Lords Sitting of 5 May 1913

CAROLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Second Reading of the said Bill put off sine die.
MAC COLL'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 27 th instant.

VISCOUNT MOUNTGARRET.
Petition of Edmund Somerset, Viscount Mountgarret and Baron of Kells in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
The Lord TREDEGAR—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his uncle.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1). [H.L.]

Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardigan &c.). [H.L.]

Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Herne Bay Gas and Electricity.

Titchfield District Gas.

Swanage Urban District Water.

And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill:

Great Northern Railway.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill relating to the
Alexandra Park and Palace
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CROWBOROLTGH DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), read 1a, and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 27 th instant.
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS BILL. [H.L.]
Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit again till Thursday next, at Twelve o'clock.
HARROW AND STANMORE GAS BILL.
Reported, without amendment.

HOVE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
WIMBLEDON AND SUTTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
GRAYS AND TILBURY GAS BILL [H.L.]
BARRY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
OXFORD UNIVERSITY (ST. EDMUND HALL AND GATCOMBE RECTORY) BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
CAMBRIAN RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
PORTHCAWL AND DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
LLANTRISANT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
HALKYN DISTRICT MINES DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

KENT ELECTRIC POWER.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd day of April last "That this House will not receive any Petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 29th instant" be dispensed with in respect of a Petition of the Kent Electric Power Company; agreed to, the said Petition praying for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the reduction and re-arrangement of the capital of the Kent Electric Power Company and for other purposes: Presented accordingly; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto, and read and referred to the Examiners.
MYNYDDISLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
SOUTHGATE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
CLEVELAND AND DURHAM COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
MANCHESTER ROYAL EXCHANGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Special Orders, dated 25th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners acting jointly—

I. Entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Provisional Order, 1913. (No. 2);

II. Entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Provisional Order, 1913. (No. 1);

2. Provisional Special Order, dated 25th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Outworkers Exclusion) Provisional Order, 1913;
3. Regulations, dated 25th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners acting jointly—
376

I. Entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions, Navy and Marine) Regulations, 1913;

II. Entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions, Soldiers) Regulations, 1913;

4. Provisional Regulations, dated 15th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions Amendment) Regulations (England), 1913;
5. Regulations made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, as to the payment and collection of contributions payable by an employer under Section 4 (4) of the Act;
6. Provisional Regulations, dated 3rd May, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners entitled the National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees: Representation of Insured Persons) Regulations (England), 1913:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 45.)

FORGERY BILL. [H.L.]
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies thereof to be delivered out, except to Members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit until further order. (No. 46.)
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing Petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess at Whitsuntide.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON rose to call attention to the refusal of the War Office to allow the Marlborough College Contingent Officers Training Corps to take part in Empire Day celebrations, and to ask whether in the interests of the recruiting of the Territorial Force the Secretary of State for War will not reconsider his decision that none of His Majesty's Forces may take part in such celebrations.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, there seems to he some doubt as to the effect of the Secretary of State's decision with regard to members of His Majesty's. Forces taking part in celebrations which are not entirely of a military character. I put this Question down with a view of trying to obtain from the Government some statement which will clear the ground, having in view the large number of celebrations which are not strictly of a military character but which are essential for the popularising of the Auxiliary Forces. The position as it stands at present is this. Hitherto there has been no exact rule, and the commanding officer has, I believe, been allowed in almost every case to select the occasions on which he may order a Church Parade or any other celebration of the kind, at which, as everybody knows, in the Territorial Force attendance is not obligatory, and therefore it does not take the same position as the order for a parade given by a Regular officer, which parade every man under his command is forced to attend. Recently the Secretary of State announced in another place that the Army Council saw objection to these parades being called for the celebration of Empire Day. Empire Day, he pointed out, was an occasion for civilian rather than for military display, and he thought that to unite a parade of a military Force with the jubilation of a number of school children was not advantageous and to some extent involved the dignity of the Force. But the decision at which he arrived may, I am afraid, cut away from some of the most interesting occasions on which the Territorial Force parades.
In my own neighbourhood there is a proposal to hold a Church Parade on the day following Empire Day, at which not merely the Territorials but the National Reserve and the Officers Training Corps will be represented; at which many thousands of people will be present; which is highly calculated to raise a good spirit
378
with regard to the Auxiliary Forces, and which is looked upon by the officers who have asked their corps to take part in it as an admirable means of stimulating recruiting. I can quite understand the position which the Secretary of State has taken up. He desires military displays to be reserved for the King's Birthday, and wishes Empire Day to he celebrated in a civilian fashion. The question is whether that is a decision which can be in all cases maintained. For the purpose of this discussion I entirely accept it. But what I would like to ask the noble Earl who will reply to me on behalf of the War Office is this. Can he not clear the ground for those who have already gone to considerable labour and expense and make it clear that ordinary Church Parades which are not strictly military but which greatly increase the military character and popularity of the Territorial Force will not be interfered with by a decision which, as I understand, was only intended to govern Empire Day as in contradistinction to the King's Birthday?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, the noble Viscount would, I am sure, be one of the last to expect me to go beyond the terms of the Question of which he has given notice, and which refers only to the celebration of Empire' Day and not to those other occasions of which he has spoken. I hope, therefore, he will excuse me if I confine myself to the strict terms of the Question on the Paper. Empire Day celebrations in this country are occasions for civilian rejoicing and are not military in character, and the Army Council are strongly of opinion that the day is not suited for military displays, which should be reserved for the occasion of His Majesty's Birthday. If members of Officers Training Corps desire to take part in Empire Day celebrations it is proper, therefore, for them to do so in their civilian character rather than as soldiers. The Army Council, while naturally anxious to stimulate recruiting for the Territorial Force in every possible way, adhere to their view with regard to these contingents not taking part in Empire Day celebrations for the reasons stated. But nothing which I have said should in any way be taken as applying to those Church Parades which have been common in the past, and which, I hope, will be largely attended in the future and be as successful as I believe they have been in years gone by.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I should like to put a question to the noble Earl. In the Liverpool area we propose to have marches out of the various corps for the purpose of securing recruits. We had intended that they should take place on Empire Day, not in connection with any particular celebration, but because that is a day on which there would be a good many people about whom we hoped to attract to the ranks. Are we to understand that marches out are prohibited, and, if they are not prohibited, is there any reason why we should not hold them on Empire Day?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do not think that there is anything in the reply which I have just given which indicates that the Army Council would look with an unfavourable eye on a purely military proceeding such as that to which the noble Earl has referred.

