Lords Sitting of 30 March 1911

VISCOUNT HALDANE.
The Right Honourable Richard Burdon Haldane, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, having been created Viscount Haldane of Cloan, in the county of Perth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES BRIDGE BILL.
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order) and suspended for this day's sitting.
LORD LANSDOWNE'S MOTION.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be suspended for this day's sitting, and that the Motion of the Marquess of Lansdowne have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day (The Lord President (V. Morley of Blackburn));agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE PREROGATIVE OF THE CROWN
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE rose to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty that, with a view to the Reform of the present Constitution of the House of Lords, His Majesty would be graciously pleased to consent to a Bill being introduced limiting the Prerogative and Powers of the Crown in so far as they relate to the creation of Peerages and to the issue of Writs of Summons to Lords Spiritual and Temporal to attend and sit and vote in the House of Lords."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in order to induce the House to accept this Motion it is, I think, necessary that I should establish two propositions. The first is that the Bill which we intend to lay upon the Table of this House is a Bill which affects the Royal Prerogative. The second proposition is that it is right and proper in dealing with a Bill of that description that the assent of the Crown should be obtained before its introduction. With regard to the first proposition, I do not think that it will be necessary for me to occupy much of your Lordships' time. It must be obvious to all of those who have watched the Constitutional controversy which has lately been proceeding that any Bill dealing with the reconstitution of this House would be certain to affect the Royal Prerogative. It is a common feature in all schemes of House of Lords reform, certainly in the schemes which have been put forward by our supporters, and I think, even in those. I will hardly say schemes, but suggestions of which we have been sometimes allowed to catch an elusive glimpse, propounded by His Majesty's Government—it is common to all those suggestions that a reformed House of Lords must also be a House of Lords very much reduced in numbers If that be so it follows at once that there must be at that point a limitation of the Royal Prerogative. For example, no matter to what figure the reconstituted House might be reduced, it would follow that there must be a certain number of Peers who are at present entitled to receive writs of summons to sit and vote in this House who would no longer be entitled to receive them. It would follow also that any fresh Peerages created by the Sovereign would have to be created upon the condition that the mere possession of a Peerage did not carry with it the right to sit and vote in this House.
But that is not the only point at which our Bill will touch the Royal Prerogative. I think your Lordships will not differ from me when I say that there is room for almost infinite variety in the treatment of this problem of House of Lords reform; but those who have watched the discussions will not differ from me when I say that there are certain features which every one will expect to find in the kind of Bill which we shall introduce. I think every one will expect to find in our Bill a proposal that the new House shall contain an element consisting of Peers possessing a certain quail-

765
fication, and chosen by your Lordships from amongst the members of this House. I think most people will also expect to find that the reconstituted House ought, in our view, to contain a nominated element. Besides that, I think they will be prepared to find that there will under our proposals be an element elected from outside the House, through machinery which will be in direct relation with popular opinion We believe that the House can be reconstituted upon the kind of lines which I have indicated in such a manner as to produce a highly efficient; Second Chamber, and also a Second Chamber in which political parties will be much more evenly balanced than they are at present, a condition which I believe is regarded as indispensable by all House of Lords reformers. But, my Lords, it is surely obvious that no useful purpose could he served by establishing a balance of this kind if it were to remain possible for the Crown, on the advice of the Ministers of the day, deliberately to upset that balance by a large additional creation of Peers, and I therefore submit that at that point also it will be necessary for us to make proposals which will undoubtedly have the effect of restricting the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. I have said enough I think to show the House that at certain points it is inevitable that our Bill will involve some interference with the Royal Prerogative.
I now pass to the other question, whether it is necessary in dealing with a Bill of that kind that the assent of the Sovereign should be received before the Bill is introduced into your Lordships' House. As to this we have naturally done what we could to satisfy ourselves in regard to the precedents which have a bearing on the case under examination, and I will with the permission of the House refer very briefly to one or two of them I find in the first place the precedent which was created as long ago as the year 1719 in the reign of George I when a Bill dealing with the question of the Peerage was introduced by the Sunderland Ministry. The motive with which that Bill was introduced was not so much to interfere with the right of the then Sovereign to create Peers, but to render it impossible for his successor by the creation of Peerages to overwhelm the Whig majority which was then to be found in this House. The introduction of that Bill was preceded by an Address to the Crown. The King gave his consent, and intimated that—
766
"he has so much at heart the settling the Peerage of the whole Kingdom upon such a foundation as may secure the freedom and constitution of Parliament in all future ages that he is willing that his Prerogative stand not in the way of so great and necessary a work."
Your Lordships' House then passed the Bill, but it was rejected in the House of Commons.
I proceed to cite another case that occurred at a much later date, the case of the Bill of 1844 dealing with the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. The introduction of that Bill, which undoubtedly affected the Prerogative of the Crown, was not preceded by any Address. The Bill passed its Second Reading in this House, and it was only on the Third Reading that the Duke of Wellington pointed out that the Prerogative of the Crown was involved, and said that the King would not be advised to give his consent to the Bill. There was an interesting discussion, in the course of which the Lord Chancellor (Lord Lyndhurst) expressed a doubt whether he ought to put the Bill to the House, and suggested the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the question. In the discussion which followed Lord Cottenham and Lord Campbell laid it down that questions involving the interests of the Crown could not be even debated without the consent of the Sovereign. A Committee was appointed, and reported that the consent of the Crown was certainly necessary, although it might be given at various stages. Eventually the Bill was withdrawn.
The next case which I have to mention is that of the Irish Peerage Bill of 1868 A Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in that year by Sir Colman O' Loghlen dealing with the Irish Peerage, and in that case, as in the former one which I mentioned, no previous Address was moved to the Crown. On the Second Reading Mr. Gathorne-Hardy for the then Government refused to advise the Crown to consent and Speaker Denison ruled that the Bill could not pass the Third Reading until the Royal consent had been obtained. The Bill was thereupon withdrawn. The precedents up to this point, while they show that the concurrence of the Crown is essential in the case of Bills dealing with the Royal Prerogative, certainly seem to suggest that that consent may be obtained, not necessarily before the introduction of a Bill, but at any stage in its progress through the two Houses of Parliament.
I now come to a later and a much more important precedent, and one which I think your Lordships will regard as bearing very materially upon the matter which we are now discussing. It arose in connection with Mr. Gladstone's proposed legislation in the year 1868 for the Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. In the month of May of that year Mr. Gladstone moved three Resolutions. The first declared that the Established Church should cease to exist in Ireland, the second that it was expedient that the exercise of public patronage in relation to the Established Church of Ireland should cease, and the third ran thus—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty humbly to pray that with a view to preventing by legislation during the present session the creation of new personal interests through the exercise of any public patronage Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament her interest in the temporalities of the Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, and other ecclesiastical dignities and benefices in Ireland and in the custody thereof."
In moving his Resolutions Mr. Gladstone, who at that time was still in Opposition, dwelt particularly on his desire that the most careful regard should be had to regularity in dealing with these matters. He used these words—
"I am aware that, according to the rules of the house of Commons, it would be competent to a member to introduce into the House, with leave from the House, a Bill which might affect the rights of the Crown without the previous assent of the Crown having been obtained. Such things have been done on certain occasions by a Government when it has happened, from the smallness of the subject matter or from inadvertence, that notice has not been taken of the fact previous to the introduction of the Bill." And again, Mr. Gladstone said, "Bills of that nature have been introduced by individuals not belonging to the Government even when they were Bills to which the Government did not assent and have been passed through certain of their stages without the giving of that assent on the part of the Crown."
He went on, however, to say that—
"In this instance the case is different. The interest of the Crown in this case is not merely a proprietary interest, but one of wide and far-reaching import. And also this is a Bill which, although it is not proposed by the Government, would be, I may say, proposed on behalf of a very large proportion of the members of this House acting together generally in its support. That being so, I have felt that it was my duty not to claim the entire liberty which the House has accorded to its members, but to ask the House to present an Address requesting the assent of the Crown and allowing us to deliberate upon this subject before any Motion be made in the House for the introduction of the Bill."
768
That statement of Mr. Gladstone's seems to us to sum up with admirable clearness what ought to be regarded as the law and practice of Parliament in dealing with these Bills in which the Royal Prerogative is concerned. Mr. Gladstone having made that statement, Mr. Disraeli, for the Government, intimated that—
"when these Resolutions have been properly passed, they will be dealt with after clue consideration by the Government, and Her Majesty will be properly advised with respect to them."
The Queen's consent was subsequently intimated, and the Bill dealing with the temporalities of the Irish Church, and known as the Suspensory Bill, was passed by the House of Commons It was, your Lordships will remember, rejected in this House.
I will only refer to one other case, a more recent one, which also deals with the question of the Peerage. I find that in the year 1875 Lord Stanhope, in order to prepare the way for a Bill dealing with the Irish Peerage which he intended to bring in, moved a humble Address to the Crown begging Her Majesty to renounce her undoubted prerogative of creating Irish Peers The form of the Motion was objected to by Lord Cairns, and the wording of it was subsequently amended so as to make it run thus—
"An Address praying Her Majesty that the power conferred on her under the Act of Union for the creation of Irish Peers may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament of any measure relating thereto that may be introduced."
To that Address a reply from the Crown was received in which it was stated that Her Majesty did not desire that the powers reserved to her by the Act of Union should stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament of any measure that might be introduced on the subject. I cite this case because it is the most recent and because it appears to show that at that time this was considered the proper and usual mode of dealing with a Bill affecting the Prerogative of the Crown.
May I sum up in half a dozen words the conclusions which these precedents suggest to us? They seem to us to suggest that it is certainly a breach of the law of Parliament to pass through either House a Bill affecting the Prerogative of the Crown without the assent of the Crown. I do not

