Sitting of 1 August 1907

Preamble
The Right Honourable Sir James Kitson, Baronet, having been created Baron Airedale of Gledhow, in the West Riding of the county of York, was in the usual manner introduced.
Sir Montagu Samuel Montagu, Baronet, having been created Baron Swaythling of Swaythling, in the county of Southampton, was in the usual manner introduced.
Sir James Blyth, Baronet, having been created Baron Blyth of Blythwood, in the county of Essex, was in the usual manner introduced.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London County Council (Money) Bill Llandrindod Wells Gas Bill. Read 3a",' with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order(No. 1.) Bill [H.L.] Commons' Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
Australian States Constitution Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Confirmation (London No. 1.) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2.) Bill [H.L.] Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3.) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4.) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.] Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill; Kingston-upon-Hull Co-operation Bill; South Wales Mineral Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3.) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4.) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.] Commons' Amendments considered (on Motion), and agreed to.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10.) Bill— (Bradford (Yorks) Order). Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Craven he proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Duke of Sutherland; read and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3.) Bill [H.L.]; Commons' Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

ARMAGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Order of the Day read for resuming the adjourned debate on Amendment moved after Third Reading.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I do not know whether it would be convenient that I should first of all make a statement with regard to this Amendment. I should like to say that I am grateful for the consideration which the House showed us in allowing this matter to be postponed until to-day. On Monday when it came before the House I was certainly not very well posted in the facts with regard to it. I am not going to make any apology for that, because I think it would have been very difficult for me to have foretold that on the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, to leave out part of a clause in an unopposed Bill, charges of political jobbery and corruption were about to be made. I confess that when first my attention was drawn to it it appeared rather a trivial matter—a parochial matter, I might say—and not one of very great importance. However the action of Lord Donoughmore has given it a considerable degree of importance, because he has asserted that the clause as introduced in this Bill was a rather glaring instance of political jobbery.
I was unable on Monday, when the matter was before the House, to express any opinion on this point, and I was very chary of doing so, for I am aware that there have been a good many cases, since the Act of Union, of political jobbery in Ireland; but I am now in a position to

1139
give definite information on the matter. But before I do so I should like to define what the position of the Government with regard to this matter is. This is a private Bill. It is the result of an arrangement between two parties. As such it is not the actual concern of the Government. The Government are indirectly concerned in it because the matter has come before the Vice-President of the Local Government Board of Ireland in a certain capacity. I will deal with that point later. But it is not our business to be responsible for measures of this kind, and the concern of the Government, so far as it is concerned, is mainly to see that justice is done between the different parties to the arrangement; and if, in spite of the investigations of the Committee before whom this Bill went in the other House—I presume it was fought by counsel—political jobbery or something of that kind is contemplated under this particular clause, I am sure that noble Lords on this side of the House are just as anxious as any noble Lord belonging to the Party opposite that such a possibility should be averted. Since Monday I have endeavoured to obtain all the information with regard to this matter. I have seen the promoters of the Bill; I have seen the Vice-President of the Local Government Board of Ireland, and also the Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee of the House of Commons, before which Committee this Bill went.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I think the only point between us is this proviso, which has been introduced since the Bill reached your Lordships' House— the proviso was not in the Bill when it was before the House of Commons.
LORD DENMAN: I agree that it has been introduced since the Bill left the House of Commons. But I thought I would see the Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee in the other House to inquire what his views of the matter were. From what I have been able to ascertain I have come to the conclusion that it would be unfair to describe the insertion of this clause as a political job or anything in the nature of a political job. I understand that the charge which is made is two-fold. First of all, it is asserted that under the latter part of this clause the town clerk of Armagh receives practically a tenure for life. If you will
1140
glance at the clause you will see that that is not the case. It says that he shall hold the said office until ho die, or resign, or be removed by the council with the assent of the Board—that is to say, with the assent of the Local Government Board. Therefore, in case of any misconduct, the Town Council of Armagh would bring the matter before the Local Government Board of Ireland, and that Board would certainly take such action as they deemed fit.
But the more serious charge, I think, was this. It was said, "Why do you put this particular clerk in a different position from that which most of the town clerks of Ireland enjoy?" The answer is really a very simple one. He is placed in this position because under this Bill you put upon him new duties, and to a certain extent these new duties are invidious duties and such as would be likely to bring him in conflict with his fellow townsmen. Some of his new duties, for instance, will be under the Public Health Act, and for all practical purposes he will be in the position of a sanitary officer. Under the general law of Ireland a sanitary officer does receive almost the exact protection which it is proposed to afford to the town clerk of this district. This official's duties will be two-fold. He will have to perform the duties of town clerk and also the duties of a sanitary officer, and if sanitary officers generally are protected by the law of Ireland surely it is only fair and reasonable that this town clerk should be protected on account of the duties he may have to perform as a sanitary officer.
There is ample precedent for such a course being taken with regard to sanitary officers. It is, as I have said, the usual course, and I will proceed to quote what the precedents are. The tenure of sanitary officers is regulated by Section XI. of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and the Local Government Board have made orders under that section, the last of which are dated May 3rd, 1900, under which no sanitary inspector can be removed except by or with the consent of the Local Government Board. Then there are many other precedents almost identically similar, or, at any rate, analogous to this particular one. For example, Section 83 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, provides that no secretary to a county council and

1141
no county surveyor shall be removed from office without the consent of the Local Government Board; under Section 33 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838. Poor Law officers can only be removed by or with the consent of the Local Government Board; and there are also precedents with regard to English local government. Section 119 of the English Local Government Act, 1888, provides that no officer transferred to a county council can be removed without the consent of the Secretary of State or the Local Government Board, and that such consent shall be part of the tenure of his office. Then, again, subsection 18 of Section 115 of the Act which established county councils in Ireland—the Act of 1898—provides that every existing officer transferred under the section shall hold his office under the same terms and conditions as heretofore. Then there is another case—I do not quote it as a precedent in any way—in which there is a certain analogy to what it is proposed to do under this Bill. There is a Committee, of which, I think, the noble Karl, Lord Donoughmore, is the chairman, sitting at present in the Committee Rooms of this House—
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE:No.
LORD DENMAN: Then I have been misinformed on that point, and I will not refer to it further. But quite the most striking point with regard to this is that identically the same thing as it is proposed to enact in this Bill has been enacted before—namely, in 1896. I should like to read the particular clause—
"The clerks and other officers of the Commissioners holding office at the passing of this Act shall continue to hold the office……and while performing duties similar to those which they have previously discharged, shall receive not less salary or remuneration……and shall not be dismissed from their offices without the sanction of the Lord-Lieutenant."
That applies to the town clerk of Armagh who was appointed in or before the year 1896, and if you substitute the Local Government Board, as is proposed in this instance, for the Lord-Lieutenant, you have an almost exactly similar case. There is this difference, that in the year 1896 there was a Unionist majority on the council of Armagh and there was a Unionist Government in power; but it
1142
seems to me that if it was right to do this particular thing in 1896, surely it must be equally right to do it at the present day.
On Monday last, Lord Donoughmore asserted that the clerk who was appointed in or before the year 1896 had been hounded out of his office, I think he said, by the Nationalist majority on the council. I have good authority—I have not sifted the authority, but it is good authority—for believing that the noble Earl has been misinformed on that point. What happened, as I understand, was this. The former clerk, who was a man of considerable age and was protected by the Act of 1896 in almost the identical manner in which it is proposed to protect the present clerk, served under successive councils up to the end of 1903. He wished to resign sometime previous, but was concerned as to the amount of his pension. He served under the council with a Nationalist majority from 1899 to 1903; and he was perfectly satisfied with the pension which the present council gave him. He was over 70 years of age when he gave in his resignation, and I am informed that it is incorrect to state that he was hounded out of office. But suppose he was? Surely that is an argument that cuts both ways, because if in Armagh it is the custom of a majority on the council immediately to worry out all the officials who were appointed by their predecessors, it is obviously very necessary indeed that you should give protection in this particular manner.
I pass on to another point. This matter came before the Vice-President of the Local Government Board of Ireland and he gave his assent to it. I do not suppose for a moment that any noble Lord from Ireland would allege that the Vice-President would be a party to a political job or to favouritism of the character suggested. I do not think that would be suggested for a moment. This clause was sent to his office; he considered the matter and the clause was to a considerable extent redrafted in his office with his sanction and approval; and I do not think that the Vice-President of the Local Government Board would have given his approval unless he had considered that it was a fair and proper provision to insert in an Act of Parliament. I also have to cite the fact that this particular clause was considered

