Lords Sitting of 4 March 1912

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Australian Agricultural Company. [H.L.]

London and North-Western Railway. [H.L.]

Manchester Royal Exchange. [H.L.]

Midland Railway (London, Tilbury and Southend Railway Purchase). [H.L.]

Working District Gas. [H.L.]

Gas Companies (Benefit Funds). [H.L.]

North Eastern Railway. [H.L.]

Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:

Swansea Corporation.

London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the Petition for the following Bill have not been complied with:
Manchester Ship Canal.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NOTTINGHAM MECHANICS INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
  TEES CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
BAWTRY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  BRIGHTON DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]

    BRIGHTON, HOVE AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
    BRODSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    [H.L.]
    Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

CENTRAL ARGENTINE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  CREDIT FONCIER OF MAURITIUS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a, and committed.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LEATHERHEAD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
PRICE'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    WANDSWORTH, WIMBLEDON AND EPSOM DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

WIRRAL RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME, BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
PRICE'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    PENWORTHAM BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
    EVERTON, &c., DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE ASYLUMS BILL. [H.L.]
    BAWTRY AND TICKHILL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    BAWTRY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    V. Gough,

    L. Zouche of Haryngworth,

    L. Biddulph,

    L. Ritchie (Chairman),

    L. Charnwood;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 12th instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel fur the Bills.

NORTH ORMESBY, SOUTH BANK, NORMANBY AND GRANGETOWN RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
  BRODSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    HOVE CORPORATION RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
    BRIGHTON DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
    BRIGHTON, HOVE AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    E. Eldon,

    E. Lovelace,

    L. Hastings,

    L. Kilmaine,

    L. Newton (Chairman);

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 13th instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

CANVEY DEEP WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report of the Board of Trade respecting: Ordered to be laid before the House (The Lord Granard (E. Granard)).

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under Section 2 of the Act—
1. That the provisions of—

The County of Lanark Tramways Order;

The Glasgow Boundaries Order;

The Glasgow Water (Charges) Order;

The Lord Ericht Water and Electric Power Order;

The Lothian Railways Order; and Part III (Water) of the Glasgow Corporation Order

are of such a character that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order;
2. That, having regard to Section 16 (2) of the Private Legislature Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the provisions of Clause 20 of the Clyde Valley Electric Power Order ought not to be dealt with by Provisional Order under that Act;
3. That, save as aforesaid, the Draft Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as may hereafter be made with respect to the several Orders:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1863.
Return of proceedings under the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act since the same came into operation (1st November, 1863) up to and inclusive of the 21st February, 1912: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 7.)

THE COAL STRIKE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg to ask the noble Marquess who leads the House a Question of which I have given him private notice. I should like to know whether he is able to add anything to the information which we already possess as to the progress of the strike in the coal trade. I may say that in asking this Question I imply, of course, that we should be glad of any information which the noble Marquess is able to give us as to the further action which may be contemplated by His Majesty's Government. At the same time the noble Marquess is aware that nothing could be further from our thoughts than to press for any information which it would be undesirable in the public interest should be made known at present.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Before the noble Marquess replies, I also have a Question to ask of which I have given him private notice. It is whether his attention has been drawn to a speech delivered at Ebbw Vale by Mr. George Davies, one of the delegates at the Miners' Conference, in which he is reported to have declared that Mr. Asquith said something in his speech to the miners last week which had not yet appeared in the Press, to the effect that "the day was not far

285
distant when His Majesty's Government would make themselves responsible for getting a minimum wage for all workers in the country"; whether Mr. Asquith's speech on the occasion referred to has been fully and accurately reported, or whether any part of it has been deleted from the official report.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am much obliged to both of the noble Marquesses opposite for giving me notice of the Questions which they desired to put. With reference to the Question asked by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, it is quite clear that there has been complete misunderstanding on this matter. There is no foundation whatever for the statement that the Prime Minister in his speech made any statement with reference to a general minimum wage. The story is altogether without foundation. As regards the latter part of Lord Londonderry's Question, the speech was reported in the ordinary way and was subjected to the kind of general correction which speeches of that sort receive, but no material deletion of any kind was made and the substance of the speech was accurately reported in the daily Press.
With reference to the more general Question asked by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, it is clearly not necessary for me to go into any detail with regard to what has passed, because all the circumstances are quite familiar to your Lordships through the means of ordinary information up to the time when the deadlock occurred. It would be, I am sure, a mistake to speak of the deadlock as necessarily involving a permanent stoppage of negotiations, because the differences so far as they relate to facts are by no means necessarily insuperable. But the deadlock has occurred, and in the meantime the Government are not taking any active steps as between the two parties. But that is not to say that the Government are idle. They are taking such steps as are possible to form an independent opinion on the figures which have been put forward with reference to a possible minimum wage in various districts in order to see how far those figures as published form a basis for possible agreement between the two parties. That is all that I am able to tell your Lordships at present. I under-
286
stand that the Prime Minister is making a statement in another place, and though he may, perhaps, develop his reply somewhat more fully as regards matters of which he has special cognisance he will not be able to make any statement with regard to the future of a fuller character than I have been able to make.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Am I then to understand that the statement made by Mr. Davies, which I quoted, and the statement made by Mr. Hartshorn of a similar character, are without foundation?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: So far as I am aware, on the Prime Minister's authority, there is no foundation whatever for the statement.

