Lords Sitting of 10 July 1913

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:

Barry Urban District Council.

London County Council (General Powers).

Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Rail-less Electric Traction.

Dover Harbour.

Also the Certificates that the Standing Order applicable to the following Bills has been complied with:

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 14).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 19).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 20).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported. with Amendments.
ASCOT AUTHORITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SILLOTH GAS BILL
WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

WIMBLEDON AND SUTTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
CAROLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.

DOONER'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the cases, returned from the Commons.
ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL. [H.L.]

SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Lovel and Holland (E. Egmont) be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Langford; read, and agreed to.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Regulations, dated the 30th day of June, 1913, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners constituted under the Act, further amending the National Health Insurance (Naval and Military Forces) (Time Limits) Regulations (Scotland) 1912: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) to be printed (No. 111).

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.
THE EARL OP GRANARD: My Lords, in snowing that Standing Order No. XXXIX be dispensed with so far as this Bill and Bill No. 7 are concerned, I should like to say that the Lord Chairman, with whom I have been in consultation, agrees to this course, which will greatly expedite the two Bills and enable them to get through a week sooner than would otherwise be the case. Both Bills were delayed in a certain sense owing to the somewhat long Whitsuntide recess. In these circumstances, I hope your Lordships will agree to pass both Bills through their remaining stages to-night.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): As the noble Earl has said, he been good enough to consult me on this matter, and I think it would be to the public advantage if your Lordships would agree to the course proposed. These Bills have been strenuously fought in your Lordships' House, and, of course, they may be fought in the other House, in which case, as the session is getting on, the saving of a week will be very desirable.
Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to Order) and dispensed with: Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to Order) and dispensed with: Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on re-commitment) read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair].
Clause 1:
Extension of polling hours. 48 & 49 Vict. c. 10.
1.—(1) The Elections (Hours of Poll) Act, 1885, shall, as respects any parliamentary election to which this Act applies, be construed as if seven o'clock in the forenoon were substituted for eight o'clock in the forenoon, and nine o'clock in the afternoon were substituted for eight o'clock in the afternoon; and accordingly the poll (if any) at any such election shall commence at seven o'clock in the forenoon and be kept open till nine o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, and no longer.
(2) This Act shall apply to a parliamentary election, if any candidate at the election or a candidate's agent on his behalf gives notice to the returning officer during the nomination time or within one hour afterwards that he wishes this Act to apply to the poll at that election.
(3) For the purpose of giving public notice of an extension of the hours of polling under this Act, paragraph 9 of the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, shall; as respects any election to which this Act applies, be construed as if references to the day on which the poll will be or is to be taken included references to the hours at which the poll commences and up to which it will be kept open.
(4) A notice given by a candidate under this section shall not be of any effect for the purposes of this Act if the candidate is withdrawn or deemed to be withdrawn under the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872.
(5) In this section—
The expression "agent" means an election agent within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883;
The expression "nomination time" means the time appointed for the election within the meaning of the Ballot Act, 1872.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to omit subsections (1) and (2) and to insert two new subsections in their place. The noble Earl said: This Amendment has two objects. One is to make the Bill a little more elastic, and the other is to insert the words providing that the notice should be "in writing" which were originally in the Bill and which must have been omitted by mistake in redrafting. As the Bill stands, if due notice is given the poll shall commence at seven o'clock in the morning and be kept open until nine o'clock in the evening of the same day, an extension of an hour both in the morning and in the evening. There may he cases, of course, in which either the hour extension in the morning or the hour in the evening would be what the candidate really wishes and would perhaps he

845
sufficient. My Amendment is intended to meet that point, and to enable a candidate to apply for an extension of either an hour in the morning or an hour in the evening. If there should be any difference of opinion between the candidates upon this, then the poll would be conducted according to the Bill as it stands and the two hours extension would be given.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page, 1, lines 5 to 17, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:

"(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Elections (Hours of Poll) Act, 1885, the Poll (if any) at any Parliamentary Election to which this Act applies may commence at seven o'clock in the forenoon, and may be kept open till nine o'clock in the afternoon of the same day but no longer.

"(2) If any candidate at a parliamentary election or a candidate's agent on his behalf gives notice in writing to the returning officer during the nomination time or within one hour afterwards that he wishes the poll—

"(a) to commence at seven o'clock instead of at eight o'clock in the forenoon, or