1143
by the Urban District Council of Armagh and was approved unanimously by them, and I should have thought that if there had been opposition to it that opposition would certainly have made itself heard. I also cannot understand why, if this were an undesirable thing to introduce, the matter was not brought before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House and thrashed out in the Committee Rooms upstairs, which I submit is the proper place for the discussion of a parochial matter of this kind, rather than in the body of the House.
To sum up briefly the points which I have endeavoured to make, I think I have shown—and this is, after all, the principal point—first, that having been appointed sanitary officer it was surely reasonable to give this clerk the protection which it is customary by the law of Ireland to give to sanitary officers in similar positions; secondly, that the previous clerk was given practically the same tenure of office as it is proposed to give the present man, although in his case he was not called upon to perform some of the invidious duties which I understand the present town clerk will, by reason of this Bill, have to discharge; thirdly, that the assent of the Local Government Board of Ireland was obtained and that this clause had the approval of the Vice-President of that body, who assisted in the drafting of the clause; and, fourthly, that if there is such a strong case to be made out against the clause it ought to have been heard in a Committee Room upstairs.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: There was no chance.
LORD DENMAN: With regard to Lord Donoughmore's accusations, I do not, of course, know from what source his information comes. Possibly he has more evidence which he will give to the House to show that this was a job of a political character, and, if so, we shall, of course, give our earnest attention to what he has to say in that respect. But from what I have been able to find out, it seems to me that this is rather in the nature of a mare's-nest and that the noble Earl has been misinformed in the matter. It is a truism that all great men have their enemies, and it is perfectly possible that
1144
some opponent, political or otherwise, of the town clerk of the urban district council of Armagh may have obtained the ear of the noble Earl, and that he may have been misinformed on this point. But from the evidence I have obtained it does seem to me that there is a good case for the insertion of this clause in the Bill, and I would ask the noble Earl either to produce some new facts which we have not heard or to withdraw his Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, this is an adjourned debate on a matter upon which both the noble Lord who has just sat down and myself have already spoken, and therefore, except with the leave of the House, I do not think that either of us is entirely in order in again addressing you on the subject. I was not aware that the noble Lord was going to make a prolonged explanation of the attitude of the Government of Ireland, because I was anxious as early as possible to say that, having looked into the matter with some care since the debate on Monday, doubts have arisen in my mind whether your Lordships ought not to order that this clause should go to the Examiners of Standing Orders. The noble Lord quoted the opinion of the Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee of the House of Commons, and also stated that, in his opinion, if the question was to be raised at all, it ought to have been raised on petition, and should have gone to a Committee of your Lordships' House for consideration. The facts are these. The Bill, having been considered by the House of Commons, came up to your Lordships' House, and the parties who are interested were wholly in ignorance of the fact that the clause in question was going to be proposed here. The Bill went before the Unopposed Bill Committee. The clause was not opposed by the Local Government Board for Ireland; I was informed that it had received the unanimous approval of the Armagh Urban District Council, and therefore the clause was inserted in the Bill. But no opportunity was afforded to the Examiners to consider whether the Standing Orders had been complied with, and after careful inquiry I am of opinion that your Lordships would be well advised, before proceeding further in the matter, to order that it should be referred to the Examiners to see whether the Standing

1145
Orders have been complied with, as to which there is, in my mind, some doubt. I beg to move in that sense.
Moved, "That the Bill be referred to the Examiners to report whether the Standing Orders have been complied with in respect of the Amendments made in Committee of this House."— (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LEITH BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Heading read.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL:
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."— (Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
*LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have placed on the Paper Notice of my intention, on the Motion for the Third Reading, to move that the Bill be read a third time this day three months, and I should like to explain to your Lordships my reasons for moving this Amendment and the position of the Leith Dock Corporation. In the first place, the Leith Dock Corporation have been exempted from various assessments under an Act of 1848, and in subsequent Acts these exemptions have always been continued. In the next place, the Leith Dock Corporation is not in the same position as the other dock undertakings which were compared with it at the time of the inquiry—docks such as Grangemouth, because those arc docks which belong to railway companies and earn a revenue to pay the shareholders. The Leith Dock Corporation is in an entirely different position, because it is simply a public concern under trustees or commissioners, and can only use surplus revenue for the purposes of dock works. Therefore they are not all on the same footing as revenue-earning concerns.
Leith has never subscribed or contributed a single penny towards either the formation of the docks or any of the works which the docks have undertaken.
1146
The docks do their own policing and also undertake the cleansing and keeping up of their streets within their gates, and they also keep up two and a half miles of streets outside the docks. They have to pay entirely for this out of dock revenue, and the cost is about £11,500. They also pay the poor and school rates, property and income-tax, and for public health—in all, about £23,000, including the £11,500 to which I have referred. They have also a yearly servitude of about £11,000 in redemption of debt. It has been stated that the dock revenue is nearer £50,000 than £30,000, but I am informed that the surplus revenue is only now £23,000 per annum, and for many years cannot possibly be in any way increased. The docks are about to raise a loan of £120,000. I believe they have been forced to hang it up in consequence of the decision given by the Joint Committee in Edinburgh in April. I have briefly mentioned the position of the dock corporation.
The whole Bill was unanimously approved, with the exception of Clause 4—the rating clause. A Member of the House of Commons who was on the Joint Committee and myself were of one opinion, and a noble Member of your Lordships' House and the Chairman were of the other opinion; and it seemed to me for many reasons that if any decision should have been given it should have been that the status quo ante should be preserved. I do not wish to suggest any wrong-doing on the part of the Chairman—he is a most upright and honourable gentleman—but the Chairman gave his casting vote for the assessment of the docks for the rates. The result of that decision was that half the rates were put on; that is to say, they were assessed on half the value instead of the whole. It seems to me that this is a matter of principle. If it was just to make the assessment at all, it ought to have been made on the whole; and if it was just that the exemption should be continued, it ought to have been continued on the whole. That, I take it, is the position.
If the case had come before a Private Bill Committee of the House of Commons, as it used to do in the old days before these Joint Committees were set up, and the finding had been one way, and it had then gone to a Private Bill Committee of the House of Lords and the finding

1147
had been the same, both Houses would probably have accepted that decision. But in this important matter, involving a very considerable sum of money and an important principle, the decision was given by the Chairman of the Committee, and in absolute contradiction of all the former Acts which had been passed continuing the exemptions to the corporation. It seemed to me, from that, that there was a most excellent reason for re-hearing this case, but that was refused in the House of Commons, and I can see no other way of bringing this to your Lordships' notice than by moving the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading. I would point out that it was merely the accident of this gentleman happening to be Chairman. If I or the Member of the House of Commons who held the same view as I held had been Chairman, the decision would have been exactly opposite. Therefore, I do not think a decision arrived at in these circumstances should be allowed to pass your Lordships' House, but that some steps should be taken by which the whole of this Bill could be reconsidered. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved, "To leave out the word 'now' in order to add at the end the words 'this day three months.' "— (Lord Saltoun.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the course which the House is asked to follow is, no doubt, a very unusual one. It is one which it is perfectly competent for the House to follow if it thinks it expedient to do so, but I venture to say it should not be done without the most weighty and the gravest possible reasons. The noble Lord who has moved the rejection of the Bill served as one of the Commissioners who inquired into this matter in Edinburgh, and he has no doubt formed a very strong opinion as to the merits of the case after hearing the evidence. I have had the privilege of sitting on a Committee of your Lordships' House with the noble Lord, and I can bear testimony, if such were needed, to the weight and value that must attach to an opinion which he forms under such circumstances. But I feel that it is not necessary for me to do this, and indeed I feel sure that whatever method your Lordships may select for settling a diffi-
1148
cult matter of this sort the very last one which would be likely to commend itself to you would be that there should be a public weighing of the relative value of the opinion of the different Commissioners.
Now, what are the reasons which the noble Lord gives for moving the rejection of this Bill? First of all, because the docks are the property of commissioners and not of a private company. I confess that I see no reason in that to justify his proposal. These docks are certainly the property of commissioners, and it may be presumed that the town of Leith, in which they are situated, would not wish to injure them because the whole prosperity of the town is bound up in the docks. Then the noble Lord referred to the casting vote of the Chairman. I would remind the House that these Commissions consist of four members—two from your Lordships' House and two from the other House. It is, of course, obvious that in these circumstances there is always the possibility of their being equally divided on any question, and it was for that reason that the Chairman was given a casting vote in the Scottish Private Bill Procedure Act. Having been given that vote by Parliament, I presume it was intended that the Chairman should exercise it, and that a decision arrived at in that way should have just the same force and value as a decision arrived at in any other way.
Then the noble Lord said that if the assessment was to be imposed at all, it should be a full one; that it should either be a full one or none at all. In answer to that, I would point out that it is a very common thing for docks to be rated at half the total value. There are a great many cases in various parts of the country. The next reason the noble Lord gave was that no appeal had been allowed. I would remind the House that the ordinary procedure has been followed in this case. Under the Act which regulates these matters an opportunity of asking that the matter shall be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses is given in the House in which the matter originates, and that in this case was the other House of Parliament. Such a Motion was made in the other House, and was, after a very full. discussion, defeated by a large majority.

