Sitting of 19 December 1908

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of October, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUCK ACTS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Truck Acts. Vol. I., Report. Vol. II., Minutes of Evidence (Days 1–37). Vol. III., Minutes of Evidence (Days 38–66) and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Use of Circle Net in the Firth of Forth.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary
    for Scotland whether he can make any statement with regard to the inquiry respecting the use of the circle net in the upper reaches of the Firth of Forth; and when he expects to be able to publish the result of the inquiry.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The inquiry has not yet been concluded, but when it is concluded no time will be lost in reporting to the Fishery Board.

    Gillespie v. Riddell.
    MR. AINSWORTH: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now give any further information as to the steps the Government propose to take to deal with the position created by the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Gillespie v. Riddell.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Government are fully alive to the necessity for dealing with this question, but I am at present unable to give my hon. friend anything more than this general assurance.

    Scottish Minor Legal Appointments.
    MR. SUTHERLAND: To ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state when the Commission to deal with the question of minor legal appointments in Scotland is likely to be appointed.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) It is not possible to name a date, but the appointment of a committee of inquiry, which is under consideration, will be announced as soon as practicable.

    Assistant Inspectors of Postmen at Glasgow.
    MR. BARNES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to say when the positions of assistant inspectors of postmen at Glasgow, which have been performed by temporary substitutes since January, 1908, and authorised as part of the permanent establishment by the revision of staff dated May last, will be filled up, in accordance with his undertaking of the 18th of June that these vacancies should be filled up as early as possible.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Four of the posts referred to have been filled. I am not yet in a position to say when it will be possible to fill the remaining posts, as the re-arrangement of duties in connection with the revision has not been completed. I regret the delay that has occurred.

    Depositors in Post Office Savings Bank and Trustee Savings Banks.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will consider the desirableness of publishing in the Post Office Guide a list of the trustee savings banks in which depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank are not allowed to have accounts.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A depositor in the Post Office Savings Bank cannot legally open an account in his own interest in any trustee savings bank.

    Post Office Writers' Association.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that the members of the Post Office Writers' Association belong to the general class of sorters, he is aware that this association consists not only of sorters but of officers of the overseers', sorters', and telegraphists' classes, whose transfer to the clerical establishment was recommended in paragraph 107 of the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants; whether, when describing them as temporarily employed on writing duties, he was aware that many of these men have been so employed continously for periods varying from ten to twenty years; and

    2313
    whether he will explain in what circumstances he declines to put these men on the same footing as regards official recognition as postmen in London, seeing that he has already officially recognised two distinct organisations representing the latter body.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am aware of the constitution of the Post Office Writers' Association, and of the fact that many of the members have been employed on writing duties for considerable periods. The employment is, however, not permanent, and the officers may at any time be removed from the writing duties and be required to take up the ordinary duties of their class. There are considerable differences between this case and that of the London postmen. But, in so far as the latter is a precedent, it is not one which I should propose to follow in future.

    Petitions of Devonport Dockyard Workmen.
    MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state what reply is to be given to the petition of the workmen engaged in His Majesty's Dockyard at Devonport, asking that the order prohibiting them from leaving the dockyard during the interval allowed for the midday meal on Fridays should be withdrawn.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The matter is still under the consideration of the Admiralty.

    Registration of Newspapers—Postage Rates.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Postmaster-General what is the registration fee for a newspaper which enables it to be transmitted for a halfpenny instead of at book-post rates; how much revenue is obtained per annum from these registration fees; and whether he has any figures showing what is the heaviest newspaper that has been carried for a halfpenny, and what charge would have been made at the book-post rate.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The fee for the registration of a newspaper
    2314
    for transmission by the inland newspaper post is 5s. a year; and the amount of revenue derived from this source during the year ended 31st March, 1908, was £724. The heaviest newspaper recorded as having been carried for a halfpenny weighed just over 3 lb. 6 oz. The ordinary postage on this publication would have been 1s. 2d. by letter post, or 6d. by parcel post. My hon. friend is no doubt aware that the rate for newspapers is fixed by statute, and is not one over which the Postmaster-General has any control.

    Downpatrick Postage Arrangements.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received further representations as to the necessity for improving the postal arrangements at Downpatrick, County Down; and whether he can arrange to substitute a delivery at, say, three o'clock for one of the morning deliveries.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have received further representations on the question from the town commissioners, and am prepared to meet their wishes by substituting a delivery at 3 p.m. for the delivery now effected at 9.40 a.m.

    School Teachers and Temporary Post Office Work at Christmas.
    MR. HUDSON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state the number of school teachers who have applied to the Postmaster of Newcastle-on-Tyne for temporary work during the Christmas holiday recess; how many have been accepted for such work; what offers, if any, have been made to the genuine unemployed workpeople; and how many of them have been given work during the busy season in connection with the postal work in the city.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am making inquiry into the matter.

    Appointments to Central Telegraph Office and London Postal Service.
    MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Postmaster-General if he

    2315
    will give particulars of the number of appointments made to the establishments of the Central Telegraph Office and the London Postal Service, respectively, as the result of the open competitive examinations held in 1906, 1907,

    Year.

    Male Learners.

    Female Learners.

    Central Telegraph Office.

    London Postal Service.

    Central Telegraph Office.

    London Postal Service.

    1906

    20

    4

    26

    17

    1907

    12

    11

    47

    50

    1908

    40

    Nil

    102*

    21*

    * Exclusive of an aggregate of seventy-five appointments expected to be made from the competition of October last.

    The female vacancies bear a larger proportion to the total staff than the male vacancies because the average service of women before retirement is shorter.

    New Battleships—Great Britain, Germany and United States.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the total number of battleships

    Total number of Battleships

    Built.

    Building,

    Projected under programme of 1908.

    Great Britain

    54

    6

    1

    Germany

    36

    4

    3

    United States

    26

    4

    2

    and 1908, respectively, distinguishing in every case between male and female learners.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The numbers are as follows—
    built, building, and projected under the programmes for the year 1908 for Great Britain, Germany, and the United States, stating also the total for the two latter Powers under the headings of vessels less than eighteen years old from date of laying down, vessels less than thirteen years old, and vessels less than eight years old on 31st December, 1908.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.)

    Discharges of Joiners at Sheerness Dockyard.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state upon what principle experienced joiners are being discharged at Sheerness Dockyard under Vote 10 whilst other joiners not previously working for the dockyard have been engaged under Vote 8 for five months till 31st March 1908; whether he can see his way to give the preference to workmen with excellent characters in allotting this temporary work; and whether he can state the reason why out of eleven men under notice to leave only two carpenters and joiners were actually discharged.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Only joiners of experience who had previously served in the Yard under the Controller's Department, and been discharged on reduction, have been entered. No entries of joiners have been made subsequent to discharge from the Works Department. Preference has been given to workmen with excellent characters. Only two carpenters were given notice and these were discharged. Further anticipated discharges were avoided by approval of additional work.