"(b) to be kept open from eight o'clock till nine o'clock in the afternoon, or

"(c) to commence at seven o'clock in the forenoon and be kept open till nine o'clock in the afternoon,

this Act shall apply to such election in accordance with the notice so given: Provided that if notices are given under tiffs section specifying different extensions of the hours of polling the poll (if any) at such election shall commence at seven o'clock in the forenoon and be kept open till nine o'clock in the afternoon."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save the right of Lord Haversham, who has an Amendment in subsection (2), it will be necessary that the question shall be first put down to the word "behalf," in subsection (2).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move accordingly.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): The Amendment moved by the noble Earl opposite is, without doubt, an improvement upon the present wording of the Bill in so far as it gives greater elasticity to its working. Therefore on behalf of His Majesty's Government I have much pleasure in accepting not only the particular part of the Amendment which is now before the House but the rest of it when we come to consider the further part.
On Question, Amendment down to the word "behalf" in subsection (2) agreed to.
LORD HAVERSHAM: I move to amend subsection (2), after the word "behalf," by inserting "supported by not less than 200 electors in that constituency." I am obliged to trouble your Lordships with this Amendment because the second edition of my noble friend's Bill in no way removes the objections which were stated on the first consideration of it. To my mind it is exceedingly doubtful whether this Bill is wanted at all. I have fought thirteen contested elections and have never heard any wish that the polling hours should be extended. I understand, however, that there is a considerable desire in metropolitan constituencies that the hours should be extended. Therefore I have no objection to the Bill in that sense, but I think it ought to be limited to London. In any case the constituency should be given a voice in the matter. If this power of extending the hours is to be given to one person, the candidate himself is about the worst possible person who should decide the matter. It is obvious that the candidate will be under such pressure that in almost all constituencies the Bill will be acted upon, and if that is to be the case I think it would be far better that the polling hours should be altered in all cases from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. by a separate Bill. But to allow a candidate to decide this matter seems to me an absurdity. You would not even allow it in a London club. How much less, then, should you allow it in the case of a Parliamentary election? Again, it is very unfair on the other candidate or candidates. Let us suppose that there is a three-cornered fight, and that Brown, Jones, and Robinson are the candidates. Brown wants the hours of polling extended, and he gets his way. Jones wants them to remain as they are, and Robinson probably wants a reduction. Why should Jones and Robinson give way to suit the convenience of Brown? Further, this Bill will add considerably to the expense of elections, because you cannot have clerks employed and the polling booths kept open during the extended time without additional expense; but I see no provision in the Bill for this additional expense falling upon the candidate who makes the request to the returning officer. I hope that in a short time the necessary expenses connected with elections will be placed upon the rates, and then any one appealing to the returning officer for this extension of hours will be putting the constituency to considerable expense.

847
I have put down 200 electors as the number who must sign the petition to the returning officer because it seemed to me that that was a substantial number who could express the opinions of a considerable section of the community, and also because I thought that if the hours were extended in the way proposed 200 electors might poll in that additional time. At any rate I hope the House will not agree to the clause in its present form, which leaves it in the hands of a candidate, or his agent, which is very much the same thing, to put the constituency to the expense and trouble of extending the hours of polling without giving the constituency any voice whatever in the matter.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, after ("behalf") insert ("supported by not less than two hundred electors in that constituency").—(Lord Haversham.)
LORD SOUTHWARK: My noble friend who has just sat down has had experience of thirteen contested elections. I have had experience of ten; and I cannot allow to pass unchallenged his observation that this extension of hours of polling is not necessary. I can speak as an old London Member, for I was for twenty-three years Member for a London constituency and I know the extreme difficulty which men whose work is in distant parts of London experience in recording their votes. Many of them leave their homes at five, six, and seven o'clock in the morning, and do not return until after eight o'clock at night. There is no doubt that a large number of London electors—I am sure it must be the same in other great towns—are disfranchised because they are loyal to the neighbourhood in which they reside and do not move their residence as they change their employment. Their work is of a fluctuating nature. Sometimes it is close to their homes and at other times it is great distances away, and in the latter case they cannot return home in time to poll if the polling booths close at 8 p.m. I was very glad that Members on both sides of the House of Commons came to this amicable arrangement, and that this Bill was unanimously passed by the other House. I once had the honour of representing Colchester. Perhaps in a constituency like that an extension of hours is not necessary, but in London there is no question that there is great need for this
848
Bill. I have ventured to intrude these observations upon your Lordships, because I wished to dispel the notion that this Bill is unnecessary. I say that it is urgently necessary unless your Lordships have a desire, which I know you have not, that a large number of electors should be disfranchised.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: I can assure the House that I am as anxious as the noble Lord opposite to enable every working man to record his vote. There are many constituencies in which this Bill is not necessary, but there are many in which it is necessary and most desirable. I think the danger is that it might become of universal application all over the country, and that would give a great deal of extra trouble to the presiding officers and their staffs, and inflict a great deal of extra expenditure on the candidates. I may remind your Lordships that the next General Election will take place under quite different conditions from any which have obtained hitherto, because at the next General Election the successful candidate will have a prospect of a scholarship of £400 a year for five years, and, I understand, certain immunities as regards Income Tax. Therefore it is exceedingly likely that the candidates—I do not like to say freak or bogus candidates—will be a great deal more numerous than at present. In order to safeguard what may be called the real candidate, it is desirable that some such Amendment as that now before the House should be inserted. It is a common thing for twenty nomination papers to be handed in for a candidate, and each nomination paper contains ten names. Therefore there would be no difficulty in getting the request for an extension of time signed by 200 electors. In these circumstances I hope the Government will seriously consider this Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Southwark as to the urgent need in London for an extension of the hours of polling, though I think that the extension in the evening is more important than the extension in the morning. I remember two experiences in connection with the London School Board. We got the hour of closing the poll extended to nine o'clock in the evening—I do not think there was any extension in the morning—and it was found that a great many persons were able to vote owing to

