Lords Sitting of 29 November 1911

HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

MAXWELL'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
PILKINGTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings, and the documents deposited in the cases: Ordered to be communicated, with a request that they may be returned.

SALFORD HUNDRED COURT OF RECORD BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

RAG FLOCK BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, the Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day is really a very simple one. There is a substance, as your Lordships may be aware, called rag flock, a material which is most commonly used for filling mattresses and stuffing upholstery, and so forth. It consists of rags, mainly woollen and other mixed rags, which are torn into pieces by a machine called a laniating machine. The machine tears up all kinds of rags, pieces of carpet, old clothes, and such things, as too often unfortunately get mixed up with the soft material which is utilised for stuffing beds and so on. From inquiries made by the Local Government Board Inspectors it has been ascertained that a large proportion of the rags used in this process are very filthy and dirty, picked up very often from road and other refuse heaps, and they are frequently in a very verminous condition.
402
An Inspector of the Local Government Board, in his report, says that it would be difficult to exaggerate in describing the filthy nature of much of the material employed. Although I have no reason to suppose that, for instance, any of the red benches on which your Lordships are sitting, or the Woolsack on which the learned Earl the Lord Chancellor is sitting, are stuffed with such material as I have described, I am quite sure you will agree with me that to use such material for the purposes named is repugnant to our ideas of decency and cleanliness, even where it is difficult—as of course it is to a large extent—to connect disease with rag flock.
The Bill, as the House will have observed, is practically a one clause Bill, but with its many subsections it looks an alarmingly long clause. The object of the Bill, shortly, is to control the manufacture and use of rag flock in the matter of cleanliness. The Bill provides that—
"It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or have in his possession for sale flock manufactured from rags or to use for the purpose of making any article of upholstery, cushions, or bedding flock manufactured from rags or to have in his possession flock manufactured from rags intended to be used fur any such purpose, unless the flock conforms to such standard of cleanliness as may be prescribed by regulations to be made by the Local Government Board" and so on.
The Board proposes at present to prescribe what is known as a chlorine test, a chemical test which I believe very easily indicates the presence of dirt. As your Lordships will see, the powers that the Bill gives may seem to be somewhat wide. It may be that a little later it may perhaps be found desirable to prescribe a rather more severe test, and the Local Government Board will prescribe whatever test they may be advised by their medical officer is necessary.
The regulations which the Board make are to be laid before Parliament in the usual manner, and to be subject to the Rules Publication Act, 1893, Section 1 of which provides that the regulations must be laid on the Table of both Houses for a certain number of days, and must also be published in the Gazette so as to give notice to the trades affected. The respectable manufacturers, I believe, recognise the unsatisfactory condition of this trade, and are in favour of legislation to control it. As your Lordships will see, certain fines for selling this unclean

403
flock are proposed—£10 for the first offence and £50 for subsequent offences. The greater part of the Bill deals with machinery for making the Bill operative, and defines the persons and local authorities who are to assist in carrying out the provisions. The Bill applies to Scotland and Ireland, and although as at present drafted you will see it is proposed that the Bill shall come into operation on the 1st of January, 1912, it is felt that further time must be given after the Bill is passed to enable manufacturers to instal proper washing plant. If your Lordships agree to give this Bill a Second Reading, as I hope you will, when it reaches Committee an Amendment will be moved to alter the date to the 1st of October, 1912. I may say that the Bill passed through all its stages in the House of Commons without any discussion or any question being raised.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Allendale.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have not a word to say against the Bill, the Second Reading of which the noble Viscount has just moved, and the one observation which I had to make upon it has been discounted by his concluding remarks. I am very glad to hear from him that in Committee he will propose an alteration of the date on which the Bill will come into operation. It is a drastic Bill. I do not find fault with it on that account, because it certainly seems to me that this is a case where drastic action is called for. But I think it would have been a real hardship to have compelled persons engaged in this industry to conform to the provisions of the Bill from January 1 next. The Bill can only become law in the month of December, and it will obviously be necessary for manufacturers and others to set up new washing plant, new drying stores, and so on, for the completion of the processes required by this Bill. It would therefore have been a great hardship to submit to pains and penalties as from January 1 next any persons who failed to comply with the standard of requirements set up by the Bill, and I am very glad to hear from the noble Viscount that he is ready to postpone the date upon which the Bill will come into operation.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Charnwood.)
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee on this Bill I should like to ask the noble Lord who represents Irish interests in this House (Lord Ashby St. Ledgers) one question. I observe he has put down some Amendments to the Bill, and I presume that means that the Irish Office approves of the Bill. But I would like to ask whether this Bill has been submitted to and approved by the Irish Local Government Board and the Irish County Councils' organisation, and whether it has been brought under the notice of the Road Board and the Development Commissioners. I would invite the noble Lord to exercise circumspection in this matter, because it so very often turns out, as noble Lords must know, that when in the future we want to carry out some improvement in reference to transit facilities and such like work, some regulation in some Bill like this blocks all progress, and we are told that we cannot carry out the improvement unless we get a certain Act repealed. It therefore becomes impossible to carry out what may be a very desirable improvement. There are considerable portions of Ireland in which transit facilities are very badly required, and only quite recently Lord Iveagh and Lord Pirrie experienced the difficulty I have referred to when proposing to carry out transit services in certain parts of Ireland, not merely a motor passenger service, but a service of wagons carrying goods, and the scheme came to an end. Under the operations of the Development Commissioners it is very likely that there may be a desire to start similar motor transit facilities in Ireland, involving heavy wagons for carrying goods, in districts which have no train service and no other mode of carrying either passengers or goods; and it would be lamentable if in the future it should turn out that any regulation in this Bill impeded the carrying out of such improvements. I would therefore ask the noble Lord, if the Irish Office is going to adopt this measure, whether it has been thoroughly considered by the Local Government Board, by the Irish County Councils' organisation, and by the Development Commissioners, not only from the aspect of the present position but from the possible and likely aspect of the future when new transit facilities are desired.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): This Bill, as the noble Lord knows, is not a Government Bill; it is brought forward by my noble friend Lord Charnwood. All I can say is that the Irish Office approve of the Bill, and I presume it has not aroused any hostility on the part of the bodies to whom the noble Lord referred, otherwise naturally they would have communicated with the Irish Office about it. I do not myself think that the restrictions which he anticipates upon motor traffic come under the terms of this Bill. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke on this subject on the Second Reading on August 31, was, I think, under the impression that this Bill was intended to cover the case of motor traffic. I do not think it does; but perhaps we shall get to closer quarters when I move the Amendments which I propose to move on the subject.
LORD CHARNWOOD: May I say that this Bill was unopposed in the House of Commons. It was most carefully considered by a Select Committee there, and I understand that all sections of opinion represented in the House of Commons were strongly in favour of it.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Was the matter debated in the House of Commons? A thing may often pass without objection because complete silence is observed with regard to it.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The Bill was amended in the House of Commons.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Yes; but did any discussion take place? I find, for instance, that County Courts are given jurisdiction up to £150. That is an enormous jump, and is quite unprecedented in the history of County Court jurisdiction. I should like to know whether that matter was considered by any one conversant with County Court practice, because that seems an immense change, and one that should not be made without very careful consideration.
LORD CHARNWOOD: The Bill was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and that Committee carefully considered it. There was considerable discussion, I believe, on the Bill
406
in Committee itself, and only a few alterations were made in it. It simply makes applicable to Ireland enactments which have been the law in England and Scotland, all of them for over twenty and most of them for over thirty years.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Weight of Locomotives and Construction of Wheels.
2. It shall not be lawful to use on any public road a locomotive, locomotive wagon, or wagon hauled by a locomotive constructed otherwise than in accordance with the following provisions (that is to say):—