    Rosyth Water Supply.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the arrangements for the water supply at Rosyth are now satisfactory.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The work which is being carried out by the local authority is not yet completed, but the Admiralty have every reason to believe that it will prove quite satisfactory.

    Unemployed Loan to Burnham-on-Crouch.
    MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is now prepared to grant the application of the urban district council of Burnham-on-Crouch for sanction for a loan of £550, with a view to carrying out a public improvement
    2318
    and affording work for the unemployed.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Central (Unemployed) Body for London have applied to me for a payment in aid of this work out of the Parliamentary grant. Having regard to all the circumstances I am disposed to consider the application favourably; but, before I can arrive at a final decision with regard to it and to the borrowing of money by the urban district council in respect of the works proposed, it is necessary that an inspector should visit the locality. This will be done at once.

    Distress Committee for Grays Thurrock.
    MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is now prepared to grant the application of the Grays Thurrock Urban District Council for sanction for the formation of a distress committee.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

    Luton and Dunstable Sewage Scheme.
    MR. P. BARLOW: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the rural district council of Luton, in Bedfordshire, entered into a contract with the borough council of Dunstable, involving a sewage scheme for the adjoining parish of Houghton Regis; that such contract was entered into without notice having been given to the Houghton Regis parish council, contrary to Section 16, subsection (3) of the Local Government Act, 1904; that a Local Government Board inquiry was held at Houghton Regis in September last, when a protest was lodged against such inquiry taking place until the scheme had been put before the parish council and the parish; and that, as a result, the parish council, in protest, retired from the inquiry; and whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to ignore the parish council's rights under the 1904 Act, and allow the scheme to proceed before the law has been complied with

    2319
    and the parish council has considered the scheme.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am not aware that the rural district council of Luton have entered into any contract for the execution of works of sewerage for the parish of Houghton Regis, of which under Section 16 (3) of the Local Government Act, 1894, prior notice is required to be given to the parish council. At the inquiry referred to it was stated by the clerk to the rural district council that notice to the parish council should be given at once, and, before giving my decision on the application, I will inquire whether notice to the parish council has been given as promised.

    Illicit Trawling off the Fifeshire Coast.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will take special steps to prevent illicit trawling within the three-mile limit off the coast of Fife during the months when the fishing operations are most active.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Fishery Board are taking all steps that are possible with the means at their disposal to prevent encroachments on the closed waters by trawlers off the Fifeshire coast.

    Cattle-Driving in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total number of cases of cattle-driving reported to the Inspector-General to 12th December, 1908, the number of distinct cases in which proceedings were instituted, and the number of persons proceeded against, distinguishing under the last-mentioned head between the different results of proceedings before magistrates and before juries, respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that the total number of cattle-drives up to the date mentioned,
    2320
    was 1,051. Proceedings were taken in 162 distinct cases against 1,582 persons. Of these 1,434 were proceeded against before magistrates, by whom 1,181 were ordered to find bail and 109 were discharged. In the case of 76 persons informations were refused, in the cases of 39 the charge was dropped, and 29 cases are still pending. The remaining 148 persons were proceeded against before juries, when 17 were convicted, and 27 were acquitted. In the cases of 102 defendants the jury disagreed, and in the cases of two others a nolle prosequi was entered.

    West Riding Education Authority and Mortomley Roman Catholic School.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: To ask the President of the Board of Education what are the statements denied by the local education authority of the West Riding as to the allegations made by the managers of the Mortomley Roman Catholic school.
    (Answered by Mr. Runcimam.) The Board are making inquiry into this matter. I will ask the noble Lord to permit me to communicate with him when the Board are in full possession of the facts.

    Status of School Attendance Officers.
    MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the views put forward to his predecessor by a deputation of school attendance officers, who urged that school attendance officers should be given a status directly responsible to the Board of Education; and whether he can state what action, if any, the Board proposes to take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Board have not overlooked the questions which were raised by a deputation of attendance officers to the Board on 25th July last; but, as was stated to the deputation by my predecessor, they are not able to hold out any hopes of legislation with a view to making attendance

    2321
    officers departmental servants of the Board of Education.

    Labourers' Cottages—Case of Hugh M'Cahery.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why Hugh M'Cahery's application for a cottage at the last labourers' inquiry in Enniskillen (No. 2) Rural District was refused; who is in possession of the lands on which the applicant desired to have the cottage built, and who was in possession at the date of the inquiry; were cottages granted to unmarried men; and, seeing that M'Cahery is a married man with a wife and family, will his case be further considered.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The cottage in question was disallowed by the Local Government Board inspector because the taking of the site selected would have interfered with the amenities of the grounds surrounding the residence of the occupier. The occupier of the lands proposed to be taken at the date of the inquiry was Emma Bracken. The Local Government Board cannot say who is now in possession. Cottages in other portions of the district have been proposed and allowed for unmarried men who have other persons depending on them. There is no power to review the inspector's decision in the matter.

    Purchase Price of Farm of Mr. John Beirne, of Tonlagee.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. John Beirne, having had his cattle driven more than once from his grazing farm at Tonlagee, near Ballinasloe, and after the Estates Commissioners had, on 15th November, 1907, informed him that upon inspection they estimated the price of the farm at £3,090, exclusive of bonus, intimated his readiness to sell; that six months afterwards he was informed that the above-mentioned price was inclusive and not exclusive of the bonus, thereby reducing the price by £370, that on 23rd October, 1908 the
    2322
    Estates Commissioners informed him they were only prepared to give him £2,759 for the farm, or a sum of £700 less than the original sum at which they valued the farm; and whether, in view of the prevailing circumstances of the locality, the payment of the sum originally proposed will be made to Mr. Beirne.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have already answered this Question on the 16th instant. I have nothing to add to the reply which I then gave.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Swansea Schools and Education Grants.
    LORD R. CECILsaid he desired to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education a Question of which he had given him private notice, namely, whether, as a result of the inquiry into the case of the Swansea Schools, Mr. J. A. Hamilton reported that the Swansea Local Education Authority had made default in the programme of their duties by failing to keep efficient the Oxford Street Schools, whether the Government had nevertheless decided that the local education authority had committed no default, and if so, on what grounds.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. TREVELYAN, Yorkshire, W.R., Elland): I have nothing to add to what is contained in the official papers published in the newspapers this morning, and which have been deposited in the local authority's office. This is the fullest possible information I can give in answer to the Question of the noble Lord.
    LORD R. CECIL: May I ask whether it is a fact that in 1906 the Board of Education themselves decided that the action of the local education authority was gravely imperilling the efficiency of the school; whether at the inquiry at Swansea the local education authority

