Lords Sitting of 16 July 1913

BARRY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) RATLLESS ELECTRIC TRACTION BILL.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a: agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly and committed.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
RHONDDA TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, a further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. (6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
HEATHFIELD AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
BARRY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) RAILLESS ELECTRIC TRACTION BILL.
The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

DUNFERMLINE DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a(The Lord Emmott), and reported from the Committee. (No. 125.)
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. The National Health Insurance (Special Employers Custom) (Scotland) Provisional Order, 1913 (No. 1), made by the Joint Committee constituted under the Act and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, under Section 47 (7) of the Act, dated 15th July, 1913;
2. The National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Provisional Order (Scotland), 1913 (No. 1), dated the 15th day of July, 1913, made by the Joint Committee constituted under the Act and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners acting jointly;
3. Provisional Special Order, dated 14th July, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Employers Custom) Provisional Order, 1913 (No. 2);
4. Provisional Special Order, dated 11th;WY, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, the Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Provisional Order, 1913 (No. 2):
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 126.)

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the 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 PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment and to be read 3a To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3aTo-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendment proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.

AFFILIATION ORDERS 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.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Appointment and duties of collecting officer in respect of affiliation orders.
1.—(1) There shall be appointed to each petty sessional Court for the purposes of this Act an officer of the Court who shall carry out the duties of the collecting officer under this Act.
(2) Where the justices make an affiliation order all payments thereunder shall be made to the collecting officer of the Court, and it shall be the duty of the collecting officer to receive all such payments as may be directed to be made to him under this Act and to pay forthwith to the mother of the bastard child, or to such other person as is named in the affiliation order, the sum directed to be paid under the order, or such part thereof as he receives, without making any deduction therefrom, and, where any such payment or any part thereof is in arrear for seven days, the collecting officer shall give notice in writing to the person who is entitled under the affiliation order to receive that payment, stating the particulars of the arrears. Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of the mother or other person entitled to recover payments under the affiliation order to proceed against the putative father of the child to enforce payment of any sum due to such person, but, on the request in writing of the mother or other person entitled to recover payments under the affiliation order, it shall be lawful for the collecting officer to proceed in the name and on behalf of the mother or such other person against the putative father for the recovery of payments under the affiliation order, and in any such ease the liability of the person in whose name the proceedings are taken for all costs properly incurred in or about the proceedings shall be the same as if the proceedings had been taken by that person.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE)moved to omit from the beginning of subsection (2) the words "the justices make an affiliation order all payments thereunder," and to insert the words in his Amendment. The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment which I now move is to snake this Bill retrospective, so that the justices may, if they think fit, give the benefits of this provision to the woman although the order has been made before this Bill actually became law. I think that to a very large extent this meets the Amendment which appears later on the Paper in the name of Lord Gorell, as it gives discretionary power to the magistrates. I would also suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that my Amendment carries out what he apparently desires to do at the end of Clause 1, where he wishes to insert a new subsection.
Amendment moved——
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("Where") to ("shall") in line 10, and insert ("an affiliation order has been made either before or after the commencement of this Act, the Court which made the order, or any other Court of summary jurisdiction acting for the same place, may, if it thinks fit, direct that all payments becoming due under the affiliation order").—(Lord Strachie.)
EARL BATHURST: As far as the retrospective part of the Amendment is concerned, I fully approve of it, but so far as the rest of the Amendment goes I am afraid I cannot agree with Lord Strachie, for reasons which I will explain. In the first place, the Bill as it stands requires that all payments under affiliation orders shall be made through the collecting officer. Under this Amendment the payments would be made to the mother direct unless the justices thought fit to order otherwise. The promoters of this Bill take the other line, and say that all payments under affiliation orders should be made through a third person. They have very good reasons for taking that view. Their experience tells them that it is right, and they would much prefer that the Bill should stand as it is without amendment on that point. But I have taken a different view, and with your Lordships' permission I will explain the Amendment which stands next on the Paper in my name, and to which Lord Strachie referred. It directs that all payments under affiliation orders shall be made to the collecting officer "unless upon representations expressly made by the applicant." I further strengthen that by saying later on that, supposing representation is made that the woman would like the money paid direct to her, the magistrates shall have the option of saying No, and of ordering that the money must be paid through the collecting officer. I have several instances which prove that that would be a very good thing. A lady who has taken an active part in the drawing up of this Bill thinks that if an option were given to women of saying whether the money should be paid direct to them or through a third person, they would very likely be rushed into saying that they would have the money paid to them direct, and the real good of the Bill would be done away with. I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite takes a very strict view of this, or whether he will give way to my Amendment. I hope he will, as it gives latitude both to the magistrates and to the mothers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I venture to hope that the noble Lord who represents the Home Office will consider my noble friend's suggestion. He will see that my noble friend has not shown himself at all insensible to the kind of considerations which governed the noble Lord the Paymaster-General in the observations which he made. My noble friend recognises that the clause as it is drawn is a little over-rigid, because no discretion whatever is allowed. The magistrates are directed in the clause to order payment, through the collecting officer or other person appointed, but in every case other than to the woman herself. My noble friend recognises that, that is going a little too far, although it is the form in which the Bill has been drafted by those interested in this subject who have made a special study of the way in which the law works in this difficult matter. Lord Bathurst is willing, however, to make a concession, and I think a considerable concession, because he allows representations on behalf of the woman to be made to the magistrates, and if the magistrates are satisfied that on the whole it is better that the payment should be made to the woman direct, the Court may make an award accordingly. That appears to be a very fair compromise between two positions, and I hope the noble Lord opposite will consent to it.
I am very nervous, indeed, of allowing complete discretion to the Court. This, after all, is a new procedure and magistrates are not really acquainted with the intention of Parliament in this matter. They probably have not realised the enormous importance of relieving the woman of the necessity of appearing time after time before the Court to enforce the payment of the money. That is the policy of the Bill. The thing is to make it as easy as possible for the woman as against the man, and to secure that the woman should not be placed at a disadvantage in the matter. Therefore we say that it is better that the payments should be made through an officer of the Court than that the woman should be forced to come to the Court to claim the money. Experience has shown this to be ineffective. She very often refrains from going to the Court partly through shame, partly through the difficulties put in her way, partly through the question of expense and the terrors which beset the ordinary lay person at approaching a Court of justice.

1041
For all these reasons we think that Parliament should give a direction that in the ordinary case the money should be paid through an officer of the Court, although an exception should be permitted when it can be shown that it would be better that the money should be paid to the woman direct. My noble friend Lord Bathurst thinks he has gone a good way towards meeting the argument of the noble Lord the Paymaster-General, and we hope that the Government will not insist on their Amendment, at any rate that they will not insist upon it at this stage, but allow my noble friend to amend the Bill as he wishes and reconsider the matter on Report.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Earl's Amendment only appeared on the Paper this morning, and up till now I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Home Office with regard to it, nor have I had any communication from them. Therefore I do not like to pledge myself as to any revision of the Amendment standing in my name. I admit, however, that there is great force in what the noble Marquess and Lord Bathurst have said, and that Lord Bathurst has accepted in his Amendment a good deal of what I propose. I think it will be best for me to assent to the noble Earl's Amendment on the distinct understanding that if I am advised that it is undesirable or requires further amendment, we shall deal with it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST then formally moved the Amendment standing in his name, to which reference had been made in the discussion of Lord Strachie's Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("order") insert ("they shall, unless upon representations expressly made in that behalf by the applicant for the affiliation order they are satisfied it is undesirable so to do, provide in the order that").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("Court") insert ("and if the Justices so provide all payments under the order shall be made to the collecting officer and not otherwise").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("and") and insert ("(3)").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: I move the next Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, after ("person") insert the following new subsections:
"(4) Where an affiliation order has been made before the commencement of this Act, a court of summary jurisdiction may, if it thinks fit, direct that all payments becoming due under such order shall be made to the collecting officer and where the Court directs the payment to be so made, the provisions of this section shall apply as if the affiliation order had been made after the commencement of this Act.
"(5) A provision in an affiliation order under this section with respect to the person to whom the payments tinder the affiliation order are to be made may at any time be varied by a Court of summary jurisdiction if good cause is shown by the person on whose application the affiliation order was made."—(Earl Bathurst.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The first subsection of this Amendment carries out the other half of Lord Strachie's Amendment which he agreed to withdraw. The second subsection is rather a different point. It is to give power to the Court to vary the order hereafter.
LORD STRACHIE: I have no objection to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Attachment of salary or wages for purposes of affiliation orders.
2.—(1) When an affiliation order has been made, either before or after the commencement of this Act, the justices who made the order or any Court of summary jurisdiction may either, at the time of making the affiliation order or (after complaint made) at any subsequent time, make an order (in this Act referred to as an "affiliation attachment order") which shall have effect to charge to such an amount each week as is specified in the order any salary, wages, or other remuneration which at any time while the affiliation attachment order remains in force become due and payable by or front any employer on whom notice of such order is served to the person on whom the affiliation order is made: Provided that no such attachment order shall be made or be binding upon the employer in the case of any employee whose terms of service