BETTING INDUCEMENTS 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.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Definitions.
2. "Betting business" shall mean any business or agency for the making of bets or wagers or for the receipt of any money or valuable thing as the consideration for a bet or wager in connection with any race, fight, game, sport, or exercise. "Tipster's business" shall mean any business or agency carried on solely or mainly for receiving money or any other payment for advice relating to bets or wagers in connection with any race, fight, game, sport, or exercise.
THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved, after the word "exercise" in the middle of the clause, to add the words "Advertisement" in relation to a betting business shall mean any announcement which contains any statement relating to or descriptive of that business, other than the name and address of the person who is carrying on the business but shall not include any announcement which is sent to any person at his own request."
The noble Earl said: I wish, first of all, to thank the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for his courtesy in putting off the Committee stage from last week in order to meet the convenience of Lord Durham and myself. Lord Durham had intended to be present to-day, but he is, I regret to say, ill in bed with influenza. I also wish to explain to the noble Lord that I am not in any way antagonistic to his Bill. Indeed, the Amendment which I wish to see inserted would, in my opinion, not only not weaken but would strengthen the Bill and better secure the object he has in view. But before I deal with the Amendment I should like to ask one or two questions on the general subject of the Bill. Lord Strachie stated when the Bill was before your Lordships last session that it was badly drafted. I do not notice that the noble Lord has put down any Amendments with a view to improving the drafting, and I desire to ask whether it is his intention to move any Amendments to make the drafting of the Bill accord with his view as representing the Home Office. I also wish to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill a question as to the effect which the Bill may have on the ordinary daily newspaper. The daily newspapers, as a rule, have an article on racing, and finish up at the end with tips for the various races. Could that be called an advertisement of a tipster's business? Again, would the term apply to the placards which are put out, notably by an evening newspaper which represents the politics of noble Lords on the other side of the House, which is published at half-past ten in the morning and gives not only its own tips but the tips in other newspapers—placards which advertise that in this edition of the newspaper are to be found the tips given in the various other newspapers? Would that come within the scope of this Bill? Football coupons were mentioned by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield last year. There is no mention of football coupons in the present Bill. I understand that they are to be dealt with in a separate measure, and I ask the noble Lord whether I am correct in that. If not, why are they not included in this Bill?
I am entirely in accord with that part of the Bill which suppresses tipsters. The advertisements of these people are a real inducement to betting, and the more effectually they are suppressed the better I personally shall be pleased. As a matter of fact, the principal sporting newspapers

381
have already agreed among themselves to exclude al] tipsters' advertisements. Therefore I am very glad indeed that this Bill should effectually deal with this particular matter. My Amendment only applies to bookmakers' advertisements. I wish to see bookmakers permitted to advertise simply their name and address. I do not wish to see any of the flaming articles which we see about them, with photographs of their huge offices; I do not want them to advertise what their business is, or how large a clientele they have. But I want them to be allowed to advertise simply their name and address; and for this reason. The noble Marquess who leads the House knows that although the Jockey Club, the supreme authority of the turf, do Dot take any cognisance of betting, there is a body formed, on which are members of the Jockey Club, called Tattersall's Committee, which does deal with the subject of betting. This committee make it their business to inquire into any case where the integrity or solvency of a bookmaker is concerned, and they submit a report which the authorities of the turf are able to deal with to this extent, that if the offence is proved the bookmaker in question is prevented from going on to any course under the rules of racing. That gives you a very distinct hold over such bookmakers, and therefore you may be perfectly certain that any bookmaker who advertises in the leading newspapers, or, indeed, in any of the newspapers, is one who has not come under the ban of that Committee.
It must be remembered that betting is not a crime. There is no law against betting. It may be bad, although I think it is a great pity that people do not differentiate between betting and gambling, which is a very different thing. Betting is no more a crime than speculating in shares, and therefore you should not legislate against those who bet as if they were criminals. If you suppress bookmakers' advertisements altogether, you are going to do two things. In the first place, you are going to penalise the sporting Press to such an extent that, owing to loss of advertisement revenue, it is very doubtful whether many sporting newspapers will survive, and that would mean a heavy blow to the purity, not only of racing, but of sport generally. But you are also going to do something that, to my mind will accentuate those very evils which you are at the present
382
moment trying to remedy. You will lead to the starting all over the place of small bookmakers over whom you will have absolutely no control. You will have just as much, or even more, betting, but the bookmakers with whom the bets are made will be subject to no ban such as, as I have already explained, at present exists, and you may be perfectly certain that there will be a great deal more swindling and welching than there is now.
My noble friend Lord Durham, as your Lordships know, supports very strongly this measure. Before I put this particular Amendment on the Paper I consulted him upon it, as I look upon him as the highest authority at the present time on the turf. Lord Durham thoroughly agrees with the Amendment, and has written me a letter stating that he is sorry that in consequence of an attack of influenza he cannot come to the House to-day to support it. He says—
"The Amendment appears to me to supply a necessary definition of 'advertisements' and does not weaken the powers of the Bill in dealing with pernicious literature."
That is exactly my point, and that is why I hope your Lordships will pass this Amendment. With regard to the second part of the Amendment—"but shall not include any announcement which is sent to any person at his own request"—I do not know that these words are really necessary and I shall be perfectly ready to omit them. I am informed that any such announcement sent out by a bookmaker at somebody's request would not be considered as advertising his business. If that is so, the words are superfluous and I shall be very glad to omit them. But I would ask the noble Lord how he is going to deal with the betting circulars that come from abroad. At the present moment a vast amount of betting is done from England with bookmakers abroad. Are you going to prosecute English bookmakers, over whom you have some control through Tattersall's Committee, for sending out these circulars, while at the same time bookmakers abroad, over whom you have no control, will be allowed to disseminate these circulars broadcast over the country? That is one of the points on which I hope the noble Lord will give the House an answer. Meanwhile I sincerely hope he will accept the Amendment which I have the honour to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 20, after ("exercise") insert ("'advertisement' in relation to a betting business shall mean any announcement which contains any statement relating to or descriptive of that business, other than the name and address of the person who is carrying on the business, but shall not include any announcement which is sent to any person at his own request").—(The Earl of Derby.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I wish to be the first to recognise the authority with which my noble friend speaks and the position which he, in conjunction with the other joint pillar of the turf, enjoys with regard to what is termed the sport of kings. I should like also to acknowledge the moderation of his proposals. But at the same time, whilst cheerfully conceding these points, I am bound to say quite honestly that I do not think my noble friend is treating me particularly well. When I introduced this Bill I took the precaution, which I do not think has ever been taken by anybody before in introducing so-called anti-gambling measures, of consulting the people who really happen to know something about racing. I consulted, among others, Lord Durham, and as the noble Earl has quoted Lord Durham in support of his Amendment I propose to quote Lord Durham on my own behalf. When I introduced this Bill in December of last year the eulogies of Lord Durham were so strong that if I were not of an abnormally modest disposition my head would have been almost turned. Lord Durham then said—
"There is not a single member of the Jockey Club, not a respectable owner of racehorses, not a respectable trainer or bookmaker who will not approve of Lord Newton's Bill".
He went on to say—
"It is a modest and sensible Bill because it deals with a specific evil.…It will not affect any interest which ought not to be affected, but will do a great deal of good and destroy what is an increasing evil—these betting advertisements and circulars. Newspapers have been warned for years that they ought not to receive money from these advertisers who merely gull the public and deceive the credulous, but they have taken no notice. I for my part am delighted that my noble friend has brought in this Bill, and I heartily support it."
What I desire to point out is this, that this Bill is in so many words a bargain upon my part with the sporting authorities and the racing pundits. They supported this measure because it contained proposals of which they thoroughly approved.
384
On the strength of their support I rigidly confined the Bill to this particular point, and when Amendments were pressed upon me by right rev. Prelates and others with a view to enlarging the scope of the Bill I rejected all those Amendments because I wished to adhere to my bargain with the racing authorities. Now my noble friend invites me to upset the decision at which we arrived, and I am afraid that, with the best intentions on my part, I cannot concede what he wants.
Let me illustrate for a moment what will happen. Supposing this Amendment were carried, what will happen will be this. Mr. Gant and any other of the blatant bounders who send us their circulars every day of the week will send us envelopes with their name and address, and included in the letter will be another document, merely requiring the signature of the recipient, requesting full particulars, and, of course, in the event of their receiving this assent they will go on continuing to send these florid circulars to their dying day; and really we shall revert to the present position except that these blatant advertisements, instead of appearing openly in the newspapers, will be included in these circulars which will be spread broadcast. I desire to be perfectly honest with my noble friend on the subject of this Bill, and I cannot help thinking that he, like many other persons, is labouring under some slight illusion with regard to it. The object of this Bill, I frankly admit, is not to distinguish between honest and dishonest bookmakers, welchers, or people of that kind. The object of the Bill, and I am not ashamed to admit it, is to make betting rather more difficult than it is at the present time. The fact is universally conceded that betting is made far too easy, more especially by the daily Press, and I think it is admitted by every sensible and impartial person that some slight effort is required in order to check it.
Years ago I sat in company with my noble friend's father, the late Lord Derby, upon what was known as the Betting Committee, and one of the most important and most sensible decisions, in my opinion, that we arrived at was that it was desirable that betting should be confined as much as was practicable to the places where races took place—that is to say, to the racecourse itself. I have persistently