    2323
    gave no evidence whatever; whether the Commissioner reported that but for the sums provided by the managers in his opinion the school would before now have ceased to be efficient in any sense; whether, as it was, though it continued in a state of efficiency by earning the grant, its efficiency was, owing to the course taken by the Authority, precarious; whether it seemed to him that the way in which the Authority's policy caused dissatisfaction among the staff jeopardised the continuance of successful teaching to an extent which reduced the efficiency of the Oxford Street School to an uncertain temporary efficiency only ascertainable ex post facto; whether this had led to the departure of experienced teachers and to dissatisfaction and unrest among those who remained; whether, in spite of that the Board of Education had overruled that decision, and on what ground of fact the Board of Education acted in so overruling that decision, and whether the House was to understand that it was the policy of the Board of Education that teachers in voluntary schools were to be paid at a lower rate than teachers in provided schools.
    MR. TREVELYAN: It is not a question of policy. The sole question which the Board of Education have to decide is whether the school is inefficient, and we have, after duly considering the matter and taking legal advice, come to the conclusion that the school is not inefficient. Therefore, we do not feel ourselves bound to act.
    LORD R. CECIL: It is not a question whether the school is inefficient. It is a question whether the local education authority has kept the school efficient.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot discuss the whole question, which is in the main a legal question. We have satisfied ourselves after taking legal advice that this is the course which we are compelled to adopt.
    LORD R. CECIL: I desire to say that I shall, at the earliest opportunity the Rules of the House will permit raise
    2324
    this question for the consideration of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, as regards Provisional Order Bills returned by the House of Lords this day, with Amendments, such Amendments may be considered after the Government Orders of the Day."—(Mr. J. A. Pease.)
LORD R. CECILsaid he desired to move as an Amendment to add at the end the words "and that this House do not adjourn this day without Question put."
MR. SPEAKER: That is not in order. It is not a competent Amendment. It refers to a wholly different matter.
LORD R. CECILsaid that but for the Motion now before the House the Government would be bound by the provisions of the Resolution which was passed at the end of July, namely, that the House should adjourn at the end of the Government Orders without Question put. The Motion which had just been proposed would enable the House to sit beyond that time, and he submitted that it was in order to add to the Motion that the House should not adjourn without Question put. Perhaps he might be allowed to say that in July the Government themselves gave an undertaking that they would move, "That the House do now adjourn," before the last Order of the Government if any hon. Member of the House desired to raise any question affecting the policy of the Government. Of course, if this Motion were carried, it would be impossible for the Government to do that because of their desire to keep the House sitting to consider the Provisional Order Bills. He, therefore, submitted that, in view of the pledge which was part of the condition on which the House assented to the Resolution passed in July last, his Amendment was germane to this particular Motion.
MR. SPEAKER: The House, after due notice and consideration, came to a certain resolution as to how the business was to be concluded, and now without any notice the noble Lord would seek to repeal that resolution so solemnly arrived at. The object of this Motion is to enable Provisional Order Bills, which are of the nature of private business, to be taken after public business, instead of before. In consequence of some delay in the House of Lords the Bills have not yet reached this House.
LORD R. CECILasked whether the Government would move "That the House do now adjourn" before the conclusion of the Government Orders of the Day so as to enable him to raise the question which he desired to raise, and which he thought it was of real importance to the Government and the country to discuss.
MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that in the absence of his right hon. friend the Leader of the House he was not able to assent to the proposal of the noble Lord. He would, however, endeavour to ascertain the view of the Prime Minister on the subject. He might say that he only received notice a few minutes ago of the question which the noble Lord desired to raise.
LORD R. CECILexplained that the short notice was not due to any discourtesy on his part towards the hon. Gentleman, whose courtesy they were glad to acknowledge in all matters. He only received intimation of the facts himself that morning and it was for that reason he had not been able to give longer notice.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered accordingly,

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read.
THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.)in moving the Second Reading
2326
explained that the Bill was simply he for the purpose of consolidating the Scottish law affecting agricultural holdings. It only came down last night from another place where it had been carefully considered. If the House gave the Bill a Second Reading now it would be necessary for him, in view of the period of the session which they had reached, to ask that it should at once be passed through its subsequent stages. It was a matter of extreme urgency that the law affecting Scottish farmers should be put in the consolidated form of the Bill. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture in 1907 and again in 1908 had passed resolutions in favour of this measure becoming law at the earliest possible moment. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture represented seventy-six societies with a total membership of over 18,000, so that it might really be regarded as a body representing a very large number of agriculturists. He hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading and allow the subsequent stages to be taken without delay.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill road a second time.
Resolved, "That this House do immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
The House then resolved itself into Committee to consider the Bill.
Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
MR. W. THORNE: Why cannot the Government run the Unemployed Bill of the Labour Party through the House in the same way?
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."—(Mr. J. A. Pease.)
MR. HAROLD COXprotested against the scandal of rushing a Bill of this magnitude through the House in this way. Surely the House did not always abandon its functions with regard to legislation to another place.
MR. BOWLESsaid that it appeared to him that the scene they had just witnessed was one of significance and importance. The Bill was entirely an invention of another place; it had not been seen in this House before. It had just come down from another place, and what had happened? Without a moment's consideration, or attempt at consideration, the House had accepted the Bill as it stood. That showed their blind and implicit though well-founded trust in the wisdom of another place, and in that respect it appeared to him that their action was entirely creditable.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid there was one point about the Bill to which he wished to call attention. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading adduced in its favour the sole authority of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. It struck him that that was rather curious, because hitherto the Government had decried the authority of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. The action of the Government would be remembered if on any future occasion the authority of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture was called in question from the Treasury bench.
MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he ought to state that at any rate certain Members of the House on both sides had taken every precaution to satisfy themselves that this was purely a Consolidation Bill. It did not in any way alter the law. It was presented in the first place by the President of the Board of Agriculture in another place, and he had been in communication with officials representing the other side of the House. They had all agreed that it was a desirable Bill to pass into law; and that it should not be lost through failing to be put through all its stages in one day.
LORD BALCARRESwished to assent to what his hon. friend had just said. He was interested and amused at the blind acceptance of the Bill from the House of Lords, because he knew that the Bill before it passed through its stages required to be amended in fifteen different particulars by that Assembly.
MR. MORTONwas glad that they had had some explanation with regard to the Bill, because it had only been circulated that morning; and because, on many occasions, various Governments in passing Consolidation Bills had smuggled into them alterations of the law. He would not have been inclined to vote for this hasty and haphazard procedure, but for the fact that Scotland had been treated so badly by Parliament during this session, that the Scottish Members were glad to get anything at all at any price.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Public Meeting Bill, with an Amendment.
That they do not insist on their Amendments to the Port of London Bill, to which the Commons have disagreed.
That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill, with Amendments.