1043
permit of termination upon less than one week's notice.
(2) An affiliation attachment order shall not have any effect as against an employer unless or until notice thereof is served upon him in accordance with rules of Court.
(3) An employer upon whom notice of an affiliation attachment order has been served shall, so often as any moneys become payable by him by way of salary or wages to the person on whom the affiliation order was made, deduct from such moneys a sum sufficient to satisfy the charge thereon, together with the cost of duly forwarding the amount by registered post, and shall forthwith pay the amount so deducted by sending it to the collecting officer or other person specified in the affiliation attachment order, and every sum so deducted and paid shall be taken to the extent thereof to have been paid by the employer in satisfaction of the wages or salary payable by him to the person on whom the affiliation order is made: Provided that the obligation of the employer hereunder shall not extend to any arrears due under the affiliation order but shall be limited to the amount falling due thereunder week by week.
(4) If, after he has been duly served with notice of an affiliation attachment order, an employer makes any payment by way of salary or wages to the person on whom the affiliation order has been made and fails to make any payment required by the affiliation attachment order, the amount in default shall be recoverable summarily by the person to whom the amount is payable under the affiliation attachment order as a civil debt due to that person from the employer.
(5) An affiliation attachment order may at any time be varied, suspended, or cancelled by a court of summary jurisdiction, and every such variation, suspension, or cancellation shall take effect on notice thereof being served upon the employer in accordance with rules of court; but an employer upon whom notice of an affiliation attachment order has been served shall not, in making any deduction or payment required by the order, be concerned to inquire whether any moneys are due under the affiliation order or the affiliation attachment order, and shall not, except as aforesaid, be affected by any notice to the contrary. The employer shall be entitled to receive reasonable notice of all proceedings hereunder, and, if he thinks fit, to appear thereat.
(6) The charge created by an affiliation attachment order shall have priority to any assignment made or charge created by the person on whom the affiliation order was made, whether made or created before the affiliation order, and an affiliation attachment order shall have effect as if no such assignment or charge had been made or created.
(7) This section shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Wages Attachment Abolition Act, 1870, or the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, but nothing in this section shall apply to any soldier of the regular forces so long as he is subject to the provisions of section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act, 1881.
(8) The power given to the Lord Chancellor to make rules of Court under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts shall include a power to make rules for the purpose of carrying this section into effect amt for dealing with costs.
LORD GORELL: I understand that the noble Earl who has introduced this Bill is prepared to accept this Amendment. It is to omit front the earlier part of subsection (1) the words "either at the time of making the affiliation order or," my object being to provide that the procedure under Clause 2 shall only take effect after there has been default in payment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("either at the time of making the affiliation order or").—(Lord Gorll.)
EARL BATHURST: I gladly accept the Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: I must say that I look with doubt upon this Amendment. It seems to me very undesirable to put this restriction on the Court. It would be very much better to leave a discretionary power, as in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is proposed in this clause to attach the wages of the father in payment of the sum due, but it is contended that if an application is made to the employer direct the first result will be that the man will lose his employment. I am not sure that that is necessarily a conclusive objection, because the man has had full notice and ought not to have forced the necessity upon the parties to approach the employer. But still it is so necessary and so important to avoid the man losing his employment that it is thought that we might give him one opportunity more. In the first case let the order be made against him only, and then if he makes default let us go to the employer and ask that the sum should be sent out of the wages direct. In that way the man would be given one more chance, and it would be necessary for him to make one default before it was essential to seize the employer of the situation. It is thought that that would mitigate the severity of the Bill and make it work all the better. I think the Amendment is a wise one and ought to be inserted.
LORD STRACHIE: I am surprised that the noble Marquess takes this view. I should have thought that in the opinion of the noble Marquess the man ought to be treated severely. What we have to consider is what is best for the woman in the circumstances. The justices are very particular, and although they have not power

1045
to make attachment orders in these particular cases at present, they have power to make them in cases of separation orders. They exercise their discretion in those cases, often very usefully. In nine cases tout of tell the locality knows all about the making of an affiliation order. Through the mere fact of its being discussed in (Ten Court and reported in the local newspapers the employer would be perfectly aware that the man had rendered himself liable, and the man would not be prejudiced by the provision in the clause as it stands. The only objection that I can see is that it might have the effect of his losing his employment, because the employer was not willing to assist the girl and the Court by deducting the sum from the wages. I should object, as the noble Marquess objects, to the attachment order being made compulsory, but it is not compulsory. It is entirely in the discretion of the magistrates, who would know all about the matter and whether the case was one in which an order for attachment should be made. I am very much surprised at the noble Marquess not being willing to trust the magistrates. They know all the circumstances and are the best judges in the matter. I certainly must resist the Amendment as far as I can.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know what my noble friend Lord Gorell feels inclined to do, but I certainly should not suggest to him to press the Amendment in the face of the opposition of His Majesty's Government. At the same time I think it would have been better for them to have accepted the Amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord the Paymaster-General will consider between this and the next stage whether some modification ought not to be made.
LORD GORELL: I accept the advice which the noble Marquess gives me, and will not press the Amendment in face of the attitude adopted by the noble Lord who represents the Home Office. But I venture to him, before I withdraw the Amendment, whether he will not allow the Amendment to be inserted now and be reconsidered at a later stage. It is, I think, desirable, particularly if the clause stands as it is at present drafted, that the employee should be given a chance of duly discharging his obligations under the affiliation order before the woman can go to the Court with the very strong power provided in the latter part of the clause.
LORD STRACHIE: I hope the noble Lord will be inclined to accept the advice of the noble Marquess and withdraw the Amendment. On my part I will undertake to carefully reconsider this question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to deletes from subsection (3) the words "or other person specified in the affiliation attachment order." The noble Lord said: By the striking out of these words the employer will have to pay the amount only to the collecting officer. It seems to me that this is only fair, and it relieves the employer from finding out the whereabouts of the other person entitled to payment and gets rid of the difficulty which the employer might experience in getting a receipt from such person. We ought to do everything to make it as easy as possible for the employer. Very naturally he would say he could not pay the money to Tom, Dick, or Harry, but only to an officer of the Court who would give him an official receipt.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("officer") to ("and") in line 35.—(Lord Strachie.)
EARL BATHURST: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. Clause 1 indicates that certain payments under affiliation orders should be made to some person other than the collecting officer—either to the mother of the child or the guardians of the union.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite appreciate the noble Lord's point, that the employer might experience some difficulty in knowing where to send the money if some person other than the collecting officer were named. But under the Amendment we have inserted it is possible that the money may be ordered to be paid to the woman herself or to the guardians. It is necessary to provide, if the wages are attached, that they should also be paid to the woman herself.
LORD STRACHIE: That is a different point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No. The words are "pay the amount so deducted by sending it to the collecting officer or other person specified in the affiliation attachment order." If the money is due to the woman herself or to the board of guardians, the amount deducted from the wages must also be due to those same persons and some such words are necessary. If the noble Lord thinks that some provision is required in the Bill in order that the employer may know exactly to whom to send the money—something prescribing that a proper name and address should be sent to the employer—perhaps he will consider that and bring up words to meet the point. Otherwise I think we must leave the words as they are here, for the clause would not make sense without them.
LORD STRACHIE: When I expressed dissent, it was because this is a new provision here. Of course, under the present law the Court has power to make an order that the money shall be paid to some other person having the custody of the child, and not be paid to the woman. This is an alteration of the law completely, giving the justices the power of attachment of the wages. What we were dealing with before was regards giving them a discretion as to whether it should be paid to the collecting officer; and it seems to me you must be more particular when you are making an order on an employer than in the other case that has just been dealt with. However, if the noble Marquess presses it I shall be willing to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that I shall bring up words later to make it quite clear that the employer shall not be compelled to pay the money, unless he assents to do so, to any one except to an officer of the Court. I do not think it would be fair to put upon the employer an obligation to pay to any other person unless he is willing that the money should be paid in that way.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the point is perfectly simple. The Court orders the money to be paid, and according to the circumstances of the case it orders it to be paid to the woman herself. That happens under Clause 1 as amended. Then assume that the man becomes a defaulter and pays nothing. The Court proceeds then to say "We will attach his wages." An officer of the Court
1048
is not appointed in this case to collect the money, because it is to be sent to the woman herself. How can you possibly say that the wages shall be attached and the money sent to the collecting officer? He would not have anything to do with it, because the money is ordered to be paid to the woman direct. Therefore the attached wages must be sent to her direct. I think the noble Lord will agree that some such words are required.
LORD STRACHIE: I do not agree with the noble Marquess, but I think it would be best for me not to press my Amendment now but to reserve my right to bring up other words at a later stage to make it clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GORELL: I move to leave out subsection (2), and to insert as a separate subsection: "An affiliation attachment order shall only operate in the case of such employer as comes within the provisions of rules of Court (hereinafter called a responsible employer) and upon whom notice of the said affiliation attachment order shall have been duly served."
On Second Reading I think I satisfied both the noble Marquess and the noble Lord who was then representing the Home Office that the effect of this clause, as drafted, would undoubtedly be to jeopardise very seriously the employment of the workmen, but whilst both noble Lords accepted that position it seemed that they were pre- pared, nevertheless, to proceed with the provisions of the clause. But I venture to suggest that the effect of this clause, if the man does lose his employment, will defeat its own object, because at the present time it is extremely easy for a workman who has a payment such as this to make, particularly if he loses his employment, to go off to Canada or some other of our Dominions, or to the United States. I think that the analogy given by the noble Marquess of the person in the Army is not really a good one, because the soldier cannot get away; he is under military law; nor do I expect that a commanding officer would wish to get rid of him. Would a clause such as that in the Bill really be compulsory? Would it not be optional, as much as under the provision which I venture to suggest could be drawn up under the power to make rules of Court? The