849
that extension who could not have voted if the poll had closed at eight o'clock. Local conditions vary in different places, but I have no doubt that an extension is needed in every large town and populous district. The trade which suffers most is the building trade. A builder keeps his men on permanently, but he moves them about according to the jobs he secures, and on occasions they may work miles out of town. The men, however, do not change their homes because they do not know where the next job will be. These men very often cannot get back to the constituencies in which they live in time to record their votes by 8 p.m.; and even if they should be waiting with others in the polling booth at that hour, the law is that at the stroke of 8 p.m. the ballot must close. But I feel that there is a difficulty in putting this power in the hands of the candidate. Theoretically I should have thought that the best authority was the local authority of the district, which is more or less impartial and knows the conditions. But after all this is more a House of Commons question than a House of Lords question, and if the house of Commons make a rather clumsy Bill they will have to amend it hereafter. As I say, I should have liked the local authority of the district to have been the authority to decide upon this matter. At present the Bill says the candidate. My noble friend Lord Haversham has moved an Amendment that it should be the candidate plus 200 electors. I rather agree with the noble Lord who spoke last, that the 200 electors would be merely the tail of the candidate. It does not follow because the candidate gets 200 electors to support him that he will be doing anything which is acceptable to the locality. I do not think that the Amendment will shipwreck the Bill, but I do not believe it is very much worth passing.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am sure noble Lords opposite will not be surprised if I say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we are unable to accept the Amendment moved by Lord Haversham. Indeed, I think from the tone of what Lord Haversham said to your Lordships that his position would have been almost more in place, if he will allow me to say so, in opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, rather than in the form of an Amendment which would go very far to destroy the value of the Bill. At any rate I think I may fairly tell my noble friend that his
850
Amendment would stand very little chance of meeting with acceptance in another place. One thing I confess did to some extent surprise me. My noble friend behind me who has moved this Amendment stated that if the Bill became law it ought, instead of becoming local in its application, to become general. The Amendment to which your Lordships have just agreed, on the proposition of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, goes in directly the opposite direction. The whole object of Lord Camperdown's long Amendment, which I am glad to accept, is to allow local authorities to meet local conditions. Here there may be a desire for an early poll; there there may be a desire for a late poll. The noble Earl's Amendment adds those facilities to the Bill where they did not exist before. He admits, as we admit, the desire and the necessity of allowing local conditions to prevail, whereas, on the other hand, what is at the back of the mind of Lord Haversham in moving this Amendment is, as he frankly told your Lordships, a desire that there should be a general acceptance of this Bill rather than a local one. I do not know that it is necessary for me to point out the complications which that would introduce in the working of the Bill, because they must be apparent to your Lordships. The proposal as to the support of 200 electors would need amendment in the future as to who should decide whether there were 200, and also as to the authority which was to take charge of the consideration whether these 200 were properly qualified electors, and so on. I am inclined to congratulate Lord Haversham on having represented a constituency which is satisfied with the present hours of polling and regards them as sufficient. The suggestion has been thrown out by the noble Lord behind me that the local authority should be allowed to decide in the matter. The idea of the promoters of this Bill is that a candidate is sufficiently well acquainted with the needs of the locality to ask for what is necessary. He will be so far penalised, in the matter of votes, by the general inconvenience which he causes that he is not likely to ask for facilities which are not really required. Now that we have amended the Bill in the direction desired by the noble Earl opposite and given greater facilities, I venture to hope that that Amendment will satisfy your Lordships and that Lord Haversham will be content after the discussion which has taken place and withdraw his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think, after the speech of the noble Earl, that we can advise your Lordships to accept Lord Haversham's Amendment. Nevertheless I have great sympathy with the noble Lord's object, because I do think, in spite of what the noble Earl has just said, that there is considerable danger under this Bill of a candidate who has very little support in the constituency putting everybody to the great inconvenience of having the poll kept open for another two hours, thus throwing much extra labour upon those engaged in the work without any extra remuneration being provided. That certainly is an evil. I should have thought that this Bill ought to have provided in some way or other that the demand for an extension of the poll should be a bona fide one supported by a substantial number of persons. But then I turn to the noble Lord's Amendment, and I think he must be a very poor candidate indeed who could not get 200 electors to support him. He would not come forward at all if he had not 200 electors to back him, and those would be available to support his request for an extension of the hours of polling or anything else. Therefore the noble Lord does not accomplish anything by his Amendment. But if we were to increase the number to an effective one, the working of the Amendment would be very unwieldy. I think in this matter it is for the House of Commons to suggest some method of preventing this from being otherwise than bona fide. Inasmuch as the noble Earl opposite has accepted Lord Camperdown's Amendment and that will form part of the Bill, there will be abundant opportunity when the Bill goes back to the House of Commons for that House to reconsider the decision to which they have come. If they think that some such check as Lord Haversham has proposed is necessary, it will be quite open to them to amend the Lords' Amendment, and we shall be very glad to accept any properly devised check which they may send back to us. As the door is still left open for the House of Commons to act and as Lord Haversham's Amendment would not accomplish the object he has in view, I do not think we can ask your Lordships' House to support the Amendment.
LORD HAVERSHAM: After what has fallen from the noble Marquess, I see no use in proceeding to a Division. At the same time I was struck by the argument used by Lord
852
Beauchamp when he said that the House of Commons would not accept this Amendment. I think it is very possible that they would. I specially guarded myself by saying that I had no experience of metropolitan constituencies, and that the Bill might be required there. What I said was that if it is going to be generally accepted, as I think it will, we should have greater authority for the extension than the candidate or his agent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then the remainder of Lord CAMPERDOWN'S original Amendment was, on Question, agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendment to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 112.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING (CERTIFICATES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Granard).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Home-trade cargo ships with certain exceptions to have duly certificated officers.
1.—(1) Every British home-trade cargo ship when going to sea from any place in the United Kingdom, and every foreign ship carrying cargo between places in the United Kingdom, shall be provided with a duly certificated master and a duly certificated mate, and also, if the ship is a steamship, a duly certificated engineer.
For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) the expression "home-trade cargo ship" means any home-trade ship other than a home-trade passenger ship;