385
endeavoured to make it clear that in bringing in this measure I did not wish to deal a blow at racing, and if my noble friend is anxious as to racing being affected by this Bill I am perfectly willing to insert a clause stipulating that it shall not apply to racecourses. I confess that, as far as I am concerned, I have never anticipated any startling results from this measure if it ever became law. I take it that the position roughly is this. People who bet now will find it just as easy to bet in the future, because everybody who bets now knows to whom to go; but there are a number of persons in this country, especially the younger generation, who have not yet indulged in the practice of betting, and under this Bill they will find it somewhat more difficult, because they will have to make inquiries as to where bookmakers are to be found. The only persons, so far as I can see, who will suffer at all under this Bill are the very small proportion of the public who are financially interested in the sporting Press. And with regard to the Press, may I point out this to my noble friend. Whereas a small section of the Press is very strongly opposed to this yet judging from the communications which I receive the vast majority of newspapers in the country are strongly in favour of the Bill. It was only on Saturday that I received a communication from the Federation of Northern Newspaper Owners explaining that a meeting had been held at; Manchester, I think on Wednesday last, at which, I believe with only one dissentient, approval was expressed of this Bill; and this particular Federation includes, I am told, and I have every reason to believe it is true, every paper in the North of England and in Scotland.
Now I will endeavour to answer my noble friend's questions. The first question related to newspaper articles with which tips were combined. The sporting Press, in fact the Press generally, have been treated with extreme generosity in this respect. Every newspaper is allowed to have its tame prophet, and this prophet is allowed to expatiate to any length he likes, and nobody proposes to interfere with him. I hope my noble friend is reassured on that point. The second question was as to the circulars which come from abroad. That is a question which with more propriety might be addressed to the Postmaster-General. I take it that if a firm established abroad has an office in this country it
386
would be possible to sue that firm under this Bill, but as long as the Post Office do not interfere I admit it will be extremely difficult to legislate with regard to these particular people. On the whole I fail to see that the small section of the sporting Press referred to have much ground for complaint. Nobody interferes with their privilege of publishing the ordinary sporting news. Nobody proposes—at least I do not propose—to interfere with regard to the publication of starting prices or of the odds; and they have the liberty which I have just pointed out of employing their own scribes to give such advice as they please to their readers. If a section of the sporting Press do suffer as the result of the passing of this Bill, I cannot help feeling that it is, as was said last year by Lord Durham, largely their own fault, because they have been repeatedly warned. Yet in spite of these warnings they have been in the habit of opening their columns to people whom in their own elegant vernacular they would probably term "wrong'uns." In view of the previous decision of the House not to amend the Bill; in view of the fact that I, at all events, have honestly kept my bargain with the Jockey Club—
THE EARL OF DERBY: Not with the Jockey Club. I do not think there has been any communication with the Jockey Club.
Loan NEWTON: All I can say is that members of the Jockey Club assured me that they fully approved of the Bill, and a noble Lord who is a member of Tattersall's Committee came to me and volunteered the statement that Tattersall's Committee fully approved of it. But if the noble Earl chooses to rebut that statement—
THE EARL OF DERBY: I quite under stand that the noble Lord may have had communications with single members of the Jockey Club, but the Jockey Club as a whole take no cognisance whatever of betting and as a body have had nothing to do with this Bill.
LORD NEWTON: At all events Lord Durham took upon himself to speak on behalf of the Jockey Club in this House in support of the Bill. Although I should desire to oblige my noble friend, to whom I am under many obligations for various reasons, yet I regret I am unable to accept this Amendment; and I ask the House not to emasculate this measure, which I have already reduced to comparatively insignificant proportions.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words, having been for ten years a member of Tattersall's Committee, a position which I vacated on being appointed a steward of the Jockey Club. I can bear Lord Newton out to this extent, that my Committee empowered me to go to him and say that they agreed with his Bill in principle but were not prepared to go very much further in regard to the details. I am not any longer a member of Tattersall's Committee, but I am confident that the committee would support the line taken to-day by Lord Derby in moving this Amendment. I feel sure, from my experience during the ten years I was a member of the committee, that the proposal as placed on the Paper by Lord Derby would meet with their unanimous approval. In these circumstances I appeal to my noble friend in charge of the Bill to withdraw his objection to the Amendment, which in my view is a perfectly sound Amendment and will do not the slightest harm; in fact, it will help to achieve the object Lord Newton has in view.
*LORD FABER: My Lords, I desire to support the Amendment. But before doing so I wish to say that I consider that the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill has done very good work in one way, because directly his Bill was introduced the owners of the sporting newspapers came together and made up their minds from that time to thoroughly sift the advertisements sent to them and to cut out the advertisements of those who were said not to be able to pay and to cut out altogether the advertisements of tipsters. They went through the whole of their advertisements in this way, with the result that they have lost considerable revenue, but they desired to do what was right. They formed a committee, and that committee is open to hear any complaint brought before it about any advertisement inserted in a newspaper, and if the complaint is well founded the advertisement will be discontinued.
I confess that I was surprised to hear Lord Newton say that the Federation of Northern Newspaper Proprietors had approved of this Bill as it stands. I do not contradict that statement for a moment, although I thought I knew something about the opinion of newspaper proprietors in the north. But there is this difference between
388
the sporting newspaper pure and simple and the ordinary newspaper which has a measure only of sporting news. The sporting newspaper pure and simple has only advertisements relating to racing in it, and if these advertisements are lost the paper is very seriously hit. In these Circumstances this Amendment allowing of advertisements being inserted by bookmakers containing their names and addresses only would be of great use to the sporting newspapers; but if these advertisements are no longer in any case to be allowed I think that several of the leading sporting newspapers will have to discontinue publication. The result of that would be not only to throw a great many people out of employment but to interfere with the enjoyment of thousands of readers who take in sporting newspapers to read the news about racing, shooting, hunting, fishing, golf, and half a hundred things of that sort. You will stop all that, because these sporting newspapers will very likely have to discontinue publication.
Moreover, betting will not be stopped, but will continue in one shape or another. Look at the gambling which goes on every day in the produce market. The very essence of the produce market is the up and clown process. That is gambling. So are the operations on the Stock Exchange. A man gambles there on the rise and fall of stocks, and even if he is an investor he is more or less a gambler. Is it not rather Pecksniffian to prevent a bookmaker from advertising merely his name and address when he is known to be a reputable bookmaker while these other things are permitted? Shall we not be going far enough if we prevent the objectionable advertisements from appearing in the newspapers, and secure that only the names and addresses of bookmakers shall be advertised? If your Lordships do not allow this Amendment to pass I much fear that you will bring a great deal of hardship upon those connected with sporting newspapers, and will at the same time not do much to prevent betting.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: My Lords, I regret very much that his Grace the Primate is unable to be in his place to-day through indisposition. As your Lordships are aware, the most rev. Primate has taken great interest in this Bill from the beginning. I had the advantage of a conversation with him yesterday, in which he expressed the gravest fears