1049
effect of the clause, as it stands at present, will be that the employer, although you say you are going to compel him, will really have the option of deciding whether he is going to assist you or not. No one can say to an employer, "You shall not get rid of your workman." Therefore what it really comes to is that the employer, if you approach him properly, may help you, but if you compel him he probably will not and I urge your Lordships very seriously to consider whether the clause as it stands at present will not defeat its own objects, because—as the noble Marquess said on the Second Reading of this Bill—upon the continuity of employment depends the possibility of the workman paying the sum due. I suggest that it would be better to face the tree facts, that the power really rests with the employer. I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me. My sympathies are not for the man. I am quite in accord with the objects of the noble Earl who introduced this Bill and of the noble Marquess, but I am merely differing from them as to the means, and I suggest for your Lordships' consideration whether the means I propose will not prove more effective than those of the noble Earl.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 24 to 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert as a separate subsection:
"( ) An affiliation attachment order shall only operate in the case of such employer as comes within the provisions of rules of Court (hereinafter called a responsible employer) and upon whom notice of the said affiliation attachment order shall have been duly served."—(Lord Gorell.)
EARL BATHURST: I am afraid I cannot quite agree with the Amendment which has just been moved. It appears rather that its object is to prevent an attachment order being made effective. Under it an attachment order would be practically useless. The real object of the clause is to make men feel that if they do not make the payments under the affiliation orders their employer will have to do so for them out of their wages. I hope the noble Lord will not insist on his Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: I entirely agree with the noble Earl. It would not be an advantage to the woman if your Lordships were to adopt the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Both the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and the noble Lord who represents the Home Office agree that this Amendment should not be inserted, and I confess I am of the same opinion. I think it would make it too easy for the man to get out of his liability. The employer would, in an enormous number of cases, probably decline to have anything to do with it, and we should defeat the objects of the Bill. I also think that the extraordinary vagueness of the noble Lord's Amendment is a great objection to it. We practically hand over all the conditions under which this very important matter has to be carried out to rules. There is no indication, on the face of the Amendment, what the rules are to be, and what sort of considerations are to be had regard to by those responsible for making the rules. I think on all these grounds the Amendment ought not to be accepted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 33 to 36, leave out subsection (8).—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
LORD GORELL: I beg to move the first of the proposed two new clauses standing in my name. It fills up, if I may say so, a gap in the provisions of the Bill by enabling pensions to be attachable. I think this is a useful provision, and it is substantially the same as the provision in the Children's Act.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, to insert the following new clause, viz.:
" .When an affiliation order has been made, either before or after the commencement of this Act, the justices who made the order or any Court of summary jurisdiction may, in any case where there is any pension or income payable to the person on whom the affiliation order has been made and capable of being attached, after giving the person to whom the pension or income is payable an opportunity of being heard, order that such an amount each week as is specified in the affiliation order or any part of such amount be attached and be paid to the person named by the Court. Such order shall be an authority to the person by whom such pension or income is payable to make the payment so ordered, and the receipt of the person to whom the payment is ordered to be made shall be a good discharge to such first named person."—(Lord Gorell.)
EARL BATHURST: I shall be glad to accept this Amendment. I think the clause will require a little alteration in the expression of the income which is capable of being attached, but otherwise I accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL: I now move the insertion of the second new clause standing in my name. This clause is also similar to one contained in the Children's Act, and I venture to think that it will prove a useful clause in dealing with what is frequently found to be a matter of great difficulty—the tracing of the movements of persons on whom orders have been made in their change of address from one part of the Kingdom to another.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause, viz.:
".The person on whom an affiliation order has been made shall give notice of any change of address to the collecting officer, if payment has been ordered to be made to him, and if he fails to do so without reasonable excuse he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two pounds."—(Lord Gorell.)
*EARL BATHURST: I accept this Amendment also. I should like to say, with regard to this clause, that it would be much better to put it as a new subsection to Clause 1. If that is acceptable to the Committee, that may perhaps be proposed at another stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
New or altered form of proceedings.
4. The Local Government Board may issue such new or altered forms of proceedings in matters of bastardy as they shall deem necessary or expedient for giving effect to the existing Acts relating to such proceedings as amended by this Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, after ("Act") insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The power given to the Lord Chancellor to make rules of Court under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts shall include a power to make rules for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect and for dealing with costs, fees, and expenses."—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Definitions.
5. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "affiliation order" means an order made under the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, or any Act amending the same, adjudging a man to be the putative father of a bastard child and ordering him to pay a sum of money weekly or otherwise to the mother of the bastard child or to any other person who is named in the circler.
LORD GORELL: The object of my Amendment to this clause is to provide for a definition of the person who will have to work the machinery, to a large extent, of this Bill. It is really a matter on which one would feel disposed to accept the advice of the noble Lord who represents the Home Office; but I venture to suggest that the persons I have indicated in my Amendment would be extremely useful persons. Probation officers have done very valuable work of this kind, and have been entrusted with extremely important duties. There is this great advantage, that women can be appointed probation officers, and I venture to think they would be extremely useful persons in this capacity. The Police Court missionaries are in daily attendance at the Courts, and are constantly following up this class of person in other ways, and I venture to suggest that their inclusion would be a wise provision.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 13, after ("order") insert ("and the expression 'officer of the Court' shall mean a superintendent or inspector of police or other officer of police of equal or superior rank, or in charge of any police station, or a probation officer or police court missionary").—(Lord Gorell.)
LORD STRACHIE: The view of the Home Office is that it is very much better to leave this matter entirely in the discretion of the magistrates, because they themselves will be able to say whether it is desirable that the Police Court missionary, or the probation officer, or a constable, or the superintendent. should be appointed. They are the best judges. In some cases it might be better to have the superintendent or the probation officer. I sympathise with the noble Lord when he says that it is desirable that women should act sometimes in particular cases, but my feeling is—and I know it is the feeling of the Home Office—that we should not interfere with the discretion of the magistrates in this matter. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will have the same feeling and resist the Amendment, which rather goes against the principle of the Bill.
EARL BATHURST: Personally I should rather have welcomed this Amendment, because I think it gives the justices great latitude; but after what the noble Lord who represents the Home Office has said, if it is really quite clear that the magistrates have power to appoint either a superintendent or a police sergeant or constable, or anybody else whom they choose, possibly the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will not insist upon it. But I rather understood that the view of the Home Office was that a policeman should not be appointed. I think that if someone carrying official power and in an official uniform were to be appointed to go and collect this money, it would have a much greater effect upon the man than if an ordinary unofficial person were appointed. If a man saw a policeman at his door calling for the money it would make him mach more anxious and willing to pay than if a Police Court missionary or some other ordinary individual were to call upon him. I would prefer that a policeman were appointed; but as long as it is understood that there is freedom to the justices to appoint whomever they think fit, perhaps the noble Lord in those circumstances will not wish to press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that as the Bill is drafted there is no definition, and the magistrates therefore have complete discretion in the matter.
LORD STRAGRIE: I was just going to say that. I was going to refer to Clause 1, 'yhi.ch says—
"There shall be appointed to each petty sessional court for the purposes of this Act an officer of the court who shall carry out the duties of the collecting officer under this Act."
It is quite clear as far as I can see, although I am not a lawyer, that the interpretation would be that they can appoint, as I have already said, a policeman, or the superintendent, or their own clerk, or the Court missionary, or a probation officer, so that there ought to be no difficulty about that. Then I would say to the noble Lord, who was so anxious just now that the man should not be damaged as regards any objection taken by his employer, that the employer might very naturally take an objection to a policeman constantly calling at his premises, and tell the workman to go. I think it would be better to leave the matter as it is.
LORD GORELL: I did riot gather from the reading of Clause 1 that the magistrates had such a wide discretion as the noble Lord seems to suggest. But as the noble Lord tells us that it is so, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is really a matter for the Home Office. If the noble Lord tells us it is quite clear, in the opinion of the Home Office, that the magistrates will understand what their powers are, it seems to me there is no more to be said.
LORD STRACHIE: If the noble Marquess desires it, I am quite ready, in order that there should be no possible doubt, to undertake to ask the opinion of the Home Office definitely on the point, bearing in mind what has been said here to day.
EARL BATHURST: Would the noble Lord (Lord Strachie) be prepared to accept the Amendment on the understanding that if in the opinion of the Home Office it is unnecessary it would be taken out afterwards?
LORD STRACHIE: I cannot agree to that suggestion. As I have said, I will undertake to reconsider this point with the officials of the Home Office, and see whether it is necessary to put in additional words clearly giving discretionary powers to the magistrates.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 127.)