IRELAND AND GREENWICH TIME.
LORD INVERCLYDE: My Lords, I rise to ask his Majesty's Government, in view of the generally expressed desire in commercial circles in. Ireland in favour of the extension of Greenwich time to Ireland, whether any action is proposed to be taken. I will first give my reasons for saying that it is generally desired that a uniform time—namely, Greenwich time—should be adopted throughout the United Kingdom, and will begin by quoting the views of two Cabinet Ministers on the subject. The Postmaster-General, on November 7 last, wrote—
"I find that the change would be of some advantage as far as Post Office arrangements are concerned, provided it was made general throughout Ireland."
And last year the Chief Secretary for Ireland said in the House of Commons—
"Personally he was in favour of the proposed change, but it could not be effected without legislation, which the Government could not undertake unless it was non-contentious."
He stated that he had received twenty-five petitions from Ireland in favour of uniform time, and none against.
This question has received considerable attention throughout Ireland and the proposal has met with support wherever it has been raised. The Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom have passed a resolution in favour of it. The Chambers of Commerce of Dublin, Belfast, and Londonderry have also done so, and all the big carrying com-

287
panies have expressed themselves in favour of it. Nowadays transit between this country and Ireland is so frequent and has increased so much in speed that the two countries are now so close together that the difference in time is a matter of great inconvenience. Again, those of us who are engaged in business with Ireland communicate almost daily by telephone and telegraph, and if one is not careful inconvenient questions are apt to arise through blunders being made owing to the difference in time. Therefore commercially we all earnestly desire that the Government should see their way to deal with this question, so that a uniform time may be arrived at.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, the facts are as the noble Lord has stated. Greenwich time prevails throughout almost every country in Western Europe, and there has been a movement for some years to have Greenwich time adopted in Ireland. Under the Act of 1880 Greenwich time is the standard time in Great Britain, and Dublin time is the standard time in Ireland. So far as the Irish Government are concerned, the question was first raised in 1898, when a communication was addressed to them by the Scottish Geographical Society. The Royal Astronomer in Ireland was asked to report, and he reported strongly in its favour. He pointed out that the difference between Greenwich time and local time in Ireland varied from 22 to 42 minutes. He did not think that even the 42 minutes would be excessive, in view of the fact that a greater difference of time prevailed in Austria and Sweden without raising inconveniences; and there is, of course, the further point that it is the eastern point of Ireland which is far more important from a commercial point of view and there the difference is least. It is also true that various Chambers of Commerce have petitioned for the adoption of Greenwich time—those of Belfast, Cork, Dublin, Limerick, and Waterford; and last year the Association of Chambers of Commerce, which met under the presidency of Lord Brassey in Dublin, petitioned in favour of this proposal. It has also met with the support of local authorities and railway companies in Ireland.
There is a good deal to be said in favour of the proposed change. Uniformity is one of the considerations of the moment. Another result would be something in the
288
direction of daylight saving. It is computed that nearly 100 hours would be gained in Ireland. Of those hours a very large proportion would be available for recreation by those classes who leave work at, say, six o'clock. There is also, of course, the argument of economy. In view of those facts the Chief Secretary said in another place on October 26, in answer to a Question addressed to him, that he personally was in favour of the change. I may say that a Statute would be necessary, because the Act of 1880 would have to be repealed. The Chief Secretary added that if it could be regarded as a non-contentious matter he personally would have no objection whatever, and would be glad enough to see it adopted; but he pointed out that, in the then state of affairs in the House of Commons, he could not see his way to be responsible for a contentious measure. The position remains unchanged in that respect. Might I suggest to the noble Lord that this matter might well form the subject of a Private Bill? If the noble Lord is sufficiently interested, there would be nothing to prevent him introducing a Bill dealing with this subject. He would then be able to see what support it got in this House and in another place, and even if he was not successful this year it might possibly lead to the achievement of his object in the future.
LORD INVERCLYDE: I desire to thank the noble Lord for his encouraging answer, and I will consider the suggestion which he has thrown out.

MUSIC AND DANCING LICENCES BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, fortunately for me, perhaps, this Bill does not in any way touch the thorny question of the censorship. It is merely a Bill to amend the law under which licences to hold entertainments of music and dancing are granted in respect of buildings in London and parts of certain adjoining counties. The principal object of the Bill is to enable licences for music and dancing to be granted at any period of the year instead of only at the Licensing Sittings held at Michaelmas, which is at present the law with regard to London and its immediate neighbourhood. Other parts of the country have already, under the Public