769
think any one will dispute that. We also conclude from these precedents that, although this assent may be signified at any stage, it is the proper course to obtain it before the introduction of the Bill. But we draw this further conclusion in reference to cases where the Bill is introduced, or is sought to be introduced, not by the Government, but by the Opposition The case of the introduction of such a Bill by the Opposition is clearly a different case from the introduction of a similar Bill by the Government, because it is perfectly fair to assume that if the Government makes itself responsible for the Bill it can at any moment count upon the assent of the Crown. That, of course, is not true when the Bill is moved from the Opposition side of the House, and it certainly does not seem fair and reasonable that, in such a case, a Bill should not only be introduced, but, perhaps, carried through several stages and laboriously debated under conditions which would expose the movers of the Bill to find themselves estopped by the Government, who would only have to signify, at whatever moment might seem fit to them, that the Royal Assent was riot likely to be forthcoming.
We therefore draw the conclusion that if a Bill affecting the Royal Prerogative is brought forward by the Opposition it is indispensable that the Royal Assent should be signified before the Bill has been actually introduced, and, my Lords, that is the course which we propose, with the permission of the House, to adopt this evening. I venture to express my hope that that course will meet with the approval of both sides of the House, and that it will be regarded as a course consistent with the respect which is due to the Crown, in accordance with the best traditions of Parliament, and certainly as the course which would be for the general convenience of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty that, with a view to the Reform of the present Constitution of the House of Lords, His Majesty would be graciously pleased to consent to a Bill being introduced limiting the Prerogative and Powers of the Crown in so far as they relate to the creation of Peerages and to the issue of Writs of Summons to Lords Spiritual and Temporal to attend and sit and vote in the
770
House of Lords,—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, the noble Marquess advanced two propositions as justifying the Motion which has now been presented to your Lordships The first of those propositions was founded upon this—that it was a matter of common knowledge that, in the measure which the noble Marquess proposes to introduce by and by, there will be proposals impinging on or impairing if you like, the prerogatives and powers of the Crown. The noble Marquess used a curious expression as to us who sit on this side, as to His Majesty's Government. He said even we, from the elusive glimpses that your Lordships have been able to obtain of what we want will probably have some proposals that would touch the Prerogative of the Crown. "Elusive glimpses" struck me as a very curious phrase considering the observations the noble Marquess himself made and the short hints he gave us of what will be the Bill which we have waited for so long, which we shall welcome, and which we shall expect with so much interest. "Elusive glimpses!" It is a matter of common knowledge that the Referendum has been part—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am very reluctant to interrupt the noble Viscount, but he will remember that in that part of my observations I was dealing with proposals to reduce the number of the House. I said that that proposal was common to schemes which had been proposed on this side, and that I believed that any scheme which had been suggested on the other side also contemplated a reduction in the numbers of the House. That was my argument.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I do not deny that for a moment, and I do not wish to press the point; but the phrase "elusive glimpses" caught my ear, because it is a matter of common knowledge that for a considerable time the Referendum found favour with the party opposite. Important statesmen sitting on that Bench have been advocating Referendum in the country, and yet Referendum, the moment it ceases, to be an elusive glimpse and takes the more useful shape

771
of a Bill, vanishes and proves to be an elusive glimpse indeed.
I pass to the more serious second proposition of the noble Marquess. He said a few days ago, when he first mentioned this Motion, that the time was short for proceeding with it to-day. I make no complaint of that. The time has been rather short, but we, like the noble Marquess himself, have made the best use of that time. Our collection of precedents, and our reading of them, does not, I think, vary very much, if at all, from the reading of the noble Marquess. I was glad to note at the end of his remarks that the noble Marquess drew a difference, which is no doubt of great importance, between Motions made in reference to Bills moved by Ministers of the Crown and those moved either by private members, as I think Lord Stanhope was at that time, or by members of the official Opposition. There are one or two precedents which, perhaps, the House will allow me to add to the list of the noble Marquess. In 1833 a famous Bill which the noble Marquess has often heard of, I am sure, was mentioned in the King's Speech—a measure dealing with the Church temporalities in Ireland. The King's Assent to the financial proposals in that Bill was not signified until the House went into Committee. On that famous occasion objection was taken on the Second Reading that the King had not formally placed his interest at the disposal of Parliament, and a communication to that effect was afterwards made in order to meet the view which the noble Marquess is now pressing.
Then there was the case of the St. Asaph and Bangor Bishopric. The noble Marquess described that, so far as I can judge, with perfect accuracy, but he did not mention that the Committee which this House appointed to search the precedents made a report and that report came to this: That no effective and guiding precedents could be found. Those proceedings are all to be found on page 449 of Sir Erskine May. Here is a smaller affair which the noble Marquess omitted, justifiably enough. In 1866 there was a Second Reading of a small Bill called the Blackwater Bridge Bill. The point was raised that the Crown's interest in sonic of the proprietary rights would be affected if that Bill became law. The point was pressed that the
772
Queen's Assent to the passage of the Bill had not been signified, and the result was that the Speaker declined to put the question. That, again, is more or less on the noble Marquess's side. On Sir Colman O'Loghlen's Peerages (Ireland) Bill, which was withdrawn on Second Reading, it was intimated that Her Majesty's consent had not been given.
With the noble Marquess's account of the transactions in the Irish Church case of Mr. Gladstone, the details of which are so well known to many noble Lords now sitting in this House, I have nothing to quarrel with. I should not have expected to have any reason to quarrel with his version of a transaction so well known and so familiar. But I would point out this difference between the Address moved by Mr. Gladstone and the Motion of the noble Marquess. What Mr. Gladstone wanted was that during the interval between the Resolution and the passage of the Bill which he hoped to bring in and get through Parliament no new and fresh interests in the Church of Ireland should be created. He aimed there at a perfectly definite, substantial, practical, and actual object. The noble Marquess's Motion is different in character from that. I am not complaining of it on that account. I am only remarking on it as we are considering the Constitutional question. His Motion does not concern material practical interests of the kind that were dealt with in Mr. Gladstone's Resolution. It is a considerable difference, and the time may come some day or another when it may be a difference with real substance in it. I will not dwell on the point whether it is or is not necessary, or more comformable to such precedents as we can find, that this Assent of the Sovereign should be procured and intimated before the introduction of the Bill, or at some later stage. So far as I can make out, the precedents show that what was said by Lord Cottenham and Lord Campbell was that it was immaterial at what stage the Assent of the Crown was given to a Bill. The only necessity, I gather, was that it should be gained before the Bill was submitted to the Sovereign for assent.
It is not necessary, however, to-night for me to express any opinion as to the Constitutional question—whether it is or is not necessary to procure the Assent of

773
the Crown before the introduction of the Bill. I am not disposed to ask whether it might not have been more convenient to have postponed this Address which the noble Marquess has moved to a later stage of the Bill, which we have not yet seen and of which we have had only glimpses, elusive or otherwise. I think it would have been more convenient, but it is not a point worth quarrelling about. I will only say quite frankly that the course which the noble Marquess has thought it his duty to take seems to us to be a justifiable course.
The Government have no desire whatever to place any technical difficulty or formality—if formality it be—in the way of the introduction and discussion in this House of the Bill which the noble Marquess promises. We shall offer our advice to the Sovereign to assent to the prayer of the noble Marquess's Address. Of course, the noble Marquess was justified in referring to legislative projects of his own. Perhaps I may be permitted to add that it will be distinctly recognised that this assent to the proposal of the noble Marquess does not pledge us, the Government, in any way as to the future advice that it might be our duty to offer to the Sovereign whenever the proper time comes for our advice to be sought or given. We are neither expressing nor even intimating any opinion as to that advice. We reserve complete freedom of action. I will only say that, whatever discussion may take place in your Lordships' House on any proposals for altering the constitution of this House, or for affecting the constitution of the House of Lords, or for affecting the prerogatives and power of the Crown—the Government in assenting to that have no intention whatever of being parties to any postponement of their own proposals embodied in the Parliament Bill.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I hoped rather than expected that the answer of the noble Viscount to the Motion of the noble Marquess would have been somewhat (Efferent. I should have been glad had the noble Viscount seen his way to refuse the concurrence of the Government to the proposition of the noble Marquess. For I have always been stoutly opposed, and shall always be stoutly opposed, to a great proposition for Constitutional reform emanating from any
774
private member, however distinguished he may be, or, indeed, from any source except that of the Government itself. What is the use of bringing forward a measure which you know that by no possibility can you carry into law? It may have strategical advantages—of those I am no judge. But I believe it to be a great mistake to launch a scheme of this kind. however perfect it may be, which you cannot carry into effect until you are seated on the Government Benches, and which, therefore, is only in the nature of an air-balloon floating perhaps front this House, but which certainly will come to the usual aeronautical catastrophe in the other, and which will therefore remain only as a pledge of your ideas and a your intentions, which were, I think, amply set forth during the debates on the Resolutions of this House last year. I submit this further inconvenience, that this scheme cannot satisfy everybody, however perfect it may be. As a matter of fact, it is not likely to satisfy many. A scheme for a reform of the House of Lords—a task of such enormous difficulty and complexity—should not, I humbly submit, be put forward except by a Government endowed with a majority and with the authority of Government and supported by a loyal majority and so able to carry its plan, whatever its imperfections may be, into effect.
For that reason, my Lords, I do not welcome, although I am a Referendum man in a limited sense, the effort of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in the private position which he holds, to introduce a measure dealing with that enormous question. Laudable as that effort was, I do not think upon the whole the result can altogether have been reassuring to others who are preparing great schemes of Constitutional reform and who occupy private positions in this House. So much I am bound to say. I have said it often enough in speeches on House of Lords reform already. Nothing has occurred to change my views. But I feel bound to state them at this early stage of the proceedings. I should add also that I do not think that the precedents set out by my noble friend quite supported his contention that it was a necessary precedent to the Bill to move this Address. The only one, I think, which is absolutely on all fours with his proposal is that of my uncle, Lord Stanhope, whom I well remember

775
introducing the Bill in question. He was a private member, but he was proposing a Constitutional measure of a much more limited scope than that which is adumbrated by the noble Marquess. Even the one of Mr. Gladstone with regard to the Suspensory Bill, which I am old enough to have voted for in this House, is not, I think, on all fours with the course which the noble Marquess proposes to adopt, because in the case of Mr. Gladstone it was not a matter of prerogative, but a matter of patronage, and there is a broad distinction between the two. Mr. Gladstone wanted to nip the Irish Church in the bud the very moment that he was moving his Resolutions. He was naturally anxious that no further interests should be created which would prejudice the reform when it came before the House in detailed form.
I do not quarrel with all that, and I do not honestly see what particular advantage is gained by the Address put forward at this particular juncture; but I am very grateful to my noble friend for bringing it forward because he used a phrase which goes further and deeper than the Address which he is moving to-night, when he spoke of the elusive glimpse which he, and so far as I know he alone, has been able to obtain of the scheme of His Majesty's Government in this matter. That is really the vital point. What my noble friend may produce, however powerfully it may be supported in this part of the Souse, can have no permanent bearing or effect on the question. What we have a right to ask—and I do not suppose for one moment we shall get an answer—is, when the scheme which has been adumbrated in the Preamble of the Parliament Bill is likely to be laid before Parliament. That is the vital matter; that is the crux of the whole problem. I welcome to-night the ample and genial presence of my friend the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Haldane)—the last of the long line of Viscounts with which His Majesty's Government have enriched this House—who, I know, is an ardent supporter of the Preamble, or so I gather from his speech in the House of Commons; I welcome him here, and I hope that in some moment of new-born confidence, on finding himself in this fresh atmosphere, he may see fit to impart all that he knows or has any authority to impart on that subject.
I have listened very attentively and with great interest during the last two nights to
776
the debate raised by Lord Balfour. But there was a certain unreality about it. We are in the midst of a Constitutional crisis, the most serious in my humble judgment, and as my noble friend the President of the Council justly said, with which any of us can have been face to face; the most serious, perhaps, which has occurred in this country since the great contest which ended in the fall of the Monarchy and the rise of the Protectorate. I am not exaggerating. People outside may not see—and I am astonished that they do not see—the gravity of the change which is taking place—the revolution which His Majesty's Government are endeavouring to bring about. The papers are filled with the details of the Coronation, with football matches, with contests at golf, and a few race meetings perhaps—and perhaps they are not the worst part of the newspapers—but I see hardly a word in those massive publications which indicates the slightest interest on the part of this nation, which is so deeply affected, and likely to be so much more affected in the future, in the great transformation, the great revolution which is proceeding under their eyes at this moment. I am not one of those who say that' a mere change in the Constitution of the House of Lords would be in any shape a revolution. I think it would more likely be a beneficent reform. But I do say that the course pursued by the Government is nothing less than a course of revolution, because it is an attempt to change the whole of the relations between the two Houses, to obliterate this House as it is now sitting, and to substitute nothing whatever in its place.
Was there ever in the civilised world such a state of things as exists in this country now, when the Government are proposing to sweep away—as they can sweep away by their power—a House of coeval antiquity or greater antiquity than the House of Commons, and to substitute nothing—not the slightest check, not the slightest control over the proceedings of that House? My noble friend opposite told us the other day of the representatives of all parts of the Empire being summoned to the Imperial Conference. I forget what inference he drew from it. The inference which I draw is that our fellow-citizens in the Britains beyond the seas are likely to depart from this country with their respect for its institutions, its Party system, and its Government sensibly diminished by what they will have seen—a Government which has endowed