389
with regard to the effect of this particular Amendment if it were inserted in the Bill, and I know that had he been present he would have made a very strong appeal to the noble Earl to withdraw the Amendment. The noble Earl told us, and we know it to be the fact, that he desires to strengthen the Bill and not to weaken it, but as far as I can see the effect of accepting the Amendment would be to leave the Bill in an emasculated condition.
As the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has pointed out, it was passed by your Lordships through all its stages last session without any Amendment. It was, so to speak, an agreed Bill. It represented at that time the views of thorough supporters of sport. The Bill is not a harsh and puritanical interference with the ordinary pleasures of the people. It does not touch ordinary unorganised betting between man and man. It is solely directed against excessive inducements towards betting, and is therefore aimed, not at the interests of pure sport, but at what all lovers of pure sport truly deplore—the corruptions which have grown like parasites around some of the most manly English sports. Under this Amendment as it stands it would be quite possible for bookmakers to continue to advertise in such a way as to hold out the same inducements to betting as before. It would only be necessary for them to insert, in addition to their name and address such a sentence as this, "Particulars cannot be sent without a personal request." Their names would be thoroughly well known and the inducements would go on exactly as before. One sporting paper, I was told to-day, had in view of this Amendment already issued a form which any person could sign who was desirous of betting, and one signature would be effective for all future transactions, so that instead of putting a stop to this great system of inducements to betting it seems that this Amendment would not close the door at all.
The Bill is not aimed at what one might call honest betting, if I may use the phrase. No one can say that betting is a crime. From a legal point of view it is very difficult to say that it is anything but a perfectly lawful pleasure and occupation. The thing at which this Bill aims is simply a gigantic system of trading upon the follies of the public, and the question before your Lordships is whether we ought to do anything which would continue to make it easy to engage in seek betting.
390
I approach this from an absolutely different point of view from that in which it has been brought before your Lordships by Lord Newton. To persons in your Lordships' position betting does not present temptations of the same kind that it does to large sections of the working classes, especially to younger members of the working classes. On this point I can speak from actual experience as an old parish priest. The noble Earl asked why, as the Bill had been re-introduced, football coupon betting was not included within its scope. I was extremely anxious to include that on the last occasion, and I am still very anxious that some steps should be taken to stem the tide of a rapidly increasing evil in the North of England—a more rapidly increasing evil than I think could be possibly comprehended by many of your Lordships. We know that among the working classes betting becomes in many cases almost as great a craving as intemperance and lust, that thousands of homes are ruined by it, and that young people are drawn into its toils by these advertisements. Surely the object of our legislation should be to make it more difficult for such young people to be drawn into what to them certainly is the evil and mischievous habit of betting.
I would ask your Lordships, from this point of view, to pause before you admit an Amendment of this kind. It may seem that the Amendment does not go very far, but I have consulted several persons who have had experience and I am told that it would certainly not close the door to any appreciable extent to the evils which already take place in consequence of the widespread advertisements of bookmakers, not only abroad but at home. The noble Earl asked why we should let alone those who work from abroad and punish only those at home. I am quite certain that everyone here would like to put his hand upon these men who dare not live in England but conduct their business from abroad. But is that any reason why we should not do what we can at home? You may say it is not fair, but let us at all events do what we can. If this system of advertising is really creating mischief—and I know it to be creating great mischief especially among the younger members of the working classes—then I say let us do what we can to suppress it, and I trust the noble Earl will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but I should like to deal with the one or two points that have been raised. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill rather gave the impression that I wished to encourage betting, but I am glad that the right rev. Prelate acknowledges that I am honestly trying to strengthen rather than to minimise the Bill. I believe that if you stop the advertisements of bookmakers over whom you have control you will send the betting to places abroad over which you have no control, and that you will start a great number of small bookmakers all over the place who will not advertise but who will be known in their respective localities and over whom Tattersall's Committee and racing officials generally will have no control. It is because I honestly believe that unless this Amendment is introduced the cure will be worse than the disease that I have moved it. The only amount of advertising that would be allowed would be the bookmaker's name and address, in the same way that we see announced in the newspapers that Lord So-and-So has arrived in London and is staying at such and such an hotel. The bookmaker will not be able to state what his business is. Lord Newton said that circulars would still continue to be sent round. I admit that there may be some force in that argument. I am quite in accord with him in wishing to stop these betting circulars, and if it would in any way help to secure the adoption of this Amendment I would be quite willing to leave out the words "but shall not include any announcement which is sent to any person at his own request," leaving the Amendment simply and solely as giving power to a man to advertise his name and address in the public Press.
*LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I wish to make a further appeal to the noble Earl. The Betting Acts of 1853 and 1874 were designed to prevent betting houses and the advertisements of betting houses. Those Acts have been evaded by the removal of betting houses to places abroad, while advertisements of the business are still published in this country. Of that the Committee of 1902 were made aware, and they recommended that Section 7 of the Act of 1853 should be extended so as to include advertisements in this country of any betting house within the meaning of the Act which is kept abroad. They further recommended that the Betting Act of 1874
392
should be extended to the advertising of information or advice to be obtained from any person or at any place though it may not come within the description of a betting house, whether within or without the United Kingdom. For the purpose of testing to a certain extent what the effect of this Amendment would be I purchased a sporting paper which by its colour will be familiar to many of your Lordships. The first thing I find is an advertisement of the person mentioned by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. He gives no description of his business, but apparently finds that his name and address are sufficient. Another firm of advertisers describe themselves simply as a "sovereign firm," and state that their headquarters are in Switzerland. Then there are the advertisements of half-a-dozen other firms carrying on abroad this business which would be illegal in this country. The proposal contained in the noble Earl's Amendment now before the House is exactly the reverse of what the Committee of 1902 proposed. The noble Earl's proposal is that these advertisements should be legalised provided the name and address only are given and nothing added which is descriptive of the business. If this Bill passes into law it will, no doubt, be to a certain extent evaded. It was. I think, the first Lord Brougham who said that an astute lawyer could always drive a coach and six through an Act of Parliament. But what the noble Earl is proposing by this Amendment is that this House should open wide the gate and legalise these advertisements, and that these people should be able to plead in the future that a special exception had been made in their favour by the House of Lords. I cannot think that such a course is at all politic, and I am confident that it would interfere with the effective working of the Bill.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, I do not intend to go into the question raised by the noble Earl as to the tabling of drafting Amendments, otherwise I should be inclined to ask him why he proposes to insert this Amendment in this particular place. Certainly the Home Office find it difficult to understand the Amendment. The view of the Home Office is that the first part of the Amendment is apparently intended to protect bookmakers who send round to their clients notices of change of address. There is nothing in the Bill as it now stands which makes it an offence for any one to send

