Lords Sitting of 16 August 1911

KELSO WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Kelso Water—Was presented by the Lord Pentland (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, sections 8 and 9); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 179.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (1858) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
WELLPARK (GLASGOW) CHURCH AND PARISH QUOAD SACRA ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; 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: Bill to be read 3a To-morrow. (No. 180.)
NATIONAL GALLERY AND ST. JAMES'S PARK BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be considered To-morrow.
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.
PAISLEY DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bills read 3a, and passed.
    PARTICK BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
WATSON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

CONVEYANCING BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, I need preface the Motion that this Bill be read a second time with very few words. This Bill is an old friend, or an old enemy, of your Lordships. It was in substance first introduced by the late Lord Davey. It passed this House twice, I think, substantially in the form in which it now and it has passed the House of Commons three times; but such is the inexorable difficulty in passing comparatively small Bills through Parliament under our present congestion of work that the Bill has hitherto escaped becoming an Act of Parliament. Last year it very nearly did so, but there was a difficulty with regard to Clause 3 between the building societies and the Incorporated Law Society. I considered the matter and found that there was some ground for complaint. The parties have now, however, agreed, and one of the most distinguished Judges on the Bench whom I asked to look into this difficult and complicated point has thoroughly approved, and I also approve of this clause. That is the only change in substance in the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, &c.) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, this is a simplifying and consolidating Bill dealing with the pensions of Governors, and in spite of the rather misleading short title of the Bill it would apply practically to ex-Governors of Crown Colonies and only in rare cases to ex-Governors of Dominions. Your Lordships will find in Clause 1 the qualifications that a Governor has to possess for a pension. I may mention that we have somewhat shortened the qualifying period, bringing it down to ten years. Clause 2 gives the method by which the pension is to be assessed. With regard to that, I may say that there has been a slight revision of the present classification of the various classes of Governorships. Hitherto they have been classified by the amount of the salary, but now we take into consideration certain other things, particularly the difficulties and responsibilities and also the climate of the place. I think that the alteration proposed is a considerable improvement on the present system. Clause 2 shows how the pension is assessed, and your Lordships will see that it is by that method assessed directly on the actual work that has been done, the actual posts that have been filled, in these different classes of Governorships. That is not taken into account under the present system except very indirectly, because the pension is assessed entirely from the highest post that the Governor may have held. You might have one man who had spent the whole of his eighteen qualifying years in the most important Governorships in Class 1 and another man who had been fourteen years out of the eighteen in unimportant Governorships and only four years in Class 1 Governorships; yet at the end of that time both men would be drawing the same pension. Under this Bill that cannot be done, because each Governorship that has been filled by the Governor is taken into account in assessing his pension. We have raised the maximum of the salary from £1,000 to £1,300, which brings Governorships on a par with other important offices held under the State to which these Governorships are comparable. It is not by any means every Governor who will draw the full £1,300, and although
1124
Governors will be very much better treated under this Bill than they are at the present time, it is not computed that it will entail a very large increased charge on public funds. In fact, on the total amount which is charged to public funds for this purpose—something between £11,000 and £12,000—it is thought that there will only be an increase of 5 per cent. as a result of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Bill read 2a. and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this is a simple Bill which bears quite plainly on the face of it both its objects and what are likely to be its results. Your Lordships will see that in the first clause power is taken to increase the number of Judges of the High Court in India. There has been within the last few years a very great increase in the number of cases which have been tried at Calcutta, so large that it is necessary to increase the number of Judges, there being a large number of arrears. Power is taken at the same time to increase the number of Judges in the other High Courts, not confining themselves under this Bill to the one particular case I have mentioned. In the same way and looking forward, the Government of India are anxious to take power to establish additional High Courts when it should seem to them desirable. The third clause gives power to appoint temporary Judges, with regard to which there is at the present moment some difficulty. Additional Judges cannot be appointed without being counted amongst those who are already members of the Court. This Bill met in another place with nothing but commendation and praise, and therefore I venture to hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, this Bill is an extension of the Labourers Act of 1906. The object of it is to extend the financial scope of that Act and to facilitate its working. I hope no complaint will be made that this Bill was only circulated to your Lordships yesterday, because it is in the same form in which it was introduced in the House of Commons on February 16 this year, and it comes to your Lordships' House unamended. It is a Bill upon which no Division was taken. I do not think I need say very much about the Bill, because the provisions of the Act of 1906 are well known to most of your Lordships. You will remember that that Act was for the purpose of building cottages in Ireland for labourers and for providing allotments, and a grant-in-aid was given to the local authorities to help them to repay the loans. I think by general consent that Act has conferred immense benefit on the working and agricultural classes in Ireland. The number of cottages built since the passing of the Act of 1906 is very much greater per annum. Whereas previous to that date only 21,000 cottages had been erected, or at the rate of 1,000 a year, since that Act 12,862 cottages have been built, which, of course, in four and a-half years gives a very much larger proportion.
