
have burnt them as a protest against what they regard, rightly or wrongly, as the violation of a promise on behalf of the Transvaal Government. I thank the noble Earl for his courtesy in replying to my-Questions.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

Police Superannuation (Scotland).

Census (Ireland).

Supreme Court of Judicature.

Police (Weekly Rest-Day).

Norwich Charities (No. 2).

Glasgow University (Chair of Clinical Medicine and Chair of Clinical, Surgery) Order Confirmation.

Muirhead Trust Order Confirmation.

St. Mungo's College Order Confirmation.

Land Drainage Provisional Order.

Dunfermline and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation.

Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation.

Wemyss Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation.

Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation.

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4)

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5).

Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.

Assam Railways and Trading Company.

Gowerton Gas.

Surbiton Urban District Council.

Bishop's Stortford, Harlow, and Epping Gas and Electricity.

Saint Just-in-Roseland Docks.

Southend Water.

Thorne and District Water.

Yorkshire Electric Power.

475

Great Western Railway (General Powers).

Garnant Gas.

Provident Association of London.

Tynemouth Corporation.

Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick Urban District Council.

Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company.

Central Argentine Railway.

Reading and District Electric Supply.

City of London (Tithes and Rates).

Railway Passengers Assurance Company (Transfer).

London Electric Railway Amalgamation.

Saint Mary, Stockport, Rectory.

South Lincolnshire Water.

Exmouth Gas.

Brighton and Hove Gas.

East Grinstead Gas and Water.

Egremont Urban District Council (Gas).

Exmouth Urban District Water.

Worksop Urban District Council.

Mansfield Railway.

Metropolitan Railway.

Great Central Railway.

Nottingham Corporation.

Belfast Corporation.

Cardiff Railway.

Wimbledon and Sutton Railway.

476

Blackpool Improvement.

Great Grimsby Gas.

Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.

Mallow Urban District Gas.

Midland Railway.

South Hants Water.

Warden's Divorce.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
CLYDEBANK AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
PAISLEY GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

SHIREBROOK AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.

  MOUNTAIN ASH WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, Four o'clock.