(1) A locomotive not drawing any wagon, and not exceeding in weight three tons, shall have the tyres of the wheels thereof not less than three inches it width, With an additional inch for every ton or fraction of a ton above the first three tons; and

(2) A locomotive drawing any wagon shall have the tyres of lie driving wheels thereof not less than two inches in width for every ton in weight of the locomotive, unless the diameter of such wheels shall exceed five feet, when the width of the tyres may be reduced in the same proportion as the diameter of the wheels is increased, but in such case the width of such tyres shall not be less than fourteen inches; and

(3) A locomotive shall not exceed nine feet in width or fourteen tons in weight, except as hereinafter provided; and

(4) The thriving wheels of a locomotive shall be cylindrical and smooth-soled, or shod with diagonal crossbars of not less than three inches in width nor more than three-quarters of an inch in thickness, extending the full breadth of the tyre, and the space intervening between each such crossbar shall not exceed three inches: Provided that the requirements of this subsection may be from time to time varied by order of the Local Government Board.

(5) Locomotive wagons or wagons hauled by mechanical power, and not exceeding three tons in weight shall have the tyres of the wheels of not less than three inches in width, with an additional inch for every additional two tons in weight.

LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, I move to omit, at the commencement of the clause, the words "locomotive wagon, or wagon hauled by a locomotive." I think these words, which were added by way of amendment in the House