PUBLIC MEETING BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—(Lord Robert Cecil.)
MR. MORTON MR. MORTON moved that the Lords Amendments be considered this day three months, as the House had not sufficient time left properly to consider the matter.
MR. C. DUNCANseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Morton.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS, Glamorganshire, Mid.)expressed the hope that the hon. Member would not insist on the Amendment. The Bill as it now stood practically said that if a person disturbed a public meeting or incited any other person to do so for the purpose of preventing the transaction of business for which the meeting had been called he should be guilty of a punishable offence and that in the case of a Parliamentary1 election, between the issue of the writ and the return of the writ, the same should be deemed an illegal practice. The alterations made in another place were not alterations in substance and the House having agreed to the Bill it would be a very great pity if it did not become law.
MR. C. B. HARMSWORTHdrew attention to the fact that the Bill had never been discussed in the House or in any way considered. Two stages of the Bill were passed in a very small portion of an afternoon. He was convinced that if hon. Members had the Bill in their hands they would readily support the Motion of his hon. friend. The Bill caused the gravest infringement of the right of public meeting in this country and arose out of a recent meeting at the Albert Hall. In Scotland a very favourite practice at public meetings was heckling and the Bill constituted that practice, if indulged in, an offence. He hoped his hon. friend would persist in his Motion.
MR. JOHN WARDthought there were two sides to the question. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last thought it would be a grave infringement of the rights of public meeting if the Bill were passed, but if there was no way to prevent people, sent to break up a meeting, from doing so, it was an absolute infringement of the rights of public meeting. People, whatever their views might be, were entitled to call a meeting
2330
and expound those views; that was the only way in which free expression of opinion could be obtained for minorities. It was true that this had not been thought of before, but it was only recently that deliberate attempts had been made to break up public meetings. [A voice: "What about the Boer War?"] Unquestionably the same remarks applied to that, and he agreed that wherever there were organised attempts deliberately to break up meetings there should be some means of preventing it. For that reason he gave his most unqualified support to the Bill. He read it before it was in print, and had come to the conclusion it was the only way by which they could secure the liberty of the subject and the chance of expressing views which happened to be hostile to those entertained by either the majority or the minority of the audience.
MR. WEDGWOODsaid he felt himself to be in a somewhat difficult position, because originally he informed the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone that he was in favour of the Bill. But having examined it more carefully he confessed he was shocked at it. He had looked on the noble Lord as the champion of individual liberty, but in his view the Bill was the worst blow at the right of expressing individual political opinion that had been delivered for a long time. Who were to be the judges whether a person heckling a public speaker was trying to break up a public meeting or not? It was to be the task of the bench of magistrates, and he certainly did not think that was a proper body to decide whether or not a heckler was asking a reasonable question or trying to break up a meeting. If the Bill were passed it would aim the heaviest possible blow at Socialism making itself heard. Who were the people whom this Bill would most seriously hit? Those who were enthusiastic and keen on certain lines of politics which did not command universal public approval. These people had to persuade other people, and their only chance of getting at them was to speak at other people's meetings. They could not get those whom they desired to convert to attend the meetings they themselves arranged, and they

2331
must therefore seize the opportunity of other people's meetings to make themselves heard. If the Bill were carried it would upset traditions which had obtained for 500 years, and he therefore hoped that even at this eleventh hour it would be successfully opposed.
MR. VIVIANcould not understand how any hon. Member could in the name of freedom demand that a minority or even a majority should have the right to break up a meeting in a room paid for by the promoters of the gathering in order to meet and discuss given matters with their friends. He supported the Bill heartily, and mainly because he had never been able to understand why he should be prevented speaking his mind upon a particular subject at a meeting specially called to enable him to do so. Why, a man might just as well walk into a printer's establishment and smash up the type whereby it was intended in book or pamphlet to express certain views which were not approved. The right of free speech should be as sacred as the right of a free Press, and he supported the Bill in the name of the right of free speech. He did not think the measure as framed would injure either minorities or majorities. It would, on the contrary, protect but he appealed to hon. Members ll who by reason of their number were unable by physical force to keep down an opposition. He was not opposed to heckling; as a speaker he rather revelled in it, but he did protest against a group of bullies—often hired by people on the other side—attending meetings with the sole view of preventing the speakers being heard.
MR. W. THORNEsaid he was rather surprised at the attitude taken up by Members on both sides who, he was sure, if they had read the Bill would never have voted for it. No men in that House had been through the mill more than he had in regard to political meetings. On one occasion at Camborne he got an awful bashing, yet he was not prepared to vote for a Bill which would prevent anyone making inter such gatherings. It was for those who organized the meetings to
2332
make proper provision against those who would try to prevent the speakers being heard. It was the duty of the stewards to find out the interrupters, and there was an end of it. It had been successfully accomplished on more than one occasion. The most important part of the Bill was undoubtedly the second portion, and hon. Members would do well to consider what it involved. During a Parliamentary election a candidate's friends might at a meeting of his opponent utter a few interjections and the candidate would be held liable for their conduct and would be penalised in consequence. There never had been, so far as he remembered, such a Bill rushed through the House, and if the hon. Member for Sutherland would press his objection to a division he would tell with him.
MR. PICKERSGILLsupported the protest of the last speaker, agreeing with him that the second part of the Bill was the most vital. He had no objection to the first subsection, but the second certainly required more consideration than it had yet received. There were already sufficient pitfalls for a man who desired that an election should be conducted in a proper manner, and this would make a very serious addition, to them by constituting interruptions at the meeting of an opponent an illegal practice in a Parliamentary contest. He should vote against the Bill.
MR. HEMMERDEstrongly supported the Bill, and with regard to the second subsection—as to which extraordinary legal opinions had just been expressed—he pointed out that there was no single illegal practice from which the election Judges could not relieve a candidate. They might rely upon it that both magistrates and Judges of the High Court would place a reasonable construction on acts such as this. As a matter of fact, it was the duty of candidates to see that they did not have with them people who would be capable of breaking up the meetings of their opponents. He could not understand any number of the Liberal party standing up for either a man or a woman who would deliberately go to a

2333
public meeting and make it impossible for anyone to air his grievance or opinions, and if a meeting were arranged in order that a Cabinet Minister might speak it was absolutely intolerable that a small body of persons should prevent his being heard. Why, in the name of freedom, should they put up with that? Minorities ought not to be allowed to adopt disorderly tactics in order to force their views on a reluctant majority. It was intolerable that those responsible for forming the public opinion of the country should be tracked all over the place by foolish men and women and interrupted on every possible occasion. It absolutely destroyed freedom of discussion, and he ventured to suggest that those who were afraid of the Bill were those who did not believe in free discussion. There was more interruption of public meetings by women and Socialists than by any other class of the community, and his personal experience had frequently been that meetings were attended by persons sent with questions already prepared and written with instructions to ask them in season and out of season. "Disorderly conduct" had been discussed times out of number. Were they so timid that they could not allow this matter to be decided by the magistrates and the Judges? It was the duty of candidates to keep their followers in order, and if those of his followers who were colourably his agents, in the exuberance of their spirits caused the opposing candidate to suffer, then if such an occurrence formed part of a petition the Judges of the High Court would be perfectly well able to deal with it. Freedom of meeting was the important question they had to consider, and he therefore supported the Bill with the greatest possible pleasure. He gave
2334
the noble Lord hearty thanks for having brought forward this measure in order to give them a chance of clearing public meetings and public discussions of what was rapidly becoming an intolerable nuisance.
MR. MADDISON, while agreeing that they owed a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, said he hardly liked Bills of this kind being rushed through so quickly as this one had been. Nevertheless, he thought that now they were face to face with the measure its provisions were such that it would in a fair way protect free speech and right of meeting. In listening to the hon. Member for South West Ham he thought he was speaking rather of a bull fight than of a public meeting, because the picture he drew did not appear to have anything to do with an ordinary public meeting. The Bill, as far as he could see, made it plain that there must be a deliberate purpose to prevent the public meeting from conducting its business. Throughout this short discussion there had not been a single statement to show who would suffer by reason of the Bill becoming law. Who was the sort of person, who would suffer by the enactment of this measure?
MR. CROOKS: My experience has been that it was the Liberals who broke up my meetings.
MR. MADDISONsaid that only proved the necessity for the Bill. The sort of persons who would suffer were those who, before a speaker rose, deliberately told the chairman they did not wish to hear that speaker. He himself had experienced a case of that kind at Bristol, where it was said; "We will listen to anyone else you

