Lords Sitting of 10 May 1911

Preamble
The Marquess of AILESBURY—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord AIREDALE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord BRAYE—Took the Oath.

EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION OF ELLIN HUMPHREY.
His Majesty's answer to the Address of the 5th of April last, delivered by the Lord Steward (E. Chesterfield), and read as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that I will withhold my consent from so much of the scheme settled by the Board of Education for the administration of the Educational Foundation of Ellin Humphrey, in the Parishes of Llanenddwyn and Llanddwywe in the County of Merioneth as is contained in the proviso to clause 19 (b) of the said scheme.
"I will comply with your advice."

WHEELWRIGHT GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.
His Majesty's answer to the Address of the 5th of April last, delivered by the Lord Steward (E. Chesterfield), and read as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that I will withhold my consent to the scheme settled by the Board of Education in the matter of the Wheelwright Grammar Schools at Dewsbury in the West Riding of the County of York.
"I will comply with your advice."

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
DUNFERMLINE BURGH EXTENSION AND DRAINAGE BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The committee to be proposed by the Committee of selection.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL
  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL.
    WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES BILL. [H.L.]
DUNDEE HARBOUR (CONSTITUTION) BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
CHAPEL-EN-LE-FRITH, CHINLEY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Marquess of Ailesbury be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Silchester (E. Longford); read, and agreed to.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Petition of the Urban District Council of Old Fletton under their Common Seal praying for leave to present a Petition praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93 for presenting such Petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ST. ANDREWS AMBULANCE ASSOCIATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a; (according to order), and passed.
CHRIST CHURCH (GLASGOW) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a; (according to order): Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT (1903) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order).
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to add the following new paragraph to Clause 2 (Construction of principal Act and Acts referring thereto):—"(a) As if in section 3 of the principal Act the following subsection were inserted, A boy under the age of fifteen years shall not be employed in or carry on street trading."'
The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, some explanation or excuse may be looked for on our part for re-introducing at this stage a discussion which in some form took place when the Bill was in Committee a fortnight ago. But the simple explanation is this, that a good many members of your Lordships House felt that the matter which was provisionally decided on that occasion had not really received the consideration on the part of your Lordships to which it is entitled. The point that I raise in my Amendment is a perfectly simple one, though the incidental questions are not altogether simple. If we passed the Bill as it has now gone through Committee we should have said that it was obligatory that a child under fourteen should be prohibited from street trading, but after the age of fourteen a boy would be capable of being allowed to carry on such trading. I desire to make the age fifteen, and not fourteen, and I will give your Lordships my reasons for feeling very strongly that this change is a most desirable one.
I admit at once that the question is one of considerable difficulty, and that in all these cases we ought to be exceedingly careful how far we interfere with the natural laws of supply and demand, and how far we try to prevent what seems to be a legitimate mode of employment. All the restrictions which we introduce in a Bill of this kind require, in my judgment, to be very carefully watched, and those who advocate them are rightly subjected to severe criticism as to whether or no they can show that what they are advocating in the way of additional restriction or prohibition is really necessitated by the facts of the case. Therefore I feel bound to endeavour to show why the proposal for the change from the age of fourteen to fifteen is one which ought not to be lightly set on one side. I
278
hope that I shall not be met again to-night by the argument, of which we heard something on the Second Reading and in Committee, that restrictions of this kind are wholly mischievous because even if it is a bad thing that money should be earned in an undesirable way it is a worse thing that it should not be earned for the home at all. If your Lordships will refer back to the discussions which used to take place fifty years ago on factory legislation, chimney-sweeping boys, coal pit boys, and other legislation of that kind, it will be found that the proposals for making it impossible for young boys to be thus employed were met by the argument that you would be interfering with the legitimate earning of money, and that the families were so poor that you must allow the money to be earned coute qu'il coute. I hope we shall not hear that argument pressed at this stage.
It is true that, speaking for the individual family, it seems hard upon them at the moment to prevent this money being earned, but taking it as a whole, and looking to the future of the boys who will be the wage earners in these cases, I am absolutely certain that we are on the right lines when we make these restrictions, provided we can do it with reasonable fairness. It is a matter of degree. All the restrictions we desire to introduce ought to be carefully challenged, and we should be bound to show cause for them. I am prepared to show cause why the restriction which we have already agreed to—that a boy shall not be allowed to do street trading before he is fourteen—should be made to apply until he is fifteen. The reasons why I desire to have fifteen instead of fourteen are these. Most boys leave school about the age of fourteen. The critical year for them is the year that immediately follows. Upon the start that they make, whether that start is to be a bad or a good one—upon that start the future of the boy is very likely to depend. If we submit a boy to the temptation in that particular year to start some employment otherwise undesirable but which will produce quick returns, we are subjecting him to a temptation of the gravest possible kind.
Boys leave school, as I have said, ordinarily at the age of fourteen, but every effort, by educational authorities, philanthropic authorities, and the rest, is being directed now to getting hold of those boys after they have left school. Boys' clubs, boy scouts