407
of Commons, were really the result of misapprehension. It seems to have been thought that when legislating for the weights of locomotives some provision ought to be made for the weight of locomotive wagons, and in consequence of that these words were inserted. But, as a matter of fact, there is a sufficient reason for not alluding to the wagons in dealing with this question. That matter is already regulated by the Locomotives Act of 1861, which applies to the United Kingdom as a whole. In that Act it is laid down that wagons of 1½ tons for each pair of wheels are to have tyres of not less than 3 inches in width, and so forth, and therefore it does not seem desirable to retain these words when the ground is already covered by a previous Act. I may say also that the drafting as it stands is not satisfactory. For instance, it is difficult to discover the difference between a locomotive wagon and a wagon hauled by a locomotive; and, moreover, I understand there is no penalty imposed for an infringement of the clause. I therefore hope your Lordships will agree to omit these words on the ground that they are unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 3, line 11, leave out from the first ("locomotive") to ("constructed") in line 15.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I next beg to move to leave out subsection (5). It is not very certain what the intention of this subsection is, and perhaps it was this subsection which led the noble Marquess to believe that this Bill was intended to apply to motor traffic. But if it were so it is perfectly obvious that it would be very undesirable in the shape in which it at present stands, even if it were desirable at all to introduce legislation dealing with the subject. It has nothing to do with the weight carried by the wagon or the locomotive wagon; it merely refers to the unloaded weight of the vehicle. A large wagon just under 3 tons capable of carrying a very great weight would come under the same conditions as a trailer drawn by a motor cycle, and the subsection would impose on the trailer the necessity of having tyres 3 inches in width. As far as one can understand what is contemplated here, such provisions do not apply to any other part of the United Kingdom, and it is thought
408
desirable, therefore, that this subsection should be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 4, lines 1 to 5, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether this in any way affects the vehicles referred to by the noble Marquess the Leader on this side of the House and also by my noble friend below me—namely, big motor chars-a-bancs and vehicles used for passenger traffic. I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to put any difficulty in the way of passenger-carrying vehicles which might weigh 3 tons and therefore be called locomotive wagons.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I do not agree that there is nothing touching motors in this Bill. The first clause covers motors, and is particularly aimed at enabling road authorities to recover damages inflicted upon the roads by any kind of extraordinary traffic of excessive weight. That clause, therefore, would apply particularly to motor chars-a-banes, as I believe they are called. The whole of the other provisions in the Bill, the provisions as to weight, breadth of wheels, and so forth, are so framed that they would not apply to any kind of motor whatsoever. It is solely Clause 1 which applies to motors of this description.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I presume I am not in order in referring to Clause 1, which has already been passed. But arising out of what the noble Lord has just said, if it is really intended that difficulties should be put in the way of the excellent service of motor cars which has been established by various Irish railways, for instance, for the purpose of carrying people to the different picturesque resorts in Ireland, it would be a very serious thing. I do not think that the House understood that that was within the power of the Bill.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Certainly under Clause 1 the road authorities would have power to recover expenses for damage caused by extraordinary traffic. That would apply to any form of traffic. But where the Bill deals with the breadth of the tyres it has no application to motors.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope that the point will be thoroughly considered, and that, if necessary, an Amendment will be brought up on the Report stage. What some of us want to know is whether beyond all doubt this Bill does provide for a case which has notoriously arisen, particularly in certain parts of Ireland with which I am familiar. That case is this. Large motor cars of great weight, capable of carrying, I should think from twenty to thirty people, are being used upon roads constructed for light traffic only. The result is that the surface of the road is entirely destroyed, and the ratepayers are involved in very great expense in making good the damage. I take it the noble Lord is under the impression that that case is provided for by the clause which has already been passed.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Yes, with regard to the recovery of expenses for damage caused by extraordinary traffic.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If there is any doubt as to whether the point has been met, then I would suggest that at a later stage the noble Lord should consider whether the definition clause of this Bill—Clause 8—which we have yet to deal with, does cover the case I am discussing. I know I am out of order in referring to it now, but I am under the impression that that clause is so drawn that any motor ear weighing more than three tons—I think that is the weight—would be beyond the reach of the Bill. My point is that the owners of a car of that description, if it is constructed to carry a great number of people and is of such a weight as to occasion serious damage to the surface of the roads, should be made liable for the exceptional mischief which they do to the roads by the use of them.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I went into this point carefully with the draftsman, and I conceive there is no doubt at all that the definition clause to which the noble Marquess refers does not apply at all to Clause 1, and that consequently Clause I, which provides a remedy to road authorities where their roads are damaged by extraordinary traffic or by the excessive weight of traffic, would apply to any kind of vehicle of an excessive weight or of an extraordinary kind. Whether it will be effective in its application I do not quite know; but it is, as I have explained, what at present exists in England and Scotland.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I think I quite understand the noble Marquess's point, and I will look into the matter and see whether anything can be done on Report. But it is, perhaps, going further than what was originally contemplated to regulate the breadth of tyres, because it may be that that is not a very effective way of dealing with the difficulty. I will, however, look into the matter and let the noble Marquess know what the Government's view is with regard to it on Report stage.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I have no antagonism to this Bill, but I would be very glad if the noble Lord would have two or three copies of the Report of the Select Committee placed on the Table at the next stage so that we may have an opportunity of referring to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Penalty for breach of foregoing Provisions.
3.—(1) The owner of any locomotive used contrary to the foregoing provisions shall for every such offence be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds; Provided that any county council or urban district council may, on the application of the owner of any locomotive exceeding nine feet in width or fourteen tons in weight, authorise such locomotive to be used on any public road or part of a public road which the council are liable or have undertaken to repair under such conditions (if any) as to them may appear desirable.
Provided also that the owner of the locomotive used contrary to the provisions of subsection (2) of the last preceding section shall not be deemed guilty of an offence under that section if he proves to the satisfaction of the court having cognizance of the case that such locomotive was constructed before the passing of this Act, and that the tyres of the wheels thereof are not less than nine inches in width.
(2) Section three of the Locomotive Act, 1801, and section five of the Locomotives Act, 1865, are hereby repealed.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is merely a verbal one. It is to omit the word "foregoing" at the commencement of the clause in order to insert "of the last preceding section." The result is merely to make it a little clearer that this has reference to Clause 2.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 4, line 7, leave out ("foregoing") and after ("provisions") insert ("of the last perceding section").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Steam locomotives to be constructed so as to consume their Smoke.
5.—(1) Every locomotive used on any public road shall be constructed on the principle of consuming its own smoke and fitted with apparatus to prevent the escape of sparks and with catchers under the fire boxes to prevent the dropping of live embers and cinders on the road; and any person using any locomotive not so constructed, or not consuming, so far as practicable, its own smoke, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every day during which such locomotive is used on any such public road.
(2) Section eight of the Locomotive Act, 1861, is hereby repealed.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, I propose to omit the words "and with catchers under the fire boxes." As your Lordships see, the object of the clause is to compel owners of locomotives to catch the sparks which fall from the engines, and as it stands it would limit them to one particular method only—that is, the fire box system. It is thought that it would be better not to define any particular method by which this object can be attained, but merely to state it in general terms, and leave it to the owners to adopt that or any other method which may commend itself to them.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 5, line 28, leave out from ("and") to ("to") in line 29.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My final Amendment is to insert the words "or not fitted with such apparatus as aforesaid" after the word "smoke"["and any person using any locomotive not so constructed, or not consuming, so far as practicable, its own smoke"]. This is an Amendment merely to render those persons who infringe the provisions liable to a penalty.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 5, line 32, after ("smoke") insert "or not fitted with such apparatus as aforesaid").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 5 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Interpretation and Saving.
8.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "Local Government Board" means the Local Government Board for Ireland, and the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by that Board;
The expression "road" includes "bridge";
The expression "county" includes a county borough, and the expression "county council" includes the council of a county borough;
The expression "locomotive" means a locomotive propelled by steam or other than animal power, but does not include any light locomotive or motor car within the meaning of the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903.
The expression "agricultural locomotive" includes—

(a) Any locomotive used solely for threshing, ploughing, or any other agricultural purpose; and

(b) Any locomotive, the property of one or more owners or occupiers of agricultural land, employed solely for the purpose of their farms and not let out on hire;

The expression "wagon" includes any truck, cart, carriage, or other vehicle.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect or derogate from the provisions of any local Act dealing with the licensing of locomotives, (whatever the payments in respect of the licences may be,) or otherwise relating to locomotives in any county borough or other area.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall authorise any person to use a locomotive which is so constructed or used as to be a public nuisance at common law, or shall affect the right of any person to recover damages in respect of any injury sustained in consequence of the use of a locomotive.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will tell me, with regard to the expression "locomotive," whether the clause does definitely exclude anything in the nature of a motor char-a-banc, motor car, or other motor passenger-carrying vehicle.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I understand that this definition of "locomotive" does definitely exclude anything in the nature of what is ordinarily called a motor.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 224.)