393
round such a notice. The only effect of the Amendment, it would appear to the Home Office, would be to allow a person to circulate advertisements of a betting or tipster's business under cover of a change of name and address. That is the view the Home Office take. But they are not quite certain exactly what the Amendment means. I have stated what it is thought the effect of it would be.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know how we are to interpret the rather oracular observation of the noble Lord who has just sat down. He spoke in the name of the Home Office, but I confess I did not gather what the view of the Home Office is in regard to this Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: They wish to know the effect of the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OE SALISBURY: I have often been puzzled at the meaning of terms used in an Amendment, but as far as Parliamentary language goes this Amendment seems to me clearer than usual. It is quite plain what is intended, though it is possible that there might be some slight modification afterwards suggested in the words. What my noble friend intends by this Amendment is to make a distinction between the bare announcement of the name and address of a bookmaker's business and any adornment of that name and address which might act as an inducement to the public to bet. Upon that my noble friend has advanced a weighty argument that it is rather dangerous to suppress these things altogether, and that if you drive them underground you will have to deal with a worse class of individual than if you allow him to show his head above ground. On the other hand, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and the right rev. Prelate opposite contend that, as a matter of fact, if you open the door, however slightly, to advertisements of this kind you practically open it altogether. In their opinion even the bare announcment of the name and address of the betting agent is quite sufficient to carry with it all the other consequences, and that either by private arrangement or in some other way the victim will be made the target of these inducements and that therefore the Bill will fail in its object.
394
I have some doubt as to the efficacy of this legislation at all. I believe that people who intend to bet will bet. But I have been profoundly impressed with the evil of betting throughout the country. I am afraid it is a formidable evil, more formidable even than the great evil of intemperance, and it does almost more damage than intemperance. Therefore it seemed good to your Lordships' House to carry through to the present stage this Bill, in which rather drastic proposals are made to stop advertisements of this particular class of business. I might have had some little doubt as to whether it was wise to enter upon the measure at all, but it has been entered upon, and entered upon, as I have said, in deference to a desire to suppress a very great evil. It does seem to me inconsistent to step in now at the last moment and say we will prevent nearly every kind of advertisement but just the one kind containing the name and address only. If we are going to suppress these advertisements, I cannot see why we should draw the line and allow the insertion of the name and address only. The statement that we are threatening the solvency of the sporting newspapers does not impress me very much. They seem to me to command great public support judging from what we see, and I am sure they will survive this Bill. But even if some of them do not, I do not think we can go out of our way to keep them alive by making the distinction proposed in this Amendment, for which in my opinion my noble friend has not made out a sufficient case. If the Bill is to be passed at all and these advertisements suppressed, then I think we cannot draw the line. It is better to, as it is said, go the whole hog and pass the Bill as it stands.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY or STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment has used an argument to which I am sure we would desire to attach all weight—I mean the argument that if you go ahead of public opinion in a matter of this kind you are in danger of driving the evil underground and of ultimately thereby doing more harm than if you do not attempt to suppress it at all. That is obviously the view of the noble Earl, and I, for one, do not deny its force; but, of course, it is an argument that you must not press too far, because if you attached too much importance

395
to it you would allow the existence of gambling hells in every street on the ground that people will gamble and the existence of a public gambling place therefore makes matters no worse. So far as these advertisements in newspapers are concerned I confess I do not think that their presence or absence would be of very great importance except for one consideration, and it is that consideration which prevents me personally from agreeing with the Amendment. It is this. So far as the ordinary advertisements of bookmakers such as you see in the sporting papers are concerned, I do not know that the presence there of the bookmaker's name and address, particularly if the noble Earl leaves out the last phrase of his Amendment, would make any very serious difference; but the noble Earl himself has, I think, provided a key which makes a decision more easy on the merits of his Amendment. I suspect that the advertisements which the sporting Press are so anxious to keep and with which they are so unwilling to part are in the main those of the foreign betting houses the activities of which the noble Earl so much deplores, and my impression is that a very large proportion of the earnings from advertisements in relation to betting are those of these foreign betting shops. The noble Earl asked, and asked with great force, how it is that you are going to interfere with the proceedings of the bookmaker in the United Kingdom but are not going to interfere with foreign bookmakers, and it was asked how it was that the Postmaster-General did not intervene. We all know very well—it applies not only to these circulars which arrive in such large quantities from abroad in relation to betting on racing, but also to the advertisements of lotteries and various other objectionable communications which are circulated broadcast from abroad—that it is not practically in the power of the Postmaster-General to open closed letters, and consequently that form of the mischief is exceedingly difficult to prevent. But I think it would be a distinct check to it if the advertisements of those particular bookmakers were prevented from appearing in the public Press; and I confess it is just that fact, and not the appearance in either the sporting Press or in the ordinary daily Press of the names and addresses of a certain number of English bookmakers, which makes me unwilling to support the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I for one absolutely believe that the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment desires as much as any of us to stop this evil. But when I examine the page of advertisements from the current copy of the Sportsman which has been put into my hands to-day I find that if the Amendment were adopted scarcely any alteration in those advertisements would be made. There might be a little change in the form of them but the advertisements themselves, which are of great value to the newspaper—I am informed that £1,000 a year is paid for one of them—would still remain. I may say that I am constantly in touch with young men who have been ruined by these betting advertisements. Only last week I met one young clerk who lost £15 which he could not afford and which he would never have thought of risking but for these betting inducements. Therefore if we are going to interfere with these advertisements at all let us clear them out altogether. I will hand this page of advertisements to the noble Earl opposite, and he will see that if the Bill passes without his Amendment nearly all of them will disappear.
THE EARL OF DERBY: On the page which the right rev. Prelate has handed to me there are sixteen advertisements altogether. Under my Amendment there would be three able to be put in; the other thirteen would be excluded.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: But by a slight alteration—namely, by omitting the word "sporting" and by inserting a sentence such as this, "Particulars cannot be sent without a personal request "—almost every one of those advertisements would stand.
THE EARL OF DERBY: It is evident that your Lordships have been going in for extensive purchases of sporting papers. With regard to the point just raised, I shall be glad later to show the right rev. Prelate that he is not correct in the statement he has just made; but I do not think the matter is one which can be argued across the floor of the House.
On Question, whether the words proposed should be added to the Clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 12; Not-contents, 43.