279
and brigades, all the various agencies of that kind, of the recreative sort, and on the other side evening classes and all that belongs to their possibilities for a lad to-day, are modes which are put into operation for the direct purpose of keeping a hold on the boy just when he is leaving school and starting life. But let a boy undertake street trading, which in five cases out of six means newspaper selling, the evening hours during which he will be employed prevent him from taking advantage of the opportunities we are offering in useful ways. We want to make it easy, and not difficult, for boys to take advantage of the opportunities that we are offering when they leave school. The moment they are in touch with those who are endeavouring to help them in those kinds of ways, whether they be the voluntary agencies or the juvenile labour exchanges, they are in the way of being set on the right road to a suitable mode of earning a livelihood of the right sort. But let them start wrongly, let them be kept outside the possibilities of availing themselves of these agencies, and you are putting these boys in a position of extreme difficulty.
To allow boys to start street trading at fourteen is, in my mind, to run into a danger so grave that it is hardly necessary to refer to it. If any of your Lordships doubt it, refer to the two Reports which are in your hands—the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee which dealt with wage-earning children, and the Report upon the half-time system—and you will see recognised by every educational and philanthropic authority the peril that belongs to the first year after leaving school. We desire that such boys shall go to work, but that the work shall be of a kind which will lead on to something else; and if any of your Lordships suppose that the kind of occupation which begins with street trading of the sort that this Bill refers to is going to lead on to useful and desirable employment in the years that immediately follow, I would again refer you to those Reports for the answer. Or if, instead of taking these Reports, any of your Lordships would spend an hour one evening outside any great railway station in our large cities and get into touch with the boys who are there and find out what they are expecting to do, you will gain a lesson which will be brimful of interest.
If the boy has left school at fourteen and is prohibited from this particular outlet for
280
his energies during the first year, he will start upon some other line—a line which may lead him on to a better kind of employment in the days ahead. There are boys to whom such a risk is comparatively slight, who will make the best of any occupation they are put to and it will lead them on to something higher. I have a letter here which I received yesterday from a clergyman, who must be sixty-five or sixty-six years of age, who says he began his career by selling newspapers at the time of the Crimean War, and that the money he so earned enabled him to go to Oxford and take a degree and led him on to the honoured position he now holds. To generalise from such an instance of courage and perseverance would be foolish. I venture to believe that that particular lad would have found an outlet for his energies in some other department if this particular opening had been closed to him.
But the point I want to press is that it is this one year that really matters. It will make all the difference whether we say fourteen or fifteen in the legislation we are now laying down. I admit the hardship in certain cases, but I am absolutely sure that in the long run we are right if we make this restriction in the way proposed. I venture to hope that we shall have support in this matter from authorities who can speak with the administrative experience which can be afforded by either the Board of Education or the Home Office. I hope we may to-night learn what is the view taken in those quarters of the proposal contained in my Amendment—a proposal about which I am absolutely fearless in saying that it is one that ought to be carried if we are intent upon making a good job of the task we have taken in hand in regulating the employment of children at this critical age.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("construed") insert the following new paragraph—
(a) As if in section three of the principal Act the following subsection were inserted "A boy under the age of fifteen years shall not be employed in or carry on street trading."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I am entirely in sympathy with the Amendment which has just been moved. The most rev. Primate has dealt with the whole question so forcibly and exhaustively that I need not add anything to what he has said, except to express the hope that your Lordships will see fit to accept the Amendment.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, I think I ought; to make some allusion to an observation which fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when this Bill was in Committee. The noble Marquess appealed to Lord Beauchamp, who was then representing the Home Office, to render some assistance to the Committee and to indicate what the Government view on particular Amendments might be. The Home Office are quite prepared to render any assistance they can to the House, and in so far as it is in my power I shall be glad on any Amendment to give whatever assistance the Home Office is in a position to advance. But it must be understood that this is not a Government Bill. The Government are by no means unsympathetic to the principles and the objects contained in this measure; but it is not a Government Bill and the Government cannot be responsible for it. I may point out that there are many provisions, especially those with regard to the regulations which local authorities are to be required to frame, which do not meet with the approval of the Department. I will not anticipate what I shall have to say on that question later, but I should like it to be clearly understood that, although we are prepared to give whatever assistance we can, we are not prepared to take any responsibility for the Bill.
The most rev. Primate also made an appeal to us to indicate what the Home Office view was of the Amendment he has just moved. Before I come to that may I say that, as far as my recollection serves me, when this Bill was in Committee a compromise was reached, and that compromise was that fourteen should be the age for prohibition, and I do not know whether it is quite fair to your Lordships—although I am quite certain that the most rev. Primate would be the last person to put forward any suggestion which had a semblance of unfairness in it—to at this stage reopen that controversy. With regard to the merits of the Amendment itself, the most rev. Primate, of course, speaks with great authority on this subject. He knows as well as any of your Lordships what the dangers are to which boys of this age are exposed, and how important it is that during the early years after they leave school they should be spared the temptation of indulging in street trading. He has argued that point with great ability, and I am sure he will have made a considerable impression upon your Lordships' House.
282
At the same time I think it must be borne in mind that the dangerous age is not only between fourteen and fifteen. It is between fourteen and seventeen, and the most rev. Primate only goes a short way in covering that period. I think it is possible to defend the compromise of fourteen which was arrived at the other day on the ground that up to fourteen the lad is really a child, whereas from fourteen to seventeen he is more of a youth and more able in a way to take care of himself. It seems to me that only to go as far as fifteen is not to really grapple with the problem. Either it ought to be seventeen, or else. I think it would be better to keep to the compromise that was reached the other day and leave the age at fourteen. It is, of course, for the House to decide. The Home Office will not commit themselves on this particular Amendment, largely because they cannot commit themselves on the Bill as a whole, and your Lordships must decide whether in the circumstances it is better to stick to fourteen, or whether it would be desirable in the interests of these boys to substitute the age of fifteen.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: With the indulgence of the House I should like to explain that when the matter was discussed the other night it was said, Let it come up again on Report. It was on that distinct understanding that I agreed not to press the matter further then. I was party to no compromise.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I should like to remind the House that when this matter was discussed in Committee it was not so much a question as to whether the age should be fourteen, but the real issue between the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the framers of the Bill was the balance of responsibility between the local authority and the national authority, and whether this should be a matter of prohibition in an Act of Parliament or whether the local authorities should be required to make by-laws dealing with it. The noble Lord who has just spoken, while he washed his hands of the Bill, yet discouraged the House from including this valuable year from fourteen to fifteen. I wish to say that I strongly support the Amendment of the most rev. Primate, and that I consider the year from fourteen to fifteen considerably more important than any other period. This would give to the boy on leaving school a fair chance to start in a decent

283
employment which would lead to something better, and would exclude him in a great many cases from entering what are called "blind-alley" employments; and if he goes into decent employment at the age of fourteen, he is not likely to break away from it in after life. Those whose position compels them to look at the social, moral, and spiritual welfare of the rising generation feel very strongly the value of this Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will agree to insert it.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I am not in a position to say what the opinion of the House was when the Bill was in Committee as to any compromise, but I certainly think it was understood that the age should be fourteen. Until a boy is fourteen he is of school age and bound to attend school. The fact that he cannot then devote his entire time to any employment renders him particularly susceptible to take to this particular occupation in the interval between his school hours, and by the time he leaves school he has got accustomed, as it were, to these employments. Therefore the school age of fourteen was agreed to. But when the boy has left school and is free to employ his entire time in one avocation, it is for him to make the selection; and it may seem to many a little hard that he should be debarred from this occupation entirely, when, perhaps, circumstances may lead it to be the only avocation that he can at the time engage in while waiting for some further opportunity. It was with that view that those who urged the age of fourteen acted. It is going into a totally different principle when you prohibit entirely certain occupations from a lad, who has the whole of his time free and is at liberty to take to any occupation he likes. If the principle of the school age—namely, up to fourteen—is to be given up, I prefer the provision in the original Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, with the age of seventeen. If you are going to ban this occupation from boys at the moment they leave school, then I think you had better ban it entirely instead of limiting it for one year.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. The age of fourteen, when a boy leaves school, is the critical age, the turning point in his career. The object of the Bill is not to prevent
284
him from earning his livelihood, but to guide him into the proper channel of earning it, and it is of the utmost importance that he or his parents should be given this guidance. I speak in this matter with some personal experience, and I think the great value of the Bill will consist in the insertion of this Amendment. Without the Amendment I think the value of the Bill would be very slight.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who speaks on behalf of His Majesty's Government commenced his statement by assuring the House that he desired to afford us all possible assistance in dealing with this somewhat difficult subject, but I confess that as his speech proceeded I did not gather from it that amount of enlightenment which I had hoped for at first, because what he really most leaned upon was that this was not a Government Bill and that consequently His Majesty's Government could take no responsibility for it.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The principal assistance we can give the House is to get the Bill into shape. It had got into some confusion owing to the different Amendments proposed, and the Home Office have gone through them with the object of getting the Bill into the shape desired.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Nevertheless, the noble Lord said very distinctly that the Bill was not a Government Bill and therefore His Majesty's Government took no responsibility for it. But may I venture to suggest that, although it is not a Government Bill, the question is one of policy, and one which His Majesty's Government have much better opportunities for examining than we have on this side of the House. It is quite clear that there is a balance of considerations. On the one hand, we none of us desire to deprive these lads of the opportunity of legitimately earning a little money and thereby contributing to the slender resources of the family. On the other, we do not desire that they should be exposed to the undoubted risks and perils of employment of this kind at a very young age. I venture to think that those are exactly the kind of considerations which the official experts who advise His Majesty's Government should be able to weigh in such a manner as to be able to tell us to which side in their opinion the balance ought to really incline.