1149
So that I do not think it can be said that the procedure has not been followed to the letter in this case.
This matter raises the question of this particular procedure in relation to Scottish Bills. I speak with great deference on that subject in the presence of the noble Lord who was the father of that measure; but I see that when the Glasgow Corporation Police Order was under discussion in this House in 1901 the noble Lord said that if continual appeals were made the object of that Act would be defeated. The noble Lord pointed out that the Act was passed with the object of reducing expense, and that if continual appeals were granted these matters would be made very much more expensive than they were before. I therefore ask the House not to agree to the Amendment of the noble Lord.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I venture to suggest to the House that if we do not take care we shall drift into rather a difficult position in regard to this matter. We have had two speeches considerably directed towards the merits of the particular Bill before us. Perhaps under the circumstances that was unavoidable, but in my opinion it is very unfortunate. I do not think there can be a worse result of any procedure than that there should be discussions on the merits of private Bills in the House as a whole. The facts before us, which are without dispute, are that certain very material interests are involved in this question, and that the decision upon one of those was arrived at by the casting vote of the Chairman. That fact was announced by the Chairman himself at the moment he gave the decision. I suggest that under these circumstances it would have been very much better if every effort had been taken to procure a re-hearing under the machinery of the Act under which this inquiry was held.
The noble Lord in charge of the Bill says that the ordinary procedure has been followed; but the ordinary procedure has been varied in recent years. Under the machinery of the Act it is only the House of origination which can order the new inquiry, but the obvious intention of the Act was that, the question should be decided ministerially as to which House
1150
should be the House of origination. The difficulty in which we are placed is the same as that in which we were placed last year. Last year, in the case of another Order, a decision was given which it became perfectly patent was contrary to -justice, and under pressure from this House a compromise was arrived at between the parties. The suggestion I make now is that this debate should be adjourned for the purpose of seeing whether some compromise in the matter cannot still be arranged. The parties on both sides must know the merits and where the truth between them lies. Here we cannot judge upon ex parie statements from one side or the other, made in however good faith The only manner in which these things can be tested is on oath before a Committee upstairs. That we are precluded from in this case.
I suggest to the Government that if they do not take more care and sometimes give this House an opportunity of judging whether there should be a rehearing or not, they will break down the whole system which was brought into force under the Private Bill Procedure Act. The idea of that Act was that there should be a re-hearing when it was demanded by either party, but under the obligation that if they failed the second time they should be cast in costs. That would have been a salutary rule, but it was not the shape in which the Bill passed. The Act was passed under the presumption that the Scottish Office would act ministerially in the matter, and hold the balance fairly between both parties. I have watched the procedure for the last two or three years, and I have observed that in every case at least where opposition or a demand for a further hearing is expected, and where a municipal authority has been a party to a Bill, that Bill has originated in the other House of Parliament; and on one occasion, although the question that was involved touched a somewhat obscure municipality in Lanarkshire, circulars were sent by municipal bodies all over England to their representatives begging them to vote in a particular way. If that is to go on it will destroy the procedure under that Act, because it will destroy confidence in it, and the larger matters which have hitherto been conducted under these inquiries will not be

1151
sent to them. Parties will object to very large interests being decided on the casting vote of a Chairman, however able, without there being an opportunity of appeal. I venture most respectfully to suggest that we had better adjourn this discussion for two or three days in the hope of some adjustment being arrived at. I see an Amendment on the Paper in the name of Lord Plymouth to leave out Clause 4. I do not know whether that is a matter of compromise or arrangement. But I venture to suggest, however well intentioned we may be sitting in the Whole House, we shall run great risk of doing injustice to one side or the other unless we give further opportunity for conference and compromise.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF ELGIN): My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that it is most desirable not to discuss the merits on a point of this kind, and I have no intention of doing so. But with regard to the question of the casting vote of the Chairman, the noble Lord, with his greater knowledge of the matter, will perfectly well remember that that is a provision of the Act itself, and no doubt was introduced, necessarily introduced, in consequence of the Commission consisting only of four members. I should imagine that the casting vote of the Chairman was not expected to be used very frequently, and certainly not frequently in such a case as this; but I think it must be acknowledged that in exercising it the Chairman of this Commission only performed what was his duty, and therefore that the decision of the Commission, so far as it depended on the casting vote of the Chairman, must be held to have been a valid and effectual decision. I do not say that it is the most satisfactory way of arriving at a conclusion, and I am confirmed in that by the remark which was made by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and who said distinctly that if he had been Chairman the decision would have been the other way. I do not think that indicates a very satisfactory state of matters.

I wish to say a word with regard to the remarks of my noble friend as to the House of origination. That is a matter of arrangement, no
1152
doubt, but I hope he will disabuse his mind of any impression that there has: been any desire on the part of my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland to introduce the Bill in any other way than that which was most convenient for: discussion. It is obvious that, being on the authority of the Minister, it is most desirable that the Bill should be introduced as a rule in the House in which that Minister sits; but I have the authority of my right hon. friend for saying that he quite recognises that Bills ought also to be introduced into this House, and that if there is a desire that that should be done more frequently he is perfectly willing to take that into account.
After all, there have only been, before this Bill, I think, four other Bills in which this question has arisen, and of those one was introduced in this House during the time my noble friend was Secretary for Scotland. I only mention that to show that not very many cases have originated altogether, and, although the majority have originated in the other House, I do not think there is any justification for an assertion that there is any disposition to override the convenience or wishes of your Lordships' House. With regard to the suggestion which my noble friend made, we are quite ready, if the House desires it, to adjourn this discussion for further conference. I do not think that we can undertake to set up a Committee.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: You cannot.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: But if my noble friend wishes the debate adjourned for futher conference we will not object.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, there is another question connected with this Bill on which I should like to say a word. This is a private Bill, but it proceeds to override several public Acts. The exemptions in respect of the Leith Docks were given by the Act of 1870, and by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Acts of 1893 and 1895. Your Lordships have always held that it is extremely undesirable in a private Bill to override the provisions of public Acts. I had the opportunity of bringing this very point before your Lordships in the case of the

1153
South Eastern Railway and some of the other railways in the borough of Woolwich. It was proposed in a private Bill to take away from them exemptions which had been given in public Acts, and when the matter came before this House your Lordships agreed that this was undesirable and struck out the clause on the ground that a private Bill ought not to interfere with a public Act. It appears to me that this is a case on the same footing. I can quite understand that it may be inconvenient to adopt the Amendment of Lord Saltoun and. Throw out the Bill on Third Reading; but I think there is strong reason why your Lordships should be consistent and do in respect of this Bill what you did in regard to the Woolwich Bill—namely, after Third Reading accept the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Front Opposition Bench and delete the clause which repeals the existing exemptions of the Dock Commissioners from assessments.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I understand the proposal to be that this debate should be adjourned in the hope that some arrangement may be come to between the parties. The noble Lord may have better information on the subject than I have, but I understand that negotiations have taken place, but that so far they have not shown any sign of fruition. I shall not oppose the adjournment of the debate if your Lordships think fit that that course should be adopted, but I would point out that there are really two questions involved. The first is whether these Dock Commissioners should be exempted from local rates. You cannot possibly decide that question without referring the matter to a Committee, and this you are precluded from doing in this case owing to circumstances which have been explained. If your Lordships were to decide either to throw out this Bill or to adopt the Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Plymouth, I think you could only do so upon the ground that in your opinion a re-hearing of the case ought to be had. That re-hearing cannot take place under existing circumstances, because the House in which the Bill originated has decided that it will not refer the Bill to a Joint Committee. I greatly deplore the fact that a re-hearing cannot be had in this ease. I do not
1154
base that on the fact that the decision was arrived at by the casting vote of the Chairman, because that has been fully provided for in the Scottish Private Bill Procedure Act. No doubt under many circumstances it would be right; but in this particular case there has been a battle going on for something like twenty years, and an appeal has been made to Parliament four times without success. On the fifth occasion when it is made, the point is decided only on the casting vote of the Chairman. Upon the merits of this case I say nothing, but I maintain that it is a misfortune that when a case of this kind, which has been protracted over many years, is decided in this way, there should be no means— and there are no means—available to your Lordships to have a re-hearing. I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Motion of Lord Saltoun, and I think you could only adopt the Amendment of Lord Plymouth upon the broad and general grounds that it was desirable to have a re-hearing, and not because you wished to pronounce any opinion on the merits of the Bill.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, there is a provision in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, which entirely meets my noble friend Lord Avebury's contention. In Section 373 of that Act the words appear—
"Unless and until such exemption is repealed by Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament."
So that the course which is taken now is exactly the one which was contemplated by the Act of 1892. I hope this Bill will be allowed to pass in its present form. I, too, do not wish to go into the details of the Bill, but I think a good general principle is that bodies and corporations such as the Leith Dock Commissioners should pay their fair share of the rates of the district in which they are. But in this particular instance the ease is a very peculiar one locally. From the time of the establishment of this corporation in 1867 up to the year 1905 —that is, for thirty-eight years—the dock corporation paid the public health rate regularly every year, and it was not until there was a decision given in a case at Greenock in 1905, that the dock commissioners ceased to pay this contribution to the public health rates; and in