2335
put up, but we will not hear Maddison." Did his hon. friends opposite think that such action should go unpunished by the law? He admired the Labour candidates for the simplicity of their electioneering methods; he was proud to pay them that tribute, and to say that they spent very little money on their contests; but why they should be afraid of this measure he could not understand. No Labour Member need fear a Bill like this. The hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire had set at rest their doubts as to how far a candidate might be affected by this legislation, but he was none the less prepared to take the risk that might lie in that direction, because he held that if a candidate knew that certain things were going on at the meetings of his opponents and he allowed his followers to continue them, then such a candidate deserved more punishment than he got. He supported the Bill with great heartiness, because it would restore the right of public meeting which had been largely lost.
LORD R. CECIL, in regard to the observation about rushing the Bill, said he had endeavoured to make the Bill known to every Member of the House. He had adopted the rather unusual course of making public its terms before it was circulated in the House, and he had done his best to let everybody know its provisions. Of course if hon. Members had come down to the House to object to the Second Reading that would have been a different matter altogether. But no objection had been taken to either the Second or the Third Reading, and he thought that there was no ground for saying that it had been rushed through the House without the consideration of hon. Members. The point of the Bill was this. They all knew that difficulties arose
2336
at public meetings, sometimes very serious. They had all been present at public gatherings where a small knot of men or women had combined to shout, scream, and sing without any reference to the business of the meeting at all, but merely for the purpose of preventing that business from being transacted. He was quite sure that they all thought that ought to be stopped. If the small knot of people were not stopped it meant the denial of free speech, or if the other members of the meeting endeavoured to stop the interrupters it meant a free fight. Lynch law or the denial of free speech was the alternative with which they were confronted. That was a very serious grievance which he was sure every hon. Member desired to see remedied. He had drafted the Bill as carefully as he could, and the Law Officers were good enough to agree with him that it was efficiently drafted for the purpose of confining the measure, as nearly as they could by the English language, to that case and that case only. There would have to be proved, first of all, disorderly conduct, and secondly, a quite distinct thing, that such disorderly conduct was intended for the purpose of preventing the meeting from transacting its business. Unless they proved that it was for that purpose then there was no offence committed under the Bill. The only possible criticism was that the definition was so narrow that the evil might not be altogether stopped by the terms of the Bill. He hoped that hon. Members in considering the measure would see that it was framed from the point of view he had explained. He would be the very last person in the House to propose anything that would be an infringement of personal liberty, but he was quite convinced that the Bill was for its maintenance and not for its infringement.

2337
As to the election point, that had been dealt with by the hon. Member for Denbighshire in a perfectly admirable manner. He thought that there was not the least prospect under the second subsection of the Bill that any injustice would be done If there should be a candidate—he did not think there would be—who allowed his followers to break up the meetings of his opponent, then it ought to be considered an illegal practice at least as serious as many an illegal practice put into the Act of Parliament.
MR. CROOKSthought the House was indebted to the hon. Member who had proposed the adjournment of the discussion until they had some idea of what was in the minds of hon. Members. He felt some alarm about the Bill. To him interjections appeared to be the salt of public meetings. Did the Law Officers for the Crown say that an interjection was a disturbance?
SIR S. EVANS: The word "disturbance" does not occur in the Bill at all.
MR. CROOKSsaid that anything might be construed into a conspiracy to do something. His experience of public meetings was nearly equal to anybody's in the country. He had been assaulted, carried away, and had his meetings broken up. He did not suppose anyone organised mobs for the purpose of breaking up meetings. Suppose he himself held a meeting in one corner of Beresford Square and another person held a meeting in the opposite corner, would he be held responsible if the crowd around him went across the square to "boo" the crowd at the other meeting? The President of the Local Government Board had had
2338
as much to do with public meetings and had been as much subjected to disturbance and interruption as any of them. He well remembered at one meeting how it was shouted: "Let us throw him in the Thames." The right hon. Gentleman simply jumped up and said: "No; I am responsible for the purity of the river." But under this Bill he could not have hon. Gentleman on "Bastard Imperialism," and in the midst of it he was interrupted by being asked whether he had declared in the County Council that Lachmere allotments were only fit to grow consumptive cabbages on. There was an uproar. Would similar circumstances lead to a prosecution under this Bill? [Cries of "No."] He was anxious that public meetings should be conducted with all the joy of public meetings but without the row. If the noble Lord was addressing a public meeting and the word "rot" was interjected, could that word be used without the person who uttered it being charged? In discussions in that House he had himself jerked off words which were on his tongue, but could it be pretended that to do so would be an offence in a public meeting? Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General would satisfy him on those points. ["No."] The hon. and learned Gentleman would try, and perhaps he would be as successful as the hon. Member in explaining things. He wanted to know whether they would be allowed to make a casual interjection at a public meeting as they went along, without any wilful desire to smash up the meeting. If that was so, then he did not mind the Bill a bit. But he wanted to be clear on that point. If they could not do

2339
so, then he doubted whether a political fight would be worth anything at all.
SIR S. EVANS: I can answer the questions of the hon. Member in the affirmative on both points.
MR. W. THORNE: Is it possible for a man to take out a summons under this Bill, and do you mean to say that a magistrate would grant a summons?
SIR S. EVANSsaid before anybody could be touched under this Bill it must be shown that he had been guilty of disorderly conduct at a public meeting for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which that meeting was called. The Bill really did not touch any of the cases which had been put by the the hon. Member for Woolwich. It would not prevent any interjection or heckling or anything of that kind which tended to the enlivenment of a meeting.
MR. BYLESsaid he was very glad the Bill had had an opportunity at last of being debated and that they had the opinion of Members on both sides about it. If it was only to elicit from the Solicitor-General the explanation which he had just given and which he thought ought to disarm the opposition which had been so vigorously expressed, he thought the House was to be congratulated on the opportunity for debate. He felt rather in the position of one who had to defend himself against his friends, but really there was no great difference between them except as to whether the method and the language of the Bill were adequate to do that which they all, he thought, Wanted to do. Members on both sides of the House had expressed the view which they all held
2340
that free speech and free opinion freely expressed, either in the Press or on the platform, was the most priceless liberty that we English people enjoyed. It was to protect that, and with no other object whatever, that he had agreed to associate himself with the noble Lord opposite, who had paid him the compliment of inviting him to put his name on the back of the Bill. He did so with great readiness because he had found all through this Parliament, that the noble Lord himself, although belonging to a party to which he (Mr. Byles) was generally strongly in opposition, had proved himself a stouter defender of liberty than some of his hon. friends on that side of the House. The language of the Bill really did not in the least justify what some objectors had feared. Many speakers had seemed to suppose that any disorderly conduct at a meeting would subject a man to prosecution, but that was not so. It was not only disorderly conduct but disorderly conduct for the express purpose of preventing the transaction of business. If anybody went deliberately to break up a meeting he ought to be subject to law, and his hon. friends were championing the rights of those blackguards who came on purpose to prevent the object of the meeting being carried out, and who were the only people who were attacked in the Bill.
MR. ROWLANDSasked the Solicitor-General to give them his views with regard to subsection (2). That was the particular portion of the Bill to which he had the strongest objection, and with all due respect to the hon. Member for Denbigh, who, he knew, had great experience of electioneering, he thought his electioneering experience