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(Lord Eversley.)
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, before this stage is taken, I venture to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill a question relating to the exact meaning of Clause 2. I apologise at the outset to the noble Lord for not having raised this matter at an earlier stage of the Bill. I can only say I was unavoidably prevented from

1055
being present at an earlier stage. As the noble Lord is very well aware, there are, certainly in the south of England, many hundreds of miles of ancient highways which have been stopped up according to forms of law and orders made at Quarter Sessions in former days, and have not been repaired as highways for periods extending to forty, fifty, and sixty years. At the same time along many of these disused green lanes and stopped-up highways the public have, either legally or illegally, been accustomed to wander. They have used them as footpaths, and it is quite possible that in a great many cases the public might be able to prove that they had not been prevented from exercising rights of passage along these disused highways for the full period of twenty years alluded to in the noble Lord's Bill. In Clause 2 it is stated that where a way upon or over any land has been actually enjoyed by the public without interruption for a full period of twenty years that way shall revert to the position of a highway, and might eventually become repairable at great cost to the public authorities as a highway despite the fact that it had many years ago been legally stopped up as a highway. I venture to ask the noble Lord, therefore, whether he is willing to reconsider the wording of this clause so as to make it perfectly clear that where a footpath has been enjoyed for a full period of twenty years along a disused highway, the rights of footpath only shall be attainable under this Bill, and that the way shall not revert into the condition of a public highway such as is alluded to. If some definite undertaking of that kind is not given I am afraid I shall have to put down an Amendment on Third Reading.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, I have before explained to the House that this Bill does not impose any fresh obligation for repair either upon local authorities or upon landowners. It merely supplies a new method of giving proof of the public right of highway, but it in no way affects liability to repair. If a footpath is proved to be a public path under the terms of this Bill no liability whatever will fall upon the local authority or upon the landowner for the repair of the same.
LORD HYLTON: I see nothing about that in the Bill—that there is to be no liability. I certainly think it ought to be defined before Third Reading.
LORD EVERSLEY: I am willing to accept the Amendment which will be moved later by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, declaring that nothing in the Bill shall impose upon the landowner any liability for maintenance and repair, and I should be prepared to accept an Amendment as regards the highway authority also. But I can assure the noble Lord that it is not necessary to insert any such Amendment, because under the law as it now stands it is perfectly clear that there will be no liability upon a highway authority or a landowner in respect of any new way which comes into existence under this Bill to which they are not liable under the existing law.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Might I ask the noble Lord whether the Bill applies to Ireland?
LORD EVERSLEY: Yes; it applies to Ireland but not to Scotland. The Irish law, I understand, is precisely the same as the English law in this matter; but the Scottish law differs in some material respects. It was therefore not thought necessary to apply the Bill to Scotland.
On Question, Report of Amendments received.
Clause 2:
Public use of way for twenty years conclusive that way is a public highway.
2. Where a way upon or over any land has been actually enjoyed by the public without interruption for a full period of twenty years, such way shall be deemed to have been dedicated as a public highway unless it shall appear that there is sufficient evidence arising during that period negativing the intention to dedicate such way, or unless during such period of twenty years there was not at any time any person in possession of such land capable of dedicating such way. And, where such way has been enjoyed as aforesaid for a full period of forty years, such way shall be deemed conclusively to have been dedicated as a public highway unless there is sufficient evidence arising during that period negativing the intention to dedicate such way, and, in either of the cases in this section mentioned, a notice by the owner of the land over which such way passes inconsistent with its dedication as a highway, placed and maintained in such a manner as to be visible to those using it, shall, in the absence of any proof of a contrary intention, be sufficient evidence to negative the intention of the person so placing such notice to dedicate such way as a public highway: Provided that, in the case of any land let on lease, the person for the time being entitled to the reversion shall, notwithstanding the existence of any such lease, have the right to cause such notice to be placed and maintained: Provided