1155
these two years they have escaped a payment of some £4,000. In the Bill it is proposed to leave that exemption open up to the year 1908, so that at any rate for three years the Leith Docks Corporation will be exempted from paying what I think really ought to fall on such a body as that. If this Bill is not passed in its present form I suppose it will drop altogether. I hope your Lordships will not support the Motion of Lord Saltoun, and on behalf of the Government we shall be glad to consent to a short adjournment in the hope that an arrangement may be come to. But I press on the House that if an arrangement has not been come to when the adjourned debate is resumed the Bill should be passed in its present form.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, having an Amendment at a later stage on the Paper I should like to say that I do not wish to stand in the way of the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Balfour that the debate should be adjourned. But my information coincides with that of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, who informed your Lordships that various attempts had been made at a compromise with very little result. Whether after the close of this debate the conditions may have altered to a certain extent, and there may be a possibility of a compromise I do not know, but for my part I certainly should not stand in the way of the suggested adjournment in the hope that some compromise may be arrived at.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House. I suggested the adjournment because I thought it would be much better that there should be a renewed conference rather than that we should impose on either party a settlement on our own authority. I suggest an adjournment, say, till Monday, in the hope of arriving at a settlement which might bring peace.
Moved, "That the debate be adjourned." —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I gladly agree to Lord Balfour's Motion in the hope that in the meantime some agreement may be come to.
VISCOUNT HILL: My Lords, I should like to intervene for one moment in view of what has been said by the Lord Chairman and Lord Plymouth in reference to the likelihood of a settlement being come to after this debate. From information which was given to me on entering the House, I am afraid that is entirely out of the question. The offer has been made that if Clause 4 did not come into force for ten years they might agree to a compromise, but not otherwise. Therefore, I do not think an adjournment will be of any advantage.
On Question, debate adjourned to Wednesday next.

BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
Petition to be heard by counsel against; of Manchester Wholesale Provision Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
Petition for alteration of; of the mayor, aldermen and councillors of the metropolitan borough of Wandsworth; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
IRELAND (EVICTED TENANTS).
Return respecting. Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of 24th July last), and to be printed. (No. 146.)

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
No. 3880. Corea.
No. 3881. China (Ichang).
No. 3882. China (Amoy).
No. 3883. Tunis.
No. 3884. Colombia (Barranquilla and Cartagena).
No. 3885. Persia (Arabistan).
No. 3886. France (Cochin-China).
No. 3887. Netherlands (Dutch Guiana).

MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
No. 663. State encouragement to Industry in Hungary.
QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK
Annual Report of the President for the Session 1906–1907.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Thirty-fifth Annual Report, for the year 1905–1906.
1. Supplement containing the report of the medical officer.
2. Supplement in continuation of the report of the medical officer on sanatoria for consumption and certain other aspects of the tuberculosis question.

IRISH LAND ACT, 1903 (EVICTED TENANTS).
Memorandum, dated 10th May, 1906, issued by the Estates Commissioners for guidance of assistant inspectors when making inquiries with reference to applications received from persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants, or as the representatives of evicted tenants.
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

EVIDENCE (COLONIAL STATUTES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons. Read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next: [The Lord Elgin (E. Elgin and Kincardine)]. (No. 147.)

VACCINATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.] [SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Heading read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the objects of this Bill are two-fold—first of all, to introduce into Scotland the provisions of the English Vaccination Act, 1898, as regards conscientious objection; and, secondly, to incorporate the principles of the English Bill of this year which substitutes a statutory declaration for appearance before a magistrate. As regards the first of these points, I do not think there can be any doubt that the difference between the law of the two countries which at present exists constitutes a very grave anomaly; and, as an instance of how great that difference is, I would ask your Lordships to imagine the case of two neighbours on the border of Scotland and England, one living on each side of the border, both," we will say, with a recent addition to their family, and each with a conscientious objection to vaccination. What would happen if they did
1158
not wish to have the children vaccinated? The man living on the English side of the border could go before a magistrate, and if he was able to convince him that he conscientiously believed that such a course would be injurious to his child's health he could obtain relief; but the man living on the Scottish side of the border could obtain no such relief. If he did not have his child vaccinated he would be liable to prosecution, and to a fine or imprisonment, possibly for ten days. I think it would be very hard to persuade my Scottish friend that the law dealt fairly as between him and his neighbour.
I know that your Lordships do not as a rule like to be asked to legislate differently for the two countries, though it has occasionally been my duty to ask you to do so, sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully. I am glad that to-day I am not likely to be told, as I was told the other day, that I am asking the House to stultify itself, for here we have a Bill which seeks to extend to Scotland a principle which was applied to England nine years ago by noble Lords opposite when they were in office. It does not seem very much to ask that the principle should now be extended to Scotland. If it was just nine years ago in the case of England, it must be equally just to-day in the case of Scotland; and I must submit that it is an instalment of justice which is now considerably overdue. I do not wish to waste the time of the House by arguing so self-evident a proposition, and indeed it is not easy to see on what grounds it can be opposed.
I have made inquiries as to what are the grounds on which the opponents of this Bill rely, and so far I have only been able to find one. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who is to move the rejection of the Bill will supply us with others. But the only one which I have been able to find is that it is said that there has not been the same agitation in Scotland against compulsory vaccination as there had been in England when Mr. Chaplin's Bill was passed. I am sure that is not a ground which will appeal to your Lordships. I remember that not very long ago it was urged by a noble and learned Lord who sits on the other side of the House, but whom I do not see in his place at the moment, as a reason for rejecting the Qualification of Women

1159
(County and Borough Councils) Bill that such a course would be considered to be a concession to the riotous and noisy behaviour of certain women in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament and elsewhere. I am glad to say your Lord ships did not endorse that view. But surely it would indeed be putting a premium on that form of political agitation if your Lordships were to say that you would not pass a Bill because its supporters had carried on their campaign in a quiet and orderly manner.
The number of those in Scotland who object to compulsory vaccination may not be so great as the number holding the same view in England, but their grievance is just as real and their claim to have it redressed just as strong. I think this grievance must have been recognised by the noble Lord opposite and his predecessor at the Scottish Office, for under their beneficent rule a system of administering the vaccination law was instituted which has been continued ever since. Under that system, when once a conviction has been obtained against a man for non-compliance with the Vaccination Act the majesty of the law is considered to have been vindicated, and he is not again prosecuted either in respect of that child or in respect of any other child whom he may refuse to have vaccinated. This relaxation, while it redeems the administration of the vaccination law from any suspicion of persecution, is at the same time, I think, a tacit admission that the law as it stands is a harsh one. and I think it constitutes a fair ground for asking that it shall be altered. Further, in spite of the almost illegal leniency with which parish councils have been allowed to administer the vaccination law in Scotland, the number of prosecutions has increased more or less steadily during the last ten years. I admit that even now the number is not very large. I will give your Lordships the figures. In 1896 there were thirty-two prosecutions, while in 1905 there were ninety-one. That figure, I admit, was an exceptionally high one, for in the preceding year the number was fifty-four, and for the year before that sixty-five, while the number last year was sixty-four; so that it may be fairly said that the prosecutions have doubled during the last ten years.
1160
I have explained the first of the objects of this Bill. The second object is the incorporation of the principle contained in the English Bill of this year. In this case I am afraid I cannot rely upon precedent, because though that Bill has been introduced in this House and is down for Second Reading this afternoon, it has not yet been discussed by your Lordships, and I do not know what view you take of it. I do not wish to trespass on the preserves of my noble friend Lord Allendale, who I believe is to move the Second Reading of that Bill, and I do not wish to detain your Lordships upon a matter which you will shortly hear presented to you much more ably by my noble friend. But it is necessary that I should say shortly what that principle is as it is included in this Bill. Perhaps the simplest way to explain the matter would be to remind your Lordships of what has been done in England. The conscientious - objector clause of the English Act of 1898 provides that no parent or other person shall be liable to any penalty under Sections 29 or 31 of the Act of 1867 if within four months of the birth of the child he satisfies two magistrates, or a stipendiary or metropolitan police magistrate, in petty sessions, that he conscientiously believes that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child. The English Bill of this year provides that, instead of having to go before the magistrate and satisfy him that he has this conscientious objection, the person objecting may make a statutory declaration to that effect.
This declaration has to be made in accordance with the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835. Section 18 of that Act provides that a voluntary declaration may be made before a justice of the peace, notary public, or other officer of the law authorised to adminster an oath, so that it will no longer be necessary, if that law is passed, for a conscientious objector to go before a magistrate. But if he does elect to go before a magistrate he will go like any other member of the public who wishes to make a voluntary statutory declaration, and not as a prisoner who, in order to escape punishment, has to persuade the magistrate of what is passing in his (the prisoner's) mind—a feat which I would submit to the House is a practical impossibility unless the magistrate chooses