2341
went back further than the hon. Member's. While he might not be a lawyer he had had to consider from time to time questions of agency and how agency could be proved, and anybody who had wide experience knew how risky was the definition of agency. It did not mean at all that the chief agent appointed by the candidate should go and deliberately break up a meeting, but there was such a thing as members of a committee or other people who might be indirectly brought into the question of agency, and he still thought there was very great danger indeed in the sub-section. Even if agency was not proved, the poor candidate might have to stand all the racket of a petition, which was not an easy thing for him to stand, because there was a colourable assertion of agency on the part of the parson who was charged with having broken up the meeting. That candidate was at once penalised under the existing law and was liable to an enormous expense which he or his friends might not be able to meet. He, therefore, thought under these conditions they had a right to some modification
of the law, and he was sorry it was too late to put such a modification into this sub - section. Those who might think it necessary to criticise the Bill were not afraid of public meetings, nor were they the persons who had ever deliberately organised opposition. They were the persons who through a long political career, going back to the old jingo days, had stood on platforms when it wanted a vast deal of courage to do so. But while they had had to face these things in the past they looked with some anxiety on any alteration in the law which would interfere with freedom of speech. It was a great misfortune that the Bill was brought in so late, and he was sorry the debate had not arisen on the Second Reading, hat before the Bill got to the present stage, there might have been modifications which while carrying out the desire of the noble Lord, would have protected freedom of speech as well as the right of meeting.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 21. (Division List No. 462.)

AYES

Balcarres, Lord

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bowles, G. Stewart

Laidlaw, Robert

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lambert, George

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Cameron, Robert

Lewis, John Herbert

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Maclean, Donald

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Thorne, G, R. (Wolverhampton)

COX, Harold

Maddison, Frederick

Thornton, Percy M.

Craik, Sir Henry

Mallet, Charles E.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dobson, Thomas W.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Ure, Alexander

Elibank, Master of

Micklem, Nathaniel

Verney, F. W.

Essex, R. W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Vivian, Henry

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Pease, Rt. HnJ. A. (Saffron Walden

Whitbread, Howard

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Radford, G. H.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Hemmerde and Mr. Byles.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

NOES.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Hart-Davies, T.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Barnes, G. N.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Cleland, J. W.

Nolan, Joseph

Cooper, G. J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Morton and Mr. Charles Duncan,

Crooks, William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Halpin, J.

Rowlands, J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Lords' Amendment considered, and read a second time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do meet on Monday next, at Two of the Clock."—(Mr. J. A. Pease.)
MR. MACKARNESSasked whether now or at any stage of the proceedings before the House was prorogued he would be entitled to call attention to the arbitrary banishment of British subjects in India without charge or trial.
Lords in the said Amendment."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 13. (Division List No. 463.)

AYES.

Balcarres, Lord

Hart-Davies, T.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bowles, G. Stewart

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Horniman, Emslie John

Samuel, Rt. Hn. H. L. (Cleveland)

Bryce, J. Annan

Illingworth, Percy H.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cameron, Robert

Laidlaw, Robert

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lambert, George

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clcland, J. W.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Maclean, Donald

Thornton, Percy M.

Cox, Harold

Maddison, Frederick

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Craik, Sir Henry

Mallet, Charles E.

Ure, Alexander

Crooks, William

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Verney, F. W.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Vivian, Henry

Elibank, Master of

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Essex, R. W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Pease, Rt. Hn J. A. (Saffron Walden

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Fuller, John Michael F.

Radford, G. H.

Glendinning, R. G.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Hemmerde and Mr. Byles.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

NOES.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Barnes, G. N.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cooper, G. J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. William Thorne and Mr. Charles Duncan.

Halpin, J.

Rowlands, J.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

MR. SPEAKER: No, not that nor any other subject.
Question put, and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes after Two o'clock till Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return, for the month of October, 1908. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE BRITISH MUSEUM EXTENSION.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDrose "to call attention to the delay which his taken place in the erection of the new buildings at the British Museum; and to ask when the work will be resumed." The noble Duke said: My Lords, this question is one of rather a pressing character owing to the entire standstill of proceedings in connection with the new buildings at the British Museum. I will briefly narrate what has happened. As far back as 1903 the Board of Works had plans for this addition to the British Museum. After considerable delay the first contract was made in April, 1906. In April, 1907, the estimate was revised, and revised to such an extent that the original figure of £13,000 was advanced to £25,000. In June, 1907, the contracts were completed, and His Majesty the King laid the foundation-stone of the new extension. That was eighteen months ago, and from that day to this not one single thing has been done. The whole work is at a standstill, and repeated communications with the Board of Works from the trustees of the British Museum have, I will not say received no notice, but have led to no effective action being taken. The only thing that has been done—I refer to this for fear the noble Lord who will reply to me may mention it as if I had forgotten it—was in September last, when I believe some work was undertaken on the boiler house, which had absolutely nothing to do with the main extension. A promise was made that the work would be begun last September. That was to a certain extent retracted, because, when Sir William Bull, in the House of Commons, asked when any work would be done in this matter, it was then said it would
  2298
  be begun early in October. We are now at the end of December, but nothing has been done. Those are the facts concisely stated, and I have thought it my duty to put this Question in the hope that some acceleration of the business will take place, and that more energy will be shown in a work of such great public importance.
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, in answer to the noble Duke I should like to say that the First Commissioner of Works of course fully appreciates the great importance of this work and the attention it should deserve. He also sympathises with the Trustees in respect to the delay that has occurred. As, I think, the noble Duke is aware, the engineering requirements with regard to the completion of the building of this extension of the British Museum have offered some considerable difficulty. The delay which has occurred has been largely owing to the protracted negotiations which have taken place between the engineer and the architect, more especially with regard to these engineering requirements. These negotiations have been satisfactorily concluded, detailed plans have been drawn up, and the various specifications have been made. The Board of Works have received a number of tenders, which are at present under consideration. I cannot state the exact date on which the building will be commenced, but the First Commissioner expects to come to a decision on those tenders in the course of a very few days. As soon as that decision has been arrived at the buildings will be proceeded with as soon as possible.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Am I to understand that, when the First Commissioner of Works stated that the work would be begun last October, he had not actually got the tenders out?
  LORD O'HAGAN: I am afraid I can not answer that question. He quite understood that the work would be begun at that time.