1057
that each of the respective periods of years mentioned in this section shall be deemed and taken to be the period next before the time when the right of the public to use a way shall have been brought into question: Provided further that nothing in this section contained shall affect the incapacity of corporations or other bodies or persons in possession of land for public or statutory purposes to dedicate any such way where such way would be incompatible with such public or statutory purposes.
LORD EVERSLEY: I move, after the word "question" immediately before the proviso at the end of Clause 2, to insert the words "by notice as aforesaid or otherwise." This is merely a drafting Amendment. It does not interfere with the sense of the clause, but it is thought desirable to make the clause a little clearer in the interests of both the landowner and of the public.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 6, after ("question") insert ("by notice as aforesaid or otherwise").—(Lord Eversley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Savings for existing law.
4. Nothing in this Act shall operate to prevent the dedication of a way as a public highway being presumed or proved on proof of user for any less period than twenty years or to prevent the dedication of a way as a public highway being presumed or proved under any circumstances under which it can be presumed or proved at the time of the passing of this Act.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have an Amendment to Clause 4, to insert a new subsection providing that nothing in this Bill shall impose liability upon landowners for the maintenance or repair of such public highways which they would not have been subject to if this Bill had not been passed. Your Lordships may remember that in the minds of several noble Lords on this side of the House there was doubt as to whether the establishment of a public highway under this Bill might not mean the throwing upon the owner of the duty of repairing it. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was rather of a contrary opinion; but I suggested that some such Amendment as this should be made in order to make the point perfectly clear. I think that at that time the noble and learned Viscount said he had no objection to it, and, as I understand, the noble Lord in
1058
charge of the Bill has no objection to the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 2, line 21, after ("Act") insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Nothing in this Act shall impose upon the owner of land over which a public highway passes any liability for the maintenance or repair of such public highway which he would not have been subject to if this Act had not been passed."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD EVERSLEY: I have no objection to the noble Earl's Amendment, although I do not think it necessary. I believe I am right in saying that there are only two ways in which a landowner can possibly become liable for the repair of the footpath. One is if he has always, from time immemorial, repaired it; and the other is if he erects a fence on either side of the footpath so as to prevent the public straying on one side or the other. In that event he becomes liable to repair. At the same time, although I do not see any necessity for the Amendment I have no objection to it if the noble Earl presses it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): I have looked into the law on this subject carefully, and the impression which I conveyed to your Lordships at the last stage I find was a correct one. It was decided perfectly clearly by Lord Campbell in the Court of Queen's Bench, when Lord Campbell was Lord Chief Justice, in the case of The Queen and Wilson in 1852, that no liability of any sort or kind attaches to the person who dedicates a highway from the mere fact of dedicating it. The law is quite clear, and I am therefore very loth to anything being put into this Bill that would cast any doubt on the existing law. If your Lordships accepted this Amendment Judges and the public would immediately begin to ask what was the necessity of putting this subsection into the Bill unless there has been some change in the law, which has been settled, as I have already told your Lordships, since the case of The Queen and Wilson. I have looked into the law, as I say, and there is no question about it. It is perfectly clear, and the proposed subsection adds nothing. I therefore ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment, as it would only have an unsettling tendency and raise doubts as to what the law really is.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have, of course, the greatest possible diffidence in even asking the noble and learned Viscount a question with regard to an intricate matter of law of this kind, and I should not have done so but for the pregnant observation made just now by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill when he said that nothing could throw liability on the landowner except two contingencies—one, if he had always repaired a particular road; and the other, if he had fenced in a particular road on either side. In these cases apparently a liability would arise on an owner to repair the road. Let us apply these two cases to the present Bill. Assume that a landowner has passing through his park a road which for many years was a private road and would have continued for all time to be a private road had not the public, through negligence to assert ownership on the part of the landowner, been allowed to use the road for the prescribed number of years. No doubt while it continued to be his private road the landowner would have mended it. But it becomes a public right of way; and, applying the criterion of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, as the landowner has always been in the habit of mending it he would apparently still he liable to mend it hereafter although it had become a public right of way. That liability would be thrown upon him under the conditions stated by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. So, in the other case, if the landowner fences the road on either side the liability is also thrown upon him. I will take the same case again, if the noble Lord will allow me, of a road crossing the landowner's own park, which he has neglected to maintain his right over and which has become a public right of way. It passes across the park with green on either side of it. He does not want to exclude the public by shutting his park gates, but, the road haying become a public road, he says, "I must put up a fence on each side of it so as to keep my park private." Then, according to the noble Lord, he becomes liable to repair the road. The two very cases which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill cites as throwing an obligation on the landowner appear to me to be pregnant and material to the case we are considering. Of course, it is not a thing that we can carry against the noble and learned Viscount, but I suggest that he should reconsider the matter. If it is the case that if the land-
1060
owner has been in the habit of repairing the road, or if he puts up a fence on either side of the road, then that makes him responsible for repairing it, I think that some words should be put in to protect the landowner. A road which has become a public road ought to be repaired by the public.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is quite true that there are two ways in which a man who has been the owner of a road which he has opened to the public may be liable. One is when he is liable by prescription, or what is called ratione tenurœ—that is, when he has done it for so long as to raise the presumption that it was done before the time of legal memory, which is from the time of Richard I. There is a doubt as to whether it dates from before he went to the Crusades or after he returned, but that is the only doubt about it. If there is evidence on which a jury can infer, under the direction of a Judge, that it has been done for that time, then it is to be presumed that there was a deed under which the landowner was bound to do it. That is the meaning of being liable ratione tenurœ.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would that apply to a hitherto private road?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would apply to any public road of any sort or kind. If a landowner dedicates his right to a road to-day, it is perfectly plain that he cannot be liable under that doctrine at all. That is the first case. I hope I have satisfied the noble Marquess upon that. Then the other case is the case of fencing at the sides. That is known as ratione clausurœ. The meaning of that is this. If anybody owns land over which a highway runs and the land at the sides, and the highway gets into a very bad state, the public have always been allowed to go on to the land at the sides in order to avoid holes and defects in the way. If, then, the landlord, exercises his right to fence in on each side, he has been held bound, by way of compensation for what was the right of the public before to go along the sides, to repair the road if it gets into a bad state. That is the liability to repair ratione clausuœ. That is a general liability on everybody who has a right of way over his land. If the public

1061
right of way is in a very bad state, then the public may stray over his land at the sides, and if the owner fences it he must put back the public right of way into such a condition of repair that the public can go along it without resorting to the power of straying which the owner has taken away.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then that would apply to this case?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It applies to every case. If anybody creates a highway, he is liable to the obligation if he fences it in, of repairing the way from the point where he has fenced it in. But, my Lords, that is not anything that this Bill is concerned with. It is the general doctrine relating to the highways of the country, and if you make a special exception in the case of highways to which this Bill applies you will always have for the future the question raised as to how the highway originated. This Bill creates no new liability with regard to the dedicating of a highway, nor is there anything in this Bill which in the least extends the nature of the liability.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was asking the noble and learned Viscount to deal with my case of a road going across an open park, which road, until it became a public right of way, would naturally not be fenced. I want him to apply his argument to that case. If the landowner puts up a fence on its becoming a public right of way he would be liable to repair?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so; and that would be so however he dedicates a highway. He must let the public go across it, and, if it gets into a bad condition, he must allow them to go on either side of it. Dedication is always subject to this. You may have gates put across, but they must be left so that it is possible to open them; but if any obstruction is placed upon a public right of way and the public cannot get along, then they have a right to stray on to the land adjoining in order to get round the obstruction. That is peculiar to all highways, and has nothing in particular to do with any way under this Bill. What the noble Marquess really wants is to say that ways which are proved to be ways under this Bill are to be different from other
1062
ways. In the first place, who would be able hereafter to say whether the proof had taken place under this Bill or whether it had taken place under the Common Law? It is often a most difficult question, and the only purpose of this Bill is to afford a new rule of evidence in trials of the question of highway or not highway. I think the noble Earl was quite right to take the point. But, as I say, I have looked very closely into the law to see whether the advice I gave the House at the last stage of this Bill was right, and I find that I was right. There is no doubt about it. But I do not think that the proposed subsection as it appears really touches the point of the noble Marquess. It does touch the point of the noble Earl, who had a doubt as to whether, when you dedicate a way of this kind, you might impose upon yourself some liability. But to draw a distinction between cases to which this Bill applies and cases to which it does not apply does not seem to me to be a thing that is desirable. I hope that your Lordships, therefore, will consider that the Amendment is not necessary.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: By permission of the House, may I state very shortly my object in moving the Amendment, and what I think it means. This Bill, as I understand it, does give a special interpretation of the manner in which a public way may be created. It says, "Where a way upon or over any land has been actually enjoyed by the public without interruption for a full period of twenty years, such way shall be deemed to have been dedicated." I apprehend that that is an alteration of the present law. If that be so, then, my Lords, what I wished to establish by this Amendment was that this alteration in the law should not create any additional liability upon the owner; and it is in respect of this Bill, and of this Bill only, that I propose my Amendment. I could not quite gather what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said. I could not gather that he admitted that there was any change made in the law at all by the Bill. If there is no change made in the law by the Bill, then what is the object of the Bill? But if there is only a possibility or probability of a change being made, my Amendment at all events cannot do any harm. It merely says that this Bill shall create no new liability upon the