1161
to lend himself to the farce. That principle of statutory declaration is here embodied, so that it will be seen that what this Bill proposes to do is to take at one stride the step which was taken in England in 1898, and the one which it is proposed to take this year. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise, in pursuance of the notice which I have given, to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months. The speech to which we have just listened has not disappointed me in one respect, because I fully anticipated that the noble Lord and those who advise him would put most of their case upon the supposed analogy between England and Scotland, and would argue that because you have done a certain thing under certain circumstances in England therefore you are in duty bound to do the same thing for Scotland. The noble Lord at one period of his speech went so far as to characterise that as a self-evident proposition. It will be part of my case to-day to show, not only that it is not a self-evident proposition, but that there is not the slightest iota of foundation, in fact, for the suggestion that there is the smallest vestige of analogy between the circumstances of England and the circumstances as they exist in Scotland.
The second part of my case will be that there is no demand of any sort or kind for this particular proposition so far as the circumstances of Scotland are concerned, and I shall also, with the indulgence of the House, say a few words in criticism of the action of the Government as to the time and the method which they have chosen to bring forward this extraordinary proposition. I say that there is no analogy between the circumstances of England and those of Scotland. The law is different; the administration has been different; the results have been different; and the difficulties which have to be encountered have never been the same. It is perfectly true that discontent with the administration of the English Vaccination Acts culminated in a considerable agitation after the appointment, and, indeed, I think, after the Report of the Royal
1162
Commission, and under the circumstances as they then existed the Government of which I was a member passed the Act of 1898 to which allusion has been made. But the Government and those who advised them did not pass that Act because they liked it; they passed it because circumstances as they existed rendered it not only necessary, but wise and judicious.
So great was the discontent in England against compulsory vaccination at the time that large and important local authorities were practically in revolt, and you could not procure the due administration of the law, and in some parts of the country—I remember the circumstances well—something like 60 or 65 percent. of the children were all that were being vaccinated under the existing law. As a matter of fact you could not enforce the compulsory system, and accordingly, with the consent of both sides in Parliament, vaccination in England was made voluntary. But there never has been anything analogous to those circumstances in Scotland. I appeal in this instance to the Report of the Royal Commission, which was presided over by Lord Herschell, whose judicial capacity is acknowledged by both sides, and I venture to say that a more broad-minded individual never sat in this House, and anything to which he appended his name is entitled to the most serious consideration. The Royal Commission pointed out that the law of vaccination in Scotland was comprised in one statute and one statute only—that of 1863. That statute provided for the appointment of public vaccinators for the exercise of their function in accordance with the regulations to be issued from time to time by the Local Government Board. By Section 8 the duty was imposed upon all parents to have their children vaccinated by a regular medical practitioner within six months of the birth. As a matter of fact the English Acts provided for three months and not for six months, and a great deal of the evil that arose in England is attributed, in my opinion rightly, by the Commissioners to that difference in the law—a difference which has now been removed.
But paragraph 126 of the Report says that both the statute law and the method of administration differ widely. One difference is that a public authority can

1163
pay a private practitioner for vaccinating the children of those on whom he is in attendance. The great majority of vaccinations in Scotland are, in consequence, performed by private medical practitioners, and when the parish council issue an order to vaccinate a defaulter very many of them are now vaccinated in consequence of these notices. The Commissioners go on to say—
"The distinct feature of the Scottish system is that the operation is carried out in almost all cases at the home of the person concerned."
As I am anxious to establish this point, not on my authority, but on the authority of the Commission, I will venture to quote verbatim two short paragraphs from the Commissioners' Report. Paragraph 518 is in these words—
"The Scottish vaccination law and its method of procedure discriminates in a manner unknown in this country between the cases in which the failure to procure vaccination was due to hostility to the practice on the part of the parent and those which resulted from neglect and indifference."
In paragraph 524 they say—
"The aim of the Commission and their desire is to preclude the attempt to compel those who are honestly opposed to the practice to submit their children to vaccination, and, at the same time, leave the law to operate, as at present, to prevent children remaining un-vaccinated owing to the neglect or indifference of the parents."
Those are true and weighty words, but that is the real distinction which you want to establish—the real distinction which every statesman desires to establish, and which I venture to suggest is better now ascertained by the Scottish practice as it exists than by the English practice as it was before or as it has been amended.
I will very briefly explain the actual state of the law in Scotland. The ruling sections are Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1863. Your Lordships will remember that there is the obligation to have children vaccinated before they are six months old. Section 17 of the Act lays the obligation upon the parent or custodian of the child to transmit within a certain time a certificate to the registrar, either of vaccination or of "unsusceptibility" to vaccination, or a medical certificate asking for the postponement of the process. If that certificate is not presented to the registrar within a certain time he sends a notice to the parent—not
1164
to the public authority but to the parent —and if the parent disobeys that notice he is liable to a small monetary penalty, not for not having the child vaccinated but for not having sent the particular notice to the registrar. If after six months the child is still not vaccinated the registrar reports the matter to the parish council. The parish council communicates with the parent and sends the public vaccinator to offer to vaccinate the child, and if that offer is refused the parish council may proceed, and ought to proceed, to prosecution. That is the system in Scotland.
Your Lordships will observe that there are two stages and two distinct notices, one demanding the certificate of vaccination or a reason for the operation's not being performed, and the second, after a lapse of six months, to prosecute. The result was that up to the time I left the Scottish Office, for a series of years 97 percent. of the children in Scotland who lived six months after their birth had been successfully vaccinated, the 3 per cent. unvaccinated including all the children lost sight of and those who were "unsusceptible" to vaccination. Through the agency of the parish councils we succeeded in vaccinating 97 percent., and during the whole of that time the agitation was going on in England, and everything was being done that could be done to stir up opposition to the law in Scotland; yet during the whole of the eight years that I had to do with the matter not a single local authority in Scotland refused to perform its duty.
Let us just see under what amount of pressure 97 percent. of the children were vaccinated. In 1903 there was 12,081 defaulters under the first of those sections I have indicated; in 1904 there were 12,200; in 1905, 12,660; and in 1906, 12,488. By the first of those two processes the public authorities succeeded in the first year in getting 7,300 vaccinated; in the second year, 7,350; in the third year, 6,900; and in the fourth year, 7,200; and that with an infinitesimal number of prosecutions. In 1904 there were altogether at both stages seventy-three prosecutions and sixty-eight convictions; in 1905, 104 prosecutions and eighty-three convictions; and in 1906, 109 prosecutions and 105 convictions. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill tried to make

1165
a point of the increasing number of prosecutions, but they are not increasing much more than in the ratio of the population; and surely if these really remarkable results are obtained by prosecuting on an average rather less than 100 people a year, it is not worth while making any change in the law.
The agitation, such as it is, against the law is concentrated in one or two places, and over the whole of Scotland I have never seen the slightest sign of discontent. The law has the support of the public, it is administered by local authorities which are popularly elected, and, so far as I can ascertain, the whole thing is working with perfect smoothness. I agree entirely with the statement in the Report of the Commission, The object which any one ought to have in view in this matter is, as the Commissioners say, to distinguish between honest opposition and mere carelessness and neglect. I desire to speak with respect and courtesy of those who do not believe in vaccination, though I am bound to say I do not think much of their intelligence or their power of weighing evidence. But that is not the question. There are a certain minority of people who are honestly opposed to the process. They say that vaccination is an interference with freedom, but so is almost every operation of government. It is an interference with the freedom of the Quaker to make him compulsorily subscribe to the payment of the military forces of the Crown, but we do not take note of his conscientious objection in the matter.
The very people who are most loud in condemnation of this interference with the freedom of the subject in the matter of vaccination are often those who are anxious to interfere with the freedom of adult people to get a glass of beer or a glass of something else if they want it. Therefore, to say that this is an untoward or wrong interference with the liberty of the subject is not an argument which will bear investigation. I venture to suggest that the true doctrine is, that in a matter of this kind it is important that the community should have the power to protect itself against one of the most malignant and loathsome diseases to which our poor flesh may fall a victim, and I say that if by the provisions of this Bill you weaken the security of the community or the possibility of its protect-
1166
ing itself you will do one of the worst things this House has ever been asked to do. I am willing to give every consideration to the conscientious objector, but I want to make sure that he is a conscientious objector, and not neglectful or a humbug.
The noble Lord was not correct in saying that I was responsible for the present system. I continued what was originated under the guidance of Sir George Trevelyan and Lord Lothian. It is perfectly true however, that for a long period of years it has been the consistent practice of the Local Government Board for Scotland to put every pressure they could on local authorities not to undertake second prosecutions, not to press for imprisonment in default of payment of fine, and so on. I venture to say that, after all, the best test of real sincerity is to take a man quietly and gently to the police court and fine him 2s. 6d., 5s. or 10s. as the case may be. I will not say it myself, but I am sure that some Englishmen who follow me in the debate will say that perhaps that monetary test is more likely to appeal to the Scottish conscience than anything else. I will accept the gibe in perfect good humour, and if the Scottish nature is such that it is more amenable to a fine of 2s. 6d. then I say let us take advantage of that and continue the good work which has been carried on.
It is nonsense to speak, as some agitators do speak, about a man being treated as a common criminal if he is summoned before a police magistrate. Any of us are liable to be summoned to a police court and ordered to pay a fine of 2s. 6d. or a similar sum for allowing a chimney to be on fire. I do not see that there is a vestige of moral disgrace in being taken to a police court and fined 2s. 6d. on an occasion of this kind, but I do say it is wrong to imprison a man for conscience sake. During the eight years of my administration of the Scottish Office there was not a single case of imprisonment for a breach of the vaccination laws; at any rate, I can honestly say that none was brought to my notice. I am afraid, however, that it is true that there recently has been one. A newspaper extract was sent to me a day or two ago recording the fact that a man in a humble rank of life had been sentenced to ten days imprisonment for not having