  PUBLIC MEETING BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he had carried out the suggestion made the previous day by the Lord Chancellor and had printed in extenso, in the shape of an Amendment, the new clause which he proposed should take the place of Clause 1 as now in the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1, and to insert the following new clause: '(1) Any person who at a lawful public meeting acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together, shall be guilty of an offence, and if the offence is committed at a political meeting held during the progress of and in connection with a Parliamentary election he shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and in any other case shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds, or to imprisonment not exceeding one month. (2) Any person who incites others to commit an offence under this section shall be guilty of a like offence.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words "during the progress of and in connection with a Parliamentary election" in order to insert "in any Parliamentary constituency between the date of the issue of a writ for the return of a Member of Parliament for such constituency and the date at which the return of the said writ is made." He thought the words which he proposed to omit were vague. There was no actual decision as to the time which was included in the progress of an election, and it would be possible, where a magistrate had decided that a meeting came within the provisions of this paragraph, that an appeal might be made to the High Court and a great deal of expense unnecessarily incurred. His suggested new words would make the matter clear.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the proposed new clause, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words 'during the progress of and in connection with a Parliamentary election,' and to insert the words 'in any Parliamentary
  2300
  constituency between the date of the issue of a writ for the return of a Member of Parliament for such constituency and the date at which the return of the said writ is made.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)thought that the suggestion of the noble Viscount was a good one. There was a difficulty in ascertaining what was the progress of a Parliamentary election. It depended on the circumstances of each case, and it was impossible to lay down any absolute rule.
  On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONasked whether the Government had considered the question of municipal elections, especially in the London area. He thought there was a serious anomaly in applying this penalty to small meetings in country districts held in connection with Parliamentary elections, and leaving out of the scope of the Bill possibly large and turbulent meetings held in the metropolis in connection with municipal elections. If, however, the Government were satisfied that it was better not to include municipal meetings, he would not move the Amendment to that effect standing in his name on the Paper; but he would like an expression of opinion from the Government on the point.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Government would be willing to accept an Amendment applying the Bill to municipal elections unless objection to that course were taken on some point which had not yet occurred to the Home Office.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNwas afraid there would be some difficulty in the matter. The words which, at his instance, their Lordships had inserted would not apply to municipal elections at all, because there was no issue of a writ in respect of such elections. Some other words, therefore, would be necessary if the Bill were to include meetings held in connection with municipal elections.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested that it would be better not to apply the Bill to municipal elections at all. He thought that would be rather going beyond the general purposes of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONintimated that, after the opinion expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he would not move his Amendment.
  Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
      Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords to the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments agreed to.

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to; with one of the Amendments agreed to with an Amendment, and certain other Amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement. The said Amendment and reasons considered (on Motion).
  THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient that I should now ask your Lordships not to insist upon certain of the Amendments which were made by your Lordships' House to this Bill The Commons disagree to the Lords' Amendment on page 6, lines 11 and 12, for this reason, that they consider that the system of working the mines in Northumberland and Durham cannot be reorganised by 1st July next. The Commons disagree also to the Amendment in page 6, line 13, to leave out the word "January" and to insert the word
  2302
  "July," because they think it is inexpedient to defer the operation of the Bill to so late a date as 1st July, 1910. The Commons propose to amend the Lords Amendment to leave out all words from the word "ten" in page 6, line 13, to the end of the subsection, by restoring the words "and elsewhere on 1st July, 1909." The practical result of this is that the Commons have reinserted in the Bill the clause in the shape in which it stood when the Bill came up to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
  LOUD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to know the precise Motion which the noble Earl moves. It is obvious that where the Commons have agreed to our Amendments nothing more is to be done, and where the Commons have amended an Amendment probably there would be no difficulty in agreement. I certainly object, however, to taking the disagreements en bloc. I think they should be put one by one, and on one of them I wish to make a few remarks.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: We will do whatever is convenient to the noble Lord. I will first take the Motion that the House doth not insist upon the Amendment to page 6, line 13—that is, the Amendment by which your Lordships substituted "July" for "January."
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: For the purpose of putting myself in order, I shall move that the Amendment be amended so that it shall read: "the first day of October, 1909." The effect of that will be to shorten this period of preference by three months. I suppose it is hopeless to take any other course. Though I am not sufficiently versed in Parliamentary practice to state definitely, I am afraid that if we were to carry a Motion disagreeing with the Commons' Amendment it would have the effect of destroying the Bill. I do not intend to move that, but I demur altogether to the reasonableness of the course which has been taken. So far as I interpret it, the East of Scotland has been sacrificed by the Government for the benefit of the North-East of England. I think that is perfectly

  2303
  obvious. We are in exactly the same position; we are competing in the same markets for the export of coal, and we are known to be competing with each other, yet for a period of six months the North-East of England is to have a preference over the East of Scotland. I say that is unfair, and I think it will be regarded as unfair in the district with which I have the honour to be connected. I daresay that in the counsels of His Majesty's Government those in the North-Eastern counties of England are more powerful; but one of the constituencies affected is represented by the Prime Minister and both of the others by the most docile supporters which His Majesty's Government have in the other House. I say that their docility is being traded upon for the benefit of His Majesty's Government, and that it is entirely wrong, however docile they may be, that this advantage should be taken of the position. The preference cannot be defended on the merits; it has never been sought to be defended on the merits so far as I can understand, and there would be no real objection to this difficulty being diminished as far as possible. I shall, therefore, move that the Commons' Amendment be amended so that it should read: "on the first day of October. 1909."
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, this is, I think, the third time I have had to speak on this particular point, and I should be unwilling to intervene now except that I think the noble Lord has brought a somewhat unfair charge against the Government. He said that the representatives of Northumberland and Durham were particularly strong in the counsel of His Majesty's Government, whereas the representatives of the district with which he is himself connected were not. Then he went on to say that the constituency which the Prime Minister sat for would be seriously affected, which seemed to me rather to answer the first part of the statement. In any case, it is very far from being true, because the other districts which consider themselves to be prejudicially affected by this particular
  2304
  division are the counties of Yorkshire and the Midlands. It has never been supposed that the West Riding of Yorkshire, the coal district, is other than a district which supports His Majesty's Government, and therefore the charge made by the noble Lord cannot be said to have any foundation whatever; and I am bound to say that what occurred yesterday in another place confirms us in our opinion that, although we have admitted the objections in this course, it was the only one open to us. Yesterday in another place Mr. Balfour stated that he heartily agreed with the course chosen. He said that postponement for eighteen months was an impossible course to take, and he would support the Government in rejecting it.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That point does not arise on the particular Amendment I have moved.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: That is perfectly true, and I will deal with that point if the noble Lord desires in a moment. The January date received practically no support in another place and I do not know that it received much here. I understand that the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment to-day is to substitute "October" as the general date.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I accept the position that we are obliged to agree to this preference, but I desire to shorten it. I do not propose to touch the general date. My proposal would have the effect of shortening the preference by three months.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, because I had understood that he suggested October as a general date. That, of course, is a question which the noble Lord has a perfect right to argue; but, as I said before, it is not really reasonable to speak of this as a preference. It, no doubt, has the effect of giving a certain preference to those two counties, but that is not the object or the intention of His Majesty's Government. The question is whether the particular organisation of