The reason for the introduction of this Bill is that the funds available under the Act of 1906 are not sufficient to meet the demand for housing in rural districts. There are at the present moment schemes proposed by rural districts for the erection of 3,550 additional cottages and the acquisition of 1,116 plots of land for labourers at an estimated cost, of £679,000. This cannot be done unless an additional capital sum is authorised. The finance of the Act of 1906 was to advance £4,250,000 to the local authorities from the Land Commission at the ordinary annuity of 3¼ per cent, spread over a period of sixty-eight and a-half years. The advantage of that over the previous Acts, starting with the Act of 1883, was that the annuity which the local authorities had to pay for the loan was very much reduced. Whereas it used to stand at about 4½ per cent., the effect of patting the loan on the basis I have described was to relieve the
1126
local authorities to the extent of 1¼ per cent. But the Act went further than that, as your Lordships will remember. It saddled the local authorities with 64 per cent, of the annual annuities, 36 per cent, being undertaken by the Government—that is to say, 16 per cent, was charged on the Labourers' Cottages Fund and 20 per cent, came out of the Ireland Development Grant.
The demand now is for a further increase of capital to enable these schemes to be carried through; but it will be observed that further capital cannot be granted unless further provision is made for carrying out that part of the guaranteed grant-in-aid to the local authorities on the basis of the previous Acts. With a view of meeting this, in Clause 1 of the Bill your Lordships will see that certain sums are set aside for the purpose of increasing the annual grant under the Labourers' Cottages Fund, and money is taken from the dormant portion of the Suitors' Fund in the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland to the extent of £36,000 in cash and £30,000 in Consols. This transfer from the Suitors' Fund to the Local Government Board in Ireland is to be invested by them, and the income arising therefrom is added to the Fund which already exists under the name of the Labourers' Cottages Fund. If there should be a deficiency in the Suitors' Fund in the Supreme Court as the result of this transfer, that deficiency will be met out of the Consolidated Fund, but of course it is not expected that there ever will be a deficiency. The cash balance at the Bank of Ireland, out of which the £36,000 cash is taken, stands at £110,000, so that a large balance is left there. The Suitors' Account No. 1, out of which £20,000 in Consols is taken, has a sum of £34,000 in Consols; and the Unclaimed Order and Residue Account, out of which £10,000 is taken, stands at £15,000. Consequently, in spite of this depletion, large balances remain under all those heads.
The second clause extends the capital sum which may be loaned for this purpose from £4,250,000 to £5,250,000, with a proviso that should any deficiency arise, with regard to the contribution of 16 per cent, made by the Government under the Labourers' Cottages Fund, that deficiency shall be borne by the rates—that is to say, the 16 per cent, might conceivably be reduced to, say, 15 per cent. That, of course, is not anticipated, but this

1127
provision has had to be inserted in case of such a deficiency arising. Clause 3 increases the Development Grant—which. as I have mentioned, is responsible for 20 per cent. of the annual annuities—from £28,000 to £34,000 a year, and thus throws an additional charge of £6,000 a year on the Exchequer. That is the only additional charge which the taxpayer will bear in connection with this Bill. Clause 4 deals with the power of investment; Clause 5 with the right of removing insanitary houses; Clause 6 with the payment of purchase money and compensation into Court, and Clause 7 with matters connected with the evidence of Local Government Board inspectors.
The main provisions of this Bill are financial, and it is nothing more than an extension of the previous Act so that rural districts in Ireland will have an additional £1,000,000 which they can borrow for the purpose of erecting labourers' cottages. This is a Bill which raised no controversy in the other House. The original Act is generally regarded to have benefited the rural population of Ireland to an incalculable extent, and I believe there is a general feeling, which I hope your Lordships will share, that this work should be continued and extended.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the principal provisions of this Bill, as the noble Lord has told us, deal with matters connected with the finance of the Labourers Acts, and, so far as I was able to follow him, they seem to be unobjectionable nor were they provisions with which this House would naturally much concern itself. But the noble Lord passed over without any explanation at all one clause in the Bill which does seem to require a little elucidation. I refer to Clause 5, which permits the demolition, upon an Order from the Local Government Board, of any dwelling-house certified to be insanitary, provided suitable accommodation has been obtained or is obtainable by the inmate of the house elsewhere. It is no doubt the case that there are still a great number of extremely bad houses in Ireland, but, on the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the number of those houses is diminishing at a very great. rate. I looked before I came to the House at the statistics, and I find these remarkable
1128
figures. Whereas in 1871 there were in Ireland no fewer than 227,000 houses of the fourth class—fourth class houses, I understand, are mud cabins with one window—the number had fallen by the year 1901 to less than 10,000. I mention that because it shows, I think, that by a natural and most satisfactory process the number of these houses is diminishing, whereas a corresponding increase in the better class of houses is noticeable in the same statistics.