285
Being left without guidance, we must decide for ourselves, and I must say I am moved by the arguments of the most rev. Primate and by the arguments which have fallen from other noble Lords who have addressed us, and I am not in the least moved by the argument of the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, that if you raise the age to the limit of fifteen you ought logically to go on and raise it to the age of seventeen. There may be a certain amount of logic and consistency in the idea, but it is quite clear that as a question of practical politics you gain something if you can protect these lads from the risks which attend street employment during the first year after they leave school. For these reasons, though I do not profess to have studied the question very carefully, I shall, if the most rev. Primate goes to a Division, certainly give him my vote.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: With the indulgence of the House may I say, on the question of the alleged compromise, that I had not the honour of representing the Home Office when the Bill was in Committee, and therefore I may have been led to a misunderstanding. But I think some noble Lords were under the impression that there was some compromise.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY moved the addition of a new paragraph to Clause 2 with the object of prohibiting the employment of a girl under the age of eighteen years in street trading.
The noble Earl said: The next Amendment deals with the question of girls. During the debate on the Second Reading and also during the discussion in Committee, whatever difference of opinion there might have been as regards the age limit up to which a boy should be prohibited from street trading, there was practical unanimity that girls any rate rate should be prohibited altogether, and for that reason I have put down this Amendment. The effect of my Amendment will be that girls will be prohibited altogether from street trading anywhere or in any place. We are dealing in this Bill with street trading because it is one of the worst of the many occupations that children are engaged in, and we think that as a movement towards a higher standard all round this useless employment might at any rate be excluded in the case of girls altogether. Your Lordships will notice
286
that by an Amendment lower down on the Paper my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh seeks to deal with the question of girls by means of by-laws, and he restricts those by-laws to municipal boroughs and large towns. It may be better to do this by means of by-laws, but I think that if we are agreed that, so far as girls are concerned, street trading is really an evil, we had much better be done with it altogether and lay down by Statute that it shall be prohibited in their case. My noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, as I have said, suggests that we should leave it to be dealt with by by-laws, but if we do this we exempt by proviso (2) of Section 3 all girls who are trading with their parents. These are serious inroads on the principle we want to establish. I think we had better accept this Amendment, and let the by-laws deal with boys over the age of fifteen. I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment, because it is to my mind the simplest way of dealing with the question.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("construed") insert the following new paragraph—
(a) As if in section three of the principal Act the following subsection were inserted "A girl under the age of eighteen years shall not be employed in or carry on street trading."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury)
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, this Amendment proposes to carry out the recommendation of the Majority Report of the Departmental Committee, and it was also the recommendation of the Minority Report subject to certain restrictions. I do not know whether the noble Earl has considered the case of the bona fide costermonger. The Minority Report drew attention to this case. I quite understand the noble Earl's desire to prohibit street trading by girls even with their parents, unless it is a necessary part of their vocation. But in the case of the costermonger, where the family live all together, it is a sort of inherited business. However, this is again a matter for the House to decide. But I would point out that if the Amendment is carried certain consequential Amendments will become necessary.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I quite understand that, and if this Amendment is accepted I will move the consequential Amendments at a later stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: The next Amendment deals with words which were inserted in the Bill during the Committee stage. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who I am sorry is not in his place to-day, carried an Amendment providing that "street trading does not include the sale of agricultural produce in recognised markets." It is now found that those words would include all the great markets in the large towns. It would include Billingsgate Market, Covent Garden Market, and other markets of that kind. I do not think the noble Marquess intended that. In moving the Amendment the noble Marquess said—
"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."
Of course it does not, but if you extend this provision to recognised markets the intention of the noble Marquess would not be carried out; nor would it be in keeping with the principle of the Bill. I therefore suggest that the words "a rural district" be inserted in the place of "recognised markets." That, I think, would have the effect of carrying out the noble Marquess's intention.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("recognised markets") and insert ("a rural district.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I do not think that this Amendment would carry out Lord Salisbury's intention, but would have a contrary effect. I was present at the Committee stage, and I remember that Lord Salisbury's point was that children living in rural districts do go into markets to sell their produce. It does not in the least follow that those markets are in rural districts. The probability is that they are not. I am not sufficiently a lawyer to know whether the phrase "recognised markets" may not be too large and may not cover a great many places in which it is undesirable that children should go; but I am told that the phrase "a rural district" would probably be construed to mean places over which there is jurisdiction of a rural district council, and if so construed these words would cut out market towns like Shrewsbury, Stratford-on-Avon, Guildford, St. Albans; in fact almost every single market which Lord Salisbury intended to embrace.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The term "a rural district" would exclude anything like a small country town. If the noble Earl merely wishes to exclude London markets and other markets in big towns, the words he has proposed to insert in this Amendment would be hardly suitable. At any rate, the Amendment as it stands would have a sweeping character.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My view is that if the grievance is to be set right it should be done in some definition of what is street trading. Raising the age to eighteen with regard to girls in rural districts may possibly lead to a hardship which was never intended It is the practice in rural districts for small farmers to take into market butter, eggs, and small produce and leave their daughters to sell such produce, or, it may be, to go round the town in many cases. No one would for a moment contend that a practice of this sort amounts to street trading, or carries with it the evils which are attendant upon street trading as we generally know it. But unless some alteration of the definition is made the effect of this Bill as now amended, with the total prohibition in it, would be to prevent that practice. This would be a great drawback, particularly to small farmers. It would also involve some difficulty with regard to children who were going round with their parents, and I think the better way to meet the point would be to make some definition of street trading. Under the Amendment standing in my name later on the Paper it would be entirely in the hands of the local authority to make such by-laws as they thought proper with regard to this practice.
LORD ALVERSTONE: It seems to me necessary that the two points should be kept distinct. The first question is what this Amendment would do. I think this is a striking instance of what the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition pointed out as the desirability of having a draftsman to deal with this matter who would have behind him the experience of the Home Office. It would not do to adopt the Amendment in its present form, for the reason that the words "a rural district" would practically exclude all the small markets in small towns that are supposed to be protected. I am certainly of opinion that the words "recognised markets" as they stand in the Bill require some further definition, for otherwise they would give an

289
exemption which seems to me contrary to the scope of the Bill as originally designed. Perhaps some words such as "in market towns" might be inserted to indicate that the great markets in populous towns were not to be places in which this trading could be carried on by children. By adopting the Amendment we are excluding the very class of sale which Lord Salisbury desired to protect, and by adopting the words in the Bill we include a number of cases where this trading ought not to be carried on.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I think the House will realise how difficult it is to define areas by Statute, and I suggest that we should try and find some definition which would meet the point before the next stage of the Bill. Perhaps in the circumstances your Lordships will allow the words "a rural district" to go in now, and then we will endeavour to find the right definition to meet everybody's view before the Third Reading.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Would it not be more convenient to leave the provision unamended now, and let the question stand over till the next stage?
LORD BELPER: I think the Home Office should give some assistance with regard to the drafting of this Bill. It is a wholly novel position for the Home Office to take up to say that they are not responsible for the Bill and therefore will give no guidance to the House with regard to the drafting of clauses which they alone have the means of settling in a way to carry out the intended object. I had some little experience as representing the Home Office in this House, and I cannot call to mind any case where that position was taken up by the Department. In the case of many Bills which they did not support and for which they were not responsible, they insisted that those Bills should leave the House in a form as regards drafting which at any rate carried out the objects aimed at. If this Amendment is to be further considered I hope the Home Office will give real assistance with regard to it at a future stage.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Perhaps the noble Lord who represents the Home Office is in a position now to throw some light on this point. He said he came here with instructions from the Home Office as to the drafting of the Bill. Perhaps he will tell
290
us the view of the Home Office as to this wording.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: We did not quite know at the Home Office what the intention of the House was on this matter, whether it was intended to restrict prohibition of street trading only in the case of girls under the age of eighteen, or whether it was to be applicable to boys and girls. If it is to apply only to girls the provision would come better if, at the end of Lord Shaftesbury's Amendment where he says that a girl under the age of eighteen shall not be employed in or carry on street trading, words were inserted excepting under certain conditions. If noble Lords will allow me I will consider the point before the next stage, and perhaps I shall be able to throw more light upon it then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: The next Amendment is put down to deal with a small omission. It was found that in the Amendment inserted in the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Faber the London County Council had been left out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, after ("Council") insert ("of the County of London and the Common Council of the City of London and")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved to leave out the following part of Clause 3—
3. 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, make 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:

291
and to insert the words in his Amendment. The noble Lord said: The idea underlying the Amendment is that certain large towns and boroughs should be compelled to make by-laws enacting certain things, but that county councils should be left in precisely the same position as they stand under the present law, raising the age to fourteen. Certain alterations in my Amendment will, of course, be necessitated owing to the decisions to which your Lordships have arrived to-day; but I think it better that the Amendment should be inserted as it stands, and the necessary alterations can be made at a subsequent stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out from the beginning of the clause to the beginning of paragraph (1), line 12, on page 2, and insert—
("(1) Every local authority other than the council of a county but including the London County Council, shall make to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State by-laws in respect of street trading, and shall by such by-laws in the case of girls under the age of eighteen absolutely prohibit street trading, and in the case of boys under the age of seventeen, require the holding of a licence to trade granted by the local authority.
(2) Any county council may make by-laws with respect to street trading by persons under the age of sixteen, and may by such by-laws prohibit such street trading except subject to such conditions as to age, sex, or otherwise as may be specified in the by-law or subject to the holding of a licence to trade to be granted by the county council, and a county council in making by-laws under this subsection shall have special regard to the desirability of preventing employment of girls under sixteen in street trading. This subsection shall not apply to the London County Council.
(3) By-laws under this section—

(a) shall regulate the conditions on which licences to trade may be granted, suspended, and revoked:

(b) shall determine the days and hours during which, and the places at which, street trading may be carried on;

(c) may require licensed street traders to wear badges;

(d) shall regulate generally the conduct of such street traders;

Provided as follows").—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The weakness of the Bill as it stands is that, although it requires these authorities to make regulations, it does not ensure that those regulations shall be of a satisfactory character. I understand that the Amendment of the noble Lord is to ensure that these regulations shall be satisfactory by subjecting them to the examination of the Secretary of State. In that respect it is an improvement on the Bill as it stands, but even here it fails because it does not provide
292
that the regulations, although approved, shall be enforced, and that is really, from the point of view of the Home Office, the weakness of the Bill as a whole. It would be much better if the policy were set out in the provisions of the Bill. As it is, a great amount of work would be thrown on the Department concerned, and even then the object might not be attained. But, so far as it goes, the Amendment before the House certainly has the effect of strengthening the Bill.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I accept the noble Lord's Amendment, as it is an improvement upon what was inserted in the Committee stage. But there are words in the Amendment which will have to be left out inasmuch as we have total prohibition for girls in the Bill at the present moment. I do not know whether we can make the necessary alterations in the Amendment now. It seems to me better to do so than to leave it till a later stage.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I venture to hope that we shall not insert a long Amendment containing words that are inconsistent with what we have already passed. Surely it is better that the Amendment should be reconsidered in view of what has been decided to-night, and produced again on the Third Reading. To pass it now in a form inconsistent with what we have done would seem to me to make the document as a whole open to very legitimate criticism.
LORD ASHBOURNE: As the Amendment does not harmonise with the existing draft of the Bill the suggestion of the most rev. Primate is obviously the sensible course to adopt. Let the Amendment be recast so as to be brought into harmony with the Bill, and be presented in that form at the next stage.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I am quite willing to fall in with that suggestion, and I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: The next Amendment is merely to provide for confirmation of the by laws by the Secretary of State.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, after ("trading") insert the following new subsection—
(3) The Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of the principal Act, confirm any by-law made under this section either without modification or subject to such modifications as he may think fit.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: The object of my next Amendment is to enlarge somewhat the scope of the Bill as it stands, which provides for those who hold a licence to trade granted by a local authority in accordance with by-laws with respect to street trading under the principal Act, and with regard to whom the provisions of the principal Act continue to apply. It has been pointed out that this would entirely omit the case of those persons similarly trading in districts where no by-laws have been made by the local authority, and the object of the words which I propose to insert is to meet that case and to exclude those persons from the Bill, provided that they show to the satisfaction of the local authority that they were lawfully employed in street trading at the passing of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("or where such by-laws have not been niacin by the local authority in the case of a person who Shows to the satisfaction of the local authority that he or she was lawfully employed in street trading at the passing of this Act").—Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved the insertion of a new clause providing that the Bill should not extend to Ireland. The noble Lord said: The Bill as it now stands amen led is very different from the Act which exists on the Statute-book. The main feature of the Bill as it now appears is its compulsory character. The legislation of 1903 was entirely permissive. By-laws under the Act of 1903 were made at the discretion of the local authorities; by-laws under the Bill now before your. Lordships must be made by the local authorities, no discretion being allowed to them in the matter. That seems to me to be the first broad and salient characteristic of this Bill. But there are other important differences. The Act of 1903, as your Lordships know, excluded children under the age of eleven, and made all girls and boys between the ages of eleven and
294
sixteen liable to take out a licence before they could practice street trading. On the other hand, the Bill now before the House prevents girls under the age of eighteen and boys under the age of fifteen from street trading, and compels boys between fifteen and seventeen to take out a licence before they can practice street trading.
I submit that the Bill as it now stands is a Bill for a rich country, for a country in which primary education is largely developed and is compulsory. It is a Bill which contemplates the existence in the country of large industrial enterprises. I am the last person to doubt that the provisions which your Lordships have now approved are the best that could be adopted in the interests of England. I quite accept the view of the most rev. Primate upon that point. But one of the greatest sources of our ill-success in the government of Ireland is the application to the two countries of the same principles of legislation. Some time ago I read a speech of Mr. Disraeli's which enforced the proposition that if by your legislation you desire to acquire the goodwill and the loyalty of the people of Ireland you must adapt your legislation to the local circumstances.
It was my business for many years to travel constantly between Dublin and London, and I never took that journey without being struck by the great contrast between the poor and squalid streets of Dublin and this grand metropolis. A journey such as that would satisfy any one that laws affecting labour and the means of subsistence could not be equitably applied indiscriminately to both countries. In Ireland the struggle for existence is far more severe than in England, and although I do not contest the accuracy and the applicability of the most rev. Primate's references to this Bill in its application to England, I do think that certain qualifications should be made in its application to the sister country. There are only three towns in Ireland to which this Bill can really apply—Dublin, Belfast, and, in a less degree, Cork. I am not one of those who think that the moral dangers in a great town are much less in Ireland than they are in England, taking towns of equal population and of similar circumstances. But from my own knowledge of and observation in Dublin I do think that the dangers which this Bill properly