289
Health Amendment Act, 1900, the powers which are sought for under this Bill; but the cities of London and Westminster and within twenty miles thereof still come under the Disorderly Houses Acts, 1751 and 1818. Under those Acts any house, room, garden, or other place kept for public dancing or music or for other public entertainment of a like kind is deemed a disorderly house unless a licence for the purpose has been obtained, and may be proceeded against by any two inhabitants "paying scot and bearing lot." who, under the Act, receive £10 each for their services if a conviction is obtained. It is obvious that such a procedure is entirely obsolete. I think it is also obvious that it is an absurd situation that a great city such as London should be in the position of not being able to grant licences to buildings for possibly ten or eleven months. If an application is made now for a licence for music and dancing, that licence cannot be granted until the Licensing Sittings next Michaelmas. The county of Middlesex has already, under the Music and Dancing (Middlesex) Act, 1894, cleared itself from the limitations imposed by the Disorderly Houses Acts. Generally this Bill is on the lines of the Middlesex Act of 1894. It has received the unanimous countenance and support of all the county councils concerned, and particularly of the London County Council, whose Bill this is and on whose behalf I am acting.
I now turn to the clauses of the Bill. Your Lordships will observe in Clause I that the area to which the Bill applies embraces the whole area covered by the Act of 1751 with the exception of the county borough of Croydon, who have already made other arrangements which they desire should continue to stand. There is also a small part of the county of Buckingham to which the Act of 1751 has never been applied, and they naturally see no reason why they should have an amending Act. Clause 2, as to definitions, maintains the present position under the Acts of 1751 and 1818. Clause 3, which is, I think, the important clause in the Bill, is on the lines of the Middlesex Act, and it also re-enacts some of the provisions of the Act of 1751, which it is proposed to repeal. There is one exception to that general statement, and that is in subsection (4). Your Lordships will observe that by that subsection a person to whom the licensing authority has refused to grant
290
or transfer a licence shall not be entitled to again apply for the grant or transfer in respect of the same premises within three months from the date of such refusal. The clause also ensures that ordinary applications shall be made at the annual meeting of the licensing authority, but it does give power in exceptional cases for a licence to be granted at any other time.
Clause 4 lays down the fees which are to be charged for licences. They are considerably higher than those which have been put into similar Acts, but I think your Lordships will agree that they are not too high, at any rate as regards the county of London, when I say that it is estimated that these increased fees will not even cover one-half of the estimated cost of the inspections. The remainder of the cost, of course, will have to be borne by the ratepayers. The fees are 5s. a month under the Theatre and Cinematograph Acts and also under the Middlesex Act, as against the larger fees in this Bill. But, on the other hand, I might mention that in New York the fees charged are 500 dollars, and that in Chicago they range from 500 to 1000 dollars. Clause 5 imposes penalties for keeping open premises without a licence. Subsection (1) imposes the same penalty as is now charged under the Metropolis Management and Buildings Act. 1878, with regard to protection from fire in buildings of a similar character. It is felt that it would be unwise to have a lower penalty under this Bill, as it would lead to considerable inconvenience and houses would naturally desire to come under this Bill rather than under the other Act. Subsection (2) is on the lines of the Middlesex Act, the only difference being that the date of the offence is taken as the date from which the fine shall commence, instead of the date of the conviction. Clause 6 is merely a re-enactment of Clause 4 of the Act of 1751. Clause 7 is similar to the clause in the Middlesex Act. The exceptions to buildings coming under this Bill are proposed to be the same as at present exist. There is no desire to include buildings which are not already under these licensing authorities. Clause 8 lays down the date of the commencement of the operation of this Bill should it become law, and fixes the date at November 1 in order that the next meeting of the licensing authority should be held under the provisions of this Bill. Clause 9 merely repeals the enactments mentioned in the Schedule

291
which are either re-enacted in this Bill or have become unnecessary owing to its provisions. I do not think the House will consider the Bill a contentious one, and I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will see fit to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, with the general principle of this Bill the Government are in agreement. It is very desirable that the licensing authorities should have power to grant occasional licences and to transfer licences at other times than at the Michaelmas sittings. This was recommended by the Select Committee on Stage Plays which sat in 1909. The Committee said—
"The licensing authority should have full power to grant occasional licences and to transfer licences from one person to another during die twelve months for which the licence has been granted. On both of these points the present law needs amendment."
This Bill is founded, I believe, on the Act of 1891, under which the county of Middlesex got what the noble Lord desires should be extended now to the whole of the metropolis.
When this Bill reaches Committee, if your Lordships give it a Second Reading, I shall move one or two Amendments. In the first place, it is desirable to bring Croydon into line with the other authorities. Unless there is very good reason why it should be left out of the arrangement, I think it would be much better that there should be a general uniform method applicable to all. The only other point I will mention to-day is with regard to Clause 5—the penalties clause. It is the universal practice, I believe, to make fines date from the conviction and not from the date of the offence. I hope that in Committee the noble Earl will agree that it will be much better to adopt the universal practice with regard to penalties, and not set up a new system as is done by this clause. Subject to these Amendments and one or two others on small points which may occur to me before the Bill goes into Committee, the Government have no objection to the Bill and will give it their support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 12th instant.

THE ARMY RIFLE.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in the event of the Expeditionary Force having been called out for service abroad last September, the rifles of that Force would have been inferior to those of the German Army. This question is to my mind of such vital importance to that branch of His Majesty's Forces with which I have been connected for so many years that that must be my excuse for bringing it forward again this evening. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that when we had a debate upon armaments about a fortnight ago I put this same question to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War, and, as your Lordships are aware, I failed to receive any reply. Since that time the Under-Secretary for War has stated in public, at a meeting of the London Rifle Club, that this subject of the new rifle is of the greatest importance, for not only are the leading armies of the world better equipped with small arms than our own troops, but several of the smaller nations have adopted rifles which are claimed to be superior to those of the leading Powers. If that statement is true, I do not think it will be difficult to understand why the noble Viscount refrained from answering my question. I trust that in the circumstances your Lordships will consider that I am justified, in the interests of the Army, in bringing this question again before the House, and I hope that the noble Viscount will give us far more information on the subject to-day than he did on the last occasion. If the noble Viscount agrees with Colonel Sealy as to the rifle, it appears to me that the issue of the new rifle brooks no delay.
I venture to think that most of your Lordships will agree that an important subject such as this should not be lightly passed over, at any rate by this House, for this is not a Party question. It is a national question. It not only affects the safety of our troops when on the field of battle, but it also affects the security of our shores. When the noble Viscount on February 20 rose to deal with the points that ware brought forward on that occasion, he said—
" I think it will be convenient that I first deal with the question of armament."
As your Lordships are aware, instead of doing so he proceeded to make a somewhat lengthy defence of the Military Correspondent of The Times. We were told