FISHERY RIGHTS.
LORD EVERSLEY*LORD EVERSLEY rose to call the attention of the House to the two recent cases decided by the House of Lords, in its appellate jurisdiction, in respect of fisheries in the River Wye and Lough Neagh (Ireland); and to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of these decisions, they will consider the expediency of legislation for the purpose of giving greater legal sanction to immemorial and unquestioned user by the public or by classes of persons of fishing in parts of the lakes and rivers of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in calling the attention of the House to two very remarkable and interesting fishery cases decided a few weeks ago, by a curious coincidence on the same day, and decided in both cases by a majority of four to three against the fishermen whose interests are concerned, I do not propose to criticise the judgments of the Judges in the two cases. I think it would be a very bad precedent if I were to call in question the judgments of the Supreme Court in this House and provoke a discussion between the Judges who might be present in this House. For the purposes of what I shall say to-night I shall take the judgment of the majority as the law of the land as declared by the Supreme Court, and I shall endeavour to show, that being the case, that it will work harshly on the fishermen concerned in the particular cases, and will prove equally harsh in many other cases in the future.
In the first of these cases, that of the River Wye, the freeholders of five parishes adjoining the river have for many past centuries, possibly since Doomsday, enjoyed by custom the right of fishing in a reach of the river seven miles in length, and they have enjoyed this custom or right without any question by anybody or any attempt on the part of the riparian owners during the whole of those centuries to interfere with them or in any way object to the exercise of it. The right of netting in this reach of the river was in former days exercised by a small community of fishermen living in the immediate neighbourhood adjoining the river, but of late years, in consequence of the very high fees which have been charged by the Conservancy of the river, the number of these fishermen has been considerably reduced, and practically the right has only been enjoyed by a very few. But the freeholders of the five parishes also enjoyed the rod fishing in the river.
414
For the first time for centuries this custom or right has been called in question by the riparian owners. The case came up by way of appeal from the Court below, and the Muse of Lords, by a majority of four to three, decided against this custom, and declared that it was invalid, and that there cannot be a custom alleged on the part of the freeholders of a district in the nature of a profit-á-prendre, and also that a custom to take fish without stint in a river is unknown to the law of England. They have consequently declared the custom to be invalid; they have deprived the fishermen of their means of living; they have deprived the freeholders of the five parishes of which I spoke of their rod-fishing; and they have vested these rights in the riparian owners, who, as I said, have never from time immemorial claimed it before. I think, therefore, that anybody looking at this case will feel that the law as declared by the Judges, although no doubt good law—that is to say, a declaration of the law as it now stands—is open to very great question.
The other case, that of Lough Neagh, is a still more remarkable one. Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the United Kingdom; it is 24 miles in length by 16 miles in breadth, and is, in fact, an inland sea. It communicates with the sea by the River Bann. For several hundred years the fishermen in the neighbourhood have fished in tough Neagh without any question being raised of right. Nobody has ever for a moment questioned their right to do so. The fishermen at the present day are some 800 in number, and although many of them are not wholly dependent upon the fishing they owe their living in great part to the fishing, and with their families they constitute a community of something like 2,000 or 3,000 people. It appears that in the time of Charles II the Crown gave a grant of all the fisheries in the River Bann to the Lord Donegall of that day, and included in the grant were also the fisheries of Lough Neagh. It seems exceedingly doubtful whether the Crown had any right to make a grant of the fishing of the lough. I believe it is now settled law that the Crown is not the owner of the fisheries in inland lakes. Of course, it is just possible that there might have been a forfeiture to the Crown of all the land adjoining the lake and adjoining the River Bann, but that seems to be exceedingly unlikely. But, at all events, whatever the inception of this right may be, the fisheries in the River

415
Bann have always been exercised by the Lords of Donegall and their successors, and are now by the present representative—or rather by the lessees of the present representative—Lord Shaftesbury.
I may mention, in passing, that I believe the present Lord Shaftesbury has practically no interest in the matter, because the fisheries—both the eel fisheries and the salmon fisheries of the River Bann and Lough Neagh—have been leased for very long periods of years. The eel fisheries have been granted under a lease for 5,000 years, and, of course, the reversion to that can be of no value whatever. But the lessees of the present representatives of the Donegall family, having this lease of the eel fisheries of the River Bann, brought a suit against the fishermen of Lough Neagh and asked for an injunction against them to forbid them fishing for eels in Lough Neagh. I may mention that the value of the eel fisheries is very great both in the River Bann and in Lough Neagh. When I state the fact that the rental paid by the lessees to the Donegall estate is something like £880 a year, it will be seen that the value is very considerable; and the eel fisheries in Lough Neagh are also of great value. It has been held by the Supreme Court that. this grant by the Crown in respect of the River Bann is undoubtedly a good foundation for the title of the lessees of the Donegall estate, and they have also held that, although the user of the fisheries in Lough Neagh by lessees of the River Bann fisheries has been very small, yet the user is enough to substantiate that right also. They have, therefore, granted an injunction against the Lough Neagh fishermen to restrain them from fishing for eels in Lough Neagh. It is clear, further, that this judgment will have the same effect in challenging the rights as regards the other fisheries of Lough Neagh. The judgment only deals with the eel fisheries, but it was admitted in the argument before the Court that the principles involved would also determine the whole of the interest in all the fisheries in Lough Neagh. Therefore practically it has been held that the fishermen who have been in the habit for many centuries of fishing in Lough Neagh have got no legal right to do so, that they are there merely by leave and licence of the person interested under this right from the Crown, and that they may be dispossessed at any moment.
Although I do not wish to say anything which impugns the judgment of the Court
416
in this matter, I must take notice of one very extraordinary fact. The Judges were evenly divided in the case—that is to say, of the seven Judges six were evenly divided—three in favour of the fishermen and three against them. But Lord Ashbourne, whom I see on the other side of the House, apparently went neither with one set nor the other. So far as I read his judgment he gave it as his opinion that the plaintiffs, the lessees of the Donegall estate, had proved their case only in respect of one-third of the Lough and not as regards the other two-thirds.
LORD ASHBOURNE: But that the injunction given by the Judge was quite right.
LORD EVERSLEY: That may be; but I think I am right with regard to the two-thirds.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Yes.
LORD EVERSLEY: The noble and learned Lord seems to have given the most extraordinary care to this case and also to the other one. He decided in favour of the fishermen in the Wye case, and he decided in the manner I have just told your Lordships in the Lough Neagh case. He gave it as his opinion that as regards one-third of the lough the lessees of the Donegall estate had proved their title, but not as regards the other two-thirds; and therefore, if his judgment were to hold, the fishermen would still remain in possession of whatever rights they had as regards two-thirds of the lough. The noble and learned Lord apparently wished that the judgment of the Court might be amended in that sense, but it seems that that change could not be made at that stage of the proceedings, and the judgment of the Court is to the effect that the plaintiffs have established their right to the eel fisheries over the whole of the lough. There is this extraordinary result, therefore, that although three of the Judges held that the fishermen are entitled to the whole of the fisheries over the whole of the lough and one Judge held that they are entitled to fish over two-thirds of it, yet the judgment of the Court is that the fishermen are deprived of the right of fishing for eels over the whole of the lough. That seems to me to be a somewhat strange proceeding. The actual decision of the Court, if I am right in what I say, is that the plaintiffs are