{b) the expression "ship" does not include steamships of less than one hundred or sailing ships of less than two hundred tons register tonnage, or any lighter, dumb barge, or other similar vessel; and

(c) the expression "steamship" does not include a steamship of less than sixty-six nominal horse-power.

(2) If any person—

(a) having been engaged as one of the above-mentioned officers for a ship which is a ship within the meaning of this Act goes to sea in the ship us such officer without being duly certificated; or

(b) employs a person as an officer of such a ship in contravention of this section, without ascertaining that the person so serving is duly certificated;

that person shall be liable for each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) An officer shall not be deemed to be duly certificated, within the meaning of this section, unless he is the holder for the time being of a valid certificate of competency under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), as amended by this Act, or of a valid certificate of service under this Act, or, in the case of a foreign ship, of a foreign certificate of an approved class, of a grade appropriate to his station in the ship or of a higher grade.
In this provision the expression "foreign certificate of an approved class" means any certificate of competency or service granted by the Government of any foreign country being a certificate of a class declared by the Board of Trade to be an approved class of foreign certificates for the purposes of this Act.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH LORD ELLENBOROUGH moved to amend subsection (1) (b) by omitting the word "register" and inserting the word "gross." The noble Lord said: The second schedule of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 contains the rules for calculating tonnage. They appear to be rather complicated, but are not so in reality. They are based on the idea that the cubical space of a ship in feet divided by 100 will give the tonnage, of a ship. It is a very good rule for ascertaining the comparative size of ships. Register tonnage is obtained by deducting from the gross tonnage the spaces occupied by the crew and by the engines, together with some other spaces connected with the working of the ship. These latter calculations occasionally give somewhat strange results, and in consequence register tonnage is no criterion of the approximate size of a ship. In my remarks on the Second Reading I gave the House particulars of the gross tonnage and the register tonnage of a number of vessels. In addition to those I will now give the names of a few ships of over 100 tons gross but of less than 100 tons register. The "Greenisland," of Belfast—gross 282, register 69; "Argyll," of Glasgow—gross 259, register 72; "Ardbeg," of Glasgow—gross 251, register 41; "Alfred," of Liverpool—gross 148, register 5; "Granville," of Seaham—gross 160, register 4. All these vessels ought to
854
come under this Bill, but they do not. A collision with a large ship is much more dangerous than a collision with a small one. A large ship carries a larger crew. The question whether or not certificated officers are to be carried should depend on the real size of a ship and the number of her crew, and not on such artificial considerations as register tonnage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out ("register") and insert ("gross").— (Lord Ellenborough.)
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I would point out to the noble Lord that this Bill deals purely with certificated officers and the ships which are to carry those certificated officers. In all previous legislation dealing with merchant shipping the words "tons burden" have been used, and the Board of Trade have always translated that term as meaning the net or register tonnage, and that contention has been upheld and confirmed by a decision of a Court of Law. Your Lordships will therefore readily understand that it would be a great anomaly to place the term "gross tonnage" in a Bill like this, while in every other Act dealing with this subject the words "tons burden," which mean net tonnage, are used. Another effect of the Amendment would be to very largely widen the scope of the Bill. We have carefully consulted the various interests, and have come to the conclusion that the tonnage limit inserted in the Bill fairly meets all cases. The noble Lord can very well show anomalies in the case of certain ships, but generally speaking I think justice has been done. I should be very sorry to sec placed in this Bill a provision dissimilar in every way to the regulations enacted in other Statutes dealing with this subject.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl opposite has answered my noble friend by an appeal to precedent. He says that in previous Merchant Shipping Acts the term has always been "net tonnage" and "register tonnage," but not "gross tonnage." I think my noble friend Lord Ellenborough and your Lordships would have been better satisfied if the noble Earl had done us the honour to grapple with the argument—a very simple one—which my noble friend put forward in moving the Amendment. This Bill is