295
provides against are appreciably less in Dublin than in, say, London or Liverpool.
The question of the compulsory character of the educational system must also be taken into account. In Ireland education is not compulsory, except in a few isolated localities. If this Bill is applied to Ireland you will not be able to send the children whom you take off the streets to school; still less will you be able to employ them in industrial schools, because it is a sad fact that even in Dublin there is no such thing as a day industrial school. The efforts of many philanthropic people in Dublin were wasted during a series of years in the endeavour to provide an industrial school with the special object of taking boys off the street and sending them there, but all their efforts failed through what I think was the unsympathetic attitude of the Treasury. Unless provision is made so that education shall become compulsory and that industrial schools shall be provided in Ireland, the condition of these children, should such a law as this be enforced, will be worse than before. At present during their day's employment, at all events, they are subject to public notice. If they are exposed to the danger of contracting the habit of betting and so on, at all events they are under the observation of the police, and are kept from worse practices. But if you send them back to the alleys and the back streets from which they come and in which no observation can be kept upon them, these children will be exposed to damages from which they are now immune.
For these reasons—because I think that the circumstances of the two countries are entirely different; because I think that in Ireland the Bill can only apply to a very few towns; because in the rest of the country there is no justification for the Bill at the present time—I think our policy in Ireland should be to adhere to the present law, to bring pressure to bear upon local authorities to make rules under it, and then see how those rules operate. The Irish circumstances are entirely different from those with which your Lordships are dealing to-night. I trust that the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill will take these points into consideration, and that he will agree to exclude Ireland from the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 to insert the following new clause—
This Act shall not extend to Ireland.—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, although I am not in entire agreement with everything which has been said by the noble Lord with regard to Ireland—especially as I think that this Bill should apply to Ireland probably more than to any other part of the Kingdom—yet at the same time I confess there is something to be said for the Amendment, and I am not altogether out of sympathy with it. To begin with, the principal Act of 1903 was never intended to apply to Ireland. I believe it was only at the last moment that a Member of the House of Commons suggested that it should be made to apply to Ireland, and without another word his suggestion was adopted. I understand, however, that the Act has been a dead letter in Ireland ever since it was passed into law. Again, I know full well—alas!—that in Ireland education is not so advanced as in England, Scotland, or Wales. There are no such things as evening schools in Ireland. There is no machinery like we have in England for guiding children into proper channels of employment, and altogether I do not think that Ireland is sufficiently advanced for legislation of this character. Therefore I am not going to oppose the Amendment. But I do hope that the time is not far distant when we shall be able to deal with this question of street trading in Ireland, and bring that country into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
LORD AMBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to say a word on this Amendment, partly because I am an Irishman, and partly because I find myself unable to accept all that was said by Lord Mac-Donnell. I agree that the circumstances of Ireland are different in many respects from those of this country, but the people are extremely intelligent, acute, and resourceful, and this may to some extent make up for what is said to be their want of education. I am sorry that in the description which the noble Lord gave of Dublin he used an epithet which I am entirely unable to accept. He spoke of Dublin as "poor, dirty and squalid." Why, it is one of the most beautiful cities in Europe. Some of the streets of Dublin could compare with those of any city. I do not dwell on the Liffey. But we have Sackville-street, two noble Cathedrals, an old University and a new University, and a great park which is the admiration and

297
envy of many of the greatest cities in England.
What strikes me in regard to this Bill is that it is much more likely to pass if Ireland is omitted from its scope than if Ireland is included, and that is a very practical way of looking at the question. I am in favour of many of the clauses in the Bill, and I think they might be applied to Ireland with advantage. But the Bill is, I believe, unpopular in Ireland, and from what I have heard it is most unpopular in that part of the country with which the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, is best acquainted. In this matter one has to consider, not only the Bill, but its chances of passing into law. I am aware that Irish criticism is very resourceful, and if there is dissatisfaction about a Bill extending to Ireland rarely is that Bill received in silence; and I am disposed to think that, in accepting the Amendment, the noble Earl has substantially increased the prospect of the Bill passing in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: This Amendment in the Schedule is a verbal Amendment, the words being redundant.
Amendment moved—
"In the Schedule page 3, lines 17 and 18, leave out ('in subsection three of section five the words "under the age of sixteen" ' ").—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, before we part with this stage of the Bill I should like to ask the noble Lord who represents the Home Office what will be the position of the Government on the Third Reading. Will they be prepared to give us the advantage of the legal advice which they have at the Home Office in regard to drafting, to make the Amendments which have been affirmed to-day consistent in the different clauses one with another? It is a difficult thing for any private member of this or the other House to deal with drafting Amendments to a Bill which amends old Statutes, but it is a very easy thing for the Home Office, with the advisers they have at their command, to look through a Bill and put down on Third Reading the few Amendments which may be necessary to make the Bill consistent with itself.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, in this matter I am in the hands of
298
the House. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh desire, I will undertake to have the drafting of the Amendments to which the House has consented to-day examined by the Home Office with a view to putting them into shape. At the same time, it must be understood that the Home. Office accept no responsibility for the policy of the Bill.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I thank the noble Lord for the promise he has given.

THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the position of the Royal Naval Reserves, and to the new restrictions in respect to drill regulations which are imposed upon officers of the Royal Naval Reserve; to ask whether His Majesty's Government have taken into regard the serious obstacles which are now placed in the way of officers' of the Royal Naval Reserve putting in the requisite drills, whereby the efficiency of this force may be seriously impaired and the supply of officers considerably reduced; whether His Majesty's Government will now consider the advisability of revising the drill regulations so that reasonable facilities may be provided for officers of merchant ships performing their drills as officers of the Royal Naval Reserve; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, according to the Navy Estimates we find that the anticipated total expenditure on the Royal Navy for the forthcoming year amounts to £44,392,500, being a net increase on the past year of £3,788,800. The steps which His Majesty's Government have taken in still further strengthening our Naval Service and the increased expenditure necessitated have met with opposition so small as not to be worthy of notice, and I am especially assured by the seafaring community of the country that more extensive provision for our maritime supremacy and safety on the high seas would have been received and welcomed with enthusiasm. But I do not propose to dwell upon the Government's arrangements regarding the Navy so much as to comment on the apathy they display in ensuring that that which is of quite equal importance—a thoroughly efficient and numerically strong Naval Reserve—shall be established and maintained as our first