1167
his child vaccinated. I know nothing more than the bare fact; but I say-that for myself I cannot imagine a more regrettable circumstance. I cannot imagine anything which is more likely to stimulate agitation against the administration of the vaccination laws, and I believe there must have been some special circumstances, the whole facts of which we do not know.
I cannot conceal from myself that the real object of many of those who are getting up this agitation arises not so much from the fact that they themselves are conscientious objectors as that they desire to see vaccination abolished altogether. That fact was strikingly brought out in a speech which was made by one of a deputation which I received in April, 1903, on this subject of vaccination. The leading speaker at that deputation was the hon. secretary of the Anti-Vaccination League, and some kind friend had sent me beforehand some extracts from a speech which he had made on the subject. I found that the hon. secretary of this League had said—
"Perhaps I should not conclude without a parting remark with reference to the special grievance under which we labour in Scotland— the want of the conscience clause. Such a clause is a very fine thing to cry; the want of it is a glaring injustice, and we are justified in bitterly complaining on account of our treatment by Parliament. But, speaking for myself, I think the conscience clause is an insult."
He went on to say—
"All the same we want a conscience clause for Scotland: but, more than that, we want the repeal of the Vaccination Acts for the whole of England, Scotland, and Ireland."
Here you have the truth. You are asked for what they call an insult, but it is admitted that they want the repeal of the Vaccination Acts.
I pass to the third point I wish to press on the House. I have endeavoured to prove that there is no analogy between the circumstances of England and of Scotland. There is no agitation in Scotland against the Vaccination Acts. They are being administered with perfect success and with the practical consent of the whole population. There is no demand either on the part of the public or the parish councils for this proposal, and there has been, so far as I know, no public debate on the subject. I have not seen a single resolution passed by a public body in Scotland asking for this
1168
measure, and I do not believe the noble Lord and his advisers can produce a jot of expert opinion, either legal, official, or medical, in favour of this proposal. I have no right to ask what are the opinions of the officials of the Local Government Board, but I know what their views were when I was at the Scottish Office; and I venture to say that the noble Lord and his advisers are not dealing fairly with the House if they keep back from us what I am confident is the fact, that the skilled administrators of the law, the medical experts of the Local Government Board, are practically unanimous against this proposal.
But I do not think that either this House or the public in Scotland are being quite fairly treated in this matter. Why has this Bill been delayed till the 1st of August? During the debate on the Address the question of the administration of the English Acts was raised, and in that discussion one or two Scottish Members took part. One Member spoke against the administration of the Act and demanded a conscience clause for Scotland, while another — a supporter of His Majesty's Government—spoke on the other side, and the Secretary for Scotland before the conclusion of the debate promised to consider the matter. He has been considering it from February until the end of July. I venture to say that if there is any pressing demand for this alteration in the law it ought to have been tabled in such a form that Scotland could have expressed its opinion at an earlier period of the session. The procedure of the Government has been such as to prevent our even testing the question as to whether there is any demand, and if we to-night reject the Bill, with the certainty that it will be brought up again, we shall be doing a wiser thing than if we pass it. The principle of vaccination is to protect every one, and to make vaccination optional would strike at the very foundation of the safeguard. If your Lordships believe in vaccination and that it has proved a safeguard to the people of Scotland, as I certainly do, then it is your duty to reject this Bill. I repeat that the Government have not treated your Lordships nor the people of Scotland fairly in bringing forward this measure, which has not yet been to the

1169
other House, in August, and at a time when the people of Scotland, whom your Lordships might wish to consult upon it, are away on their holidays. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out the word ' now,' and to add at the end of the Motion the words ' this day three months.'"— (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, my withers are certainly unwrung by having to speak a word or two on this Bill, and they will not be many; for I must confess to agreeing very much with the view of the noble Lord who has just sat down as to the folly of people who neglect the vaccination of their children. But the speech that my noble friend has just delivered was not a speech in opposition to this particular little Bill, but really a speech in favour of the repeal of the Act of 1898 passed by the Government of which the noble Lord was himself a member. The noble Lord says there is no analogy between England and Scotland. It is perfectly true that the inhabitants of Scotland have objected much less than those of England to compulsory vaccination; but it seems to me to be a hard thing that a man holding that view and able to obtain exemption in England should not be able to do so if he happens to reside in Scotland.
My noble friend says that there has been no demand for this legislation. That is not the information that comes to the Scottish Office. There have been considerable representations that men—a small number, I admit—do feel the present state of affairs in Scotland to be an injustice. My noble friend himself laid down what was the proper course to take in regard to these people in the year 1903, in the answer he gave to a deputation from the Anti-Vaccination League. Speaking on that occasion my noble friend said—
"He regarded the enforcement of a penalty in such a way as was done in Scotland as a perfectly fair, and, as he thought, the best, test of the sincerity of the conscientious objector. He would not be in favour of long sentences or of forcing people who had stood the test to a further prosecution."
Is not that a curious alternative? Here you are to have the power of punishing,
1170
even by imprisonment, a man who objects to have his child vaccinated, and yet when he repeats the offence the noble Lord himself says it would be a monstrous thing to press him further. Is not that a ridiculous state of things to which to subject people with conscientious objections? This is, after all, a small matter. I do not think the Bill will be greatly made use of in Scotland,' but if there are a few people in that country who have conscientious objections they ought to have the same advantages as are enjoyed by the inhabitants of England.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN:My Lords, I only desire to trouble your Lordships with one or two remarks with regard to this Bill. My noble friend did not give any answer to Lord Balfour as to why this Bill has been introduced so late as the 1st of August. Complaint has been made very frequently in your Lordships' House of the treatment of this House with reference to the introduction of Bills, and I think this is the most flagrant case I ever remember. This Bill might perfectly well have been introduced in the month of March. Has the Secretary for Scotland considered the matter? The noble Lord indicates that he has. At what period did he arrive at his final decision? At all events, he has arrived at that decision at a moment when it is impossible to obtain the opinions of those in Scotland upon it. If the measure had been introduced in March, or April, or May, at a time when it could have been submitted to the local authorities, then we should have known what Scottish opinion was; but at this moment it is impossible to arrive at what public opinion is on this matter.
The noble Lord who introduced the Bill did not say on what the Bill was founded, but the First Lord of the Admiralty told us that the Secretary for Scotland had had representations made to him. Can we be told what those representations were, or whom they were made by, because at present we have no authority whatever to show on whose advice the Bill is' based? Will the Government go so far as to say that it is based on the advice of the Local Government Board? It certainly is not