855
intended, of course, for the better security of life at sea, and in order to achieve that object it apparently provides that ships of a certain size should carry officers having certain certificates. If it can be shown, as my noble friend Lord Ellenborough shows, that this apparent intention is not carried out and that ships of the same size as it is intended to protect may navigate the seas without these certificated officers, then a prima facie case is established for an Amendment. The noble Earl does not meet it with any argument at all, but merely says that in previous Merchant Shipping Acts the term used has always been register tonnage. May I remind the noble Earl what in one respect is the difference between register tonnage and gross tonnage. The crew space is not counted for register tonnage, but is counted for gross tonnage. Therefore a ship which carries a very large crew and has very large accommodation counts for register tonnage as a much smaller vessel than it would do if it carried a smaller crew and had smaller crew accommodation. The object of the Bill is to save life at sea. The noble Earl will see that this is the position to which he is reduced, that a ship of apparently the same size but carrying more human lives is not protected while another ship of apparently the same size but carrying less lives is protected under the Bill. I think a situation like that deserves an answer. I do not say that there may not be an answer, but the noble Earl did not give it. He merely appealed to precedent. That is what we often do, and quite rightly; but noble Lords opposite do not believe in precedent, and I really do not think they are entitled very much to call it in aid. In my opinion my noble friend Lord Ellenborough has made out a prima facie case; but I cannot honestly say, if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill declares that his Department, for whom I have a great regard, view the Amendment as inadvisable, it would be well for the noble Lord to press it.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: If the noble Lord's Amendment were inserted the effect would be to differentiate the calculation as to tonnage between home-trade cargo ships and similar ships employed in the passenger service, the tonnage in the one case being net and in the other gross. Then I would recall to the noble Marquess that in 1906, when we were discussing the
856
Merchant Shipping Bill of that year, he urged more than any one else that as much deduction as possible should be given in respect of crew spaces, because after all our desire was, he said, to make the conditions of life as happy for the crew as possible. Therefore he thought it was only right that this advantage should be given.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not an advantage that they should be drowned.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I did not say it was. But from the point of view of precedent I think the House would be very unwise to accept this Amendment.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My reason for bringing the Amendment forward was that a ship of over 100 tons is big enough to sink a large mail steamer if she runs into such a steamer through bad navigation. My desire is to see these ships navigated in a safer manner so that there may be increased safety at sea. I had hoped that the Government would have accepted my Amendment. It would certainly have put the Bill on a more reasonable basis. As, however, the Bill as a whole is a good Bill I do not wish to imperil it, and with the permission of the House I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD INCHCAPE: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Inverclyde I move the Amendment standing in his name, to omit "sixty-six" from paragraph (c) of subsection (1) and to insert "one hundred." The effect of the Amendment is to provide that the expression "steam-ship" shall not include a steamship of less than 100 nominal horse-power, instead of sixty-six as the Bill now proposes. It is considered rather a hardship to bring very small vessels under the Bill. Representations have been made to His Majesty's Government on the subject, and I hope that the noble Lord who is acting for the Board of Trade will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out ("sixty-six") and insert ("one hundred").—(Lord Inchcape.)
THE EARL or GRANARD: I had the honour of seeing a deputation at the Board of Trade the other day with regard to this matter. They made it quite clear to me that there was a certain hardship as regards these particular engineers in making the horse-power so low as sixty-six. I therefore very gladly accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Production of certificates to superintendent and power to detain ship.
4.—(1) The master or owner of every home-trade cargo ship shall produce to some superintendent within twenty-one days after the thirtieth day of June and the thirty-first day of December in every year the certificates of competency or service which the master, mate, and engineer of the ship are by this Act required to hold.
(2) Upon the production of the certificates, the superintendent shall, if the certificates are such as the master, mate, and engineer of the ship ought to hold, give to the master a certificate that the proper certificates have been so produced.
(3) The master shall, before proceeding to sea, produce to the chief officer of customs and excise the certificate given by the superintendent, and the ship may be detained until the certificate is produced.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I move, after the word "excise" in subsection (3), to insert "if required by him." This is more or less a drafting Amendment. Several shipowners have pointed out that there is a considerable amount of vagueness in the subsection as it stands. We propose these words to provide that an officer should only produce the certificates when required by the chief officer of Customs and Excise to do so.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 37, after ("excise") insert ("if required by him").—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 113.)