299
reserve for the depletion or probable lack of supply of men for our ships of war whenever the time may arrive when we shall find it imperative to put them into action.
As I have mentioned, we are spending approximately forty-four and a half millions on the maintenance of our Navy. Our Royal Naval Reserves represent five different factors—first, the Royal Naval Reserve; second, the Royal Fleet Reserve; third, the Royal Naval Volunteers; fourth, the Reserve of Retired Officers; and, fifth, the Auxiliary Royal Naval Sick Berth Reserve. Upon the whole of these we are spending the comparatively small sum of, approximately, £388,000 per annum, and presumably the Government are satisfied that the requisite increased efficiency in these several forces will be met by the increase on the past year of £15,500, which, in a comparative sense, means no increase at all.
I am aware that it is a favourite argument with many who are connected, in one way or another, with the Royal Navy, that as a matter of fact there is no real need of the existence of any Naval Reserves whatever; in fact, during the late First Sea Lord's period of office it was commonly said that, provided he had his own way, he would have abolished the Royal Naval Reserve. If such an opinion is correct; then why in the name of logic do we throw away even the comparatively small sum of £388,000 when there is no necessity for doing so? But, my Lords, I hope that such a preposterous notion will not be entertained for one moment. Should it so happen that a naval vessel be sunk or captured in action, then, obviously, it means the loss of the services of a number of men; and there are many unforeseen emergencies in time of war where there is certain to be a considerable depletion of officers and men who may either be killed or set aside by wounds, injuries, or the overwhelming physical strain imposed upon them. Again, a naval action might be fought successfully and yet it would by no means follow that it would terminate the war. So far as I am able to judge I am considerably in doubt as to whether, even at present, the Royal Navy possesses its full numerical strength of men. But assuming that it does, it would soon require many more when once a naval war was waged by this country.
In the ships of our mercantile marine we have an immense amount of splendid material which is quite unavailed of by the Government. In addition to keeping up the present Royal Naval Reserves it is imperative that steps should be taken in strengthening those forces in any and every possible way, and every effort should be centred in the direction of availing ourselves of the services of qualified British merchant shipmasters, officers, and men who, given the necessary facilities and encouragement, would be only too glad to loyally co-operate and give what services and assistance they could in adding to the stability of the naval position of the Empire. I would most certainly commend these proposals to the serious consideration of His Majesty's Government, for, otherwise, they will discover when too late what a terrible mistake has been made. In war time there would be no Reserves of any strength to draw upon in filling up the gaps, and no means of securing the ready services of a great number of men whose practical seafaring experience would be of the greatest value in the hour of peril to the nation.
Coming to the second part of my Question, I propose, in as few words as possible to bring before your Lordships the new regulations which have been adopted by the Admiralty in connection with the drills which must be performed by those officers of our merchant ships who hold commissions as officers in the Royal Naval Reserve. As no doubt you are aware, under the old system there were certain stationary naval ships, mostly of the old wooden type, at the different leading seaports, which were set apart for the purpose of drill ships for Royal Naval Reserve officers and men. For instance, there were such ships as the "President" in London, the "Eagle" in Liverpool, and other ships at Bristol, Dundee, and elsewhere. It was on these ships that the Royal Naval Reserve officers were able to put in their drills whenever the opportunity arose. But these ships were notoriously obsolete, though this was not of the greatest consequence, except for the fact that the appliances which were provided by the Admiralty for the purpose of training the officers and men were also hopelessly obsolete. And besides this the appointment of a naval officer to the command of these drill ships was invariably a sort of polite hint to him that, on the completion

301
of his term, the Admiralty would have no further use for his services on the Active List of the Royal Navy. Fully aware of this, the Admiralty themselves might have had the sense to know that under such circumstances an officer was not likely to throw that zeal and enthusiasm into a most important command which otherwise he would have done, so it is not surprising that in certain cases these commands have merely amounted to a sinecure, as is well known by only too many Royal Naval Reserve officers who have performed drills of late years. I cannot understand why the Admiralty have not followed the practice of the War Office, who transfer to positions of this kind in connection with the Territorial Forces young and ambitious officers who know that the results of their energy and specialised training in ensuring the efficiency of the men of the Auxiliary Forces with which they are connected will likely have considerable effect on their future promotion.
Returning to the new regulations, the position is that the old stationary ships have now been abolished, and officers of the Royal Naval Reserve must put in their drills on board ships in commission attached to the home Fleet. Looking at the matter in a superficial light it would appear that, so far as efficiency is to be considered, such a form of drill and training is immeasurably superior to drilling on obsolete vessels permanently stationed at one port or another. Personally speaking, even though a stationary vessel may herself be obsolete, I cannot see why training of the most excellent character cannot be provided on board of her—that is, if she is furnished with all the latest and most up-to-date naval equipment and appliances, and commanded by an officer on the Active List of the Royal Navy who is not about to retire, and whose further advancement rests largely on the efficiency of the material which he is able to turn out of such a ship. But even admitting what appears to be the opinion of the Admiralty, that, training in a ship attached to the Home Fleet is much more advantageous, still I contend that the new regulations are utterly mistaken and wrong. In matters of this kind it is not only the Navy itself which must be considered, but the special circumstances arising in the merchant service and the particular positions in which the officers of our merchant ships are placed. It is a very difficult matter indeed for these officers
302
temporarily to relinquish their positions, even for a few days, and though our ship-owners are expected to loyally and cordially co-operate in promoting the efficiency of the Royal Naval Reserve, and are actuated by the best desires—a spirit which, I am sorry to say, is getting less and less common—they are frequently unable to make arrangements to suit their officers.
Under the old system of stationary drill ships, particularly so when they were stationed in large seaports, such as London, or Liverpool, it was not such a very difficult matter, especially if things were done as systematically as is possible where ships are concerned, to arrange that officers should temporarily leave their ships to put in drills on the Royal Naval Reserve drill ship. Whilst there they were always within call of their owners, who, realising this, were able to grant officers permission or temporary leave to put in drills, when, as the position stands now, they certainly would not do so on the ground that their officers would be quite out of call. Then again the officers themselves have a natural reluctance to go away to put in drills when there is a possibility that they may at any moment he required for promotion in their company, or some arrangements may be made in their absence which may not admit of their returning, on completing their drills, to the positions they have occupied.
I am in possession of a statement signed by very nearly thirty commissioned officers of the Royal Naval Reserve, many of them holding the highest positions in the merchant service, and I am assured by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild and by others that it represents the views of practically the whole of the officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. This statement has been placed in my hands by the Guild, who, naturally, have a strong interest in this great question, and I think the Admiralty would be exercising a very wise discretion were they to consult with the Guild before deciding upon important changes in connection with the Royal Naval Reserve, which is, of course, confined to merchant service officers and men. These officers of the Royal Naval Reserve, in their statement, comment upon what they term the "extreme difficulties" they have to contend with in order to perform the annual or biennial drills under the new system of drill—i.e., that of drilling on a sea-going ship attached to the nearest naval depôt.

303
In the case for instance of Liverpool, the nearest depôt would be Chatham, which is a place very far removed from our great northern seaport. These officers urge that owing to the circumstances of their employment it is absolutely impossible for the majority of them to find an opportunity to do twenty-eight consecutive days' drill at any time, whilst only on rare occasions can they obtain sufficient leave of absence from their employers in order to drill the minimum period, which is fourteen days. They point out, very properly I think, that this cannot tend to efficiency. They also wish to point out that, although they are allowed travelling expenses and messing allowance, there are many incidental expenses which make the new system much more expensive than the old, when with few exceptions they lived at home and performed their drills during the day, between the hours of 9.30 a.m. and 3.20 p.m. They suggest that the Admiralty should provide officers of the Royal Naval Reserve with seagoing drill ships to be stationed in the vicinity of certain of our large seaports, the officers drilling to be allowed the option of living either aboard or ashore out of drill hours. Such an arrangement, they believe, would tend to raise the standard of efficiency in the Royal Naval Reserve and would certainly enable many more officers to perform their drills regularly.
Some years ago, after being for a long time in a moribund state, the Royal Naval Reserve became "all the rage" in the merchant service, and many of the leading shipping firms took pride in their officers being also officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. Nowadays it is far different. Our shipowners have no real encouragement from the Admiralty; they have experienced the greatest difficulty in enabling their officers to put in their drills and their service in the Navy; and, as matters stand at present, the letters "R. N. R." count for nothing like what they did in years gone by. This is not only unfortunate, but a very unhealthy sign. There seems to be nobody at the Admiralty who will make a speciality of the importance of our Naval Reserves, and who will initiate a firm and vigorous policy which will, once and for all, eradicate what at present constitutes a grave national weakness. I would certainly urge that under the new régime at the Admiralty some immediate alterations should be decided upon in respect to the present Naval Reserve drill regulations,
304
and I move that His Majesty's Government lay on the Table what Papers are at their disposal containing the reason or reasons for instituting such great changes when they are so very injurious to our national interests.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the position of the Royal Naval Reserve, and to the new restrictions in respect to drill regulations which are imposed upon officers of the Royal Naval Reserve.—(Lord Muskerry.)
LORD INVERCLYDE: My Lords, with a great deal of what the noble Lord has said I agree, but on one point I cannot follow him, and that is with regard to drill for officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. We in the mercantile marine value very highly indeed any opportunity we get for employing officers and men who have been in the Royal Naval Reserve. Our feeling is that these men, by going to sea and serving in fleets along with officers of His Majesty's Navy, are very much improved in the way of discipline and smartness. Unfortunately, in the merchant service we have not much legal power in regard to discipline, and on that point alone I do not agree with the noble Lord in regard to drill. But on the whole subject I say with him that we in the merchant service would be only too pleased if we could get more Naval Reserve men to employ than at present. The company with which I am connected are searching now for officers in the Royal Naval Reserve, and we will employ any young officer in the Naval Reserve whom we can get; and if His Majesty's Government could see their way to increase the number of officers in the Royal Naval Reserve it would be very greatly appreciated in the merchant service.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the noble Lord who has brought this subject to your Lordships' notice this afternoon has dealt very severely with the policy of the Admiralty. In fact, he told us that one First Lord went the length of wishing to abolish the Royal Naval Reserve altogether.
LORD MUSKERRY: What I said was that that was commonly stated.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I can only say that I can imagine nothing further from the wish of any First Lord, for there can be no doubt that the Admiralty fully