417
entitled to the fishing over the whole of the lough. Of course, the judgment cannot, now be impugned, but, as I say, it does seem to be a somewhat strange result.
My Lords, taking the two cases together, they seem to me to bang the door altogether against any possibility of the public or any classes of persons at any time hereafter proving a right of fishing by custom in any lake in the United Kingdom or in any part of any river. As regards lakes, the question has not previously been absolutely decided; and in a case which came up to the House of Lords affecting this very Lough Neagh it seems that Lord Cairns, who was undoubtedly one of the greatest Judges who ever sat on the English Bench, said it was an open question whether the public had any right over the lough or not, and the same opinion was expressed in the Court below by three other Judges of very great repute—namely, Chief Baron Palles, Lord Fitzgerald and Baron Dowse. They all said it was an open question whether the public had a right to fish in the lakes of England and Ireland—I will not say Scotland. But the judgment which has now been given seems to me to make it absolutely clear, as far as it can be made clear, that the public have no right whatever to fish by custom in any lake or river. That has been distinctly laid down by Lord Halsbury, Lord Macnaghten, and Lord Dunedin.
Is it a right state of law which declares that the public under no circumstances whatever can acquire a right by custom to fish in the lakes and rivers of this country? What the effect of such a decision will be is very difficult to say. I believe in the case of the very large majority of the lakes in England and Ireland the public in fact have enjoyed from time immemorial the custom of fishing in them, and I think I am right in saying that in a large number of rivers the public have exercised the right of fishing over parts of them. Let me take the case of the River Thames. In the case of the Thames below Staines the public have had a right of fishing because the fishing in that part has fortunately been vested in the Corporation of London; but above Staines, though there are very large parts of the river where the public have in point of fact exercised the right of fishing by custom, there are other parts where the riparian owners have maintained and exercised their exclusive right. But in the parts of the Thames which
418
are still open I am told that something like 7,000 disciples of Izaak Walton habitually fish.
As far as I understand the two cases to which I have referred, neither the public nor any classes of persons can in future ever claim by way of custom a right of fishing in any part of any river or of any lake, and I must say that for my part I think the law which lays that down is open to grave question. I can conceive no better foundation for a right of any kind than long established user. The law, I believe, gives a right in the case of land to possession after twelve years' usage; and yet apparently a custom may be exercised for hundreds of years by fishermen in the lakes and rivers of this country without giving any right whatever. I believe I am correct in saying that no such law exists in any other part of Europe. In the greater part of Europe the fishing in navigable rivers belongs to the Government in trust for the inhabitants generally of the country, and that is also the case with the larger lakes. In the case of the smaller lakes, and in the case of the rivers which are not navigable, the right of fishing as a rule belongs to the community of the district, and is for the benefit of the people forming that community. Riparian owners generally on the Continent have no exclusive right. Nobody wishes to interfere with the exclusive right of riparian owners where it has been actually exercised in this country; but it does seem to me that where that exclusive right has not been maintained, and where the public have for generations exercised the custom or right of fishing in the lakes and the rivers, the law of this country ought to be amended so as to recognise and maintain that right. At all events, I venture to think that the question is one which deserves the most serious consideration of the Government with a view to revising and amending the law. I venture, therefore, to put to the Government the Question of which I have given notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, I do not in the least degree complain of the noble Lord in having brought forward this subject, because, although it involves the consideration of two very important cases that have been decided in this House, it also shows a condition of the law which it is quite right should be presented to the consideration of Parliament. Let me say, in the first place, that for the legal decisions

419
of this House the House itself at large is, of course, in no way responsible. These decisions are given by those of us who sit judicially, and we have nothing whatever to do with public or private convenience. All we have to do is to ascertain the truth of the facts presented to us, and to apply the law of the country, as we believe it to be, to those facts. The ulterior consequences are not for us; they are for the Legislature. All we have to do is to try and apply the law to ascertained facts. I do not think that the noble Lord would have been successful, even if he had attacked any of the Judges, which he has not done, in inducing one or other of them to rise either to defend themselves or to inveigh one against the other.
Although both these decisions were, as a matter of fact, arrived at contrary to my expressed opinion, I have no doubt whatever that the noble Lords who came to these conclusions did so after the greatest care and pains—I know they did—and with a single desire to administer justice according to their view of the law of the land. That being so, let me state in a few words the purport of both of these cases, which as presented by the noble. Lord were a little disfigured, I think, in his statement, although in substance I do not complain of his description. The first of them was this. In the River Wye, for a distance of something like seven miles, there has been, certainly since a long time previous to the year 1637, and, as I believe, as far back as Doomsday and probably before the Conquest, but certainly for three or four hundred years, a claim of right acted upon and recorded in the rolls of the manor for all the freeholders in five parishes adjoining the river to fish in that river. There was no question that this supposed right was recorded for centuries and acted upon, until a year or two ago. A question arose as to whether or not there could be in law such a right not vested in any corporation. There were two opinions, and in substance the one which prevailed was that there could be no such right. The other, in which I shared, was that the great Judges who sat here before—Lord Cairns, Lord Selborne, Lord Watson, and others—had established a precedent for presuming some antecedent creation of a corporation so as to be the possessors of a right which must have had some legal existence if it had been constantly used for centuries. That was the difference between us.
420
The other case was the case of Lough Neagh. That was a different kind of question; it was whether there could be a public right for anybody who pleased to fish in waters which were not tidal waters but fresh water. There is no question that from time immemorial the inhabitants of the district of Lough Neagh had, in fact, fished without question, and we were told that hundreds of families subsisted and had subsisted for many years upon the produce of that fishing. Whether that is really accurate I cannot say, but that is what was stated. A question arose in that case whether a title created as long ago as the time of James I and confirmed by Charles II was a sufficient title. The deeds of the Donegall family went back to the year 1605, and the question arose whether it was only a paper title or whether it was a real title. On the one side it was maintained that it was a title supported by sufficient proof of user and enjoyment. I will not say a word about the complicated story which had to be unravelled in regard to that. That was the contention on one side. On the other hand, there were some Judges who, like myself, considered that it was merely a title on paper, and had never been accompanied by any enjoyment for all these centuries, and that whether the public were entitled to claim the right or not, the fact that they had used the fishing showed that there was no private right in those proprietors who claimed the fishery. I accept, of course, the decision of the noble Lords who came to the conclusion referred to. I am only wishing to explain to the House the nature of the strange conflict which arose, dating from very long ago, as to the right of fishing in Lough Neagh. Those are the facts. The noble Lord is quite mistaken as regards the part taken by Lord Ashbourne. Lord Ashbourne is here, and if it is necessary he is perfectly well able to protect himself. I will not, therefore, trouble any further on that subject.
The result was that in both cases the claims of the fishermen were negatived. I cannot help feeling that the result of these decisions does make it impracticable for any one to maintain hereafter that the public can have, in law, any right to fish in fresh water. I have never myself expressed assent to the doctrine that the public cannot in law have a right to fish in fresh water. It is quite true that Lord Cairns, in a great case, some thirty years ago, did not commit himself on that subject.