1063
owner. If there is any doubt at all with regard to the meaning of the Bill—and I must say that, so far as my understanding goes, it seems to me there is some doubt—I cannot see the harm of putting in these words.
TEE LORD CHANCELLOR: If your Lordships Neill permit me, I will say one word more. The proposed new subsection is not apt to deal with the case which the noble Marquess has put. The Bill deals only with what is virtually a rule of evidence, and the noble Earl's proposed subsection does not really help the matter. "Nothing in this Act," it says, "shall impose any liability"; but the subsection does raise some doubt as to the existing law. It seems to me to throw doubt on the law as settled since the decision in The Queen and Wilson. However, I do not think it is a very serious matter if your Lordships wish to have the clause in; but some day or another it will give great trouble to Judges and lawyers, who will ask, "Why was this clause put in? Parliament must have had some reason for putting it in. It must be intended to indicate that there was some doubt as to the validity of the decision in The Queen and Wilson." Speaking for myself, I am against the proposed subsection because I am against any doubt being thrown on what is well-settled law. But if the House prefer it, they will no doubt vote for the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have nothing to do with the case put by the noble Marquess just now. All I have to do with is the case which I put. I dare say I am wrong; it is probably my own obtuseness; but it seems to me it would be desirable to put this subsection in. Of course, that is a matter which the House must decide, and I shall not divide if there is any strong feeling the other way.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: I venture to lay before your Lordships with very great diffidence, not being a lawyer, what occurs to me with regard to the question of fencing a road, which has been alluded to more than once in this discussion. I apprehend that where an owner sets to work to fence a road which has not previously been fenced, certain consequences follow as to his liability to repair. But my point is that I apprehend that in certain circumstances, if a road
1064
which has hitherto been a private road becomes a public road, the owner of the land through which the road passes may be compelled to fence by the local authorities. I have heard of cases which have arisen in that way, but, as I say, being a layman, I speak with some diffidence on the point.
LORD NEWTON: I hope the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, will press his Amendment. The point before us is that Lord Eversley's Bill is going to alter the law, and it is not the smallest satisfaction for us to be told that we are under no liabilities with regard to the existing law as to fencing and maintaining and so on. Lord Eversley tells us that he is going to alter the law. Then the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack says that he fears Lord Camperdown's Amendment may give much trouble to future Judges. But if the Judges are to be overworked in dealing with this question, the simple remedy is for Lord Eversley to drop the Bill, and not for my noble friend Lord Camperdown to drop his Amendment, which I hope he will press.
LORD SANDERSON: I fancy some noble Lords have not quite understood the argument of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. What I understand him to say is that the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl will not have the effect he wishes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No; the noble and learned Viscount says it would not touch Lord Salisbury's point.
LORD SANDERSON: The words of the noble and learned Viscount were that it was not apt. What I understand the noble Earl wishes to put in is a clause to the effect that if a highway is proved to be dedicated in virtue of the provisions of this Bill, it shall not entail on the landowner any duty of repair which would fall upon him under the Common Law as the owner of a highway. That seems to me a different thing from what the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl provides.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 128.)

PROVISIONAL VALUATIONS.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that recent decisions have been given by the Referees against the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in important test cases where questions of principle arising out of the administration of the Finance (1909–1910) Act, 1910, were being raised, they will give instructions that the service of the provisional valuations now being made under such Act be postponed until the questions at issue in the cases referred to have been disposed of in the High Court, and the correct basis for making the valuation finally ascertained.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting this Question to the Government I think it will be necessary for me to say a very few words of explanation. The subject is a very complicated one, and in the course of the few remarks that I shall make it will be my object to deal with the matter in language devoid of technicality. It is perfectly clear that this is not an occasion on which it would be suitable or desirable, and in any case it is not my intention, to dwell upon the merits or demerits of the Finance (1909–10) Act. All that I will say in regard to it is to remind your Lordships that under that Act a valuation has to be made of all the land in the United Kingdom, and for the purposes of this valuation certain values have to be ascertained and set out in the provisional valuations which have to be served upon an owner. It is beyond controversy that this is an Act for the purposes of taxation, and that consequently the valuations should be reliable valuations and should be made upon a uniform and an intelligible basis.
Under the Act itself there are various forms of value. The Act defines the full site value as the value of the fee simple of the land if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller, divested of buildings, of timber, and of fruit-trees. Lately two very important test cases have been decided against the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by the Referees. One of those cases is known as the Norton Malreward case in the county of Somerset, and the other is known as the Chels case in the county of Hertford. In those cases it was decided against the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that in
1066
arriving at the assessable site value for future taxation deduction should be made, in the interest of the owner, first for the tenant's improvements and for the tenant's Unproved cultivation, fealties, and unhausted manures. That appears to be very reasonable, for as your Lordships are well aware an owner has to pay for these matters under the Agricultural Holdings Act. It was also decided by the Referees that in arriving at the assessable site value, the value to be arrived at should be ascertained as though the grass had been divested from the land valued. I do not pretend to interpret what the precise meaning or force of that may be, but presumably it means that. in the opinion of the Referees, grass land to be of any value is the product of expenditure on the part of either the owner or the occupier, and therefore should not be made liable to assessment for the purposes of taxation under the assessable site value.
What is the position of affairs now? It is this, that we have had these two test cases derided by the Referees. If the Government or the Commissioners of Inland Revenue say that they will abide by the decisions of the Referees, then I maintain, I think with reason, that all future valuations should be governed by the principles decided upon by the Referees; but I presume that the Government will appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Referees. What I want to put to the Government is this. This is not a matter of controversy or of Party politics; it is a question of reason and of justice in the administration of the Act. It surely is very unreasonable and unfair to continue the service of these provisional valuations when they may be upset or altered at any time, and when the owners upon whom they are served do not really know the principles upon which the valuations have to be made. Under the Act sixty days have to elapse from the time when the provisional valuation is served upon the owner. The owner is required within those sixty days to appeal or to send in amended figures; but if he fails to send in amended figures or to appeal, the figures originally settled by the Commissioners are to stand as final in the Doomsday Book.
I do not think that this is a question exclusively or even principally affecting larger proprietors or men of means; they

1067
have expert advice, and I presume that in most cases the result of the uncertainty that now exists is this, that they have in all cases generally appealed against every valuation that has been sent in. But your Lordships are fully aware of the fact that there is now an increasing number of small owners of land, because one of the results of recent legislation has been that large estates are being broken up. It does seem to me especially hard upon the smaller men that they should have these provisional valuations served upon them and be put to considerable expense, perhaps, in obtaining professional advice in order to check the valuations, when the valuations may be completely upset by further appeals when the questions are taken to the High Court. In the circumstances I cannot myself imagine that anything would be lost as regards the progress of I he valuations were the Government to agree, if they wish to appeal, to take the matter to the Appeal Court as soon as possible, and that in the meantime they would not serve any further valuations. For surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the owners should be allowed sixty days from the time that the decision is given and the principles upon which the valuation is to be made arrived at. I hope that the Government will appreciate the very great inconvenience and inequity which exist under the present condition of things, and that the noble Lord who will reply on behalf of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may be able to meet what I think is a very reasonable request in a conciliatory, and I hope in a satisfactory, manner.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl will not think me wanting in courtesy if I do not follow him into the many arguments as regards the way in which this valuation has been made. Be himself has said that this question is sub judice; and therefore it is very desirable that we should only deal with the actual facts at this particular moment. First of all I will give the noble Earl an answer to the Question as is stands upon the Paper, and deal afterwards with what he said by way of explanation of his Question. Notice of appeal is being given against the decisions to which the noble Earl refers, and unless and until they are absolutely confirmed by the Courts they do not involve the abandonment in any
1068
particular of the basis on which valuations are at present conducted. It is not, therefore, proposed to suspend the service of provisional valuations on account of them. Arrangements will, however, be made to ensure that owners who, for the preservation of any rights they may claim, give notice of objection to provisional valuations on account of the adoption of principles called in question by the decisions, shall be put to as little trouble as possible in the matter.
The noble Earl said that it is unreasonable in the circumstances to continue to serve the valuations. First of all, sixty days have to elapse from the time that the provisional valuation has been given to the man whose land is to be valued. During those sixty days the man, if he feels himself aggrieved by the valuation, has the opportunity of consulting and appealing to the local valuation office and of seeing whether they cannot come to an agreement. But if they cannot come to an agreement in the sixty day and the matter has to proceed, there is a further step which the noble Earl did not mention—that is that notice is served upon him that within thirty days the case will go to the Referee. During those thirty days the door is still open for the parties to come to an agreement or to arrive at some figure of compromise.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: How are you to be able to form a valuation, or come to any compromise, when you do not know whether such a thing as the grass is to be included or not?
LORD STRACHIE: What we propose to do is this. Until the Courts have given their decision finally as to whether the Government's contention is right or not—namely, that land should be valued with the grass upon it—we do not propose that the whole of the valuation should be stopped. It would certainly be unreasonable to say that all provisional valuations should be entirely stopped during that time. On the other hand, it would be perfectly reasonable to say, until the decision of the Court has been given, that where the owner makes objection that the basis is wrong because a decision has been given by the arbitrator in the case of Norton Malreward in the county of Somerset to which the noble Earl referred, the assessment to which the owner objects—