293
that this gentleman received £500 per annum from public funds as editor of the Army Review, which I would like to point out to your Lordships is only published quarterly, and that at the same time he was permitted to write independently for papers such as The Times. Therefore this gentleman is not only a paid officer of the War Office, but also a paid servant of a public newspaper. I venture to think that such an appointment has never hitherto been known in the history of the War Office, and, as I said the other day, it is not surprising that the majority of the officers in the Army regard the articles of the Military Correspondent of The Times as simply written to champion the present administration of the War Office, and, therefore, as of no value at all. The noble Viscount pointed out that though the Military Correspondent of The Times was editor of the Army Review he did not have access to papers at the War Office without the leave of the chief of the Imperial General Staff. That question has since been brought forward in another place, and therefore I will not touch upon it again.
But with regard to the rifle, I am aware that other noble Lords on this side of the House also had complaints that during the armament debate a fortnight ago they did not get any definite answer from the noble Viscount on the points which they brought forward. My noble friend Lord Stanhope, in his able and forcible speech, brought out, in my opinion, a very potent question. He asked, "Who is responsible for the fact that our Army has been equipped for six long years with a rifle and ammunition not up to modern requirements? As your Lordships are aware, he received no answer to that question. In fact, the noble Viscount hardly replied to the noble Earl's remarks at all, except to say that his speech was a most interesting one. I quite agree with the noble Viscount there; and any one who heard Lord Stanhope's speech could not have failed to recognise that he was an expert on the subject and was speaking of what he knew. As far as I could gather, the main line of defence of the noble Viscount with regard to the present rifle was this, that the English soldier could fire out of his rifle double the number of rounds in a given time that could be fired out of the German rifle; that is to say, without bringing the rifle down from his shoulder, meaning to imply that the rifle was more or less used auto-
294
matically. In spite of that assertion, however, the noble Viscount said later on, when speaking of the automatic rifle—
"The waste of ammunition and the inaccuracy in shooting which comes from it counterbalances…the advantage in the number of bullets you can send out of the muzzle in a minute of time."
If he holds that view with regard to the automatic rifle, how does he contend that our rifle has any superiority over that of the German rifle?
During the recent debate we came to this universal decision, that the weak spot in the Lee-Enfield rifle was its breech action. No one can doubt, however, that with its turned down bolt lever we are in this respect in advance of other countries. Other countries, too, are at a disadvantage in not having the hand-guard in front of their rifle for rapid firing. The point that some bring out—that our rifles hold ten bullets and those of other nations only hold five—is, in my opinion, a doubtful advantage. But on the other hand the breech locking action of Continental rifles is well known to be far superior to that of our rifle, whilst their sighting is far simpler, more especially that of the French rifle with its battle sight. In the course of the noble Viscount's remarks respecting our rifle, he advocated that one of the great points about it was its lightness, that it could be quickly brought; up to the shoulder and down again. With all respect to the noble Viscount, I do not agree that that is much advantage, and for this reason—that in modern warfare, as the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who sits on the Cross Benches (Earl Roberts) well knows, the standing position for which that is useful is never used on the field of battle; in fact, the prone position is invariably used and nothing else except, perhaps, the sitting or kneeling position. But no one who has had any experience of our rifle can doubt that the greatest objection to it lies in this—the flatness of the trajectory of foreign rifles as compared with that of our own; and there is no question, if that is true, that our troops the moment they go on to the field of battle are at a great disadvantage—a disadvantage which I contend no nation can afford to run, more especially a nation with a small Army like ours, an Army which is now represented in part by a Special Reserve only partially trained annually in rifle shooting, and by Reserves hardly trained at all.