421
But what had certainly been generally considered to be the law has now been established in this House that the public can have no such right. Of course, that is a question quite apart from these particular decisions, which we are bound to take as correct, and which I am quite certain were arrived at after the most anxious consideration. It is true, I think, that the law now, at all events, is certainly established that the public can have no right of fishing at all in any fresh waters in this country.
I am now asked what view the Government propose to take with regard to it. I think that it is a thing well worth consideration. I do not wish to be understood as in the least committing the Government, but, speaking for myself and only for myself, I do feel that in this matter the course of laws and decisions, which have always been scrupulously careful to protect private property, have not always been so careful to protect public rights. Probably it was because in the case of the public it is everybody's business and therefore nobody's business. But for my part, if it can be done without interfering with fair and just vested interest belonging to individuals and which have been enjoyed by them, I would be very glad if something could be done in order to prevent what I think is an anomaly and unwise from every point of view, and sometimes unfair. I would suggest that the best course would be for the noble Lord, who takes a great interest in these and kindred subjects, to place on paper some definite proposal. It will not be an easy task; but if a proposal is submitted to us I will most carefully consider it myself and will ask for the consideration of my colleagues of the subject.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not rise to say anything in reference to what has just fallen from the noble and learned Earl, but I think that by the two speeches to which we have just listened an impression might be formed in the minds of the public without due weight being given to the position of the plaintiffs in these actions. I do not think that the noble and learned Earl in his advocacy of the rights of the public really told your Lordships the full extent to which the rights of the public in the Lough Neagh case had been extended, and it was because of that usurpation that it became necessary for the
422
plaintiff to take the action which he did. The noble and learned Earl said a moment or two ago that the law, while being very scrupulous with regard to private property, had not, been, perhaps, so careful in safeguarding public rights.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say that that observation was not intended to reflect upon the litigants in either of these cases. I was most anxious to avoid doing that. It was a general observation in regard to the history of the law, and since the noble Viscount has referred to it may I say that I believe in the Lough Neagh case the landowners who have established their rights do not intend to exercise them to the full at all events. It is very difficult, in a case which took eight days to hear the evidence, to give more than the most general expression of what the case was. I have not desired to express the smallest criticism or censure upon the litigants in either of these cases, and I hope the noble Viscount will understand that.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Nothing could be more clear than the noble and learned Earl's determination not to cast any reflection on the decision, although he explained his own position very clearly. It is only fair to the plaintiff to say, with regard to this public right, whatever it; was, that it had been in reality only exercised since the lease was granted, for which he had paid £8,000, and in respect of which he was liable to pay in addition a very large sum annually; and this public user had been so developed that it nullified the whole advantage of the contract which he had entered into in taking up the lease. I do not think the noble and learned Earl mentioned to your Lordships the fact that up to 1905 no eel fishing had been carried on. Practically until a year or two ago there had been no eel fishing, but of late the fishing had been so extended, whole bridges of boats being utilised for the purpose, that the plaintiffs were forced to take this step. From the decision of the learned Judge in Ireland and from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland it was made perfectly clear that such a development of the public right practically resulted in the nullifying of the whole of the advantage of the private right for which Captain O'Neill had paid a large sum, and which was undoubtedly the property of the riparian owner to that extent. I have

423
made this point clear because I think the effect of the noble Lord's speech would be to give an idea that the owner, not being the landlord but the lessor, had attempted to drive out the public from something which they had enjoyed from time immemorial, whereas in fact he was merely endeavouring to establish his own right against a usurpation which had only grown up in the last few years, and which, if allowed, would have had the effect of transferring to the public generally the right which belonged to him and for which he had paid a considerable sum of money.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, I entirely dispute the statement made by the noble Viscount. So far as I have been able to learn the facts, they are these. For centuries these fishermen had fished for eels all over the lough. Some few years ago the Conservancy Board for that district made a new regulation under which eel fishing in certain parts of the lough was prohibited. In 1905 the fishermen succeeded in getting the by-law to that effect displaced. They went to law, and got a mandamus from the Court requiring the Board to allow the eel fishery to go on as it had done from ancient days. In consequence of that, since the year 1905 there has been a reversion to the fishermen of the eel fishery which they had enjoyed in previous years. In that case I think the argument of the noble Viscount falls to the ground. I can only say, with regard to the Lord Chancellor's speech, that I thank him for the attention he has given to the subject and for the suggestion he has made. He has put the onus upon me of drawing up a proposal, a somewhat difficult task, but I will endeavour to do it to the best of my ability.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I have no desire to take part in this discussion, as I sat judicially in both of the eases to which the noble Lord referred. He has rather invited your Lordships to sit in judgment on the decision that was given in one of those cases. It is obvious that it would be quite out of place for me to say anything with regard to the decisions which have been given; they are now recorded in the Law Reports and speak for themselves. The judgment which I gave was, I may say, very carefully prepared as the result of much thought, and so were the judgments of the other learned Lords who took part in the
424
decision. There never were two cases more closely examined into and jealously scrutinised on both sides than these two cases, and I am not at all prepared to accept the statement of the noble and learned Earl in reference to the last case he spoke of. Whenever a suggestion is brought forward for legislation on this matter it will, of course, receive the attention it needs, and, as the noble and learned Earl has very fairly said, whenever such a case comes up the question will necessarily at once arise as to the preservation of vested interests. It is obvious that no Bill could ignore vested interests and legal rights; they would have to be considered and dealt with by compensation and otherwise. That is an obvious fact which will lie at the root of every consideration which is sought to be applied to this question.