1069
not the whole of the valuation but only the particular point—ought to be reserved. Where the claimant takes that line the valuation will be suspended and those points reserved till the Courts have given their final decision on the question. But in cases where the owner has taken objection to the price that has been put upon his land for other reasons than the point which is pending in the case of Norton Malreward, then we consider it perfectly reasonable to go on with that part of the case.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May I ask the noble Lord whether that also applies to the question of tenant right and improved cultivation?
LORD STRACHIE: Certainly. I was only dealing with the instance of the grass, because we had all in mind the case of the grass as being much more important. The other, of course, is a smaller matter, but my undertaking would also equally apply to the other cases. What I say shortly is this. Until the Courts have decided what is the law upon this particular point which is now uncertain owing to the decision of the. arbitrator in those cases, no final decision will be made with regard to the valuations. But, on the other hand, we shall go on making the valuations provisionally, reserving all those cases which we think are in doubt. It would not be reasonable to cause the enormous delay that would be involved by not dealing with cases where an owner does not wish to appeal except only in regard to items which are in controversy. Then as to poor men being put to expense, I would point out that they would be put to no more expense in this case. than they are put. to at the present moment. They would have to give notice if they objected, and the same procedure would apply. They will be in no worse position than they are at the present moment. That being so, I cannot see why the noble Earl should object to these valuations being served upon them. If they are not served, it only means delay. We have done all we can in undertaking that cases which are in doubt shall not be adjudicated upon or decided until the Courts have given their final decision on the point which has been raised.
THE EARL 0F CAMPERDOWN: Might I ask the noble Lord a. further question? It is this. Some provisional valuations
1070
have, either per incuriam or for some other reason, been allowed to pass. Some of the points which are now before the Courts may affect those valuations, and I would ask, Will those valuations in future be revised according to the ultimate decision of the Court, or will they be enforced in their present form? If they are not revised, your valuation will not be a fair valuation at all, because one portion of the country will be decided on one set of principles of valuation and another part of the country upon another set of principles. And unless it is understood that all the valuations are ultimately to rest upon the final decision of the Court, it is a direct inducement to all landowners to object to the provisional valuation. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very anxious to push on with his valuation. Many of your Lordships know, I know myself, of cases in which persons have objected to the provisional valuation simply because there are points which are in dispute, with regard to which they are afraid, if they were to assent, that they would be assessed on the principle as it now rests. I should be much obliged if the noble Lord could answer that question.
LORD STRACHIE: I do not think that this case is going to make any difference as regards landowners objecting. If my memory does not deceive me, I think I remember reading in the public Press that the Land Union had advised landowners always to object in order that they might wait and see if something turned up. In this case something has turned up, and we do not know what is to be the end of it. The noble Earl asked what is going to happen in cases where the landowner is satisfied with the valuation, either when it was first made or through compromise with the officers who made it. When they have arrived at a mutual arrangement, the noble Earl asks "Will that be reopened?" That, of course, will have to be a matter for consideration after this case has been decided. That seems to me the only possible course that we can take at the present moment when the whole matter is sub judice.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then I am to understand that the case which I put will be reconsidered?
LORD STRACHIE: When it arises.

MAHOMEDAN REFUGEES.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, by means of an International Commission or otherwise, they will secure to Mahomedans the continued use of their lands, or that compensation should be given wherever Mahomedans have been deprived of their lands.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, owing to the reported advance of the Turkish Army I thought it might be necessary to postpone the Question which I have put on the Paper, but as I understand that that advance is only going up to the Enos-Midia line and is solely for the purpose of occupying the territory that remains to Turkey under the provisional Treaty, it seems a very opportune moment. It to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would not consider the desirability of inviting the other Great Powers to take concerted action so that the Moslem population who have been deprived of their lands or have fled from Macedonia, Thrace, Albania, or wherever it may be, should have some security that they might return and settle again on the lands that once held their homes. The Great Powers throughout this terrible war have exercised a considerable bearing upon its different phases, and only the day before yesterday Sir Edward Grey mentioned how it was by keeping in close touch with one another they were able to prevent the spreading of the war and also exercise considerable influence upon the various Balkan States. We all hope that the end of this terrible war is now in sight, and when we remember that at the inception of the war the Great Powers declared that the various Balkan States would not be allowed to acquire any Turkish territory—a declaration which has been signally departed from—there still remains the chance of allowing those who were the inhabitants of the country to continue to remain under the new conditions in what were their previous homes. I can assure your Lordships that this is only what is usually observed in these days under modern warfare—that the inhabitants of the country, except for some particular reasons, are not dispossessed of their lands but are allowed to remain.
At the present time, as I understand, there are about 150,000 or 200,000 refugees in Constantinople and in the adjacent
1072
portions of Asia Minor. There are numbers of refugees in Adrianople, and in other parts further west in Albania they are still collected together not venturing to return to their homes. I think, after the terrible atrocities and cruelties which have taken place during this war—which so far as I can learn have been given much greater publicity to in the French Press than in the Press of this country—that the other Great Powers would be willing to co-operate in this matter of giving security to the Mahomedans to go back and settle on their own lands, and perhaps even give them the means of doing so. There can be no question of any congestion of population at the present time owing to the dreadful massacres which have taken place. Therefore there would be plenty of room for them to return. It would have a humane advantage, advantage of removing the pressure from Asia Minor where these refugees are streaming over all parts. I dare say the noble Viscount opposite is aware that it might lead to considerable complications if these refugees went further east into Armenia. I claim that in the interests of humanity some request might be made to the Great Powers that they should represent to the various Balkan States who are going to benefit territorially by the recent war that they should replace or allow to return in perfect security and unmolested those who were the original holders of the land.
Owing to three different documents which have come into my hands to-day, I will go a step beyond my Question as it appears on the Paper. From Constantinople, and also, I understand, from General Broadwood, who has been looking after the interests of the Red Cross in Adrianople, and also from a reliable authority in Servia. come representations of the terror and distress and suffering of the Moslem population at the present time, and the still more terrible distress that awaits them in the coming winter. Their homes have been probably burned and devastated, their means taken from them, their implements for tilling the land destroyed or confiscated, and therefore even if they returned to their own lands they would be in need of some outside support. At the present time various societies are administering relief to the best of their power, but still that is only a drop in the ocean, and

1073
I would ask, Is it not possible for His Majesty's Government to show the way by advancing money or means to these people to return to their homes? It is not very long ago that Sir Edward Grey in another place, did not treat unsympathetically such a suggestion, and I think that it is still more urgent at the present time. However, that is only a rider to my original Question, which I think is a very fit and proper one—that the Great Powers in combination should manage to get sonic security for the Musulmans to return to their lands and settle there once again.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies perhaps I may be allowed to support the proposal which has been made by my noble friend. I do not think that people in this country adequately realise the extremely disadvantageous position which Musulmans occupy as compared with Christians in matters of tins kind. The Christian populations have any number of organisations and people who are prepared to take up their cause. There are Consuls to look after their interests where there are Consuls and probably missionaries where there are no Consuls; there are travellers who take up their cause; there are the Balkan Committees over here; and, finally, there is the Press. The Musulmans are entirely devoid of any advantages of the kind. There can be no doubt whatever as to what is actually going on at. the present moment. I do not think that anybody has ever cast the smallest doubt on the figures quoted by my noble friend and the fact remains that there are a vast number of these people who have lost. practically everything which they had, and it is extremely problematical whether they will ever recover anything. This is one of those cases in which it is not the business of any one particular Power to take steps in favour of these unfortunate people. It is a common duty which devolves upon the Powers, and really I cannot see that my noble friend and the Musulmans themselves are asking for anything unreasonable when they suggest that at all events an International Commission of some kind should inquire into the matter and report upon it. It would be perfectly useless for the Turkish Government, unless I am much mistaken, to apply for redress to any of the Governments concerned. If any good is to be done at all it will have to be done by
1074
other Powers—that is to say, by the European Powers. I trust that His Majesty's Government will be able to return a favourable reply to the proposal which has been made by my noble friend. I would remind the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that at a much earlier period of this session I put a Question of very much the same kind to him myself and he undertook to give it favourable consideration.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUT MORLEY): My Lords, I am sure that everybody in this House and in tins country, and in some other countries too, are fully alive to the desperate tragedy to which both the noble Lords have drawn our attention to-night. Of course, everybody knew before the Balkan war broke out that it would not be the least like an ordinary war. Lord Lamington said that certain things had been done which were against modern practices of war. We all knew that that lamentable condition of things would inevitably attend such a war as was going to take place in that Peninsula among these exasperated races, full of passionate animosities of every kind. We knew that the overt non-political effects would be of the most horrifying description, and so they have been. Whether the noble Lord's figures of refugees, Mahomedan or otherwise, from one part or another of the Balkan Peninsula are strictly accurate I cannot say, but be that as it may there is no doubt that there is an enormous number, especially of Musulmans, in whom we are in a sense particularly interested having regard to our own enormous Mahomedan connections.
But I would put to the two noble Lords this point, that they should ask themselves whether there is any kind of precedent where the British (government have done what they now ask us to do—namely, endeavour to get security that these unfortunate beings shall be restored to their former lands and possessions, and not only that, but that we should out of our own revenues contribute sums of money in one shape or another for their reinstatement. I do not like to speak quite positively, but I doubt very much whether there is a single instance of the Government of Great Britain—and we have often had tides of compassion sweeping over our