305
realise the great advantage of this Reserve. It is possessed of splendid material, and the men are a valuable adjunct to our naval strength. The noble Lord took strong exception to the new regulations which the Admiralty have seen fit to issue with regard to the training of these officers. As the noble Lord pointed out, in the past these drills were carried out in obsolete ships and on what were called Royal Naval Reserve batteries. It can hardly be contended that the training on these batteries and on obsolete ships, even with the most modern appliances, can be in any way comparable to the training which is now given to Royal Naval Reserve officers on board sea-going ships of one of the divisions of the Home Fleet; and I contend that the new regulations are not more onerous and difficult for intending Royal Naval Reserve officers. For under the new regulations what do we ask these officers to do? We ask them during their first three years of service to do twenty-eight days in a sea-going ship.
LORD MUSKERRY: Each year.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: Yes, each year during the first three years. But if they are able to get a test certificate before that time we only ask them to comply with the second condition, which is that they should do fourteen days every alternate year; and I may say, in passing, from information given to me by the Admiral commanding the Coast Guards, that this period of fourteen days is further reduced when any officer gives good and sufficient reasons for not being able to do the whole fourteen days. In those conditions we only ask them to do seven days, provided that during that period they requalify for the test certificate. I do not think it can be denied that the training given to the officers now is much superior to that given in old days.
It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that officers living ashore should do their drills on obsolete battleships lying up in harbours, but what the Admiralty want is thorough efficiency. They want an officer of the Royal Naval Reserve to be able, in case of war, to take his place with the Regular officers of the Royal Navy, and I do not think that that condition of efficiency could be arrived at unless those officers were thoroughly trained in the general routine of a man-of-war. For these reasons the Admiralty do not see their way to modify in
306
any way the regulations which they have made. I may say, on the question of officers, that I have been in communication with the Admiral commanding on this point and he tells me that there is no shortage of officers of the Royal Naval Reserve in consequence of the new drill arrangements; in fact, the Admiralty can get as many candidates for commissions as officers in the Royal Naval Reserve as they want. One great advantage of the new scheme of drill is that the Regular naval officers have been able to gauge the efficiency of each Reserve officer on board ship; and the Admiral commanding tells me that the efficiency as a whole has been uniformly satisfactory, and that under the old system it was quite impossible to arrive at this goal.
As to the remarks which were made by Lord Inverclyde, the Admiralty recognise that all the great companies, such as the company with which the noble Lord is connected, have done everything in their power to foster this scheme of Naval Reserve officers, and I am sure it would be the wish of the Admiralty that I should return their grateful thanks to the shipowners for their efforts to make the Royal Naval Reserve the success it is to-day.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, it is quite clear that the conditions with regard to the training of the Royal Naval Reserve officer are somewhat harder now than they used to be, but the new conditions tend to greater efficiency. Formerly these Reserve officers had no opportunity of acquiring knowledge of the internal economy of a warship. It is, of course, desirable that they should, when called upon in case of emergency, be able to step on board ship, take command of men, and be useful at once. This, again, is not possible unless they have become acquainted with the internal economy of a ship and the manner in which duties are performed, and that cannot be obtained without a residence for some days on board a sea-going ship. I am glad to hear from the noble Earl that the number of Naval Reserve officers is not being reduced. I am afraid the harder conditions will tend to reduce them, but I hope the Admiralty will be able to deal in a spirit of liberality with the question of the additional expense to which these officers are put. I am informed that there are a number of incidental expenses not included in their travelling or messing allowances.

307
I therefore hope the Admiralty will be able to deal liberally in these matters with the officers whose duties they have now made more difficult.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, no one will dispute for a moment that the best training for these officers is on board sea-going ships; but the question is, Can you get the men there? The noble Earl tells me the men can be got, so that is satisfactory. In the circumstances I withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MERCANTILE AUXILIARIES.
LORD BRASSEY LORD BRASSEY rose to call attention to the protection of trade by auxiliary cruisers manned by British seamen. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject with which I propose briefly to deal especially calls for consideration in view of the recent discussions on the Declaration of London. Among the objections urged by the Chambers of Commerce to the Declaration none was more strongly insisted upon than the increased danger to British shipping from the conversion of foreign merchant steamers into cruisers. We have a vast shipping to protect. The steamers over 2,000 tons on Lloyd's Register number 2,600 under the British flag, as against Germany, 270; France, 97; the United States, 38. For the protection of our vast mercantile marine we look chiefly to the standing Navy. Behind the Navy we need a reserve of merchant cruisers.
The policy I desire to commend to your Lordships is not new. It was advocated long ago by the first Lord Inverclyde in an article contributed by him to the Nautical Magazine, and in other very able papers. I cannot put the policy more effectively than by quoting a short passage from Lord Inverclyde's article. He wrote—
"There never was a time in the history of this country when the subject of the efficiency of the Royal Navy occupied a position of greater importance than it does at present."
This was written many years ago, and it still continues to be the case. Our risks lie in the fact that the fleets of other nations are fast becoming more powerful, and whilst no navy can numerically approach that of this country, yet there are nations in Europe whose fleets combined would
308
undoubtedly give us enough to cope with. How, then, can we strive ahead as the greatest maritime Power and hold our own against the fleets of the world? Not by being satisfied with increasing the strength of the Navy proper, which, owing to the prodigious cost of modern war vessels, can only be done to a comparatively small degree. Other means are ready to hand—namely, by utilising the vessels of the mercantile marine.
In former days when I had the honour of serving at the Admiralty the opinion of the naval Lords was strongly in favour of the policy of creating and maintaining a Reserve of mercantile auxiliaries. That policy was highly approved by Sir Frederick Grey, Sir Cooper Key, Sir Anthony Hoskins, and Sir Spencer Robinson; and among naval constructors by the late Sir Edward Reed, and by Sir Nathaniel Barnaby and Sir William White. It was approved by leading shipowners, including, as I have said, Lord Inverclyde. Sir Donald Currie was also prominent on the same side. In the United States the Civil War showed the injury which might be done by a few feeble vessels. As the best means of defence the Secretary of the United States Navy recommended the establishment of lines of ocean-going ships of high speed, capable of conversion into vessels of war. More recently, for the naval operations during the Spanish-American War, auxiliary cruisers were taken up and rendered excellent service.
I may refer to a personal experience. I was serving at the Admiralty at the time of the Penjdeh incident. In view of the possibility of an immediate declaration of War with Russia the Admiralty was compelled to take up vessels at home and abroad. We were severely criticised, but the expenditure was inevitable. The reasons were given by an eminent shipowner, the late Mr. Ismay, in evidence before a Royal Commission. He stated that at the commencement of the Russian scare great temptations were offered to the owners of the White Star steamers running between San Francisco and Japan. Our whole commerce in the Pacific, he added, would have been transferred to the flag of the United States if that offer had been accepted. The lessons of the Russian scare were not lost on our successors at the Admiralty. In 1887, when contracts for the mail service to New York were being