What I want to ask is this. Where a labourer's house is found to be unfit for human habitation it may be almost summarily demolished provided it is shown that suitable accommodation is available for the inhabitant of that house elsewhere. You may say that if an Englishman's house is his castle an Irishman's cabin is not less his castle, and he might have a very great objection to the demolition of his house, even if it was a very bad one, if the accommodation offered him was not in an equally convenient place. Suppose his work lies in the neighbourhood, it would not in the least comfort him to have his house knocked down and to be told that he must go and inhabit a better house in another place. I should like the noble Lord to tell us what is really the change in the law which this clause makes. The same question is dealt, with in Section 17 Of the Act of 1885, and it would be interesting to know, for it does not appear at first sight, what really is the change which it is desired to effect by means of this fifth clause.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, I did not mean to slur over this point, and I have great pleasure in telling the noble Marquess exactly what is effected by this clause. May I say first of all, that if the noble Marquess will look at Clause 5, subsection (1), he will observe that no house can be demolished unless an inspector of the Local Government Board is satisfied that "suitable house accommodation is obtainable elsewhere." It is only in those conditions that, the demolition of a house can be ordered under this clause, and that itself, I think, is sufficient protection against any ruthless destruction of Irishmen's cabins.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Is the noble Lord satisfied that the word "suitable" covers the situation of the alternative house?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I feel pretty clear that that is the intention of the wording. The present situation is this. Under Section 17 of the Labourers Act, 1885, it is provided that if the inspector of the Local Government Board, at a local inquiry as to an improvement scheme, finds a house occupied by a labourer to be unfit for habitation he may report it to the Local Government Board. It then becomes the duty of the sanitary authority, when they have provided other house accommodation for the occupant, to serve notice on the owner prohibiting the unfit house being used as a dwelling-house, and if the owner disobeys the order a further order may be made to prevent the house being used as a dwelling-house or requiring its demolition; but it has in practice been found impossible to prevent those houses remaining standing and being occupied, and it is desirable to give additional powers to local authorities with regard to this class of property. Otherwise the provisions of the Act of 1906 would be very largely destroyed. It is now proposed that, on the report of the inspector, the Local Government Board may direct the district council to require the owner to demolish the house without option, and if the owner makes default the authority are in a position to carry out the work of demolition themselves and to recover the cost from the owner. There is a precedent for this to be found in the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, in the Working Classes Act, 1903, and in the Housing Act, 1890. In those cases power is granted to a local authority to recover costs from the owner for work which they have carried out for him in default of his doing it himself. So we are proceeding on precedents already recognised, and it is hoped that by the strengthening of the hands of the local authorities in respect of the demolition of this unsatisfactory class of property the real intention of these and preceding Acts may be carried out.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not think it
1130
irrelevant or audacious on my part. if I venture to take this occasion to offer a slight addition to the account which was given by the noble and learned Viscount the Secretary of State for War on the Second Reading of this Bill as to the basis on which the appellate jurisdiction of this House rests. The noble Viscount said—
"By a process analogous to the process by which the House of Commons secured control of finance at the expense of this House, only put into force in a still more drastic fashion, this House has gradually acquired complete control of the appellate administration of justice. That is the case in regard to the United Kingdom."
Later the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack said—
"This House, having borrowed from the Crown the authority which is still called the decision of the King in Parliament, decides all appeals from the United Kingdom."
I conceive that that is a sufficiently accurate description of what happened up to forty years ago, but neither noble and learned Lord mentioned that in 1873 this House passed the Supreme Court of Judicature Act by which the whole of its appellate jurisdiction was abolished. Parliament, having made that enactment. thought better of it; the operation of the Act was deferred, and eventually in 1876 the Appellate Jurisdiction Act was passed by which the appellate jurisdiction of this House was revived under improved conditions and with certain amendments. In those circumstances I do not think that the jurisdiction of this House eau be correctly described as borrowed from the Crown. I submit that it has been conferred by Statute.