CONTENTS.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Falmouth, V.

Faber, L. [Teller.]

Derby, E. [Teller.]

Farquhar, L.

Essex, E,

Pirrie, L.

Lonsdale, B.

Colebrooke, L.

Wolverton, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry).

Dawnay, L. [V. Downe.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Goschen, V.

Emmott, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Gough, V.

Gwydir, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal)

Bangor, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Northumberland, D.

London, L. Bp,

Mersey, L.

Wakefield, L. Bp.

Newlands, L.

Salisbury, M.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Ravensworth, L

Craven, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Rotherham, L.

Cromer, E.

Atkinson, L.

Rowallan, L.

Loreburn, E.

Barrymore, L.

Sanderson, L. [Teller.]

Lovelace, E.

Bolper, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Stradbroke, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Verulam, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Stanmore, L.

Waldegrave, K.

Devonport, L.

Strachie, L.

Westmeath, E.

Digby, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Bill reported without amendment.
LORD NEWTON: In order as I thought to study the convenience of the House I put down a Motion to suspend Standing Order XXXIX. I need hardly say that my only object is to get the Bill through before Whitsuntide so that it can be sent down to the House of Commons; but if there is any objection to the suspension of the Standing Order in this case I shall be glad to postpone the further stages of the Bill until to-morrow or another day. I would venture to suggest that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House should give me his opinion on the subject.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Like the noble Lord, I am entirely in the hands of the House in this matter. The noble Lord has placed on the Paper a Motion which would enable him to take all the remaining stages of the Bill to-day if the House so desires. There is, I understand, no other business On the Paper, and in the event of the House agreeing to pass the Bill through its remaining stages to-day I should move, at the end of to-day's sitting, that the House should adjourn for a holiday. But it is entirely a matter for the House, and if any noble Lord or any number of noble Lords express a desire that the further stages of this Bill should be postponed until to-morrow and,
398
if necessary, the next day, I, of course, should not feel it right to offer any opposition. But failing any definite statement of that kind accompanied by reasons, I should propose to agree with the noble Lord in the course which he has suggested.
THE EARL OF DERBY: As I ant the only one who brought forward any Amendment to this Bill I may say that, having made the protest which I felt I was justified in making against one part of the Bill, I have not the slightest objection to the noble Lord taking the Bill through its remaining stages to-day.
THE MARQUESS OP SALISBURY: The procedure proposed is unusual, but where there is practical unanimity in the House that a certain course should be taken we do not insist too rigidly on our rules. I am entirely of the same opinion as the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, that if there was even a small minority who wished this Bill to proceed according to the Standing Orders it would not be advisable to concur in Lord Newton's Motion. But as the opinion of the House seems to be unanimous in favour of passing the Bill through its remaining stages to-day, I offer no objection to that course being taken.
Then it was moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be dispensed with (The Lord Newton); agreed to: Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2:
Grant of licences.
2.—(1) A police magistrate may grant a licence in such form as the Secretary of State may prescribe, and subject to such restrictions and conditions as the police magistrate thinks fit, for any young person to go out of the United Kingdom for the purpose of singing, playing, performing, or being exhibited for profit, but no such licence shall be granted unless the police magistrate is satisfied—

(a) that the application for the licence is made by or with the consent of the parent or guardian of the young person;

(b) that the young person is going out of the United Kingdom in order to fulfil a particular engagement;

(c) that the young person is lit for the purpose;

(d) that proper provision has been made to secure the health, kind treatment, and adequate supervision of the young person whilst abroad and his return to the United Kingdom at the expiration or revocation of the licence;

(e) that a copy of the contract of employment or other document, showing the terms and conditions of employment, drawn up in a language understood by the young person, has been furnished to the young person.

(2) A licence under this section shall not be granted for more than three months, but may be renewed by a police magistrate from time to time for a like period, but no such renewal shall be granted unless the police magistrate is satisfied by a report of a British consular officer or other trustworthy person that the conditions of the licence are being complied with.
(3) Where a person applies for a licence or the renewal of a licence under this section he shall at least seven days before making the application give notice thereof to the chief officer of the police for the district in which the young person resides or resided, and that officer may make a report in writing on the case to the police magistrate, or may appear or instruct some person to appear before the police magistrate hearing the application and show cause why the licence should not be granted or renewed, and the police magistrate shall not grant or renew the licence unless he is satisfied that notice has been properly so given. The notice given by the applicant shall be accompanied by a copy of the contract of employment or other, document showing the terms and conditions of employment, which copy shall be sent by the chief officer of police to the police magistrate.
(4) The police magistrate to whom application is made for the grant or renewal of a licence under this section shall, unless be is satisfied that under the circumstances it is unnecessary, require the applicant to give such security, either
400
by entering into a recognisance with or without sureties or otherwise, as he may think fit for the observance of the restrictions and conditions contained in the licence, and the recognisance may be enforced in like manner as a recognisance for the doing of some matter or thing required to be done in a proceeding before a court of summary jurisdiction is enforceable.
(5) In any proceeding for enforcing a recognisance under this section, a report of any British consular officer, and any deposition made on oath before a British consular officer and authenticated by the signature of that officer respecting the observance or non-observance of any of the conditions or restrictions contained in a licence granted under this Act, shall, upon proof that the consular officer or deponent cannot be found in the United Kingdom, be admissible in evidence; and it shall not be necessary to prove the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed any such report or deposition.
(6) Where a licence is granted under this section, the police magistrate shall send to the Secretary of State for transmission to the proper consular officer such particulars as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe, and every consular officer shall register the particulars so transmitted to him and perform such other duties in relation thereto as the Secretary of State may direct.
(7) A licence granted under this section may be revoked by the police magistrate at any time if he is satisfied that any of the conditions on which the licence was granted are not being complied with.
*LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I have on the Paper an Amendment which I moved to Clause 2 on Report, but the noble Lord in charge of the Bill then complained that he had not received notice of the Amendment, and I thereupon withdrew it and intimated that I would put it down for this stage. My Amendment is to insert in subsection (3), after the words "chief officer of police" where they first occur, the words "and to the local education authority," and I should like briefly to explain why I press this Amendment. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that my point is that power of taking action on behalf of these young persons in order to bring the facts before the Police magistrate, to whom is given the power of granting the licence, should be vested at any rate concurrently in the local education authority. As the subsection at present stands, the person making the application has to give previous notice thereof to the chief officer of police for the district in which the young person resides, and it is that officer who has to make a report on the case to the Police magistrate hearing the application. The object of my Amendment is to secure that the person making the application shall also give notice to the local education authority.