777
every one of the Dominions with a bicameral Constitution, in the act of obliterating that bicameral system at home, so that where there were formerly two Chambers to whose assent every law had to be submitted, there will be one Chamber, whose assent alone will be required, and by the side of it a sheet of paper on which the Government can write whatever they choose—a sheet of paper in the shape of a preamble which promises something which so far as we know you are not prepared to perform. I am not accusing my noble friends opposite of bad faith, but I am perfectly certain that they are supported, or rather propelled, by a triumvirate majority in the House of Commons, who will not allow them, even if they wished to carry these promises into effect. So that, what our fellow subjects from the outer Britains will see is a single Chamber, a potent House of Commons, and by its side an I O U, a post obit, which probably you do not intend to honour.
This, after all, is the crux of the matter. Are you going to attempt simply a one-sided revolution, or are you going to attempt to settle this great question by the co-operation of all the great Parties in the State? The one is a statesmanlike course; the other is a partisan course. I know very well—it was constantly boasted of in the discussion last night—that you have gained a considerable majority at the polls, and I quite admit that at both of the General Elections of last year there was condemnation of the hereditary Legislature as at present constituted. But do those verdicts go beyond that? Was there anything in either verdict which implied that the country, having had the issue fairly and deliberately laid before it, wished to be governed by single-Chamber government? My noble friend the Minister for Agriculture, who I do not think felt the gravity of the question so acutely as my friend the President of the Council did, with that boisterous good-humour which is one of the assets of the House, said that the country had determined at the last election to restore the balance of the Constitution. Heaven help the country if it thought that that was what it was doing! He said, moreover, that the country was determined not to reform your Lordships' House at the present time. Will the noble Earl explain whence he elicited that information? I confess that I read a great many speeches in the country at that time, and I saw nothing to confirm those statements. I have no reason to believe that the country
778
wishes to be governed by a single Chamber or would not be glad to see the House of Lords reformed. I have no opportunity of judging where my noble friend derived his impression or got his facts but I question them altogether. After all, the great advantage claimed—and justly claimed—by Lord Balfour for his Bill was that on a great Constitutional issue, when submitted to the country, you do obtain a clear unmistakable answer to a question with reference to a particular subject. A General Election is, after all, nothing but a confused. clamour of voices. No one can tell exactly on what question one constituency gives its verdict and on what question another decides in favour of a particular candidate, and my contention is that from these General Elections you have no right to infer—and I believe you would be wrong in inferring—that the country approves of the obliteration of the Second Chamber, as now constituted, without substituting anything for it.
My noble friend the President of the Council had the courage—I will not say the audacity, for he certainly had the right—to appeal to Burke as being more conversant with that author than any one else here, and having written the best book about him; but I confess I thought his quotation somewhat daring, because I think the impartial person who applied the term "rashness" to the man who interfered, with the works of a watch without knowing how to put them together again would have applied that term rather to the noble Viscount and the Government of which he is a member than to any partial attempts on this side of the House. My noble friend perhaps will agree that I could find half a dozen passages in which Burke eulogises, with rapture never perhaps equalled, the blessings of our Constitution—King, Lords, and Commons, or King, Second Chamber, and Commons, if you like. It was his ideal. The noble Viscount will remember, and I dare say could repeat at this moment, that glorious passage of Burke in which he compares the Monarchy of England to the Castle of Windsor, surrounded by its double battlements of Lords and Commons, and in which he concludes his glowing eulogy by saying, "As long as these three forces are joined together no man need tremble for his liberty, his property, or his security. Once dissolve that bond and all security is gone." If my noble friend appeals to Burke, to

779
Burke he shall go, and I do not think he will find anything reassuring as regards his present course in the works of the greatest philosopher of that time.
I have asked a question, but I am afraid that I shall not get an answer from my noble friends opposite. Are they prepared to give us more than an elusive glimpse—any assurance at all with respect to the Second Chamber which they have solemnly pledged themselves through the mouth of the late King and by their own Preamble to their Bill to establish in lieu of the present Chamber? I venture to think that though they may not give an answer now, yet at a time that is not so remote as we may think they will he obliged to give an answer. I do not think so meanly of my countrymen as to believe that they will not insist on knowing what is the policy of the Government with regard to this vital matter. After all, every one of my noble friends opposite on that Bench knows as well as I do, knows as well as everybody in this House knows it—aye, as well as every thinking person outside this House knows it—that you cannot achieve a settlement of this question on these lines. You can achieve a Party triumph. You can avenge on this House the wrongs—real in many cases and sometimes fancied—you have received at its hands. Having done that by Party, you will only have done what is reversible by Party. When this Party come into power—as come they must, unless the pendulum has absolutely ceased to vibrate—when this Party come in will they not make it their first task to uproot that which you have rashly planted in the rocks by the wayside, without root, without hold upon the ground?
My Lords, I have been allied by personal friendship for many years with almost all the leaders of this Government. I hope that they will not allow their names to be associated with—they will not set their seal to—a policy of this kind. I appeal directly to my friend the noble Viscount opposite. He bears a famous name, an honoured name, a respected name. Will he let it go down to posterity allied with a one-sided, fanatical, and partisan settlement like this? I appeal to my right hon. friend at the head of the Government, who has to settle with history and posterity the great claims his intellect gives him to be a conspicuous figure in the history of this
780
country. How will they stand when their names are at last produced before that great tribunal from whose verdict there can be no appeal if they have conspired with hot-headed fanatics to lay hands on this immemorial Constitution, rashly awl recklessly, without having done anything to build, but only to destroy?
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That the said Address be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT (1903 AMENDMENT 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.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Construction of Principal Act and Acts referring thereto
2.The principal Act and other Acts referring thereto shall be construed—

(a)as if in subsection two of section three of the principal Act for the words "under the age of eleven" there were substituted the words "or other person being a boy under the age of seventeen years or a girl under the age of eighteen"; and

(b)as if in section four and in section fourteen and in section sixteen the words "Board of Education" were substituted for the words "Secretary of State"; and

(c) as if at the end of subsection three of section five there were added the words "and if under the age of sixteen, to be sent to a certified reformatory school."

LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, at the beginning of paragraph (a), the words "in their application in a county borough or in a borough with a population of over ten thousand, or in an urban district with a population of over twenty thousand, or in the administrative county of London." The noble Lord said: This point is covered by the larger Amendment to be moved by Lord Faber, and as I agree with that Amendment I do not propose to move the one standing in my name.
LORD FABER: My Lords, my first Amendment is to leave out paragraph (a). Since the noble Earl introduced this Bill a fortnight ago public interest in it has been a good deal roused, and some of us have taken what care we could to get the opinion of experts on the matter. We have also approached some of the gentlemen who sat on the Employment of Children Act Committee in 1910, and others having much knowledge on the subject have been taken into counsel. I quite appreciate the noble Earl's motives in bringing forward this Bill and do not by any means differ from him lightly. Still I think his Bill goes a good deal too far; hence my Amendments to-day.
The object of Lord Shaftesbury's Bill appears to be (1) to absolutely prevent street trading by any boy under seventeen or girl under eighteen, and to remove from local authorities their power, under Section 2 of the Act of 1903, to make by-laws for the regulation of street trading by persons under sixteen; and (2) to couple the administration of the Employment of Children Act with the duties of the local authority as local education authority. Now what do the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper do? First, my proposed new clause confines this Bill to thickly populated boroughs and urban districts; secondly, it says that the local authorities must, not may, issue licences to street traders in their districts and regulate the conditions of such licences; thirdly, it says that street trading by girls under eighteen can be absolutely prohibited—with this exception, that neither boys nor girls over the age of eleven can be prevented from trading in the streets in company with and under the direction of their parents; and, fourthly, it leaves the power already existing under the 1903 Act for boys and girls over the age of eleven to trade in the streets as heretofore.
I have confined the Bill to thickly populated urban districts and to large boroughs because I felt that as regards country districts street trading was not a vital matter, and that there was not much to be said against street trading in country districts. Children there chiefly deliver newspapers and milk, and likely enough they are employed in taking farm produce to markets, which might be called street trading but with which I am sure your Lordships do not wish to interfere. I have
782
made it imperative upon authorities to issue licences because, while some authorities, notably in London, have issued licences and look after street trading, there are other authorities that have not issued licences and do nothing at all in the matter. The power which is given in my proposed new clause to local authorities, if they think fit, to absolutely prohibit street trading by girls under eighteen, I do not suppose will often have to be put into force, but I have thought it well that there should be this power as a protection to these girls; but, as I have said, I make the exception that children who trade in company with their parents are to be allowed to continue to trade. Girls are very often useful, I am given to understand, in helping their parents at stalls in the streets, with costermongers' barrows and so forth, and in my opinion they are quite safe under the immediate protection of their parents.
My most important provision, of course, is the one which leaves the power already existing under the 1903 Act for children over the age of eleven to trade in the streets. On looking at the statistics I find this rather curious fact, that in London there are 10,400 street traders between the ages of eleven and fourteen and 3,300 between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. The school age generally terminates at about fourteen. Therefore the statistics show that school children trade, and that when they leave school at the age of fourteen they cease to trade in the streets to anything like the same extent and get regular employment. Therefore this street trading is generally done by school children who cannot get regular work while attending school. What harm is there in children after school hours selling papers or fruit or matches in the streets? If they were not doing that, what would they be doing? Would they be doing anything better? I doubt it. And it must further be remembered that the money which they thus earn is supremely, nay tragically, necessary. As I informed your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill, the balance-sheet of many poor families in London shows that never is the housewife able to spend as much as 3d a day on the food of each individual member of the family, and therefore if the child earns a few pence in this way the money is of extreme importance. The hours are not long, for most of the newspaper sales take