There is one other point which is, perhaps, worth mentioning in view of the discussion which took place on the Second Reading of this Bill. By Section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act it is enacted that an appeal shall not be heard and determined unless there are present at such hearing not less than three Lords of Appeal, but the Act contains nothing which would prevent any lay Lord from exercising the right of sitting and hearing the appeal and taking part in the decision. I presume that there was a reason for that. It was probably in order to allow Peers specially qualified to sit occasionally as assessors. But, whatever the reason may have been it has never caused any inconvenience, because as a matter of fact no lay Lord ever does exercise the right. In these circumstances

1131
it was quite incorrect for Mr. John Burns to have said that this House is not satisfied with being the highest Court of Appeal. The real fact is that this House, having the right to be the highest Court of Appeal, scrupulously abstains from acting in that way, and leaves it to the Judges. That is not a matter which it is very easy to bring home to the great mass of the electors. I think the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack mistook their attitude of mind when he said that this House is charged with taking a part in unpopular judgments. It is not supposed that this House declares the law; it is supposed that by some unicameral method it makes the law, and the legislative and judicial functions of the House are confused. I believe the late Lord Selborne, on the Second Reading of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, called attention to the possibility that this might happen. It undoubtedly has happened, and I think it is well worth consideration in what way the impression can be removed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): It is quite true, as my noble friend has said, that the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1873 gave statutory recognition to the judicial functions of this House. In what I said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I was referring to the origin of that jurisdiction, which any of your Lordships who are interested in the subject will find set out in Mr. Pike's History of the House of Lords. It is a very old jurisdiction, and how it got transferred from the King in his curia to the King in his Parliament and then to this House is a matter which is buried in considerable historical obscurity. But. there it is. It is quite true that the jurisdiction on the appellate side is a totally different thing from the legislative jurisdiction, and any confusion there has been in the minds of people between the two has arisen from ignorance. Whether hereafter it may be possible to set the seal on the propositions of, this Bill by transferring the jurisdiction to a Supreme Court of Appeal for the Empire is a different question. That, as I said before, seems to me to be the reasonable and natural outcome of the situation. This Bill only deals with the substance and paves the way for Parliament, if hereafter it should think fit, to take that course.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Amendment standing in my name is a purely formal one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 14, after ("Ordinary") insert ("(with such salary as in this Act provided)").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, with your permission I wish to make an explanation. My attention has been called to the fact that in describing this Bill to your Lordships yesterday I used words which were not strictly accurate. What I said was that this Bill was introduced by Mr. Haves Fisher in another place, and that after consideration this Bill, together with the Bill of the Government, was referred to a Standing Committee. What I ought to have said was that this Bill was introduced by Captain Jessel in another place, although the Second Reading was moved by Mr. Haves Fisher. I have been requested to make that correction.
Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

TRUSTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) BILL. [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have several Amendments to move at this stage. This Bill was brought in by Lord Avebury, and the purpose of it is to provide that certain corporations which now, under the Public Trustee Act, are licensed to act as custodian trustees should be at liberty to act as trustees at large and also to make charges. I informed Lord Avebury that it was necessary that I should consider the Bill. As soon as I had time I did so, and I have been in communication with those very influential

1133
people in the City of London who are moving to allow the great banks to take this position and they have consented to the Amendments which stand on the Paper in my name.
The purpose and substance of these Amendments is two-fold. In the first place, I do not think that because a corporation is licensed under the Public Trustee Act to become a custodian trustee it would therefore be right to allow it, merely, at the motion of, for instance, an existing trustee or one of the beneficiaries, to take the position of trustee absolutely and to be at liberty to make charges for the care of the trust. Therefore I have provided in these Amendments that they cannot do so in any particular case except by leave of a Judge, which is very easily and cheaply obtained in Chambers. If the Judge gives his permission in a particular case he will be satisfied, no doubt, of the solvency of the trustees and of the propriety of allowing this to be done.
The second Amendment is this. As your Lordships are aware, the Public Trustee has the Treasury at his back. If he commits a breach of trust the Treasury has to act. In the ease of many of these corporations which are licensed to be custodian trustees, their wealth may be sufficient to be an adequate guarantee, but it is very undesirable that because they are licensed to act as custodian trustees people should be left under the belief that in trusting them they have the public guarantee of the Treasury at their back. Therefore I propose to insert a proviso to the effect that every prospectus, circular, advertisement, or other document issued by or on behalf of a licensed corporation and relating to the undertaking of trusts shall, if such prospectus, circular, advertisement, or other document contains any reference to the Public Trustee or to the Public Trustee Act, 1906, contain a separate and distinct statement that no liability attaches to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect of any act or omission of the licensed corporation.