401
The noble Lord in charge of the Bill did not seem to appreciate that local education authorities have an interest in a number of young people considerably beyond the age of fourteen. It has been the steady policy of Parliament to give them that interest. In the Children Employment Act, 1903, the local education authority was made the authority under the Act, In the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1901, it is true, there is very similar machinery to that contained in this Bill. The noble Lord seemed to object to my use of the word "child" as applied to young persons over the age of fourteen years. In the Act of 1904, which was a Rome Office measure, the definition is "a child tinder sixteen" shall not be apprenticed except under certain conditions, and for the purposes of that Act the authority in England is a Court of Petty Sessions and the application for a licence has to be made to the Police. That might seem to be a precedent for bringing in the Police here.
But in 1909, in the Labour Exchanges Bill, the arrangements for the employment of young persons were put under the Board of Trade, and Mr. Churchill emphatically stated, during the progress of that Bill through the Rouse of Commons, that his wish was that the education authorities should be intimately associated with the work of finding employment for young persons. It was, he said, extremely important that some body should consider the question, not merely of securing employment, but of securing suitable employment which was not of the "blind-alley" description. Therefore there was full assurance then given that the education authorities would be closely associated with the administration of this provision. But when that Act became law and Mr. Sydney Buxton followed Mr. Churchill at the Board of Trade, those who were interested in these young people found a very dogged opposition on the part of the Board of Trade to allowing the education authorities to have any say in the matter at all; and the consequence was that in 1910 Parliament passed an Act amending the Act of 1909 and definitely requiring by Statute that the local education authorities should be associated in the arrangements for finding employment for these young persons. I wish to dwell upon what took place in connection with that Bill, because although the Home Office through their
402
representative in your Lordships' House have made slow and partial approaches to my contention, there is in the Bill now before us as it stands no provision introducing the local education authority. When this Bill was down for Committee Lord Stanhope had on the Paper an Amendment limited to the London County Council. That Amendment provided that the London County Council should be entitled to be heard and should have the same rights as the Police with reference to representing the case before the magistrate.
The noble Lord the Paymaster-General announced on the Second Reading of the Bill—on April 15 last—that he would meet Lord Stanhope as far as London was concerned and was prepared to agree that notice should be given to the county council, and when I subsequently asked whether he was speaking of the London County Council only or whether notice would be given to all county councils, Lord Strachie replied "the London County Council only." Nevertheless when we came to the Report, stage the noble Lord in charge of the Bill announced, on behalf of the home Office, that they intended to extend the concession to all local education authorities and not confine it to the case of the London County Council only. But unfortunately it appeared that the Home Office did not intend to do more than this, that the bare fact of the making of the application should be communicated to the local education authority of the district. The Bill as it is drafted gives nobody except the Police the right of appearing before the magistrate and making representations in the Police-court when the hearing of the application takes place. I submit that it is idle to think that you are doing anything for the local education authorities when you merely drop them a Police notice that somebody has applied for a licence to take a child abroad. The local education authority should know in time to be able to make representations should they desire to do so before the Police magistrate when he is hearing the application. The case which I have cited in connection with the Labour Exchanges Act shows how useless are assurances of goodwill on the part of representatives of Departments when conducting Bills through Parliament, and how important it is that statutory effect should be given in the Bill itself to what is agreed upon.

403
To follow out the precedents in favour of my Amendment, I may remind your Lordships that in Lord Shaftesbury's Bill dealing with the employment of children and young people, which was carried here in 1911, the education authorities were made the authorities under the Bill. Lord Beauchamp, who then spoke for the Home Office, said that Lord Shaftesbury had not quite correctly stated the fact when he said that his Bill was an exact reproduction of the recommendations of the Home Office Committee which had considered the matter, because the Bill vested the watchfulness over the children not only in the local education authorities but also in the Board of Education and not in the Home Office. But the Bill went down to the House of Commons with the local education authority as the authority vested with the control and supervision of the matter. In 1912 it was thought politic to introduce the same Bill, though strengthened, in the House of Commons, and there, again, the charge of the business was entrusted to the local education authorities. That Bill emerged safely from Standing Committee and was adopted by the Government and would have become law had it not been for the action of one or two resolute blockers who stopped it.
An interesting illustration of the fluctuating state of conviction of the Home Office on this matter is afforded by the fact that there is in the House of Commons at this moment a Bill introduced by the Home Office—Mr. Ellis Griffith's name is on the back of it—dealing with employment of children, and in that Bill the jurisdiction is vested in the education authority. It is curious that the Home Office should in the very same session be bringing in a Children's Bill in which they divest themselves of their jurisdiction in one respect and pass it on to the education authority, and yet at the same time in connection with another Children's Bill promoted by themselves they should refuse to give to the local education authorities the right of being heard and of bringing facts about these young people before the Police magistrate when he is adjudicating upon the application for a licence. I submit that it is absolutely necessary that we should maintain the continuity of legislation which for the past ten years has strenuously emphasised that those who are concerned in the education of the rising generation should be the persons interested in watching over their welfare after they have passed beyond
404
the age of compulsory school attendance. That has been the policy of the country; it is the policy of the Home Office in their Bill introduced in the other House this session by Mr. Ellis Griffith, and I submit that it is a policy which it is proper to pursue in connection with this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2 (3), page 2, line 31, after ("police") insert ("and to the local education authority").(Lord Sheffield.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, I do not intend to follow my noble friend into the history of this matter, but he is wrong in saying that when this question was first raised—I think by Lord Stanhope on behalf of the London County Council—I stated that notice of the receipt of an application for a licence under the Bill would be given to the local education authority in the case of London only. I stated that notice would be given to all local education authorities, and I carried out that undertaking on the Report stage by making a direct declaration, on behalf of the Home Office, that in London the Police would be instructed to inform the London County Council whenever an application was made for a licence, and that the Police throughout the country would be requested to give similar information to their respective local education authorities when licences were applied for. I had hoped that that would have satisfied my noble friend, but apparently that is not the case.
I yield at once to the great authority and the great experience and genius of my noble friend Lord Sheffield in dealing with all questions of education, but I would ask the House in this case not to be led astray by an enthusiast who thinks that his particular authority must be brought into every relation of life. Why should you duplicate the authority whose duty it will be to see that licences are not granted to unfit applicants? If this clause dealt with children and not with young persons there would be something to be said for the noble Lord's contention that the educational body should be made the authority to deal with this question; but this clause is not concerned with children—it is concerned with young persons, with whom the local education authorities have nothing whatever to do. The noble Lord will say at once that that is no armament at all,