783
place between four and seven in the evening, while the extra pence that are brought home are a welcome addition to the small sum available for the purchase of food. There are no fewer than 40,000 boys and 3,945 girls engaged in this street trading, so that the boys are ten times as many as the girls. I have tried to make the reasons for my proposed new clause as clear as possible, and having said so much I beg to move the first Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 11 to 15, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Faber)
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I am sure your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has the interests of street traders at heart, and endeavoured to obtain as much accurate information upon it as possible; but your Lordships will also have gathered that the Amendment he is now proposing really strikes at the root of the Bill to which you gave a Second Reading a fortnight ago. It will be apparent to your Lordships that the thing hinges entirely upon whether we are to make street trading by young children a Statutory prohibition or leave to local authorities the power of regulating it by by-laws. I endeavoured on the Second Reading of the Bill to make it quite clear that local authorities have, in some instances, exercised their powers rigidly and exceedingly well, but, in the vast majority of cases, whilst by-laws have been drawn up according to the Statute they have not been enforced as well as they might have been, and in some cases no by-laws whatever have been drawn up. I think it is conclusive that local option—and by local option I mean the power of local authorities to draw up by-laws—has proved a failure in this matter, and upon that point hinges the whole of my case.
I do not know that I need go back to the Second Reading debate, and explain further the details. If your Lordships will read the evidence, you will see from the Report of the Departmental Committee that they were agreed that the law as it stands at present, allowing local authorities to make by-laws, had failed. It may interest your Lordships upon that point to hear the statements made at a great conference held the other day upon street trading by
784
children. Sir John Gorst, who, as you all know, is an authority upon this question, said that the present permissive law had not produced its effect, and the time had now come for compulsion. The President of the National Union of Teachers deplored the fact that so many children were engaged in street trading, and said he would welcome restriction or compulsion. I do not think I need say more upon that point, because it is obvious that something must be done either to prohibit street trading or to make the by-laws more rigid. In my opinion prohibition of street trading should become the law of the land.
I do not think I can avoid mentioning the further Amendments standing in the noble Lord's name, because they all hang together. Your Lordships will notice that the noble Lord has thought it wise to confine his Amendments to municipal boroughs with a population of over 10,000 and urban districts with a population of over 20,000. Let me point out to you the effect of that. It means, according to the Census of 1901, that 108 boroughs out of 248, and 745 urban districts out of 806, would be excluded; and also all the villages, which number many thousands. Taking all the boroughs, county boroughs, and municipal councils in England and Wales, there is a total of 1,122, and of those only 269 will be included, so that over seventy-six per cent. of the towns of England and Wales will be deprived of the powers they already have under the principal Act of 1903. I do not know whether the noble Lord realises that the effect of his Amendment will be that in those towns which are excluded by his Amendment there will be no by-laws or statutory prohibition whatsoever controlling the street trading question.
Your Lordships will admit that that is not amending the law. I think it is bordering on ruining what exists at present. If the noble Lord really wishes to amend the law, I think he had better try and see if he cannot include some of these very important towns. There are heaps of small towns in England with under 20,000 population where street trading by-laws are absolutely necessary, and where there would be no restrictions whatsoever if this Amendment were carried. I admit that under the Amendment we have certain advantages over what now exists. There is power given to prohibit girls trading in the streets at least up to the age of eighteen. The noble

785
Lord has there raised the age from sixteen to seventeen to eighteen years, which is a distinct advance; but if street trading is an evil, and I believe the consensus of evidence goes to prove that, surely it would be wiser inasmuch as the present law has failed, to amend the law by prohibiting street trading altogether, and so make quite certain that children shall not be led into temptation in the way they are at present. Your Lordships will notice that I propose to mitigate the hardship to a certain extent by allowing those children over the age of eleven who at present have licences under the local authority to continue to trade, but, no new child when he comes to the age of eleven would be allowed to street trade. That, I think, will mitigate the hardship to a large extent. It allows a longer time for the transition stage; and, further, it does not deprive any particular child of anything which has already been allowed. I hope your Lordships will take that into consideration, and will support me in asking the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, which strikes at the root principle of the Bill.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, it does seem to me that this is a question which ought to be considered with a great deal of care. It is very fine for us to indulge in cheap philanthropy in this House, and decide, in accordance with an ideal condition of things, that boys who have not attained a certain age should not trade in the streets. Your Lordships will have to consider this fact, that a large number of these boys are from very respectable homes, and that the money which they earn is extremely necessary to the families themselves. That is why it does seem. to me that this is eminently a question on which we should proceed on the lines, not of rigid rules of prohibition, but of elasticity, and that can only be carried out by a system of local option, the localities themselves having a voice in the matter. Lord Shaftesbury considers that it will mitigate matters that boys who now have licences will under the Bill be allowed to continue trading. It does not seem to me that that would have the effect of making things seem fairer or more just as regards the poorer members of the population. Here is one boy who has been able to trade and bring money home; he is allowed to continue. The boy of another family, living perhaps next door and equally poor, is not allowed to trade. Under those
786
circumstances we ought to act with very great care in this matter. After all, the best people to decide these questions are the people who reside in the locality, and I am sure that is a much safer and sounder system than to impose a rigid law of prohibition applicable to the whole country. As regards trading in the country, in many cases a small stationer employs boys to distribute his papers as part of his business, and it seems to me rather absurd to say that boys in that case receive any harm from going about on bicycles to deliver newspapers. I would also remind your Lordships that even hi large suburban districts it would be really impossible for people in many cases to get their newspapers delivered unless you had sonic system of that kind. In these circumstances if this Amendment goes to a Division I must support the noble Lord who has introduced it.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I was very surprised to hear the interpretation which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill put on the Amendment which has been introduced by my noble friend behind me. I understand that the effect of that Amendment is, first, to exclude rural areas from the provisions of the Bill, and, second, to oblige local authorities to make by-laws in urban districts. I should have thought that the fact that that was obligatory would effect the purpose which the promoters of the Bill are desirous of achieving.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but if he will look through the list of Amendments he will see that by them Section 2 of the principal Act will be repealed, and if that section is repealed it means that in all urban districts of under 20,000 inhabitants and in all rural districts of under 10,000 inhabitants no by-laws or any Statutory prohibition whatever can be drawn up.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I do not wish to quarrel with the noble Earl as to his interpretation of the Act of 1903. But in the enormous tome of evidence produced by the Select Committee, out of, I think, ninety-eight witnesses, there was only one—the Medical Officer of Essex—who gave any evidence with regard to rural districts. I think he referred to one rural district, the district of Epping, which I should not have thought was the most typical rural district in England. He admitted that

787
there was very little street trading, and very little of this employment, except on farms, and it is on that gentleman's evidence that this law is to be applied to the whole kingdom. It seems to be the most flimsy evidence on which to hang such a very large Bill, and it is directly contrary to the evidence of Sir Edward Troup, who told the Committee that this was essentially a town problem. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Earl will not reject at any rate that part of my noble friend's Amendment which refers to rural districts.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, says that this Amendment involves the principle of the Bill. I shall be prepared to join issue with him on that point. It is very easy to make these regulations for people whom personally we know very little about, but you have no right to take that action unless you have an overwhelming case for it. In this case you had a Committee appointed and you had the whole matter discussed, and it is now being discussed by people who are well fed and well clothed and well housed, and who are prepared to say, as the noble Earl said, that what is proposed represents an ideal condition of things. They would like to see children doing this and that, and brought up in this way and that way, and not indulging in unpleasant occupations or occupations which have some danger, and which I admit have some definite disabilities which may have to be dealt with. It is all very well to say that, but I cannot help putting to myself the question, What right have I to prohibit some child from earning money in this way which it desires to earn, if it is hungry, and if it wants to fill its stomach? There may be evils in street trading, but there are few evils for a growing child worse than that of being hungry; and if it wants additional food and is able to earn it in this way without serious damage, and the parent is willing that it should earn money in this way, I feel I am not justified, because I think there should be a more ideal state of things, in preventing that child from earning this money. Personally I am not prepared, and I never should in any similar case be prepared, to support a remedy which would not absolutely cure the evil you have to meet. I think this Bill goes a great deal too far, and though I sympathise with the desire that this thing should not be, we are not justified in bringing about the result in this way unless we are going to put something in its place and make up to these
788
children the money we are taking away or depriving them of earning. If a child which would otherwise have to go hungry can earn its sustenance by street trading without suffering serious injury, I do not consider myself justified in preventing its doing so because I would like to see a more ideal state of things existing. For that reason I am bound to support this Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Earl who has just spoken, but I expect that a speech like that was made against every one of the reforms made by the noble Earl's (Lord Shaftesbury's) predecessor. There are cases when it is necessary to step in and protect the children. I have listened to those arguments before, and they have been discounted, and we all know now that the factory legislation was right in the protection of children. I fully acknowledge that the noble Lord who introduced the Amendment has at heart the interests of the boys and girls as much as I have, but I would like to say one or two things. The first is that this is a serious question concerning 37,000 children at least, and it is a growing evil. Therefore we cannot lightly pass it by. The noble Lord is wrong in thinking that children in London stay at school up to the age of fourteen; they do not stay as a rule till anything like the age of fourteen. The noble Lord said there was no harm to the school children in carrying on this trading after their school work was over. That is against the opinion of all the experts who have to deal with the school life of London. If you read the interesting evidence, which I have read in great detail to-day, given on the character and wellbeing of the children of school age, your Lordships will see that a nervous breakdown is involved if these poor little children are sent to earn their living early in the morning before school; and I consider that great harm is being done by their being allowed to work after school time.
But there is a more serious question about the boys. At six o'clock yesterday I was addressing a very different audience. I was addressing 200 boys in Borstal Prison. And in this connection I would remind your Lordships that the evidence, given in the Departmental Committee's Report, of all those who have to deal with the criminal classes is that the criminal class is fed by juvenile street trading. The boy gets into