I confess that, although one is very anxious to yield to the opinion of men like Lord Avebury and other great authorities, it is not without sonic degree of misgiving that, even with these Amendments, I contemplate the departure from
1134
the wholesome rule that a trustee cannot make a profit out of his trust. However, that is the purpose of the Bill. The Amendments safeguard the matter in the way I have described. Discretion is left to the Judge, and I hope that that safeguard may prove satisfactory.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, clause 1, line 12, after ("that") insert ("a corporate trustee shall not be entitled to act under this section as a new or additional trustee unless appointed to act as such by the Court; provided also that").
Page 2, clause 1, line 10, after ("liberty") insert ("if authorised by the creator of the trust or by the Court").
Page 3, clause 3, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
Page 4, clause 5, lines 32, 33, leave out ("any other licensed corporation") and insert ("a trustee").
Page 4, clause 5, line 39, leave out ("trust property") and insert ("retiring corporation").
Page 4, clause 5, line 40, leave out ("its") and insert ("his").
Page 5, after clause 5, insert a new clause:—
"Every prospectus, circular, advertisement, or other document issued by or on behalf of a licensed corporation and relating to the undertaking of trusts shall, if such prospectus, circular, advertisement, or other document contains any reference to the Public Trustee or to the Public Trustee Act, 1906, contain a separate and distinct statement that no liability attaches to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in respect. of any act or omission of the licensed corporation."
Page 5, clause 6, leave out lines 12, 13, 14, and 15, and in line 16 leave out ("custodian trustee and which").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF CHICHESTER: I understand that the noble and learned Earl has communicated all these Amendments to Lord Avebury and to Lord Goschen, both of whom are unfortunately ill, and that they have agreed to the Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 181.)

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (1858) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Earl Beauchamp). (No. 182.)
LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law relating to Lunacy in Scotland—Was presented by The Lord Pentland; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 183.)

THE LABOUR DISPUTES.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg to ask the noble Viscount opposite a Question of which I have given him private notice. I am sure all of us must have read with the gravest concern and apprehension the reports in the newspapers to-day with regard to the state of things in the industrial market. We read not only of serious events which have taken place, but of not less serious events which appear to be impending unless the spirit of conciliation fortunately comes over those most concerned. I would venture to ask the noble Viscount whether he can tell us anything of interest either as to the facts or as to the precautions which His Majesty's Government are disposed to take in the event of the aspect of the case becoming more serious. The noble Viscount will understand that at such a moment I should not think of pressing him to give to the House any information which it might be in the public interest not to give, and it is with that limitation that I put the Question.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I may say this. About the question of the railway companies it is not desirable that I should say anything. The Board of Trade is engaged in conference with those concerned and has been busy all day; indeed, it has been so from early morning to midnight for some few days in dealing with this question. What the outcome may be we cannot tell. As regards the general situation in the London docks, all I can say is that the situation to-day is no worse. There is a good deal of business going on. There has arisen, unfortunately, a difficulty over the claim of the men employed at the Albert Dock to be engaged at the gates. The object of that is obviously that only union men shall be engaged, and over that friction has arisen and controversy is
1136
proceeding. Passing to Liverpool, your Lordships were informed by the newspapers of what happened yesterday, and the accounts are substantially correct. A violent attack was made on the prison vans and had to be repelled by force. The troops were used and firing took place, and unfortunately life was lost; but no further disturbance occurred during the evening, and this morning, according to a telegram which I have had, all has remained still quiet. Convoys of food are being got out regularly. If violence of that kind—utterly unreasonable, turbulent violence—is repeated the policy of the Government is to put it down and to use all the force necessary for the purpose, and the disposition of both police and troops ought to be adequate for the purpose. As regards Manchester, business is practically at a standstill there, although there is no disturbance. Two battalions of Infantry and a Cavalry regiment are at hand and ready to be moved in if it should prove necessary. I trust that it will not prove necessary, for the use of military force is to be deplored if it can be avoided. At the same time, with scenes such as we have witnessed there may be no other way. As regards other places, at Cardiff last night there was a disturbance, but this morning all was reported quiet. These are the salient features of to-day's situation. We are watching very closely what is going on, and we are in constant communication with all parts of the country where disturbance is apprehended, and all precautions that we can take are being taken; but it is well, I think, to say no more about details which change from hour to hour.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter-past Four o'clock.