405
because the education authorities in some cases—very few indeed—have something to do with young persons, and I have no doubt the noble Lord would go further and say that he would like their powers largely extended in this direction; but on that I would say that he had better wait until an Education Bill has been introduced and passed giving these extended powers.
Undoubtedly the Home Office is the authority which ought to look after the interests of these Young persons. Under this clause an applicant for a licence or for the renewal of a licence has to give notice to the chief officer of Police of the district that he intends to make the application. The duty of the Police is to report in writing on the case, and the report made by the Police has to be sent on afterwards to the magistrate sitting at Bow-street Police Court. The making of the report will not he such an easy matter. Most careful inquiries will have to be made into the life and character of the applicant, and surely the Police are much more likely to know about these applicants than the education authority, who in ordinary circumstances have nothing whatever to do with these persons. It might happen that the local education authority would know about the applicant in cases where he had children attending the school of the local education authority, but in the great majority of cases these agents will be people not living in the district at all, and the local education authority have not the means which the Police possess of intercommunication between one district and another.
The clause also provides that the Police may appear before the Court and enter any objections they may think fit to the granting of a licence. Further, it is the duty of the Police, if they think it necessary to do so, to instruct a solicitor to appear on their behalf. It seems to me that in such a case as this the Police authority would be the most useful to whom to entrust this work. Why throw all this labour and expense on the education authority? Their primary duty is to look after the education of children, and not to inquire into the character of agents who propose to send young persons abroad. The noble Lord quoted the Act of 1910 as a precedent, but that Act is limited to one small particular. It is an Act to enable local education authorities to give boys and girls instruct-
406
tion, advice, and assistance in respect to the choice of employment. It is very natural and right that the education authority should be able to give such advice. But this is not a case of that nature. It is a case requiring an examination into the character of the men applying to send children abroad.
If the noble Lord wishes for precedents, I think a much stronger precedent is that of the Children Act of 1901 and of the Children Act of 1908, in both of which cases it is the Police and not the education authority who act. And if you take the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, and look at subsection (3) of Section 3 you will find an exactly similar clause to this, in which the Police are made the authority as regards the licensing of children and young persons. On the other hand, the local education authority, where they think it desirable, often come before the magistrates under that section and express their opinion and give advice. It is perfectly clear that it is not necessary to give any locus standi to a local education authority in this matter, because the magistrate at Bow-street Police Court would be only too glad to take advantage of any information which the local education authority might be able to give by way of supplementing that of the Police.
The Home Office regard this Amendment as cumbersome and entirely unnecessary. Why lay on the education authority in this matter an obligation which can be more properly laid on the Police, and why duplicate the number of officers who will be required? Surely in these days we have sufficient public officials in connection with local affairs. By successive Acts of Parliament local authorities are constantly having more duties cast upon them and consequently more expense is thrown upon the rates. Complaint is made of this in my part of the country, though sometimes the increase in the number of officials is absolutely necessary. But here the proposed additional burden is gratuitous. The noble Lord asks for concurrent powers, with, of course, concurrent expenditure. This Bill was hung up for a good many years, and I should like to pay a tribute to the energy and activity of the Salvation Army with regard to this particular matter. Had it not been for the insistency with which they pressed it upon the attention of the Home Office it is doubtful whether the

407
Bill would have come forward this year. I have consulted the officer of the Salvation Army who has taken an active part in this matter for many years, and he entirely objects to the noble Lord's Amendment and considers that it would be a disadvantage to the Bin to have it included. He is entirely of the opinion held by the Home Office—that the Amendment is not only unnecessary but is objectionable, too.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord opposite (Lord Sheffield) is, I venture to think, hard to please, because he has already made considerable progress with his wish that the education authority should have some voice in this matter. In my opinion there is great force in what Lord Strachie has said, that this Amendment would create an unnecessary duplication of authorities and make the matter very cumbersome. The kind of questions which the magistrate will have to consider are primarily matters which the Police can inform him of. For example, how could the education authority say whether the application for a licence is made by or with the consent of the parent or guardian of the young person? What opinion worth having have the education authority as to whether the young person is going out of the United Kingdom in order to fulfil a particular engagement? Again, how can they say whether proper provision has been made to secure the health, kind treatment, and adequate supervision of the young children whilst abroad? The local education authority knows nothing whatever of these matters. Then there is the provision that a copy of the contract of employment or other document showing the terms and conditions of employment shall have been furnished to the young person. All these are matters with which, of course, the local education authority has nothing whatever to do. The only other question is whether the young person is fit for the purpose. That is primarily a medical question, and I imagine that that is the source from which the information would be obtained. What you want to get information about is this—what sort of people are the parents? That is really the point, whether the parents are people who can be trusted and whether the application is a bona fide one. Are the local education authority the proper authority to investigate these matters? Obviously not. The Police are the proper authority. I agree that it is right that the education authority should be consulted,
408
but I do not think they ought to be placed in the position of acting a principal part in the matter and perhaps reporting differently from the Police, with the result that the magistrate would he left in great confusion as to what was the real state of affairs.
*LORD SHEFFIELD: I merely rise to make a personal explanation. I should be sorry if it were thought that I had misled your Lordships or misstated the facts. In saying that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill at first only conceded the right to receive notice to the London County Council I am confirmed by the OFFICIAL REPORT. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill on April 15 I said—the noble Lord will find it at page 98 of Hansard—"I do not know whether the noble Lord, in saying that notice would be given to the county council, was speaking only of the London County Council, or whether notice would be given to all county councils," and the noble Lord replied "The London County Council only."
LORD STRACHIE: The report is wrong, I may inform the noble Lord.
*LORD SHEFFIELD: It corresponds with what I heard.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday the 27 th instant.

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL JUDGE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I rise to move an Address for the appointment of an additional Judge, and I do so in consequence of an Interim Report which has been made by the Royal Commission over which Lord St. Aldwyn is presiding. The Commission, of course, do not prejudge the character of their final recommendations, but point out that owing to the illness of some of the Judges and the arrears of business which has accumulated the number of Judges now sitting—seventeen—is insufficient to overtake the business, and recommend the

409
immediate appointment of another Judge under the Judicature Act, 1910. Such an appointment can be made, but the Act says that on the next vacancy that vacancy shall not be filled up without an Address being moved by both Houses. This is the case of a temporary appointment without prejudice to the Final Report of the Royal Commission. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice requires that an additional Judge should be appointed to the said Division under the first section of the Supreme Court of judicature Act, 1910, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a new Judge of the said Division of the High Court of Justice accordingly.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: The said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
BROADSTATRS AND ST. PETER'S URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
HUDDERMELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LIMERICK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Lovelace,

L. Clinton (Chairman),

L. Shute (V. Barrington),

L. St. Levan.

L. Stanmore;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 4th of June next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
LOTHIAN RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
ARIGNA VALLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Stanhope,

E. Cathcart,

L. Zouche of Haryngworth,

L. Kintore (E. Kintore) (Chairman),

L. Byth;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 3rd of June next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

SOUTARI.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to ask the noble Viscount the President of the Council whether the Government are in a position to tell the House anything with regard to the position of Montenegro, and especially as to the reported decision of the Montenegrin Government to withdraw their troops from Skutari.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): Yes, my Lords; the Government are in possession of information to that effect. The Montenegrins are prepared, and have announced that they are prepared, to place Skutari in the hands of the Great Powers. I am sure the House will feel great relief at hearing that piece of news, for it removes what has been for the last five or six days a cardinal and very dangerous difficulty. It has relieved Europe from that difficulty, and I think the House will agree that it has been wisely taken in the interests of the Montenegrins themselves, as well as of the other Balkan Powers, and certainly of the peace of Europe.

THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until Tuesday, May 27.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Tuesday the 27th instant, a quarter past Four o'clock.