MONEYLENDERS (No. 2) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, this Bill, which has passed the House of Commons without any comment, is of a very simple nature. Its object is to remedy a difficulty which has arisen with regard to the interpretation of the Moneylenders Act of 1900. The effect of Section 2 of that Act is that any agreement with or security taken by a moneylender otherwise than in his registered name is void, and this also applies in the case of any other person having dealings with him. That point is dealt with. Then it is proposed to restrict the use of the word "bank." In the past there have been many cases of fraud in this respect. Moneylenders were able, by setting up as bankers, to obtain large sums of money from small depositors and persons who thought they were dealing with a recognised bank instead of with a moneylender. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more with regard to the Bill, and I move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read
2a.—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MILITARY MANOEUVRES 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:—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of 60 & 61 Vict. c. 43. s. 1.
1.—(1) Any area may, if the council of the county or borough in which it is situate consent, be included within the limits specified in any Order in Council made under section one of the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), notwithstanding that the area has been specified in an Order in Council made under that section within the preceding five years.
(2) If an Order in Council is made under the said section, but no military manœuvres are executed thereunder, that section shall have effect as if no such Order had been made.
(3) Where the draft of an Order in Council under subsection (2) of time said section is sent to the authorities specified in that subsection before the thirtieth day of April in any year, the time which under that subsection must elapse before the Order comes into force shall be reduced from six to four months.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE had an Amendment on the Paper to insert at the end of subsection (1) the words, "Provided that, in the case of any area situate in the New Forest, the consent of the Court of Verderers shall also be required." The noble Viscount said: I propose to move this Amendment in a slightly different form from that in which it is drafted. Its purport is to ensure that notice shall be given to the Court of Verderers and their consent obtained in the case of any area situated in the New Forest being included. The Office of Woods and Forests suggest that they should have notice as well as the Court of Verderers, and we agree to that. I propose, therefore, to insert the words, "Provided that, in the case of any area situate in the New Forest, the consent of His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and the Court of Verderers shall also be required."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, after ("years") insert ("Provided that, in the case of any area situate in the New Forest, the consent of His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and the Court of Verderers shall also be required").—(Viscount Haldane.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for inserting these words, as I suggested he should do on Second Reading. Being a verderer myself, I would also like him to give an undertaking that the position of the New Forest will be in no way prejudiced or altered from what it is under the Manœuvres Act of 1897.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Except so far as the provisions of the amending Bill expressly alter the term of notice I am able to give the assurance that the position with regard to the New Forest is not affected.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I thank the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I move to leave out from subsection (3) the words "thirtieth day of April," and to insert "thirty-first day of March." I understand the noble Viscount is prepared to agree to that.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("thirtieth day of April") and insert ("thirty-first day of March").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I accept that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Amendment of 60 & 61 Vict. c. 43. s. 2.
2.—(1) So much of proviso (1) to section two of the principal Act as provides that nothing in that Act shall authorise entry on or interference with any enclosed wood or plantation shall be repealed: Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising entry on, or interference with, any enclosed wood or plantation, unless that wood or plantation is included amongst the authorised lands by the Military Manœuvres Commission:
(2) Nothing contained in the said proviso shall be construed as prohibiting the entry on or interference with any park if that park is included amongst such authorised lands as aforesaid.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I wish to say one word on this clause to allay misapprehension on the part of proprietors of parks and enclosed woods who may be alarmed at the prospect of troops being quartered upon them and at the presence of troops in their woods and parks. I

427
believe I have had more experience of troops being quartered upon my land than anybody in this House, residing as I do near to Aldershot. Troops have gone through my woods frequently, and my property has never on any occasion sustained damage. They always leave a large party behind them to fill up any holes that may have been made and take away all the debris, and the last time they came to me they posted a sentry over the gardens and the stables and the entry to the woods—in fact, over any part that I wished to retain the privacy of; and, as I say, I have never sustained the slightest injury or damage from the presence of troops. Lord Down-shire, my immediate neighbour, recently had a large body of troops quartered on his property, and he sustained so little damage and inconvenience from their presence that he voluntarily invited a large body of Yeomanry to come to him the next year. With regard to the suggestion that troops disturb the game, nobody shoots until November. The troops come in August, and therefore if the pheasants have been disturbed at all they have plenty of time by November to get back to their covers. I can assure the House that the visit of the troops is very popular in my neighbourhood, and I have never heard of any proprietor sustaining damage either to his woods or his game or his property during manœuvres.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment of 60 & 61 Vict. c. 43. s. 3.
3. The power of justices of the peace under section three of the principal Act by order to suspend any right of way, shall include a power by order to authorise any commissioned officer in command of the authorised forces or any part thereof to make an order suspending for a time not exceeding six hours in any one day the use of any road or footpath within the specified limits and within the jurisdiction of the justices, and where any such officer in exercise of the power so conferred on him makes such an order, he shall take such steps as in the circumstances he may consider practicable for giving publicity to his intention to make the order, but need not give such public notice as is required by subsection (2) of the said section, but all reasonable facilities for traffic shall be given whilst the order is in force.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to leave out "commissioned"["The power of justices of the peace under section three of the principal Act by order to suspend any right of way, shall include a power by order to authorise any commissioned"], and to insert "general or field."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("commissioned") and insert ("general or field").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved to leave out "road or footpath"["suspending for a time not exceeding six hours in any one day the use of any road or footpath"], and to insert "specified roads or footpaths, or parts of any specified roads or footpaths."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("road or footpath") and insert ("specified roads or footpaths, or parts of any specified roads or footpaths").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had on the Paper an Amendment, after "justices"["within the specified limits and within the jurisdiction of the justices "], to insert "except the roads mentioned in the schedule of this Bill"; and later on stood an Amendment in the noble Lord's name to insert the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE.
ROADS EXEMPTED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL. AND OF THE MANŒUVRES ACT, 1897.
England and Wales.