309
renewed, the Admiralty addressed a letter to the Treasury. They recalled the recent heavy expenditure in retaining fast vessels taken up to prevent their being available for any hostile Power, and they urged that the steamers subsidised to carry mails should be engaged for service as cruisers. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Admiralty a number of vessels were enrolled. When the Atlantic Combine was formed, we had no hold on the ships for which subsidies had been paid. It was resolved to discontinue subsidies and to rely on the power in emergency to take up vessels. The change of policy was ill-judged. Auxiliary cruisers are required, and care should be used in arranging the terms and conditions under which subsidies are granted.
The opportunity for supplementing our Navy cruisers with auxiliary vessels will generally offer in connection with contracts for ocean mail services. We have to secure that the subsidised vessels shall be at the disposal of the Government when required. Conditions should be insisted upon as to construction. The subject has on many occasions been discussed at the Institutes of Naval Architects and Civil Engineers. Our ablest constructors have taken part in those discussions, and have been unanimous in the view that auxiliary cruisers may have effective protection. As to cost, in 1903 a Committee was appointed, over which Lord Camperdown presided, to reconsider the principles on which subsidies should be given for mercantile cruisers. The ships were to have a speed of not less than twenty knots, and to be capable of carrying a light armament. For twenty-knot ships the Committee estimated the annual subsidy at £9,000. Cost progresses rapidly with increasing speed. For the defence of commerce extreme speeds are not required. Mail steamers over twenty knots number eight under foreign flags, as against six under the British flag. In steamships of speeds ranging from twenty to seventeen knots, we have an immense preponderance. In conclusion, we have increased the Estimates to an amount never approached in time of peace. Cruisers have absorbed a large proportion of the Shipbuilding Vote, and still they are few for the protection of a commerce which extends to every sea. Our policy should be not to rely on the Navy alone, but to organise a Reserve consisting of the vessels subsidised for swift communication with the States of the outer
310
Empire and for opening up new lines of trade.
LORD INVERCLYDE: My Lords, I take the opportunity of thanking Lord Brassey for his kindly reference to my father. With what Lord Brassey has said I agree almost entirely. But I think that one cause of the trouble is that the mercantile marine of this country is increasing at such a tremendous rate that His Majesty's Navy are not able to keep pace with it. It is our intention as shipowners, as long as we are able to do so, to maintain our mercantile supremacy. We are perfectly ready to have our ships fitted to meet the requirements of the Admiralty and to be paid for the services we render. But we do not ask to be subsidised. Personally I am not much in love with subsidising lines of steamers. His Majesty's Government already have a call on a number of fast ships, and if it is desired to extend that number I am quite sure that shipowners would endeavour to meet the wishes of His Majesty's Government. I am glad that Lord Brassey has brought this subject forward, as I think it is one of considerable importance towards the maintenance of the commerce and trade of this country on the ocean.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, there is one point that has not been considered, I think, by the Admiralty. Where are the armaments of these ships to come from? Are the light guns necessary to repel torpedoes in existence or not It would be extremely wrong for vessels like the "Lusitania" or the "Mauretania" to be sent to sea utterly defenceless against torpedoes and at the mercy of any torpedo vessel which could get near. I think all shipowners who have large and valuable ships should have them so fitted that the guns could easily be put on board. I do not think it necessary for them perpetually in time of peace to carry a large quantity of war stores, but they ought to be originally built to mount guns up to 4in., or at any rate long 12-pounders, and be able to defend themselves from the attack of torpedoes. I doubt very much, however, whether these small guns are in existence, and I think it is a point which might well be considered.
LORD INVERCLYDE: As the noble Lord who has just sat down referred to the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania," I may say that they are fully fitted, and that the guns are in store and could be put on board at very short notice.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the noble Lord who has introduced this subject is well qualified to speak upon it, for from his earliest days he has had the interests of both the Royal Navy and the mercantile marine at heart, and in addition he has held office at the Admiralty in days gone by. When this matter was first brought forward in 1887 the conditions were very different from what they are to-day. There were then on the Atlantic trade two ships, the "Etruria" and the "Umbria," which were known as ocean greyhounds. Their speed was nineteen knots, and there was no regular cruiser with a speed under natural draught of more than sixteen or seventeen knots. The "Etruria" and the "Umbria" had a very large coal capacity, and in addition were free from capture by any regular cruiser owing to their speed. To-day our regular cruisers and those of foreign Powers attain a speed approximating to twenty-five knots per hour, and the only ships in the mercantile marine which exceed that speed are the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania," of the Cunard Company. It therefore follows as a natural sequence that any armed merchantman that did not exceed the speed of the fastest regular cruiser must, in the course of time, fall a victim to the cruisers.
The price paid as subsidies to the Cunard Company some years ago—I am speaking from memory but I think my figures are correct—exceeded £150,000 per annum, in addition to an advance of over £2,000,000 on advantageous terms. The whole question was gone into by Lord Camperdown's Committee in the year 1903, and that Committee made several suggestions with regard to subsidies; and Mr. Arnold-Forster, who then represented the Admiralty in the House of Commons, stated in reply to a question that the Admiralty would not consider the subsidy of any merchant vessel with a speed of less than twenty-two knots. That I may inform your Lordships is the policy of the Admiralty to-day. The question of paying large subsidies becomes a very expensive one, and if we are to subsidies vessels whose speeds would be comparable to that of cruisers to-day the
312
expense, I venture to think, would be out of all proportion to the results we should receive. If you ask a shipping company to build a ship whose speed is above that of commercial requirements, the Government must pay for it.
It may be said that armed mercantile cruisers would be of very great use in parts of the ocean where there are no hostile fast cruisers. I do not think that can be in any way denied; but the Admiralty contend that we have a sufficient number of these vessels at our disposal to-day. Under an agreement with the International Marine Company we have a right of pre-emption for the hire or purchase of British vessels owned by that company, and the Admiralty cannot see their way to enlarge their subsidies any further. As to the observation of Lord Ellenborough, I am glad to be able to inform him that the armaments are ready for all the ships controlled by the Board of Admiralty under the International Marine Agreement.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I am sorry to say that Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Chairman of Committees, is laid up, and in these circumstances it becomes necessary to ask another noble Lord to take his place for the time being. I beg to move that Lord Camperdown be so appointed.
Moved, That the Earl of Camperdown be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills in the absence of the Chairman of Committees by reason of illness, except where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House,—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.
House adjourned at five minute before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.