789
habits which lead him very often into prison, We must consider that. Then there is that terrible queue on the Embankment of unemployed and unemployable. The evidence on this question was considered by a most experienced Committee appointed by the present Government, and they said that this unemployable class, again, is fed from these boys who are allowed to drift about the street and go without a trade. We all know that the question is really to a large extent one of the newspaper trade. Of these thousands of children, I should think that quite nine out of ten are employed in the newspaper trade. Cannot newspapers be sold in the streets in a better way than this? Some of us know the conditions in foreign towns, where there are numerous little stalls where newspapers can be purchased. Something of that sort might be done here, but not at the cost of all this harm to the life of our young people. Some important newspapers, the Westminster Gazette for instance, make a point of employing older people as street sellers because of the mischief done by the employment of boys. Surely that is a matter that might be considered. When, however, you come to the question of street trading by girls, the Report seems to say in the strongest language that such street trading is absolutely indefensible. When you have got to that stage, is it enough to merely support an Amendment in this form? It seems to me that this is a national question of the most serious kind, and must be dealt with by the nation as a whole. I know the poorer homes probably better than any of your. Lordships. I have spent years of my life in visiting them. I know the difficulties and do not deny the hardships that will be occasioned in some cases, but I put what is for the good of the country against sentiments such as were expressed by the noble Earl who last spoke.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think any of your Lordships are in conflict with the right rev. Prelate as to the necessity of doing something to remedy the evil which has been testified to by many noble Lords and by the right rev. Prelate himself, who we all acknowledge is a conspicuous authority on a matter of this kind. But we have not only their testimony. We have the authority of the Report of the Departmental Committee to which reference has been made. I have tried to read this Report
790
with some care, and though it undoubtedly goes to show that there is a great evil, yet I do not think it bears out all the statements which have been made on behalf of this Bill. Let me take one example to show what I mean. The right rev. Prelate and others have said that street trading leads children into bad courses, and that after they have been engaged in street trading for a certain period they are liable to avoid anything like proper industry and to drift into the category of the loafer and finally into the category of the unemployable. But the figures in the Majority Report do not entirely bear out that view. No doubt they bear it out in a measure, and that is why we are all in favour of something being done; but they do not bear out the view in anything like the extreme form in which it has been stated.
It seems that, though there is a very large number of young boy traders, when they get to the age of fourteen the number enormously diminishes. I have the figures for London. There are 10,000 boy traders between the ages of eleven and fourteen, and there are 3,000 between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, so it is perfectly clear that rather more than two-thirds leave street trading and adopt some other occupation when they grow older, which is directly in conflict with the contention that all these children, or the majority of them, go to the bad. And what is true of London is true of the whole country. I quote again from the Majority Report. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for quoting from the Report, but this is the authority on which the Bill is proposed to you. In England and Wales, outside London, there are 15,000 boys licensed below the age of fourteen, and only 6,000 between fourteen and sixteen, so that the large proportion of those boys do not go on in the disastrous street trading of which so much complaint has justly been made. I say that by way of showing that we must not exaggerate when we are dealing with these cases.
I now come to the question of rural and urban districts. What does the Report say as between the case of large towns and the case of small towns in country districts? The Minority Report says—
"There is no evidence before us showing the, extent to which street trading is carried on in the smaller towns and rural districts, the forms which it takes, or its results."

791
I am quoting now from the Minority Report, but I know nothing in the Majority Report which is in conflict with that statement of the minority. If you look a little lower down in the Minority Report you find this statement—
"Nor do we think a case has been made out for extending the prohibition to the whole of the country. As already pointed out, the conditions outside the large towns have not been investigated by the Committee."
So your Lordships will observe that there is no evidence before you in this Report to lead you to draw any conclusions whatever on that part of the subject. In view of the wide definition which is given to street trading, absolute prohibition would interfere with branches of work which are probably quite harmless. I think I have said enough on that score to show why it is necessary to frame the remedy much more mildly than in his enthusiasm my noble friend has framed it.
Let me point out also that there was a very important witness—Sir Edward Troup—who said he thought that compulsion would be exceedingly difficult to enforce, and the Minority Report definitely states that in their opinion compulsion would be a mistake. But my noble friend Lord Shaftesbury asks, Are we to do nothing? I agree that something must be done. I do not say that the Amendment is necessarily and absolutely the best compromise at which we, can arrive, but remember it is proposed to do something and something very substantial. In the first place, my noble friend proposes to make by-laws compulsory in every large urban district.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: What by-laws?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will explain to the right rev. Prelate if he will allow me. He will find in the principal Act, in Section 2, a provision under which certain powers to make certain by-laws are given to local authorities. It appears that a great number of local authorities have not used this power. The noble Lord who brings forward this Amendment proposes that they should all be made to use these powers. I turn again to the Report to show that it is a good power——
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: May I interrupt? I want to explain to the noble Marquess with regard to the section
792
he has just referred to—Section 2 of the principal Act, which empowers the local authorities to make by-laws. It is proposed to repeal that section. You will see to the Schedule of the Bill an Amendment which proposes to repeal that section. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment does not seem to quarrel with the repealing of that section, because there is no Amendment down in his name to amend that provision in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is quite possible that the repeal of the section goes too far. That remains for my noble friend who has drawn the Bill; but, as a matter of fact, in Lord Faber's Amendment the by-law provision is re-enacted, with a few additions, in almost exactly the same terms as it stands in Section 2 of the principal Act, but for clearness sake I referred to it as Section 2 of the Act. The point I want to make is this, that this power of making by-laws is effective. It has been used in three great cities, in Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, and in all three places I understand it has been effective. I take the Report again, because, after all, this is a matter of evidence; it is not a matter of theory. The Report says—
"Taking, then, the evidence from Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, we find very strong testimony——
LORD SHEFFIELD: Is the noble Marquess quoting from the Majority Report Or from the Minority Report?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is the Minority Report. If the noble Lord wishes to follow it, it is on page 18.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I have not got the Report. I only wanted to know which of the Reports you were quoting from.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is what the Report says—
"Taking, then, the evidence from Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, we find very strong testimony to the beneficial effects which have been produced by the system of regulation which has been in force now for a number of years; to the marked improvement in the conduct of the children, their attendance at school, and (generally) of their clothing; and we cannot, therefore, in the first place, assent to the conclusion arrived at by the majority of the Committee, that the system of regulation has proved a failure."
Now that is very important. Here is the testimony of these members of the Com-

793
mittee, including the Home Office representative—the representative of His Majesty's Government upon the Committee—and they say that the system of regulation has not been a failure but a success. It may be necessary and proper to strengthen the power of regulation, and, for example, to see that the regulations are approved by some central authority like the Home Office itself, but there is no doubt that the system of regulation, which my noble friend proposes to make universal and no longer optional on the local authority, has been shown to be a success. That strong testimony to the value of the scheme put forward by my noble friend is not, if I may say so, quite consistent with Lord Shaftesbury's argument that this Amendment would do nothing to meet the difficulty and the evil of street trading.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I did not wish to give that impression. 1 think it will go a long way, but I do not think it goes quite far enough.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not desire for a moment to convict my noble friend of any kind of inconsistency, but I wanted to show your Lordships that this was not an illusory remedy, but a real remedy. For those reasons it seems to me that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Faber is a good and sound Amendment, and that the original proposal of the Bill goes too far. To enact that no boy under the age of seventeen is to engage in street trading is a very drastic thing indeed to do. It is impossible. I have received a communication from a very great authority in respect to the poor of London, and he tells me that it would inflict great suffering if we passed the Bill in the form in which it is drawn. In those circumstances Lord Faber has done his best to put forward an alternative proposal far less drastic than the one submitted by the noble Earl. If it requires a little modification, that can be done now or at a future stage; but I cannot help thinking that your Lordships will be well advised to accept the Amendment.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree with me that we are discussing this Amendment on the basis of a conversation which took place on the other side of the House, and which I have no doubt was exceedingly
794
interesting, between the noble Earl who introduced the Bill and the noble Lord below the Gangway, but on this side it was exceedingly difficult to hear what was really said, as they seemed to address their remarks to one another rather than to the House. The noble Marquess opposite has made a speech much of which would have been excellently in place on the Second Reading, and which was very largely against the principle of the Bill rather than in favour of its amendment
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Earl kindly point out a single phrase which I used which was not perfectly material to the Amendment I was discussing?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I refer to the way in which the noble Marquess proceeded to point out that this was unnecessary and that was unnecessary in the present Bill and that it would be quite sufficient if something a great deal less was done. If lie had said that on the Second Reading I think he would probably have found himself more in accord with those who did on that occasion express opposition to the measure itself. Your Lordships' House is very fortunate in possessing a number of experts who take a great deal of interest in this subject, and who know a great deal about it. The Amendment is not very easy to follow, but, as I understand it, what happens exactly under the Amendment is this, that while this particular paragraph is left out, Section 2 of the principal Act is also omitted, but, as the noble Marquess pointed out, it is re-enacted in the same permissive form in the clause which ho will move at a later stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is Lord Faber who will move it.
LORD FABER: It is not permissive. On the contrary, it makes it obligatory.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Section 2 of the principal Act is re-enacted in a permissive form in the second part of the clause which the noble Lord proposes to move at a later stage.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Only so far as it concerns municipal boroughs and urban districts with a population of——
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am coming to the point if noble Lords will allow me. I say that the second part of the noble Lord's Amendment says "may"; the first part re-enacts Section 2 of the principal Act, and the first part, which is the new part, is compulsory. That, I think, there is no doubt about. I apologise to noble Lords for taking the second part of the clause first. It seemed to me to be more convenient, but I was mistaken.
The first part of the matter is that this business of making by-laws is compulsory. I hope now we have really got to the point.. But I think we ought to know from the noble Lord who proposes the Amendment whether he has had any communication with municipal boroughs or councils of urban districts as to whether they are prepared to undertake this duty, and whether they approve of being given these compulsory powers. The House is so well able to judge of the merits of this proposal without any intervention on the part of His Majesty's Government, that we shall take no official part in the Division which may take place. For my own part, I feel somewhat strongly that what has been said in opposition to the proposals in the Bill is very similar to what has been said against most reforms which have been introduced on subjects of this kind in the past, and I shall be inclined to vote for the original Bill in the shape in which it was introduced.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I took no part in the Second Reading of this Bill because I had not fully considered the matter, but since then I have received many communications which have compelled me to take the subject into consideration. I listened, of course with respect, to everything that was said by the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of London, and by the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, but I am bound to use my own judgment and see what the Bill proposes. At present the law prohibits children under eleven years of age from engaging in street trading, and it is a tremendous jump to raise the age to seventeen. It is far beyond the necessities of the case. I venture to say that wherever this proposal has become known it has shocked public opinion. It has astounded the people. When we look round and see the appeals for charity which are made every day, and when we are told of the great want that exists in many of the poor homes in London
796
and consider the possibility of children I being robbed of the chance of earning money we must realise that the Bill would imperil many poor homes. The right rev. Prelate speaks necessarily with the greatest knowledge of the diocese over which he presides; he did not purport to speak of places outside; but this is a Bill that proposes to deal, not with London only, but with every city and town and village in the kingdom, and to announce everywhere that no boy under seventeen is to be permitted to engage in street trading. That strikes me as something that shocks all common sense. I do not say that the Bill, amended as it will be, I hope, by the addition of the Amendments proposed, will then be perfect. I would, however, be very sorry if the Bill were lost, and I would be quite prepared to consider with attention any Amendments moved with the object of making it more in harmony with what I regard as common sense.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, in discussing this kind of question, there is great danger of exaggeration on either side. We are liable, in the desire to be brief, to become categorical, and if we are categorical, then we are apt to exaggerate. In this particular matter there is danger in that direction, both on the part of those who are supporting the Bill and on the part of those who are in favour of Lord Faber's Amendment embodying what seems to me to be altogether a different proposal. I confess I have been amazed by one or two of the speeches we have heard to-night, and above all by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. That speech, as I think has been already said, reminds one of the opposition which was offered to the early Factory Bills or the Chimney Boys' Bill, and to everything of that kind, when we were told that it was very important, no doubt, that things should be regulated, but that it was much more important that people should be able to live, and that if you did this, that, or the other you prevented them from living by taking away practically their means of living.
EARL RUSSELL: I hope the most rev. Primate does not overlook the fact that I said, "unless an overwhelming case was made out."
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I agree that Lord Shaftesbury has gone a little too far in the