1. London—Romford, Chelmsford, Colchester to Lowestoft.

2. London—Harlow, Thetford, Norwich to Cromer.

3. London (Great North Road) viâ Hatfield, Stamford, Doncaster, Newcastle to Edinburgh.

4. London (Holyhead Road) viâ St. Albans, Coventry, Shrewsbury to Holyhead.

5. London (Oxford Road) viâ Beaconsfield, Oxford, Gloucester to Aberystwith.

6. London (Bath Road) viâ Reading, Marlborough, Bath to Bristol, and thence to Taunton, Exeter and S. Wales.

7. London (Exeter Road) viâ Staines, Basingstoke, Andover, Salisbury, Amesbury, Ilchester, Exeter over Dartmoor to Bodmin and Land's End.

8. London (Southampton Road) viâ Staines, Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton, Totton, and Lyndhurst to Bournemouth, or viâ Romsey, Ringwood, Poole, and Wareham to Weymouth.

9. London (Portsmouth Road) viâ Esher, Guildford, Petersfield to Portsmouth.

10. London (Brighton Road) viâ Croydon, Reigate, Handcross to Brighton.

11 London—Tonbridge, Battle to Hastings.

12. London—Maidstone, Ashford to Dover.

13. London—Rochester, Canterbury to Margate.

Cross Roads.—The Exeter, Bristol, Worcester, Kidderminster, Warrington Road, through Lancaster to Carlisle.
Cross Road from east to west of England, taking line of Norwich, Stamford, Leicester, Birmingham towards Swansea.
Southampton, Winchester, Newbury, Oxford, Banbury to Coventry.
Scotland.

1. Carlisle, Lockerbie to Glasgow, and viâ Moffat or Biggar to Edinburgh.

2. Carlisle, Langholin, Galashiels to Edinburgh.

3. Carter Bar, Jedburgh, Lauder to Edinburgh.

4. Abington, Lanark, Airdie to Stirling and Perth.

5. Perth, Kingussie, Inverness, Bonar Bridge, Brora to Wick.

6. Glasgow to Oban.

7. Edinburgh viâ Queensferry to Perth.

8. Berwick viâ Dunbar to Edinburgh.

9. Perth to Aberdeen.

10. Glasgow to Edinburgh.

11. Glasgow to Ayr and Stranraer.

12. Glasgow to Kilmarnock, Dumfries, and Carlisle.

The noble Lord, in moving his first Amendment, said: I have put down the Amendment standing in my name with the object of finding out whether the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will give us some assurance as to the closing of main roads. They can be closed for six hours under the Bill now before the House. To close main roads for such a length of time in these days would be a very drastic proceeding indeed, considering the great amount of through traffic there now is. In 1897 motor cars had not come into existence and our main roads were used then principally for local purposes. Now-a-days they are used for through traffic, not only by the more expensive kinds of motor cars, but by motor cyclists (and ordinary cyclists) and many commercial forms of motor traffic, and the closing of our main roads to-clay would mean as great an inconvenience as the closing of a main line of a railway. I am sure the House will agree with me in thinking that this is an important point, and one which we cannot well pass over without some assurance from the Government on the subject.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, after ("justices") insert ("except the roads mentioned in the Schedule of this Bill").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think the noble Lord is justified in asking for some information about this. It would be very mischievous if we intended to interfere with main roads in the fashion which has given rise to the apprehension in the noble Lord's mind, but that is not the case. We are forced to take the power because it is impossible to say what is a main road and what is not, and to schedule them would be extremely difficult. I notice that the
430
Schedule suggested by the noble Lord does not include Ireland. That would leave Ireland in a very unhappy position. But I may tell the noble Lord that we do not propose to meddle with the main roads; on the contrary, it is most essential to leave them free for traffic; but there are cross roads which might affect the manœuvre area which it is desirable to keep closed for a few hours. We have to take our powers in general terms because it is not easy to make certain that a cross road may not be regarded as a main road; it is a vague term. In the first place, we shall not apply in respect of main roads; and, in the second place, if we did I do not think the justices would give their authorisation. Anyhow, I think the noble Lord may rest assured that we are alive to the public mischief which would ensue if we did, and we certainly do not intend to do so. I have had a conversation with the General Staff officers who direct these proceedings, and can assure the noble Lord that we are not proposing to do more than is absolutely necessary.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I take it that what he has said amounts to a general undertaking that main roads will be interfered with as little as possible, and that where he closes cross roads he will give notice of the closing as far back the road as possible so that any one coming down the main road may, on approaching the area that is closed, have an opportunity of going round some other way.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think the noble Lord may take it that that is the practice that will be observed. We always wish to leave as good and fragrant a recollection behind us as we possibly can, and we are anxious to maintain the good character which the noble Lord, Lord Haversham, has given us.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I quite endorse what the noble Lord opposite (Lord Haversham) said with regard to the troops. We are only too delighted to welcome them and to give them every facility. I raised this point, not out of any unfriendliness to the Bill, but in order that some attention should be paid to the main roads and the through traffic upon them.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Although I recognise the importance of the question, I think the noble Lord is quite right to trust the War Office in this matter. My recollection in carrying out the Act of 1897 is that in almost every instance the forebodings with which that Act was regarded and the inconvenience that it was expected would be caused by it, were found to be quite unjustified and absolutely without foundation.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: That is quite true, and virtually this Bill represents a continuous policy. I quite agree with the noble Viscount that the working of the Act of 1897 falsified all the sinister apprehensions that were expressed with regard to it. I hear on all hands that the conduct of the troops during manœuvres has been admirable throughout, and I think both officers and men, if I may say so, are increasingly aware of how important it is to them to have the welcome and the goodwill of the public. I can only say, in support of what fell from my noble friend Lord Haversham, that on the small property I have in Perthshire I had a very large number of troops for the size of the property quartered there for a week, and I am sure that a more orderly and considerate set of men and a more thoughtful body of officers you could not find, and I think that is the general experience of those who throw their land open to the military.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: After what the noble Viscount has said, I withdraw my proposed Schedule. I have his undertaking, which is equally valuable.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with: Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 225.)

TOWNHEAD STREET (SHEFFIELD) BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
BRIDGE AND CAUSEWAY (GLOUCESTER) CHARITY BILL.
BIRKBY BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
HUMBERSTONE WESLEY CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
EPPING CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 226.)
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Tea o'clock.