295
A few months ago this country was on the verge of war, and if it had taken place it would have necessitated the Expeditionary Force going to the Continent. Are we sure that that situation will not very soon, or in a very short time, recur? Surely, then, it is the duty of the military authorities at the War Office to hasten the issue of the new rifle before it is too late, so that our troops when they do take the field will be, if not on a superior, at any rate on an equal, footing with the troops of other Powers. In this connection it must be remembered that 80 per cent. of the casualties in battle result from rifle bullets, and our deficiency in respect to the rifle could not be compensated for by any superiority in regard to Artillery. That is my reason for asking the Question on the Paper, and I hope that the noble Viscount will give me a definite answer and will also state what he proposes to do in the immediate future.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Viscount began his speech with something like a resolution of virtue, but before long he had got away into a still more attractive topic than his friend the rifle, and that was the Military Correspondent of The Times, who seems to exercise a fascination for the noble Viscount comparable to that which King Charles's head exercised over a certain historic personage. I will not, however, pursue the subject of the Military Correspondent of The Times, which is not germane to this question.
The noble Viscount, in his Question on the Paper, asks whether the rifle which we now possess would have been, in the event of the Expeditionary Force having been called out for service abroad last September, inferior to the rifle of the German Army. I think it would have been inferior to the rifle of the German Army in very material points, but none the less I add to that that it would have been a very serviceable rifle and one with which no troops need have been afraid to go into action. It has various advantages which the rifle of the German Army has not. It is not the case that a flat trajectory is everything. A flat trajectory is important, but there are other things to be taken into account. A flat trajectory merely means that if you take aim at a man say 800 yards away, you
296
have a better chance than with a high trajectory of hitting somebody in between whom you did not aim at. With a high trajectory the man standing in between and at whom you did not aim would have the bullet go over his head, but with a flat trajectory there would be a chance, although he would have to be a tall man indeed if he was in the centre of the line of fire, of his being hit. But for hitting the man at whom you are aiming, one trajectory is for all purposes practically as good as another. If you are aiming at a man 400 yards away you naturally sight for a man at 400 yards, and the rifle with a high trajectory is as good as a rifle with a low trajectory. Moreover, a rifle with a high trajectory has compensating advantages. If the high trajectory is caused by the heavy weight of the bullet, then the bullet hits with more force and the accuracy is greater. But I am not here to say that it is not an advantage to have a flat trajectory. It is an advantage, but not the only advantage.
It is some time since the Army had the advantage of the noble Viscount belonging to it. A good many things have happened since then, and if he had had to do, as the experts of to-day have to do, with comparing the qualities of rifles, he would know that a great many things are now taken into account. One in particular in these days of rapid firing is the possibility of covering the intervening space with a large volume of lead. For that purpose a light handy rifle has advantages over a long and heavy rifle, and in the new rifle we are endeavouring to preserve the great advantages which the short rifle, the rifle which was introduced by my noble and gallant friend who sits on the Cross Benches, possesses; but our purpose is to combine with those advantages a trajectory as flat as we can get it, for the reason that it is an advantage for the flight of your bullet to be low so as to cover the intervening space. The General Staff, however, inform me that it is an advantage which is a good deal exaggerated, because when you are sighting any one 800 yards away there are not usually people intervening. But it is one, at all events, among other advantages, and so long as you can have it without sacrificing the handiness of the short rifle it is an advantage worth obtaining. One reason why we are proceeding with a new rifle is to get a larger charge than is possible with the existing rifle.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon, but did he say that he is proceeding with a new rifle?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, the pattern is approved for trial, and manufacture on an experimental scale will proceed. I will say a word about that presently. The great difficulty with the existing rifle is that the breech-chamber is too small. Consequently you cannot get in a large charge, and you cannot get as great a muzzle velocity as otherwise you might obtain. The way that has been dealt with in the new rifle is that the breech-chamber is larger and will allow of much greater pressure. The noble Viscount spoke as though all you had to do when you had adopted the pattern of a new rifle was to make it and issue it at once. I can assure him that there is a great deal more to be done. First of all, you have to do what necessitates a great deal of experiment on a large scale; you have to determine the proper charge and the relation of the charge to the bullet. We shall not have determined that satisfactorily until this rifle has been used on a considerable scale. Therefore we are at present proceeding to manufacture a considerable number of them for the purpose of arming one or two battalions which can practise over a prolonged period with the new rifle, and at the end of some months furnish us with satisfactory materials on which to decide whether or not we have got the right form of charge and the right form of bullet.
There is every kind of question to decide. There is the question whether you should use shred cordite or small tubular cordite, or whether you should use flake cordite. These considerations involve scientific and mathematical problems of a high order, so complicated that the result has to be obtained largely experimentally. The German Army changed their charge almost the other day. They adopted an entirely new cartridge notwithstanding that their rifle had only been brought out in 1908. The reason why we cannot do as much as we would wish with the existing rifle is that the chamber is not large enough. That is why we have adopted a new rifle, and these experiments on a large scale are necessary before we know exactly how we stand. The new rifle we have adopted has the flattest trajectory in the world, and I think it possesses a great many other advantages. I should be sorry to say
298
that nobody will discover a better rifle in the course of the next few years, but what I wish to emphasise is that the important point is not so much the rifle as the cartridge. If you make a rifle with a large enough and strong enough breech-chamber you can put in new ammunition as new ammunition presents itself. We think we have the best ammunition; but what we do not know is whether we have got the cordite in the most perfect form for a high pressure rifle.
Meantime the steps we have taken are these. Although the existing pattern of rifle does not admit of as large a charge as we are attempting, it admits of a considerably larger charge than we have ever had before, and the new cartridge with which four Divisions of the Expeditionary Force were armed last December, and with which the whole six Divisions will be armed in the course of a month or so—the new cartridge for which we have taken a large sum of money in the Estimates this year—contains a considerably larger charge, and we get a substantially increased muzzle velocity and a trajectory which is four feet lower than the trajectory of the present rifle. These things are never accomplished very rapidly. If they are accomplished very rapidly, failure and disappointment result. Far the most difficult part of the problem is the ammunition in its relation to the bullet. That can only be determined by experience. As soon as we know that we have hit upon the right form of ammunition, the right proportion of what is in the cartridge and what is in the bullet, we shall, now that we have determined the rifle, proceed very rapidly. If an automatic rifle is invented which fulfils Service requirements we shall take to it at once and without difficulty, because the new rifle is so adapted that it would be able to take ammunition suitable to an automatic rifle, and all that we would have to do would be to proceed with the manufacture of automatic rifles and substitute them. It is the wildest notion that you can invent a rifle out of your head, so to speak; still more that you can adapt the ammunition for it without most careful consideration. Every Power that has adopted a new rifle successfully has done so after the most minute care. Our rifle is the most modern of all rifles, and but for its defective breech-chamber we should have been able to put in a charge which would have made it equal to any.