1171
based on the advice of the parish councils or the district councils. That is absolutely certain; and so far as the public Press of Scotland is concerned, I have never seen any notice whatever taken of this particular subject. There is less excuse for the introduction of this Bill at this late period than any Bill I remember. No one can say that this is a political question and that that was the reason why it was not dealt with earlier. It is a question of administration such as your Lordships are particularly able to express an opinion about, and such as certainly ought to be submitted to public opinion in Scotland.
With regard to the merits of the Bill, if there really are a large number of people who wish their children to be candidates for small-pox I do not know why this House should particularly object, provided always that they do not place other people in danger. But at the present time we have no proof at all that there is any public desire for this Bill in Scotland. I do not know whether the noble Lord intends to push his Amendment as far as absolutely dividing the House, but certainly at the present time it seems to me that the Bill is entirely uncalled for, and I should like to ask on whose advice it is founded.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I will not trespass on your Lordships' attention for more than two or three minutes. I have always thought that Scotland was the Cinderella of the United Kingdom, for we never get more than a second or third place in legislation, and I am afraid that in crowded sessions the second or third place leaves very little opportunity for anything being effected. The objection that this Bill is brought in late might be effective if your Lordships had not plenty of leisure to-day for the purpose of deciding it. If your Lordships were unable to get through your work it would be a very different thing. There have been many expressions of dissatisfaction, very naturally, that work has not been brought to this House. Now here is a Bill introduced in this House, and it is objected to because it is brought in late.
1172
I am not one of those who presume to decide where doctors differ, and I have always submitted to the vaccination laws on the ground of authority; but what I understood the noble Lord to desire were two things—first, that there should be as much vaccination in Scotland as possible; and, secondly, that we should pay the greatest respect to the opinion of Lord Herschell and the Royal Commission. On the first point, I believe the Act of 1898 to have been successful in producing more vaccination in England. Therefore the same thing would not produce harm, but good, in Scotland. The noble Lord cannot have considered the recommendation of the Royal Commission, because they support the application of this provision to Scotland as well as to England. In Paragraph 524 the Commissioners say—
"After careful consideration and much study of the subject, we have arrived at the conclusion that it would conduce to increase vaccination if a scheme could be devised which would preclude the attempt (so often a vain one) to compel those who are honestly opposed to the practice to submit their children to vaccination, and, at the same time, leave the law to operate, as at present, to prevent children remaining unvaccinated owing to the neglect or indifference of the parents."
When vaccination was made optional there was more vaccination. The Royal Commissioners in the next paragraph say—
"We may give the following as examples of the methods which might be adopted. It might be provided that if a parent attended before the local authority and satisfied them that he entertained such an objection no proceedings should be taken against him;—
that is the law in England;
"Or, again, a statutory declaration to that effect before anyone now authorised to take such declaration, or some other specified official or officials, might be made a bar to proceedings."
That is exactly the proposal in this Bill. The next paragraph proceeds—
"It is in England that the point we have been. recently discussing is of most practical importance, but if our suggestion were adopted the change should, of course, be made in all parts of the United Kingdom."
After all, this is a proposal based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission and brought forward by the Government on the evidence that they have that dissatisfaction exists in Scotland, and in the belief that the Bill will lead to an increase of vaccination.
*Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon, but you cannot increase much beyond 97 per cent.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: You might get it almost universal. If the people of Scotland are led to believe that they are to be treated differently from the people of England, there will arise an unreasonable, irrational, and obstinate feeling against vaccination which does not now exist. I sincerely hope your Lordships will not inflict an injustice upon Scotland by rejecting the Bill.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has hardly done justice to the objection which has been raised by Lord Balfour and Lord Camperdown on the question of procedure. The objection, as I understood it, was not that your Lordships had not sufficient time to discuss this Bill. We have plenty of time. I wish we could expect as much time to discuss other Bills that will come up to us later. The objection was this, that a change, which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the First Lord of the Admiralty have stated as a change of importance in the vaccination law of Scotland, has been brought forward at an extremely late period of the session and that no time has been given to the people of Scotland to consider the Bill and express their opinion upon it. That is the grievance of which we complain, and it is a grievance which, if I may venture to say so, was not at all met by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I suppose we shall not get any explanation of the reason which this induced this delay.
I now come to the merits of the Bill. I should be the last to suggest that it was a self-evident proposition, as I think the noble Lord who introduced the: Bill suggested, that Scottish and English law should be identical on any conceivable subject. I believe that would be a proposition which would command almost universal dissent on both sides of the border. If vaccination was now really compulsory in Scotland, or if my noble friend Lord Balfour had suggested that he desired to make it so, then I think the
1174
objection to this Bill on the ground of procedure would be far stronger than it is under present circumstances. What are those circumstances? We have in England a procedure, recommended by the Royal Commission, under which in the great majority of petty sessions an applicant for a certificate of exemption merely has to declare his conscientious objection to the vaccination of his child, and practically without any further trouble he is granted a certificate. It is proposed that instead of that procedure in future there shall be a mere statutory declaration to that effect made before a magistrate or any person qualified to receive it, and, so far as I know, that proposed alteration in the law has not been met with any serious objection on the part of English representatives in another place. The English Bill is on your Lordships' Paper to-night, and I see no notice of any objection to it.
It is proposed to introduce a similar system into Scotland. My noble friend Lord Balfour admits that the present system in Scotland is something akin to a farce. Surely it is a farce to summon a man for one offence, to fine him, and possibly even imprison him for that offence, and then to let him go scot free in respect of all the rest of his children, as well as that particular child. My noble friend says that the result is that 97 per cent. of the children in Scotland are vaccinated. The reason that this large percentage of children are vaccinated is that there is a great and almost universal opinion in Scotland in favour of vaccination, and the change in the law that is now proposed will not do away with that opinion in the least. It will remain, and, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has suggested, it may be strengthened by this change. I believe it is clear that the change in the law in England, where there was great objection to compulsory vaccination, has had the effect of increasing vaccination.
My noble friend who has moved the rejection of this Bill has not stated that he is in favour of compulsory vaccination. On the contrary, he would object to repeated fines, and in all cases to imprisonment. He objects as strongly to imprisonment as any of your Lordships,

1175
and he regrets that there have been instances in Scotland where imprisonment has taken place. Further than that, my noble friend said a fine of 2s. 6d. or 10s. is a very small matter, and that Scotsmen, in spite of their traditional objection to the payment of money, do not very much object to it. I think we should consider these fines, small though they appear to us, in the light in which they may appear to the poorest of the community. Even a fine of 2s. 6d. may be felt to be a hardship by some person who knows that if he were in the same position in England he would be entitled to exemption. I am bound to say, differing as I do with the greatest regret from my noble friend, whose experience and knowledge of Scottish matters are infinitely greater than mine, and whose administration of Scottish affairs when he was entrusted with them was approved and praised by all, that having to vote on this Bill with regard to what are the merits of the case, I feel it impossible to go into the lobby with him against the Second Reading.
On Question, whether "now" shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

LEEDS (SOUTH PARADE CHAPEL) CHARITY BILL.
Moved, "That the House resolve itself into Committee."—(Lord Weardale.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before the House is put into Committee on this Bill I think it is right I should say one word, if only to express my obligation to the noble Lord opposite for having postponed this Order until to-night. I may just add one or two observations. The noble Lord when he brought this Bill to your Lordships' notice did not say why it was that he proceeded by way of public Bill rather than in the ordinary method of a scheme made by the Charity Commissioners and laid before this House to lie on the Table a certain number of days. But the reason appears the moment you read the Report of the Charity Commission. The reason is that this Bill—I refer
1176
especially to the Kingswood Bill—proposes to make an alteration, not merely" in the ordinary conditions under which the charity is administered, but actually in the code of doctrine which is allowed to be taught in connection with, the endowment. I think it right to call attention to this very interesting fact, that this religious denomination has come to Parliament in order to obtain the right to change the connection of a particular endowment with a particular code of doctrine. In other words, Parliament is being asked to sanction a change-in the doctrinal foundation of the trust deed on which this charity is administered. That is an important circumstance, and will form a very valuable precedent, as I venture to think, for future and larger questions which may be brought before your Lordships' House. It is interesting to find, when taunts are levelled against the Established Church; in matters affecting her endowments, that being established does not really affect the point, but that in this respect a Free Church is in principle no freer than is an Established Church. One and all, if they require to modify any conditions attaching to their endowments, must come before Parliament in order to effect it. That is the first and most important moral to be drawn from these Bills; but there is a second equally important, and it is this, that when a religious denomination belonging to one of the Free Churches does come to Parliament with this request, the demand is not met by obstruction, nor by question, nor by any attempt to limit the right of the denomination to approach Parliament in the matter; on the contrary, although the change in the matter of doctrine which is proposed is different not only in degree but in kind from any such question that has ever been mooted in the Established Church in my lifetime, yet no question is made as to their right to approach Parliament regarding it and to have so essential a particular in the trust deed modified. I believe your Lordships will accept without division the plea of this religious denomination to have its trust deed profoundly modified in its doctrinal adjunct merely because the denomination wish it. This is a very valuable precedent which I desire to place on record before the Bill passes.
Lord WEARDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord has very correctly interpreted the view of the Charity Commissioners, that these matters can only be dealt with by Act of Parliament, and it is because they can only be so dealt with that these Bills have been introduced. But I think it here is a distinction to be drawn between the action in this matter and actions that might be taken in regard to the Established Church. Upon that subject, however, I do not wish to enlarge this evening. I therefore merely move that the House mow go into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee;
Bill reported without Amendment Standing Committee negatived; Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