CROWN LANDS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to lie read 3a on Monday next.
HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
MONEY-LENDERS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAND TRANSFER.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE)*THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE) rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Land Transfer Acts, and to introduce Bills relating to Real Property and to Conveyancing.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I think it right, before asking permission to introduce these two Bills, to explain to your Lordships what their scope is. They relate to a subject which must be dealt with before any real progress in the reform of our land laws can be made, and they endeavour to deal with questions of reform which have long been waiting to be dealt with. While I say that, I wish to point out that great advances have been made in the last half century in dealing with the question of the transfer of land and title. After the great Reform Act of 1832 a series of Statutes was passed which swept away many archaic consequences of the principles on which our real property land laws were founded—consequences which, although the logical outcome of the principles on which they rested, made transfer extremely difficult.
I refer to the Fines and Recoveries Act which did away with the necessity of the cumbrous judicial machinery through which disentails were effected; to the Real Property Acts of the 'forties, which did a great deal towards simplifying the law; and to the Statutes which so conservative a legislator as Lord St. Leonards passed. Then there came a period at which still further change was sought for. Such was the insecurity of title that Lord Westbury in 1862 introduced the first of the Land

859
Registry Acts, which was really a register rather of deeds than of title. That Act practically proved a dead letter. It was an optional Act, and its provisions were so difficult to work that it was practically inoperative. The next period was that in which the genius of Lord Cairns effected great reforms. He brought in the Land Transfer Act of 1875, which was a true Land Transfer Act and established a registry of title as distinguished from deeds. That Act, again, was an optional Act, and there were reasons why it was not taken much advantage of. One of these, I think, was the complication which still existed in regard to title, which made registration not very easy to effect. Then there came two Acts which effected a great simplification of title and assisted the case of cheap land transfer—I mean Lord Cairns's Conveyancing Act of 1831 and his Settled Land Act of 1882. The latter Act your Lordships know very well. It aimed at making the settlement restricted apply to the value of the land rather than to the land itself and at setting free the limited owner, not only to make improvements in his property, but to deal with it in a freer fashion than was possible before. But still the cause of land transfer stuck. Then in 1897 the noble and learned Earl (Lord Halsbury) introduced an Act which effected a considerable change. In the first place, it contained a provision under which the Act was almost immediately made compulsory as regards the London area. Then it introduced useful reforms into the system established under Lord Cairns's Act of 1875, and made other changes in the law, such as the appointment of a real representative who could deal with the property after the owner's death. I mention this to show that there was a great spirit of co-operation to make land more free and more easily dealt with.
But still it has been felt right through that something more ought to be done, and the whole question of land transfer was referred to a Royal Commission presided over by Lord St. Aldwyn, and the Report of that Commission was issued in the beginning of 1911. The Commission recommended that there should be still further changes in the Land Registry Acts—the Acts which dealt with registration of title—but they also laid stress on this, that until the general law was simplified, and conveyancing, apart from the register, made easier, you could not expect to get the full benefit of registration
860
of title. Therefore the Report, which is a most valuable one and represents a great deal of very fine work, set out suggestions for certain reforms and entered into details about others which it recommended should be carried before the system of registration of title could be extended to the whole country. I have never taken the view that the objection of solicitors, which has undoubtedly been a potent objection, to the extension of the system of registration of title has been founded merely on self interest. The whole question of the title of land is a very difficult one, and when you have a large body of experts objecting to proposals for change there is generally a good deal in their objections, although they are very likely moved by conservative instincts, and may even be unduly weighed down by the burden of their own knowledge. Anyhow, the attitude of solicitors for a long time was, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, knows, very much against any attempt at change.
Since then great attention has been given by both branches of the legal profession to the question of land transfer, and I think that everywhere there has been a considerable advance in their attitude towards the subject. Solicitors recognise that their remuneration is founded upon a wrong principle altogether. It depends upon payment for technical and detailed work, instead of for the carrying through of transactions as a whole, and I think the belief of a great body of the legal profession is that if there were more transactions they would make more money, and that freedom to make these transactions and to carry them through is the foundation of greater prosperity for themselves. I know that a more liberal view is arising in the legal profession, and I have reason to think that it has made itself felt among solicitors. Bearing these things in mind, and being myself an old conveyancer, who for many years was steeped in this subject, and was fully conscious of the difficulties, I set myself, immediately after succeeding to my present office, to a close examination of the question, and I was fortunate in being able to secure the assistance of certain experts of a very high order. To begin with, Sir Philip Gregory, the well known Conveyancing Counsel to the Court, who was a member of Lord St. Aldwyn's Commission, has in a most public spirited fashion given me a large amount of his time, and has worked out the details for me with a committee,