299
The new rifle, as we believe, will be in calibre, in the weight of the bullet, in the size of the charge, and in the qualities of the rifle, superior to anything which at present exists in the world; but I do not wish to rush into the arming of the troops with it until the troops have had some opportunity of using it experimentally on a large scale, and until we can be sure that it is the best rifle. Meantime we have, by adopting the new ammunition, taken steps which give us a very serviceable weapon, nearly as good as the French, something short of the German in point of trajectory, but possessing advantages over both in the rapidity of fire and the consequent volume of lead that can be sent from it in a given time over a given space. My answer to the noble Viscount's question is that if, unfortunately, some cataclysm had taken place which had called for the use of our troops last summer or at any other recent time, we should have found ourselves with a rifle inferior in trajectory to the Continental rifle, but nevertheless a very serviceable weapon, possessing in many respects advantages over the Continental rifle, and not a rifle with which our troops need have been afraid to go into action.
EARL ROBERTS: How soon will the new rifles be in the hands of the two battalions?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Very soon now. The specimen rifle has been completed and we are proceeding to the experimental manufacture. A considerable number will be manufactured at once. There is to be no delay.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but one or two of the remarks made by the noble Viscount are so extraordinary that I feel compelled to draw attention to them. The noble Viscount made a great point of the fact that if you aimed at a man 800 yards away you would hit him whether the trajectory was high or low. That is perfectly correct, but, as the noble Viscount knows, the real difficulty in shooting in the field is to judge the distance. It is almost impossible, under varying conditions of atmosphere and of ground, to judge distances accurately. You have not always a range-finder at hand, and it is obvious that if you estimate the distance at 800 yards and it happens to be 700 you are more likely to hit the enemy if your trajectory is low than if it is high. In other words, with a low trajectory you increase the
300
area of danger space. Every soldier will agree that that is the point in favour of a low trajectory, not whether anybody would be standing 400 yards away while you are firing at an object 800 yards distant.
In the previous debate the noble Viscount referred to the remaining velocity of the heavier bullet. I made the remark then that our bullet compared badly with the German bullet at all ranges, and the noble Viscount promptly denied that statement. It is quite true that the German bullet has less striking velocity and less remaining energy beyond a certain distance, but the German bullet is better than ours up to that distance. It is better than our bullet up to 1,100 yards; there is nothing to choose between them up to 1,500 yards. But in all drill books it is held that effective rifle range is only up to 1,400 yards; after that it is considered long range firing. Therefore the point of the remaining energy of our bullet as compared with the German bullet is not worth consideration. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that the cartridge is, if anything, more important than the rifle. But that only brings out the extraordinary statement he made on the previous occasion. I have an impression that he has edited the remarks he then made to some extent, and that as printed in the Official Report they are not quite so serious as at the time he made them. He then remarked that the old bullet could be used in the converted rifle and that it would make quite fair shooting, but I think he has since put in the words "up to 500 yards." If the sighting of a rifle is of any value at all, it has to be accurate. The sighting that is right for one bullet is absolutely wrong for the other, and that holds true at all ranges, though less so at ranges under 500 yards. In war at short ranges men are going to lay as flat as they possibly can, and therefore it is not a question of whether you can hit a man standing at 500 yards or so. The question is whether your rifle is absolutely accurately sighted, and the probability is that you will have to consider hitting a man the top of whose head is not more than eighteen inches at the outside from the ground.
The point that will have to be raised when it comes to the question of the Army Estimates is the far more serious situation as regards ammunition. I not by any means satisfied, either by the remarks of the noble Viscount or by the information

301
with which we have been supplied, as to the state of the ammunition during last summer, and, in fact, up to the present time. I have not yet been able to discover what reserve of ammunition we had of the old type, because most of the rifles, in fact practically the whole of the rifles, of the Expeditionary Force had then the old sight, and I think this House will desire to know what reserve of old ammunition we had to go with the old rifle. The other point made by the noble Viscount on the last occasion was that the reformed rifle, if I may so call it, could use the old bullet. Well, perhaps it can; but I should like to know whether the old rifle can use the new bullet. The new bullet is longer than the old one, and it is a question whether it can go into the magazine at all. That is a matter on which we desire information, because obviously if you reduce your rifle to single-loading instead of charger-loading you do away with the whole of the advantages which the noble Viscount mentioned with regard to rapidity of fire. Secondly, there comes the serious question whether you would not send your troops into action possessing a rifle sighted accurately for a certain bullet but supplied with another bullet. There is nothing that I can imagine which would so materially affect the morale of troops in action than to feel that their rifles were 80 badly sighted that they were not able to hit the object aimed at. I hope the noble Viscount will on a future occasion make clear the position in which we stood last summer, not only with regard to the rifle, but with regard to ammunition.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am loth to take part in this discussion, but I feel that we have gained a great point from the noble Viscount, and after what he has said I hardly think it is worth while continuing a discussion about the old rifle. The noble Viscount has assured us that we are going to have a new rifle and a new bullet, and that our troops will very shortly—I hope he will be able to give us a definite date—be armed with the new rifle. If that is so, and the rifle then will be as good as, or better than, any rifle possessed by a Continental Army, I think we must accept his statement with great gratitude, and I do not think there is anything to be gained by looking back at the past. I quite agree with the criticisms that have been passed on the old rifle, but what I think is far more important is
302
to know that a new and improved rifle is to be issued to our troops. We hope that the experiments to which the noble Viscount referred will shortly be put in hand, and that the bullet and rifle when issued will be of such a calibre as to excel those possessed by any Continental Power. If the noble Viscount could give us any sort of assurance how soon the troops will be armed with the new rifle we should feel still more satisfied.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The new rifle is in a completed form and is at the War Office, where it is to be seen alongside the rifles of other Powers and our present rifle. I do not wish to make public the details of it, but if any of your Lordships would care to go and look at it and compare it with other rifles I shall be only too glad to arrange for an inspection. As regards the question put to me by the noble Earl opposite, there was a mythical rumour, which originated in a sensational evening paper, to the effect that we only had last summer 150 rounds of ammunition for each man of the Expeditionary Force. That was a ludicrous rumour. I do not propose to go into the details of the ammunition we had, but I may say that we had in reserve three times the amount that was shot away in the whole course of the South African War. The ideas of the General Staff about the reserve of ammunition which we should possess have gone up, and we have been accumulating ammunition. Last summer we even brought some from the enormous stores at Malta. We are passing to the new cartridge from the old, and we hope presently, so far as the Regular troops are concerned, that time old ammunition will not be required. We have taken in the Estimates this year a very large sum for the new ammunition. I do not think your Lordships need be at all troubled about the reserve of ammunition at this moment.
LORD SALTOUN: Can the noble Viscount give us any assurance as to when the new rifle will be issued?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It is impossible to say. It depend, upon how the relation of the powder to the bullet progresses. We have already determined on provisional cartridges, but how they will stand the experiments on a large scale to which we intend to subject the firing qualities of the rifle remains to be seen. That is why we have thought it necessary to have with the new ammunition the old rifle in a service-