797
Bill as it stands as regards the restrictions he suggests upon the employment of boys. It does seem to me that he would be acting wisely in the interests of the Bill and in the interests of the boys themselves if he were to modify somewhat the proposals which the Bill now contains; but it is going a great deal beyond that to say, that what we ought to do to-night is to accept Lord Faber's Amendment. If I understand the Amendment rightly, it would impose the duty of making by-laws on local authorities, but what these by-laws are to be, except that they may not go too far, is left entirely to the local authority. Unless I misunderstand the purport of the Amendment, a local authority which was backward in this matter and did not take a proper interest in it at all might pass by-laws which would be fatal to any such amelioration as this Bill is desiring to produce. If I am misinterpreting or exaggerating the purport of the Amendment I desire to be corrected, but that is how it presents itself to me.
LORD FABER: If your:Lordships will allow me to say so, that is what I think. The original Act does this. It is a very difficult. Act to understand, but I have got back practically to the 1903 Act.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The proposed new clause says that these authorities must make by-laws, but it does not matter what by-laws they make, except that they may not go too far. The by-laws may be as open as ever you like; and when the noble Marquess rested his quasi adoption of that principle upon the Minority Report, which, of course, differs broadly and widely from the Report of the majority, I think he had overlooked the fact that the Minority Report most distinctly said that street trading in cities and large towns should be prohibited for girls up to eighteen, subject to such and such reservations. If we adopt this new clause it would be perfectly open to a local authority to do nothing, and thus directly to contravene the recommendation in the Minority Report. There are other details upon which it would be easy to dwell, but it is a little difficult in the form that our argument has taken to know exactly with what particular proposal the House is dealing at the moment. I venture to believe that we should act far more wisely, if, as I hope is the case, we are not going to wreck this Bill, if we were to pass these clauses now as they stand and then amend
798
them on Report. The Bill as it stands affords a better basis for considering future Amendments than it would afford were the suggested clause of the noble Lord introduced into it. If we introduce this Amendment, we change the whole trend, purport, and character of the Bill, and I hope it will not be accepted. There are Amendments which, in my opinion, it would be wise to make, but they could be better adapted on the Report Stage to the text of the Bill as submitted by Lord Shaftesbury.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I confess I very much sympathise with those who see the dangers of legislation which would prevent the children of poor people earning money necessary for their welfare and that of their families. I think Lord Shaftesbury has gone somewhat too far in the provisions of this Bill. On the other hand, it seems that the most rev. Primate has put the case against Lord Faber's Amendment with very great force. It would never do to leave to local authorities absolute discretion as to what by-laws they should make, for they might be utterly repugnant to anybody who desires to see the proper regulation of juvenile street trading. I think your Lordships have some cause of complaint lit regard to the speech of the noble Earl the First Commissioner of Works. Surely this is a matter on which, as officially representing the Home Office, he ought to have been able to give some guidance to your Lordships. It was a matter which was inquired into under the auspices of the Home Office by a Committee on which representatives of the Home Office sat, and I confess that my own vote would be very much influenced if I knew precisely what the Home Office believe to be the best way of dealing with this question. I would suggest to Lord Shaftesbury that if he could tell us that he would be prepared to consider other Amendments to the Bill—such as, for instance, fixing the age for prohibiting boys from street trading at less than seventeen—it might facilitate the passage of the Bill through this House.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, after the speeches of the most rev. Primate and the noble Viscount opposite I will trouble your Lordships with very few remarks, because I am in substantial agreement with both of those speeches. But I wish to refer to one or two observations in the speech made by the noble Marquess. I do not think that the noble Marquess proved the

799
efficacy of permissive by-laws by quoting the example of three extremely active and energetic towns such as Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham. We all know that permissive by-laws will operate in some places, and operate very well, but the objection is that they operate just in proportion to the public spirit and energy of the town. What we want is to have some legislation which will secure that the proper elements of civilisation shall be secured to these children no matter where they live. I wish further to point out an objection to the proposal to exclude all the country except urban and other districts with a certain population. I agree that small towns, as for instance Devizes or Abingdon, are not places in which the conditions of life stimulate urban trading, but when you look to the great northern areas in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and places like that, the mere fact that a district has under 20,000 persons does not at all exclude it from the characteristics of a large urban district. I hope this Amendment will be withdrawn, and that we shall be able to come to some reasonable amendment of the Bill itself, but on better lines. I entirely agree as to the evils which have to be guarded against, but I think seventeen is far too high an age to fix. I cannot help thinking that we should adequately protect the child if the limit in regard to boys was put up to, say, fifteen. I agree that the case of girls rests upon very different considerations. We know that with girls from fifteen to seventeen is the most dangerous age, and it is an age in which, from the social and moral point of view, we should do our utmost to keep them off the streets, especially after dark. But that rests upon another set of considerations, and I think these ought to be carefully considered, either later in Committee or on Report.
I cannot help thinking, as there is plenty of time, and as the debate is gradually drawing the whole House to a common conclusion, that if the debate were adjourned it would give time to Lord Shaftesbury to consider what Amendments he could accept, and then perhaps the Bill might become an agreed Bill. It has been clearly indicated in the Minority Report that you ought not to leave to local authorities the making of such by-laws without some supervision. They should be approved by some Government Department, not merely to weaken them, but, if necessary, to strengthen them. I hope we are going to treat this as a matter
800
of Statutory regulation, subject to reasonable modifications and indulgence; and if we are going to leave it in the region of by-laws I hope we shall not limit the power to these urban districts. I think it might very well also be given to the county councils to apply to any particular district in their area. The county councils in such places as Lancashire or the West Riding of Yorkshire would use their judgment and consider whether there were areas within their district where this danger existed and which ought to have these regulations. There ought to be the power of putting the law in force in every part of the country where the occasion arises. I think if we could come to some agreement like that, and make a material reduction in the age as to boys—I leave the question of girls open, because I feel that that depends upon other arguments—and, if possible, keep the Bill in its present framework—namely, Statutory recognition of the fact that this street trading shall be restricted within certain limits—we shall have a satisfactory Bill, and one to which we could all agree.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I agree so much with the last speaker and so greatly desire an agreement by consent that I should hardly have risen were it not that there is one point which I particularly commend to the attention of the House, and not least to the attention of the noble Lord who has just sat down. You take the age of seventeen and say, as Lord Ashbourne said, "What a tremendous jump from eleven to seventeen." So it appears; but you really want to guard against a boy coming out of school drifting into these most objectionable and finally destructive employments, against which the whole of the evidence is so damning. Therefore, my point would be that we must be careful to give the lad time to get, perhaps by the help of societies who wish to assist him, some more useful and steady employment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I expressly suggested the age of fifteen, to secure him one year in which to get decent employment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: I noticed that, and was very glad to observe it.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate, and I think noble Lords have practically made up their minds that to a certain extent the Bill that I propose goes

801
a little too far; yet everybody is agreed, which, after all, is something to have gained, that something should be done. I always considered that the Amendments that were put down by Lord Faber were a step in advance upon the present existing law, although in some details they were defective. I also notice that some noble Lords seem to be of the opinion that the local authority should be left a say in the matter. If that is really the wish of this House, I am prepared, as the author of the Bill, to accept it. But I am going to appeal to Lord Faber to withdraw his Amendment which appears on the last sheet of Amendments. It is to the Schedule and proposes to omit from the column headed, "Extent of Repeal," the words: "In subsection two of section three, the words 'under the age of eleven.'" Let me explain what the effect of that will be. It will be that the original Act of 1903, Section 3, subsection (2), will read, "A child shall not be occupied in street trading." That means that you will get statutory prohibition up to the age of fourteen, for a boy, under the law, is a child until he is fourteen years of age.
LORD FABER: I am very glad to acquiesce in the request made by Lord Shaftesbury. I shall not move that Amendment, the effect of which, as he says, would be that the age up to which a boy could not trade would be fourteen instead of eleven.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Noble Lords cannot discuss the Schedule at this moment. We must dispose of this Amendment first. The Amendment is to leave out paragraph (a).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I move to leave out paragraph (b). It was not my intention to take the matter entirely out of the hands of the Home Office and to make it the prerogative of the Board of Education.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 16 to 18, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Earl of Shaftesbury)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had on the Paper an Amendment providing that "street trading" does not include the sale of the said articles where such sale is only
802
incidental to the delivery of goods on behalf of a tradesman by whom the child or young person is regularly employed," and does not include "the sale of agricultural produce in recognised markets."
The noble Marquess said: I do not know what view my noble friend Lord Shaftesbury will take of this Amendment. With regard to the first part, I will not propose it if he does not wish it. There are two exceptions in the definition clause as to street trading, and I seek to except, in the first instance, street trading which is merely incidental to the delivery of goods by boys who are in the regular employment of shopkeepers and tradesmen. I am not quite sure how far those words are necessary, but I offer them to your Lordships' House. With regard to the second part, it is to protect a very particular class. There is a practice of children living in rural districts being sent by their parents to sell local produce at the markets. That would be street trading within the meaning of the Act. It is a matter of convenience to the parents, and no one can say that it does any harm. I imagine we should not think of suggesting restrictive legislation to prevent these children being so employed. I do not, however, wish to press this Amendment, but I leave it to your Lordships, and hope it will be accepted.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: It is very difficult to follow this, but I would like the noble Marquess to tell me whether the Amendment would exempt children under fourteen and allow them to do these things, or whether the age of fourteen which has just been accepted is to override everything?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is my intention. My Amendment is to the definition clause of the principal Act where it defines what street trading is.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I do not know whether the noble Marquess realises that it will be possible under his Amendment for a boy who is delivering milk in one end of a large city to be regarded as street trading. I think in the circumstances the noble Marquess will see that this does not quite meet his demands, and if he does not press the Amendment I think it will be an advantage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: After what the noble Earl has said I will confine my Amendment. to the second part.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, after ("school") insert the following now paragraph—
(d) As if in section 13 there were added to the definition of "street trading" the words "but does not include the sale of agricultural prod ace in recognised markets."—(The Marquess of Salisbury)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: I wish to speak on the use of the word "reformatory" in the last line of Clause 2, paragraph (c), and to ask Lord Shaftesbury whether he would not be disposed to substitute the word "industrial" for the word "reformatory." The word "reformatory" has a signification of crime attached to it, and I think that no child——
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I hope the noble Lord will not think me unduly persistent, but we have passed that, and the words last moved were added after that.
Clause 2 as amended, agreed to.
LORD FABER LORD FABER then formally moved his new clause to follow Clause 2.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
The Council of every municipal borough with a population of over ten thousand and the council of every urban district with a population of over twenty thousand shall make by-laws requiring, in respect of street trading by boys under the age of seventeen and by girls under the age of eighteen, the holding of a licence to trade granted by the council, and such by-laws shall regulate the conditions on which such licences will be granted, suspended, and revoked. Provided that every such council as aforesaid may, if they think fit, snake by-laws with respect. to street trading by boys under the age of seventeen and girls under the age of eighteen—

(a)In the case of girls absolutely prohibiting street trading:

(b)Determining the days and hours during which and the places at which street trading may be carried on:

(c)Requiring such street traders to wear badges:

(d)Regulating generally the conduct of such street traders.