861
which consisted of several gentlemen of wide knowledge including Mr. J. W. Hills, the Unionist Member for Durham City, and Sir Charles Brickdale, the head of the Land Registry Office. Then I had the assistance of Mr. Cherry, who was closely associated with the late Mr. Wolstenholme, and of other experts, and as I presided over the committee myself I came into close relation with the investigations which have been going on. The result has been two Bills, formidable I am afraid in appearance but not so formidable as they look.
I will now tell your Lordships what these two Bills propose to do. I have divided this attempt at reform into two parts. The first is a Bill the main object of which is to carry out the reforms recommended by Lord St. Aldwyn's Commission, and some things besides. There has been a keen consciousness in both branches of the profession that the Settled Land Acts and the Conveyancing Acts have given rise more and more as experience developed to a number of difficulties; and a Bill—the Settled Land Bill 1912—was promoted by the Incorporated Law Society and the Bar Council, embodying reforms and covering a large number of the difficulties which experience had disclosed in the working of those Acts. The first of the two Bills which I propose to introduce deals with, I think, all the points that were comprised in that Bill, which was a very comprehensive one. The next part of the first Bill, as I have said, deals with the reforms which Lord St. Aldwyn's Commission recommended. While the first part will enlarge the powers of limited owners so as to give the tenant for life greater freedom to deal with the land and to make improvements, subject always to the safeguards provided in Lord Cairns's Settled Land Act, the reform recommended by Lord St. Aldwyn's Commission will carry still further the simplification of title, because, to take an illustration, one of the great reforms which the Commission recommends is the compulsory enfranchisement of copyholds. A specific part of the first Bill deals with that subject. Another recommendation in the Commission's Report which is dealt with is that with reference to the amendment of the Land Transfer Acts. Outside London it is not attempted to make the Act compulsory, but we effect changes, following on the lines of Lord Halsbury's Act, which will make the Act more workable, and which, with the reforms recommended
862
by Lord St. Aldwyn's Commission in the general system of conveyancing, will make people much more disposed to adopt the Act, and I trust that at no distant date they will see the wisdom of adopting it all over the country.
In order to make this matter an easy one I have felt it necessary to deal still further with the question of title and with the system of conveyancing. For a long time there has been a general demand that the treatment of land should be assimilated to the treatment of Stock. That is easy to talk of but extremely difficult to effect, and the more one knows of the ways in which land is dealt with the more difficult the assimilation seems to be. But the idea occurred to me, as it has occurred previously to others—it is an idea of which I have been thinking for the past twenty years—that although you cannot make laud like Stock, you may make it as between buyer and seller very much like Stock as regards the mode of dealing with it. The idea was first worked out by the late Mr. Wolstenholme, who was one of the most eminent conveyancers of modern times. He, with Mr. Cherry, drew up a Bill on the subject, and we have in our Bill taken his work and adapted it to the circumstances of the time.
The substance of it is this, that if the Bill passes there will be two kinds of estates—proprietary estates and subordinate estates. The proprietary estate would be the only estate recognised as between vendor and purchaser, and the person dealing with a purchaser would have power to deal with that purchaser freely. That is a power which he has at present under Lord Cairns's Settled Land Act, but the protection which we give is a protection of a new kind. We introduce a registration of cautions, or inhibitions as they are called, for the protection of persons under settlement or with subordinate interests. As between buyer and seller a person who owns land will own it either in fee simple or for a term of years absolutely. But when the buyer comes to deal with the vendor he may find, on looking at the title, certain cautions indicating protection of interests. "Very well," he will say, "I cannot take it until you have cleared those inhibitions," and not until these are cleared to the satisfaction of the Registrar will the vendor