303
able condition. What I should hope for is that in a very few months we shall have determined something at any rate approaching to the idea of charge for the new bullet, and that we shall then be able to begin the manufacture of the new rifle and proceed with the work until the whole of the Army is armed with it.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, this is a very short Bill. It consists of one clause, its object being to repeal Section 157 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901. The necessity for this Bill has arisen out of a recent decision in the High Court. Under Section 116 of the Act of 1901 the giving of particulars of work and wages to pieceworkers is made obligatory. Section 116 applies in the first instance only to workers in textile factories, but by subsection (5) the Secretary of State is empowered by special Order to extend the provisions of the section to any class of non-textile workers. In 1909 the Secretary of State did make such an Order applying the provisions to the wearing apparel trade. That Order was accepted by the great majority of the trade, and it was not until 1911 that the authority of the Secretary of State was challenged by an individual named Alexander. This resulted in the case of Seal v. Alexander, which was brought before the magistrate and subsequently carried to the High Court. In that case it was held that the effect of Section 157 is to exclude from the provisions of Section 116 pieceworkers who receive their work from workshops in which only men are employed. Therefore it was held that the Secretary of State had no power to make the Order in question.
It results from this decision that, while outworkers to whom work is given out from factories and other classes of workshops, and also outworkers to whom work is given out from shops, warehouses, or any other place which is not a men's workshop, receive particulars of their work and the rate of wage to be paid for the work, outworkers who get their work from men's workshops do not. This constitutes a very anomalous and undesirable state of things, for there is no logical reason why men's workshops alone should be exempted from
304
the provisions which apply to almost every kind of factory and workshop. It is very undesirable that outworkers and pieceworkers, who in many cases may be women, should not have the advantage, enjoyed by textile traders in all these other factories, of knowing what their work is and what they are to be paid for it. Under the present state of the law an employer is enabled to play fast and loose with his outworkers: to state in vague terms what the particulars of work are and what will be paid for it, and then when the work is done to modify the conditions which the men or women believed they were to enjoy. It is therefore proposed to extend the provisions as to work and wages to men's workshops.
Your Lordships may, perhaps, ask why it is that Section 157, which exempts men's workshops, is to be found in the Act of 1901. There is not any particular reason for it; there certainly is no logical ground for it. The explanation probably lies in the fact that factory legislation has grown up from dealing first with women and children only. The first Act concerned the textile trades; then legislation was extended to other trades and to men under certain conditions, and so forth. This is merely one of those instances of an area which is not yet covered by the general provisions of the Factory and Workshop Acts, and I think it is very desirable that the anomaly should be removed.
The amending of Section 157 of the 1901 Act will do rather more than make employers liable to give particulars of work and wages. Among the provisions of the Act which would, as a consequence, become applicable to men's workshops may be specially mentioned those which require a reasonable temperature, adequate ventilation, provision of sanitary conveniences, provision of washing accommodation, and the keeping of a general register with a record of accidents and poisoning. There, again, I submit that it is not unreasonable that owners of men's workshops should be expected to do in these matters what other employers are called upon to perform. In view of these facts, and seeing that this is nothing but a very small advance in factory legislation and an advance on well recognised lines. I hope your Lordships will be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I wish to raise one point only with regard to the Bill which the noble Lord has just explained. Its effect is, as he has told us, to make Section 116 of the Factory and Workshops Act of 1901 applicable to men's workshops in like manner as to other workshops. The effect of this change in the law is to oblige the owners of these workshops to introduce a number of modern improvements into their premises: to see that they are properly warmed, properly ventilated, adequately provided with sanitary conveniences and washing accommodation. Now all these are admirable things, but they are expensive and are improvements which take some time to carry out. The question which I wish to ask is this. Am I wrong in believing that the Bill as it now stands would come into operation from the moment that it passed both Houses of Parliament? If that is so, I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should consider whether a clause might not be added giving reasonable notice—say six months, or something of the kind—to those who will be affected by its provisions. I will not press for an answer now. If the noble Lord will kindly tell me that he will consider the point before the Committee Stage I shall be quite satisfied.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The point, made by the noble Marquess certainly appears to be a very reasonable one. I am not quite certain whether he is right in thinking that the Bill would come into force immediately after its passage. I think that is so. But if the noble Marquess will allow me, I will consider the point and see how far it is possible to meet his view.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would point out that there is a distinction between the two cases with which it is proposed to deal. The first provision is that all outworkers who are employed in men's workshops should receive particulars in the same way as those do who are employed in ordinary factories. In that case there does not seem any reason why the provision should not come into force at once. But in regard to the other provisions, which, as a consequence of the passing of this Bill, would become applicable to men's workshops, I think it desirable there that some reasonable notice should be given.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

SHOPS REGULATION ACTS CONSOLIDA TION BILL. [H.L.]
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to call attention to a new clause in this Bill which did not appear in the Bill which was presented to us last year. I refer to Clause 2, which provides that no person under the age of 18 years shall be employed about the business of a shop for a longer period than 74 hours, inclusive of meal times, in any one week. The fact that this is inclusive of meal times does not get rid of the difficulty. Meal times generally mean an hour for dinner and half-an-hour for tea, which at the outside is 8 hours a week. Therefore these young persons might be employed for 66 hours, or for nearly 13 hours a day, at the will of the employer. I cannot think that that is intended. It must be remembered that one of the six days is only a half-day. Therefore the young person might be employed for 66 hours during the 5, working days. There is another reason why this provision should not be agreed to—namely, that there will be a tendency for employers to work up to the maximum; the maximum of hours will be what will be demanded, and the minimum will be the exception. Again, I do not know of any shop that would be open so long. A shop is usually open from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock in the evening, but under the clause in question these young persons might be compulsorily kept at the shop several hours longer during the week, at the will of the employer, and it seems to me that it is of no use to the employer to have them there at a time when the shop is not, likely to be open. I should like to ask what reason there is for this new clause and why such a long period of employment is allowed.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I would remind the noble Lord that this is a Consolidation Bill. We do not in any part of the Bill alter the law as it at present stands. This clause is taken verbatim from the Act of 1892. We have no power in a purely Consolidation Bill to make any amendment in the law.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question concerning one point in the Bill. I refer to Clause 4, which enacts that every shop