Provided further as follows—

(1)The grant of a licence or the right to trade shall not be made subject to any conditions having reference to the poverty or general bad character of the person applying for a licence or claiming to trade:

(2)A by-law under this section shall not apply so as to prevent any boy or girl of the age of eleven or upwards from being with the parent of such boy or girl for the purpose of assisting the parent in the business of bonâ fide street trading.—(Lord Faber)

LORD SHEFFIELD: Would the noble Lord be willing to add to this clause power to county councils to make by-laws in any part of their area where they think such by-laws desirable?
LORD FABER: Perhaps the noble Lord will bring that up on Report? It is getting rather confusing. There are so many definitions before us now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
5. This Act shall come into operation on the first (lay of January one thousand nine hundred and thirteen.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY moved the substitution of January 1, 1912, for January 1, 1913, as the date upon which the Bill should become operative. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on the new clause which I am going to move after Clause 5. Originally I had intended that the Act should come into force on January 1, 1913, but inasmuch as I propose that there should be a little further mitigation with regard to statutory prohibition, I suggest that it should come into force in 1912. If this Bill passes in 1912 any child under fourteen will not be allowed to street trade, but any child that is at present between the age of eleven and fourteen will be allowed to carry on street trading. That will be the effect of Clause 5. I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("thirteen") and insert ("twelve")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY formally moved to insert a new clause after Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
. Nothing in this Act shall apply in the case of a person who, at the passing of this Act, holds a licence to trade granted by a local, authority in accordance with by-laws with respect to street trading made under the principal Act, and in regard to such person the provisions of the principal Act shall continue to apply.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have one question to ask. I see that this applies to cases where local authorities have made by-laws. What happens in cases where a local authority has not made by-laws?
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: In the case in question it will be as the law exists at present.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Short title and construction as to powers under Education Acts, 1870 to 1910
6. This Act may lie cited as the Employment of Children Act, 1911, and the Employment of Children Act, 1903, and this Act may be cited together as the Employment of Children Acts, 1903 and 1911.
This Act, so far as regards the exercise of powers under the Education Acts, shall be construed as one with the Education Acts, 1870 to 1910, and may be cited together with those Acts as the Education Acts, 1870 to 1885.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is really only a small matter of drafting. Every Act of Parliament has a long title and also a short title. This Act proposes to have two short titles, and I move to strike one of them out.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("and may be riled together with those Acts as the Education Acts, 1870 to 1885")—(The Marquess of Salisbury)
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I agree
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule:

Session and chapter

Short title

Extent of Repeal.

3 Edw. 7, c.45

The Employment of Children Act,1903.

Section two.

In subsection two of section three, the words "under the age of eleven."

In subsection one, subsection two and subsection three of section five, the words "under the age of sixteen

In subsection three of section five the words "of any by-law" and the word "made"

In section thirteen the words "in the case of the city of London, the mayor, aldermen, and commons of that city in common council assembled."

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I think it will be necessary on Report, considering the present shape that the Bill has got
806
into, to amend this Schedule to the extent of not repealing Section 2 of the principal Act.
LORD FABER LORD FABER moved to omit from the Schedule the words in italics "'of any by-law' and the word made,'" and to insert "under the age of sixteen."
Amendment moved
Page 2, third column, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("'of any by-law' and the word 'made'") and insert ("under the age of sixteen").—(Lord Faber.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RITCHIE*LORD RITCHIE moved to omit from the Schedule of the Bill the proposal to repeal in Section 13 of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, the provision that in the City of London the Common Council should have the control of street trading. The noble Lord said: I understand that the noble Earl seeks to repeal this provision in the Act of 1903 in order to put the control of street trading in the hands of the education authority. But the education authority of the City of London is the London County Council, and the effect of this repeal would be to remove the control of street trading from the hands of the Corporation and place it in the hands of the London County Council. There would be this further effect, that the Corporation would be placed in an inferior position to any borough in the country with a population of over 10,000, and to any rural district with a population of over 20,000. I understand that during this session of Parliament a Select Committee of this House has passed a Bill promoted by the Corporation of the City which, amongst other provisions, contains one which extends their control over street trading, and that Bill I understand has the approval of the Home Secretary. Apart from the inconvenience and anomaly of having two overlapping authorities, I think it will be admitted that it is impossible for this House in one session to give with one hand and to take away with the other. They Corporation feels rather aggrieved, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to remove that feeling.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 27 to 30.—(Lord Ritchie)
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I would not for the world grieve the Mayor and Corporation of the City of London, especially as they have taken great interest

807
in this question, and certainly if they wish to be left in I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
On the Motion that the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House,
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said: I would like to say one word on this Motion. I really do respectfully say to the Government that it is almost impossible for us to deal with a Home Office Bill unless the noble Earl who represents that Department is good enough to tell us what the Home Office thinks on all these matters. I take the example of my noble friend who has conducted this Bill with the greatest possible consideration and courtesy for everybody. He has just agreed to an Amendment moved by Lord Ritchie as regards the authority which is to carry out the Bill. I daresay it is right, but I am not at all sure it is right. It is a matter upon which certainly the Home Office ought to have expressed an opinion. Yet we have had not the least assistance from the noble Earl from beginning to end. I hope he will be able to indicate that we shall have the honour and pleasure of hearing him more frequently.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am very much flattered by the desire of the noble Marquess to hear me more frequently, and I hope to have the opportunity of meeting his wishes in the future. I was perfectly willing to assent to the Amendment of the noble Lord, but it is generally my practice not to delay the House, especially at this late hour, with expressions of assent from the Home Office. I was, however, quite prepared, if I had been directly appealed to, to express that approval. With regard to the general point on which the noble Marquess appeals to me, this is one of the matters upon which there are many experts already in this House, and the Home Office is not in the least unready to be guided, by experts who have very great knowledge of these questions. We might be open to some criticism, if we always came down with prepared opinions, and took no notice of expressions which come from various quarters of the House. I think the noble Marquess would then have cause to complain of me, perhaps even more bitterly than he does to-night.
House resumed: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday the 11th of May next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 43.)

THE BOARDING-OUT OF PAUPER CHILDREN.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose to ask His Majesty's Government how many children at present in Irish workhouses can be boarded out under existing regulations, and how many are so boarded out. The noble Earl said: I would ask your Lordships' permission to make one or two remarks in the hope that the Government may see their way to encourage a little more than they do the system of boarding out children from Irish workhouses. I do not suggest that it is discouraged, but I would like to see the system more encouraged than it is at present. By the Acts of 1898 and 1902 orphans and deserted children can be boarded out, and there are definitions which, as far as I know, quite satisfactorily define who are to be considered orphans and who are to be considered deserted children. If parents desire and are able to bring up their own children, they are amply safeguarded. I need not go into these definitions or into the regulations issued years ago by the Irish Department, which are wise and on the right lines, but I believe the facilities which exist are not as much used as they ought to be. There are 158 or 159 Poor-law unions in Ireland, and as far as I know these regulations are used in a few more than 120. There are, therefore, certainly thirty unions in which they are not used at all, and I am informed that in many cases where they are in force they are not used to anything like the extent they might be. I know that this matter will probably come up for consideration when your Lordships are considering the subject of Poor-law Reform, but there seems to be very little prospect of any progress being made in that direction at any rate for a year or two; and I think it will be agreed on all hands that every child saved from the workhouse in the meantime is a gain to society. For this reason I have ventured to put down this Question. I would urge upon the Government that wherever the boarding-out system has been used it has had a very good effect, and I hope they will see their way to instruct the Local Government Board to encourage Guardians to make greater use than they have done of the boarding-out system, without prejudice, of course, to any action they may subsequently take in the reform of the Poor-law.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl I have to say that,

809
according to the Returns of the Local Government Board, there were on the 18th instant 2,552 children boarded out in 126 unions. The Board have no information as to whether there were in those or the remaining thirty-two unions other children who might be so boarded out. In England the class of children that may be boarded out are regulated by Order of the Local Government Board, but in Ireland they are governed by the Pauper Children Act of 1898; and the Pauper Children (Ireland) Act of 1902 further defines the expression "orphan or deserted child." I may remind the noble Earl that in reply to a Question on February 31 last the Chief Secretary stated that the matter would he taken into consideration when the whole question of Poor-law Reform for Ireland was being taken. I do not think that the saving of children from the workhouses will be lost sight of, and the noble Earl may rest assured that the Chief Secretary will give the matter his consideration when opportunity arises.

YEOMANRY SERGEANT-MAJORS.
LORD VIVIAN*LORD VIVIAN rose to call attention to War Office Letter No. 9, General No. 2243 (A.G. 2A), dated August 31, 1910, in which it was stated that the question of the organisation of the Permanent Staff of the Territorial Force was under consideration, and pending the issue of further instructions, all vacancies for sergeant-instructors occurring in all arms of the Territorial Force would be filled by non-commissioned officers on the Home Establishment holding the rank of sergeant, such appointments to be made for two years with a possible extension to a maximum of five years; and to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any representations have been made by officers commanding Yeomanry regiments as to the increased difficulties in recruiting these appointments would entail, and the advisability of reverting to the former practice of appointing sergeant-majors from Cavalry regiments for an indefinite period should this now be the regulation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I happen to be the first member of your Lordships' House to address a Question to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War, who has to-day taken his seat in this House, I hope it will not be considered out of place if I offer him my congratulations
810
upon his elevation. The noble Viscount has rendered great services to the country, not the least of which has been the great part he has played in the creation of the Territorial Force. These new appointments will, I feel sure, affect the strength of the Territorial Force very considerably, and will affect it at a time when those who have its interests at heart find it difficult not only to increase but to maintain its strength. I shall confine myself in my remarks to the manner in which I believe they will affect the Yeomanry, because I happen to hold a commission in the Yeomanry, and having served in the Regulars I feel that I can speak with a certain amount of practical experience behind me.
The three evils to be feared are a scarcity of recruits, the disinclination on the part of time-expired men to re-engage, and the increased amount of work and worry accruing to commanding and squadron officers. As regards the scarcity of recruits, the practice in the past, as probably most of your Lordships know, has been for a sergeant-major to be appointed. He has come down to the recruiting area and by degrees has got to know most of the families, and he has either then and there been able to get recruits or has been able to mark down the men who, at some future day, will make useful recruits for the Yeomanry. The whole idea of recruiting has been to do it in this way, and to carry on a continuous and methodical nursing of the recruiting area. Under these new appointments these new sergeants will come down for two years, with a possible extension for another three years. At the end of their second year, they may possibly know the recruiting area, and they may be useful to us provided they get the extension. But we are going to have all the trouble over again upon the next appointments, for the new man coming in at the end of five years will have to begin all over again.
As regards the disinclination of time-expired men to re-engage, I feel that this will grow, because, after all, the methods used in the Regulars are entirely different from the methods used in the Yeomanry. An immense amount of tact is required to bring out the best qualities of the Yeomanry. I very much doubt whether these new sergeants will show the requisite tact. We have very often found it was not the case with the old sergeant-majors, but I am afraid that these new sergeants