KINGSWOOD (WHITFIELD TABERNACLE SCHOOLROOM, ETC.) CHARITY BILL.
LONGTON (CAROLINE STREET CHAPEL) CHARITY BILL,
House in Committee (according to order); Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
[Second Reading.]
Order of the day for the Second Heading read.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE and FISHERIES (Earl Carrington): My Lords, this is a short Bill of twelve clauses, and I think it will commend itself to the House as it is designed to put a stop to fraud in the butter trade and to impose further regulations on the trade in margarine and other articles. In certain butter factories animal fat and oils are worked up in the manufacture of butter, and as there is no authority under the present law to inspect these factories we have no check on this adulteration. Under the first clause of the Bill power is taken to register factories and consignments, and by the second clause the factories are made open to inspection by the local authority as well as the Board of Agriculture.
1178
New regulations will also be applied to the article known as "milk-blended butter." This butter is not to be sold or described by any name which is connected with the dairy interest. By Section 8 of the Bill it is provided that milk-blended butter shall be dealt with under such name or names as may be approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and under the conditions applicable to the sale or description of margarine, with the substitution of an approved name for the word "margarine, and with this modification, that in any case where, in order to comply with those conditions, the article is delivered to the purchaser in a wrapper, there shall, in addition to the approved name, be printed on the wrapper in such manner as the Board approves such description of the article setting out the percentage of moisture or water contained therein as may be approved by the Board.
The penalties for offences are heavy. Any person guilty of an offence under the Bill is made liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts for a first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, for a second offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and for a third or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds; and, in cases where imprisonment can be inflicted under section seventeen of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, to such imprisonment as is by that section authorised. Margarine must be sold in wrappers with the word "Margarine" printed in plain letters upon it, and no fancy name suggesting dairy produce must be used. Provision is made in Clause 4 as to the limit of moisture in butter, margarine, and milk-blended butter, and by Clause 5 we propose to prohibit the importation of these articles. The Bill has been very carefully drawn and follows the recommendations of Sir Edward Strachey's Committee, which took considerable interest in this subject. The Bill is desired by a great portion of the population, and as there is very little that is contentious in it I hope your Lordships will be good enough to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Earl Carrington.)
*The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, the Butter Bill is a very old friend. It has been introduced in several sessions of Parliament. I myself was sponsor for it in 1905, and at that time it was somewhat strenuously opposed by some of the friends of the noble Earl in another place. The noble Earl is more fortunate than I was in having converted them to a better view of the matter. The Bill now before your Lordships differs in a material degree from that which I had the honour of submitting to Parliament, for our Bill proposed that what is called milk-blended butter should not be allowed to be sold at all. In this Bill the noble Earl proposes that it should continue to be sold, but under another name. It is said that milk-blended butter is a wholesome and nourishing article. No doubt it is. The water on the Table of your Lordships' House is a wholesome if not nourishing drink. But if you buy 16 ozs. of milk-blended butter on a Saturday night and keep it until Monday morning and find that during that time a portion of it has evaporated and that you have only 15 ozs. left, I think you will agree that it is a very bad bargain. The Committee have said that this is not in reality a cheap food, having regard to the amount of water contained in it. I venture to say that it is not a satisfactory condition of affairs that His Majesty's Government should propose to sanction what is undoubtedly a fraud upon the purchaser. However, I am not going to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, because I believe that even the Bill as it is is better than no Bill at all. But I would ask, what is the Board of Agriculture going to call this stuff?
I heard the other day a story in connection with a Committee of the House of Commons. The Committee did not know how to pronounce "margarine." They sent for one of the waiters in the refreshment department and asked, "Do you call this 'margarine' or 'marjarine'?" and the waiter replied, "We call it butter." I venture to think that, whatever name the Board of Agriculture give it, it will be called butter. I think it would have been much better if the sale of this article had been prohibited
1180
altogether. I recognise that since the time my Bill was introduced this milk-blended butter industry has assumed great proportions The profits are enormous, and friends of the noble Lord in the other House have not been able to stand up against the increased influence which those who sell this article have been able to bring to bear upon them. The Board of Agriculture should take the very greatest care in the choice of the name under which this stuff is to be sold in the future, and not allow each firm to have a different name. I would suggest that there should be one generic term for it, and then, perhaps, people may know that it is not the genuine article
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I hope that in dealing with this matter the Board of Agriculture will bear in mind that in trying to give a name or to impose a restriction in order to protect the genuine article a great deal of mischief may be inadvertently done. I have lately been reading some very interesting literature issued by the Tariff Reform Commission, and in one report there is a section dealing with agriculture, and it is pointed out that when the Margarine Bill was passing through Parliament a limitation was inserted, in the interests of British agriculturists, and to prevent this product bearing too-close a resemblance to butter, that it must not contain more than a certain percentage of butter material. If your Lordships will take the trouble to read the report of the Tariff Reform Commission you will find bitter lamentations. by agriculturists that in consequence of that limitation they were beaten out of the market by the Dutch, who circulated this clause as a warning to purchasers not to deal with the English as the English were bound to produce a vile article. I hope that in the selection of a name or the fixing of the percentage of water, whatever it is, it will be remembered that you may very easily make a provision which you may think for your advantage but which may turn out for your disadvantage.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

VACCINATION BILL.
[Second Reading.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
*Lord ALLENDALE: My Lords, this is a short, and, I venture to think, a very simple Bill, and after the discussion we have had on the Vaccination (Scotland) Bill I do not think I need detain i your Lordships long in moving the Second Reading. The objection which was raised to the Bill introduced for Scotland is not applicable to this Bill, for this Bill has passed through the House of Commons. It met with a very favourable reception there, and though there was a division on the Second Reading the Motion was carried by 122 to 14. The Bill does not in any way alter the law of vaccination as it stands, but simply effects an alteration in the legal method of obtaining an exemption from penalties for neglecting to have a child vaccinated. At present a parent has to satisfy—and this word seems to have been capable of a very wide interpretation—two justices or a stipendiary or Metropolitan police magistrate, in petty sessions, that he conscientiously believes that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child, and then within seven days deliver. to the vaccination officer a certificate of his conscientious objection. The Act of 1898 was passed by the last Conservative Government, who were evidently convinced that the conscientious objector had a grievance and that this was a case for legislation. The present Government take the law as they find it, and our object in this Bill is to endeavour to make it work more smoothly than it has done hitherto, complaints having been frequently made of the difficulties which conscientious objectors experience in obtaining exemptions under the existing law. It is said that in some cases applicants for these certificates have been treated by magistrates with contempt and insult, and in many cases exemption certificates have been refused altogether. In other cases the magistrates have refused to grant a certificate of exemption to the mother of the child if the father was alive and capable of making the application.
1182
Attention has been drawn to the want of uniformity in administering the Act on several occasions by the Home Office, especially by two separate Secretaries of State in memoranda—1904 to 1906— circulated on the subject referring to some remarks of the Lord Chief Justice at Birmingham in 1904. (I need not trouble your Lordships by reading them in full.) It is owing to the want of uniformity in administering the Act that this Bill has been brought in. The necessity of appearing at the police court has also been strongly objected to by persons desirous of obtaining these certificates, many of whom declare that they have been treated as quasi criminals. It is provided in this Bill that no parent or custodian of a child shall be liable to any penalty for the non-vaccination of the child if within four months of the child's birth he makes a statutory declaration that he conscientiously objects to vaccination and delivers it to the vaccination officer of the district. The form of declaration, which appears in the Schedule, is as follows—
"I, A.B., of in the pariah of in the county of being the parent [or person having the custody] of a child named CD., who was born on the day of 19, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I conscientiously believe that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child, and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835.
Dated this "day of 19.
Signed, A.B.
Declared before me, at on the day of
E. F. A Commissioner for Oaths (or Justice of the Peace, or other officer authorised to receive a statutory declaration.)
It will therefore be seen that the means of obtaining a declaration in the future will be greatly simplified. The declaration when made will be exempt from stamp duty, and the only expense to which the conscientous objector will be put will be the payment of Is. 6d. if the declaration is made before a commissioner of oaths or a sum varying from Is. to 2s. if made before a magistrate or justice. One objection that may be urged to this Bill is that it may make the way of the conscientious objector too easy. That

1183
argument was used against the Act of 1898, but so far that has not proved to be the case. I find from the official figures that the percentage of exemptions to the number of births has not varied but remained practically about the same, and I do not believe that the number of exemptions will be increased by making it possible for them to be obtained in a more convenient manner. I am not going to attempt to defend the Act of 1898 on any grounds of logic, but the objects sought to be obtained by this Bill are (1) to enable the conscientious objector (who is already recognised by that Act) to obtain an exemption certificate without friction and unnecessary trouble and (2) to do this j in such a. way as to exclude persons who have no such objection, but who merely wish to avoid the trouble of having their children vaccinated. No serious opposition has been offered to the measure in the House of Commons, and I confidently appeal to your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

COMPANIES (DEBENTURES AND DEBENTURE STOCK) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock, till to-morrow, Twelve o'clock.