1075
population—contributing sums of money for a purpose of this kind. Lord Lamington must be alive to the difficulties that would attend any operation such as he expects from an International Commission so appointed. The Concert of Europe and the Ambassadorial re-union have been a most powerful—and I hope for so long as is necessary will continue to be—a most powerful instrument for good in these unfortunate affairs, but it might, perhaps, be straining the conditions under which the Ambassadors meet to discuss questions of the delimitation of boundaries, and the like, if you were to ask all the Great Powers to take part in a Commission with a view to this special and comparatively narrow end. There is an enormous need of humanity, I admit, but that is a different thing from the objects and purposes which the Ambassadors and those who send them instructions now have in their minds and which animate their purpose.
I should like to tell the noble Lord exactly what has been done. There is, as far as we know, no present reason to suppose that any action of the kind indicated by my noble friend is likely to be necessary. The Foreign Office received last May a complaint from the Turkish Government that the Bulgarian Government had issued a decree confiscating and appropriating to the Bulgarian State the property abandoned by Musulmans who had fled in consequence of the war, but it appeared afterwards upon inquiry that no such decree had been issued. On the contrary, measures had been taken to cultivate the lands of those Musulmans during their absence, and to restore—those were the instructions—to restore those lands to their proprietors as and when they returned. Orders had been given by the Bulgarian State to preserve all movable property left behind with a view to its restitution to those who had formerly been its rightful owners. We have received since May no further complaint on that subject. If the question should arise again, supposing there should be complaints from these unfortunate beings—we hope there may not be—it appears to: His Majesty's Government that the question is one which ought to be and might be most conveniently settled between Turkey and the Governments of the recently allied Balkan States, rather than by an International Commission. For the reason which I have just
1076
hinted at it would be doubtful whether you would get such a Commission satisfactorily constituted, and even then its work would be far more tardy probably and less direct and immediate than if the matter was dealt with by other agencies. Let me add that we have received no recent complaints of what are called atrocities and the various kinds of ill-treatment suffered by non-Musulmans. As a matter of fact, going back to the Musulmans, we have made representations on behalf of the Musulman population to an extent that we have not done in any other case during the continuance of the war with Turkey. We did that because so long as that war was in progress we did not believe that there was any one who could on behalf of the Powers as a whole speak on their behalf. That may seem disappointing to those who think that the Concert of the Powers is omnipotent. That, unluckily, is by no means the case, and the action of the Government has been what I have described.
LORD LAMINGTON: MY Lords, may I say a few words in connection with the reply of the noble Viscount? It is, of course, eminently satisfactory to learn of that declaration made by the Bulgarian Government as regards the Musulmans, but still the map of the country is rapidly changing—perhaps not so much in the case of Bulgaria as in the cases of Servia and Greece. The noble Viscount says that the more convenient form, rather than an International Commission, would be for the Turkish Government to deal with the matter. I do not know exactly what power the Turkish Government have at the present time to deal with such a matter, but perhaps in that case it would be pointed out to the Turkish Government that they have a locus and a right to ask that these tens of thousands of refugees should be given some security and some hope of going back to their old lands. The noble Viscount said there was no precedent for the Great Powers of Europe taking any action in this matter.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: No; I did not go as far as that. I said there was certainly no precedent that I know of for this country contributing funds—and they would have to be large funds—towards the reinstatement of dispossessed people such as these.
LORD LAMINGTON: I misunderstood the noble Viscount. I thought he meant that there was no precedent for intervention in such a matter of replacing the population. But we are advancing in humanity, I hope, and in consideration and mercifulness, and it would be a splendid act and would be creating a good precedent in a case like this of a distressed, impoverished, and helpless population, if the Great Powers could come together and say, "We will contribute a certain sum to send these people back rather than let them starve throughout the winter without any means." I consider that the declaration of the Great Powers before the war formed a very strong precedent—I do not know that such a thing has ever happened before in the history of the world. They declared that those who were going to fight should not occupy any of the territory of the enemy. The Great Powers took strong united action then, and it is because they have already done that that I think they might go a step further and try and act in the humane and merciful manner I suggest.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I can assure the two noble Lords that this painful matter is, as I have already said, receiving the attentive consideration of the Foreign Office.

EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It was only last night when the House was very empty that an Amendment was made to this Bill, and if any of your Lordships feel that there has not been sufficient time to consider it since the Amendment was made I will not press the Third Reading on this occasion. Otherwise I would move it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What was the nature of the Amendment?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It was put on the Table of the House. The noble Earl opposite knows about it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I may say that I looked at the Amendment and so far as I could see there was no objection to it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It was circulated, and as the noble Earl has no objection to it perhaps with the concurrence of the House I may move that the Bill be now read the third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 3aand passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (CERTIFICATES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE ARRANGEMENT FOR TAKING DIVISIONS.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I take advantage of the Motion for the adjournment of the House to bring forward a small matter in connection with the methods in which Divisions are taken here. When there is a big Division considerable inconvenience and congestion and loss of time—not that time is very valuable here—are caused by the fact that everybody has to come back into this House in order to pass the Tellers. I desire to make the House a present of this very simple suggestion, which I think would remove the difficulty. If the Tellers in taking the votes, instead of taking up their places inside the doors of this House, would stand in the Division Lobbies there would be no congestion at all, because everybody would pass straight out either to the outside of the House or anywhere he felt disposed. I should like to point out that a noble Lord having once given his vote one way or the other is of no further interest to anybody whatsoever, and it does not in the least matter what becomes of him. This simple principle was realised in the House of Commons long ago, and has been adopted there with success. I am quite sure that if the noble Marquess opposite will consult with the noble Marquess behind him (the Lord Great Chamberlain) and with the officials of this House who are responsible for the arrangements here it will be found that the suggestion which I propose can be carried out without any difficulty whatsoever.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I certainly have no wish to give an unsympathetic reception to the suggestion which the noble Lord opposite has made. No doubt it occurs sometimes that on the not very frequent occasions when we have a number of large Divisions in this House what appears to be an unusual and needless amount of time is spent in taking a Division. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned we are seldom troubled by so great a plethora of numbers as causes us to be detained for any great length of time in the Lobby. But I shall be most happy, assuming that the idea commends itself to the House generally, to take into consultation my noble friend behind me, the Lord Great Chamberlain, and also the noble Lords opposite who take a special interest in the conduct of the business of the House. I confess that I am not quite certain from what fell from the noble Lord precisely how it is proposed that time should be saved. I take it that his proposition is something of this kind, that on the Division being called the Tellers should immediately place themselves at the further end of the Lobby, and that there should be no waiting for the House to be cleared and for all the Peers of one particular view to be packed into the particular Lobby before the Division begins, but that the moment the doors are locked—because I suppose the noble Lord would not propose to dispense with that ceremony?
LORD NEWTON: No.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That then it would be open to any Peer to walk through the Lobby and immediately emerge and take his place in the House again.
LORD NEWTON: They would all go outside first.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That would save a certain amount of time, because in the case of the Division which took place last night there was a considerable interval before the House was emptied and the counting began to take place. It is not easy to calculate what the saving in time would be, but I can conceive that it might be on those particular occasions considerable. Therefore, as I say, I am quite disposed to give a favourable reception to the recommendation of the noble Lord provided that the House in general are inclined to accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Marquess observed with great truth that the inconvenience is one which is more frequently experienced in our Lobby than in his. Having regard to a statement which I understand was made in the House of Commons yesterday by the Prime Minister, it is conceivable that that inconvenience, even so far as we are concerned, may not be one which will be of any very long duration. But there is undoubtedly a considerable and rather unseemly crowding on the occasions of our larger Divisions, and it seems to me that an effort might very well be made to mitigate that inconvenience. I have had some conversation with my noble friend on the Back Bench, and I cannot help thinking that we might do well to ask him to confer with the officers of the House, and they may perhaps be able to submit to us some plan which would get rid of the difficulty that we at present experience.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Marquess has not grasped, 1 am afraid, the chief advantage of my plan, which is that a noble Lord having voted will be able to leave the House and disappear altogether.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.