811
will not show it, although possibly some may. As regards the additional work and worry accruing to commanding and squadron officers, I have had personal experience of that in my own regiment. But what I wish to point out is that although we have had bad cases under the old régime, owing to the frequent changes they are likely to occur much more frequently. I really do not know why this change was advocated, and I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any complaints were received from commanding officers. I may possibly get the answer "No." But still I would very much like the Secretary of State for War to state whether the War Office ever consulted commanding officers before this change was made. Surely in a change like this it is only right to consult commanding officers, whose opinions are worth having on recruiting, which is a most essential point.
I do not know whether this scheme has been brought in on the ground of reduction of expense. I do not see where the reduction of expense comes in, but possibly the Secretary of State may be able to tell me. Reduction of expense may come in here, that very likely you will have fewer members of the Territorial Force to pay because you will drive your men out and will not get recruits. In conclusion, let me say that to maintain a strong and efficient Territorial Force entails hard work combined with tact, and also, as I said before, a continuous method of nursing the recruiting area is absolutely essential; and to carry this scheme out successfully it should be the duty of every commanding officer to see that he is surrounded by the very best men that he can find to form his Permanent Staff, and if they are not fully competent to carry out their duties the matter can always be inquired into by the General officers. It is because I believe that these new appointments will not answer these requirements that I have ventured to draw your Lordships' attention to this matter, and to put the question to the Secretary of State for War.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has referred to myself in terms of kindly courtesy, for which I thank him. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to intrude myself at this early stage on your Lordships' notice even for a moment. I cannot
812
help myself, however, because my noble friend who sits by my side (Lord Lucas) no longer occupies the position of Under-Secretary of State for War, and the duty of responding, therefore, falls upon me.
The noble Lord has referred to the changes which have been made on the recommendation of the Committee which has recently sat. The changes arise out of the altered conditions of the Yeomanry regiments. To begin with, a good deal of the administration which used to be done by the regimental authorities is now done by the Associations. The system has changed. In the second place, we found venerable institutions in the shape of sergeant-majors who had been there for a very long time. Some of them were admirable; all of them were beloved by the regiments to which they were attached; but some of them, at all events, were of an age and a physical configuration that did not lend itself to efficient Yeomanry training. Therefore, a Committee was appointed on which the noble Earl opposite, Lord Scarbrough, and others connected with the Territorial Force and in particular with the Yeomanry sat, and a careful investigation was made of the whole question. We were not dealing with the Yeomanry only, but, of course, with the entire Territorial Forces, and the Yeomanry necessarily came into it. After much consideration, the Committee recommended that for the greater efficiency of the Force it was desirable that in the future there should be younger and more active men, more abreast with the latest developments of training Infantry, and otherwise more fitted to take a really active part in the work of a squadron.
I of course recognise the value of some of those old sergeant-majors in getting recruits and generally in promoting good feeling, but in the Yeomanry you are not at the point where you have the greatest difficulty in getting recruits. The Committee were not apprehensive on that point, but they were clear about this, that a system of appointments under which a man should go on practically for the rest of his natural life as sergeant-major in a Yeomanry regiment was not a good one. They therefore recommended that there should be a minimum term of two years, capable of being extended to five years. There should be the same kind of change of tour and duty as there is in the Regulars.

813
A non-commissioned officer under the old system was being paid less than the Regular non-commissioned officer. The Committee laid it down that in the interests of efficiency it is desirable that a non-commissioned officer who goes to the Territorial Force, whether Yeomanry or not, should be paid exactly the same rate as a Regular sergeant is paid. The result will be, we hope, to get a more efficient class of non-commissioned officer.
The noble Lord has asked whether we consulted Yeomanry commanding officers. We did. Of course, there is a difference of opinion in this matter. Some of the Brigade commanding officers came to the War Office and talked the matter over with my noble friend. Except for that visit I think we have only had complaint in the case of one commanding officer. This is a matter on which, naturally, there is a great deal of diversity of opinion. People's instincts in a matter of this kind are rather conservative. They are apt to think because somebody has been very useful that nobody can be found to do his work. We took the view, following the recommendation of the Committee, that there was an evil to be redressed, that the way the Committee proposed to deal with it was the proper way, and that at least the new system should have a careful trial. It was impossible to remain under the old state of things. We have got a new system, and we will see how it works. We hope it is right; but at all events what we are doing is in conformity with the best advice and the most skilled opinions we can obtain.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I wish to say how much we on these Benches congratulate the House upon the accession of the noble Viscount to our discussions. I only rise to put this one point to the noble Viscount on this particular question. He said that the two years system had been adopted, with a possible extension to five years. Now, the only point which from my experience I think very valuable would be that we should have some feeling of security that if the commanding officer desired the extension and there was no real reason against it, the two years would be extended to five years. I think the constant passage to and fro of men of the particular rank involved would be undesirable from the point of view of the efficiency of a regiment. Of course, a
814
break after two years is an advantage, because it would give an opportunity of removing the man if he was not doing good work. But may we take it that the commanding officer will be consulted, and that if he reports well it will be the exception and not the rule that the man will be removed?
LORD WILLINGDON: My Lords, I regret extremely that on this the first occasion on which the noble Viscount has risen in this House to respond on behalf of his Department it should he my fate to in any sense criticise his reply, and the more so as I am generally in accord with my noble friend. But I think he is aware that I hold strong views with regard to this particular matter, and I feel bound to support the noble Lord opposite, and to urge that as soon as possible, for I believe it will come, there should be a reconsideration of what I believe is a most important matter with regard to the efficiency of the Yeomanry. I cannot help feeling at the back of my mind—I hope it is not so—that the real reason for this change may be a certain reduction with regard to the Estimates. [VISCOUNT HALDANE dissented.] That is not so. I am very glad to know that. But as far as I am personally concerned I am bound to say that I prefer, on broad grounds, the ancient institutions of which my noble friend has spoken, the old sergeant-majors, to the two years gentlemen we are going to have in the future. Those sergeant-majors—and this is my personal experience after a good many years of Volunteer service—were most admirable men, and, permanently appointed to finish their term of service with the particular Volunteer regiment, they looked upon that regiment as their own, and the men in that regiment looked upon the sergeant-major as a sort of heavy father. It seems to me years a particular sergeant would hardly have become acquainted with his regiment at all, and at the end of five years, if there was an extension, he would be only just becoming acquainted with the men. After all, a Territorial regiment is very different from a Regular regiment. A Territorial regiment is only together for fifteen days in the year, and for the remainder of the year the men are dotted about in various parts of the locality. It is therefore extremely difficult for any sergeant-instructor to get to know his men in a short

815
time. There is one other matter which I would like to put to your Lordships, and to the noble Viscount particularly—that is, the matter of pay. Under the old system a sergeant-major instructor, as I understand it, received pay to the amount of 6s. 6d, with quarters found. The new man, I understand, will now get 5s. 6½d, with no quarters found.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: What is his lodging allowance?
LORD WILLINGDON: He receives lodging allowance, but the old sergeant-major got quarters found and 6s 6d. All I wish to say is that this may be a real hardship to a sergeant who has to come very often to headquarters, which may be in a large town where rents are very often 10 s. a week. His position is not nearly so good as the position of the old sergeant-major used to be. I do not know whether I can ask my noble friend to consider the situation with a view to something being done to assist the man in that particular regard. There is only one other point on which I feel rather strongly. I do not believe that under this two years' system you will get the Colonels of Regular regiments to send their best sergeants to Yeomanry regiments. I feel strongly, at any rate so far as General officers and Brigade majors and general sergeant-instructors are concerned, that as we have not the same opportunities for drill and instruction as the Regular forces have, we should have the very best we can possibly get, and unless you get that state of things I do not think you will ever secure thorough efficiency in the Territorial service.
LORD MONK BRETTON: May I add one word to what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Willingdon? I could give a case of a sergeant of Yeomanry whose rent exceeds his lodging allowance, with extras, by something like 4s. per week.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War mentioned my name in connection with the Committee which sat on this question, and to a certain extent I feel my responsibility in the matter. I sympathise with the noble Lord who has raised this question. I do not think it was wise to interfere with the existing system as regards the Yeomanry. Undoubtedly the Infantry had a grievance. They claimed
816
that as regards scattered battalions they had not a sufficient number of Permanent Staff. Their grievance was insufficient numbers and inadequate pay. It is true that the grievance as regards inadequate pay applies to all branches alike, but that as to insufficient numbers only applied to the Infantry as far as I understand. The position with regard to the Yeomanry was very little discussed on the Committee The discussion centred round the Infantry and their two grievances, and in getting rid of these it appears another grievance has been created; but I assume the new system will have to be tried. The proportion, as I understand it, is to be two sergeant-majors and three sergeants to every Yemanry regiment. I urge that the new system, as far as the Yeomanry is concerned, should be carefully watched from the point of view of any interference with recruiting.
I have two small practical points to bring to the noble Viscount's notice. One is that you will now have connected with each Yeomanry regiment men of different ranks—two sergeant-majors and three sergeants. They are paid on a different scale, and yet they have to keep up practically the same social position for recruiting purposes. How are you going to adjust that? It seems to me they are both doing exactly the same duty. They may even be in the same towns. Therefore they ought to be paid alike, because the cost of living will be exactly the same whether they are sergeants or sergeant-majors. The second point is this. You allow an extension after two years to sergeants on the application of the commanding officer of the Yeomanry, who is sure to do his utmost to retain a good man. Is the sergeant himself prepared to accept that? Presumably he is an excellent man, an efficient man, or else the extension would not be asked for. Is it fair that he should lose the chance of promotion in his own regiment by being kept for five years in a Territorial corps? I would suggest that if a sergeant is given an extension of three years after his two years' service he should be automatically promoted to the rank of sergeant-major; otherwise, that man, at the end of five years, goes back to his regiment with very small chances indeed of ever getting promotion. Those are two points which I hope Lord Haldane will consider when the new system has got into working order.

SMALL DWELLING-HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING RATES COLLECTION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law as to the letting of Small Dwelling-houses in Burghs in Scotland, and to enable Town Councils and Parish Councils of Burghal Parishes to collect certain rates by instalments, and for other purposes relating thereto—Was presented by the Earl of Camperdown; read la, and to be printed. (No. 44.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
The Lord HERSCHELL The Lord HERSCHELL—Chosen Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.

REVENUE BILL.
Brought from the Commons and read la: Then (Standing Order No. XXX1X having been suspended) Bill read 2a(The Earl of Liverpool): Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.