307
must be closed not later than 1 o'clock in the afternoon on one week-day in every week. If your Lordships refer to Clause 10 you will find that the expression "shop" includes any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on, and the expression "retail trade or business" is interpreted as including the sale of refreshments or intoxicating liquors. The effect of that is that restaurants will come under the closing order mentioned in Clause 4. I quite agree that the object of giving a half-holiday every week is a good one, but in the case of restaurants the provision is extremely hard because some of the employés—cooks and others—do not go to business until midday. Therefore the provision in the Bill means that the restaurant employer will have to pay a whole day's wages for one hour's work. Perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will look into that point before the Committee Stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, I should like to explain that this is purely a consolidating Bill and does not alter the law. There has been a custom during the past five or six years, which I am glad to say has been encouraged by both Houses of Parliament, of selecting branches of the law in order to put the law in an intelligible shape by means of consolidation or codification Bills. The law in regard to shops is not altered a jot or title by this Bill, which merely states in a single Statute what the law is, without obliging people to look through law books and successive Statutes to ascertain the law. This Bill will be referred to a strongly composed Joint Committee on which the legal element will be well represented. I have, at the request of the Joint Committee, presided over their proceedings during the last few years, and our constant endeavour has been to prevent any alteration in the law at all. If, however, there is any alteration in a small matter, it is necessary that we should report it and lay our Report before both Houses of Parliament before the Bill reaches a further stage. If on such a Bill as this we are to have a discussion on the merits of the law as it is, we shall have to abandon the practice of consolidation which has been so successful during recent years. It is only by their being treated as Consolidation Bills that we get the necessary facilities for them in both Houses of Parliament. This is, I repeat, a purely
308
consolidation Bill. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will not think us disrespectful if we say that we really are not discussing the merits of what the law is.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack has said. But I would point out to the noble Earl, Lord Galloway, that he is mistaken in his interpretation of the provision to which he called attention, for if he will read subsection (6) of Clause 4 he will find that certain trades and businesses are exempted, and if he examines the Bill further he will find that restaurants are one of the businesses which are so exempted.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: It was my intention to move that this Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, but so far we have had no reply from the other House to the Message sent down communicating the Resolution of this House for the setting up of a Joint Committee for the present session and desiring their concurrence. I understand that there is no objection to the setting up of a Joint Committee, and the success which has attended these Joint Committees in the past is a proof, I think, that when we receive the reply from the other House we cannot do better than refer this Bill to such a Committee.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I would point out that a Bill of a similar character was introduced and passed through your Lordships' House last session, but owing to various reasons, into which I need not now enter, it did not make progress in another place. I have slightly amended the Bill since last year. In the Bill as it is now before the House I do not propose to include municipal authorities. It refers to county councils and to county councils alone, and I think your Lordships will admit that it is the

309
duty of county councils to keep the communications through the county and between one county and another open in perfect order. County councils perform the duty of keeping their roads in good condition, but, in the case of a recognised ferry, if the ferry boat goes down to the bottom of the river there is no power to allow a county council or to compel any person to place another ferry boat on the river in order to keep the communication open. I know a case in which a county council maintains an excellent road down to an old ferry, but the ferry boat is at the bottom of the river and there is no power to compel any one to put another boat on the river. The county council are anxious to do so, but there is no power to enable them to acquire the ferry. The County Councils Associations support this Bill as a matter of public utility, and I sincerely hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Galway.)
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, the noble Viscount, as he has reminded you, introduced a similar Bill last year, and I can only repeat what I then said on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they do not offer any objection to the Bill and are, in fact, prepared to support it. Although the Bill is likely, as I think the noble Viscount admitted, to have only a limited application, there seems to be a prima facie case for it, and if it passes it should prove of utility in certain places such as those to which the noble Viscount referred. I had observed that, as he has pointed out, the scope of the present Bill is limited to county councils and does not extend to municipal boroughs and district councils. I need not say anything as to the desirability or otherwise of this limitation, but it may in consequence be necessary to amend the Bill in some points of detail. As ferries are usually of local utility rather than of service to a whole county, with the, possible exception of cases where the ferry serves to link up two main roads, the borough or district council or a combination of two or
310
more such authorities would seem the more suitable body to maintain it than the county council. It does not appear quite clear whether it would be right to charge upon the whole area of the county expenses incurred in respect of a ferry which was only of local benefit, and it is a question whether powers should not be given to county councils to charge the expenses incurred in respect of any particular ferry as special expenses on the parishes benefited by the maintenance of the ferry. One or two drafting Amendments will also, I think, be found necessary when we come to Committee. For instance, the first part of sub-clause (5) does not seem to be required, and the paragraph might begin with the words "The power" in line nine. The second paragraph of sub-clause (5) does not seem to be exactly a proviso, and the words "Provided that" might be omitted. But, as I have said, the Government have no intention of offering any opposition to the Bill; on the contrary; they support it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CANVEY DEEP WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report of the Board of Trade respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 8.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There being no business on the Paper for to-morrow, I move that the House do adjourn until Wednesday.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Wednesday next.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.