863
be free to complete the title. I hold the view that people should be left to deal with their property as they think best so long as they do not tie up land. The position would be that a man could settle his land just as he does at the present time, but the settlements will be dealt with as if they created something resembling trusts by way of what are called subordinate interests. These interests will be secured by just the same sort of machinery as under the Settled Land Act, but the difference will be that the purchaser will not have the complications of the Settled Land Act to deal with; he will simply have to see that the cautions are removed. In that way the process will be similar to that when Stock is purchased. The buyer of Stock may find upon it a distringas, and before purchasing he asks the seller of the Stock to get the distringas removed. I have given your Lordships the barest outline of the machinery of the second Bill. Your Lordships will see that what I have aimed at is to give perfect security to persons interested under settlements. Indeed, I think that when we get the system of land registry which ought to grow from this there will be as complete security as any one could have. But even before that, even assuming the case of land which has not been put on the register, those interested under settlements will be adequately protected in the fashion I have described while everybody who has a proprietary interest will be as free to deal with a purchaser as if the land were Stock.
I have described the two Bills and I will now state what I propose to do. The Bills are so intricate and complicated in their details that I do not think it would be right to press them beyond a certain point at present. What I propose, if your Lordships give leave for their introduction, is to have them printed with a full explanatory Memorandum and let them lie for a few weeks on the Table of the House, and then, if the House thinks fit to approve of the principles of them by giving them a Second Reading, I do not propose to proceed further with them this year. I shall then leave them to be scrutinised by experts and by the public, and I hope that in a year's time we may get them into such a shape that they will not be regarded as controversial measures to any large extent. I am encouraged in that hope by the attitude
864
which the Incorporated Law Society as representing the solicitors has adopted. I have thought it right in constructing these Bills to take experts into my confidence, and I have been in close confidential communication with the Council of the Incorporated Law Society and also with some of the most distinguished conveyancers; and the result is that the attitude of the Law Society has given me hope that the Bills will commend themselves to them though doubtless they may wish to overhaul them very carefully, and it is, of course, desirable that they should. But if, it may be after improvements have been suggested, these proposals go through, next year I shall desire then to take a further step and bring in a Consolidation Bill, so that we should have in one volume a Code of the modern statutory law relating to land. Such a volume would obviate not only the necessity of referring to a series of Acts, but it would get rid of a great many intricacies which arise from these Acts appearing in a detached form, it would enable every one to know the system under which he held his land, and it would facilitate the work of legal practitioners.
I am not sanguine enough to imagine that the whole of the conundrums have been satisfactorily solved. I am sure that in the light of criticism points will turn out to have been overlooked or to have been dealt with in a fashion that is not the best. But what I have to say is that these Bills represent an enormous amount of work. They have been constructed by some of the most able conveyancers of the day and fashioned by those most competent to judge, including representatives of solicitors themselves; and I am not without hope that when they are examined they will be regarded as measures which will conduce to the public good.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, it is, of course, impossible to express any very decided or clear opinion at the moment upon the two measures which the Lord Chancellor is introducing to-day dealing with this complicated subject. I will only say that so far as I am concerned I heartily welcome the efforts that he is making for the purpose of achieving that which I believe all persons who have dealt with this subject have looked forward to as the goal which they should reach—namely, the simplification of title and the

865
reduction of expense of the transfer of land. It is impossible not to sympathise to some extent with the attitude of solicitors on this subject. I do not myself think that it is very unreasonable that they should be aggrieved at the withdrawal from them of a very large part of what is their practice. If the law insists upon sixty years' title or anything like it, so that the person who has to investigate for the purpose of finding out the security of title has to go through all the events and all the genealogies of sixty years, then the person who is employed to do it must be paid for it. I remember one old lady who made a complaint of a solicitor. She informed me that she had really told him everything. She said she had been the whole day explaining all the circumstances of her tenure and what it was that she wanted done, and then she seemed to think it unreasonable that the solicitor should want to be paid for something which she evidently thought so enjoyable in itself that it should be its own reward. That attitude is assumed by a good many people towards solicitors. It is the law which is to blame in great measure, and it is obvious that there is need for great reform. I can say no more at present. But I heartily welcome the attempt of the Lord Chancellor to put an end to the present abuse. I have myself introduced seven Bills on the subject, beginning with the year 1887; but in great measure our efforts to attain the goal I speak of have been checked by the interference of those who thought that their interests were not being sufficiently considered in the abolition of the complication of title. You can get £1,000,000 transferred in Consols or anything of that kind with a very small comparative expense, but if you have a small piece of land to deal
866
with you find that the expense is inordinate and out of all proportion to the value of the land itself. I hope the Lord Chancellor will succeed in what he is endeavouring to do, and I repeat I heartily welcome his efforts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am gratified at the way in which the noble and learned Earl has received these Bills. The subject is not one over which there is Party controversy, and the noble and learned Earl has done much himself in this direction. I think it will be very satisfactory to the public to know that both Parties are at work in trying to solve this problem. I now ask your Lordships' leave to introduce these two Bills.

REAL PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.] (No. 114.)
A Bill to amend the Law of Property to abolish copyhold and other special Tenures and to amend the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, and the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897: And

CONVEYANCING BILL. [H.L.] (No. 115.)
A Bill to simplify the title to and the transfer of land, to amend the Law as to settlements and to amend the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 to 1913.
—Were presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a, and to be printed.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next (The Earl Beauchamp). (No. 116.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.