  2305
  Durham and Northumberland is such that it is impossible for them to start their new arrangements in less than a year. The Government have taken the view that it is reasonable for them to ask for this time, and if that is so, the splitting of the difference which the noble Lord suggests would not really meet the case, I am afraid, therefore, we must adhere to our proposal.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the noble Earl has just stated that it was not the intention of His Majesty's Government to give a preference, but he admits that what they have done has the effect of giving a preference. What matters is not the intention of His Majesty's Government, but the effect of the Bill which they pass. With regard to the particular date fixed for Durham and Northumberland, the noble Earl has told us that His Majesty's Government have been convinced that they cannot get their arrangements ready before 1st January; but during all the time this Bill has been in your Lordships' House I have never heard anything to show why other collieries can get their arrangements ready although Durham and Northumberland cannot. So far as Lord Newton went into this point, he rather intimated that Durham and Northumberland were more advantageously situated, if anything, than the other collieries. It would be satisfactory to us to know what are the reasons which have convinced His Majesty's Government that these other collieries can get their arrangements completed by 1st July.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I will endeavour to answer that question. The point is this, that in Durham and Northumberland the question is that of the reorganisation of the hours of the men. In Lancashire and South Wales the question is not so much the reorganisation of the hours of the men as the actual loss of time. In Durham and Northumberland all the shifts have to be changed. In Lancashire and South Wales in a great many cases there will not be an attempt to change the shifts but the actual hours of labour will be shortened. The grievance which the Lancashire and South Wales mine-
  2306
  owners conceive themselves to have is that they lose a certain time of the day for getting and winding their coal, but, at any rate in a great many cases, they will not attempt entirely to reorganise their shifts; whereas in the counties of Durham and Northumberland, as far as I understand, practically every colliery will have to go through a complete system of reorganisation of work.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I will not repeat the observations I offered to the House yesterday on this subject, nor will I follow the example of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh and endeavour to fathom the mysteries of the transaction which apparently led to the exceptional treatment of these two districts. There does appear to attach a certain amount of mystery to the arrangement in question. I do not think I should have risen at all had I not desired to correct what appears to be an inaccuracy in the published account of the observations that fell from me last night. In an otherwise excellent description of my short speech which appears in The Times of this morning, there is a report of my concluding words which conveys a rather different meaning from that which I intended to convey to the House. I said I drew a great distinction between the Amendment moved by Lord Avebury and the Amendment which was carried at the instance of Lord St. Aldwyn, and I pointed out that, whereas Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment in no way interfered with the machinery set up by His Majesty's Government—the machinery which was to take effect from the moment when the Bill came into operation—on the other hand the Amendment of Lord Avebury, which altered the date at which the Bill came into operation and also did away with the preference given to Durham and Northumberland, did very seriously modify a plan which I imagined represented the mature conclusions of His Majesty's Government; and I said that, in those circumstances, without myself expressing any opinion upon the question of preference or upon the question of date, I would not take the responsibility of endeavouring to force any views which might occur to me

  2307
  upon His Majesty's Government. The part of my observations which referred to Lord Avebury's Amendment appear in the report which I mentioned just now as if the whole of what I said had reference to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, and I, therefore, desire to make that correction. The noble Earl referred to what occurred last night in another place. I have referred to the account of those proceedings, and I gather that the Leader of the Opposition stated to the House that, as His Majesty's Government had explained that in their view the least objectionable course was that the date of 1st July, 1909, should be accepted, and that the preference for Durham and Northumberland should be retained, and as His Majesty's Government were responsible for the Bill, he would support them rather than encourage attempts to alter their proposal fundamentally. I do not think the observations of my right hon. friend went beyond that, and they seem to me to be very much in accordance with what was said from these benches.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: From the report which I saw, I understood Mr. Balfour to say that he did not think a year and a half's postponement to be reasonable, and that he for one could not support it.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Amendment does not touch the year and a half postponement at all, and, if carried, would not interfere with the general coming into effect of the Bill on 1st July next year. I shall not divide the House, but I shall not withdraw the Amendment, as I am entirely unconvinced by the noble Earl's argument. I am not able to argue at length the question as to how far the district in which I am interested will really be put to a disadvantage. The whole thing has been sprung so suddenly upon us that there has been only time for communication by telegram and letter; but I am assured that the effect will be to put the East of Scotland to serious disadvantage during this time. That, I think, is grossly unfair, and I shall record my opinion by refusing to withdraw my Amendment. I cannot imagine anything thinner than the statement
  2308
  of the noble Earl—that the intention of the Government is one thing, and the result another. If you carry that into fiscal affairs, what does it matter what your intentions are if the effect is to protect one thing as against another?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am the possessor of the only copy of the document which records what the House of Commons have done, I will state the Amendments to your Lordships. From Clause 7, subsection (2), this House omitted the words, in lines 11 and 12, "as respects mines in the counties of Northumberland and Durham." The House of Commons propose to restore those words. I now come to the second Amendment. This House, in page 6, Clause 7, line 13, struck out the word "January" and inserted "July." The House of Commons propose to restore the word "January." The third Commons' Amendment is to reinsert the words "and elsewhere on the first day of July, 1909." The first question to be put, therefore, will be, that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment omitting the words "as respects mines in the counties of Northumberland and Durham."
  EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved accordingly.
  Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment omitting the words 'as respects mines in the counties of Northumberland and Durham.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We will now take the Amendment in page 6, clause 7, line 13.
  Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to leave out the word 'January' and to insert the word 'July.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I move that the Amendment be amended by the substitution of the word "October."
  Amendment moved—
  "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to insert the word 'July,' but inserts instead the word 'October.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to insert the words 'and elsewhere on the first day of July, 1909.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Amendments made by the Select Committee agreed to.
  Report of Amendments received; Standing Committee negatived.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Allendale.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, before the Bill is read the third time perhaps you will bear with me for a moment while I explain what have been the circumstances attending this Bill. It is a very important measure, designed to unite into one borough six of the large towns in the Potteries district. The Bill has been hotly contested before Committees of the House of Commons and of your Lordships' House, and the proceedings upon it in Committee of this House have been protracted literally to within the last few minutes. I am happy to say, however, that, owing to the very great tact displayed by the Chairman of your Lordships' Committee, Earl Cromer, the Bill was, in the end, assented to by all parties, and it now comes before the House practically in the form of an agreed Bill. I venture to think that a great work has been accomplished with much less friction than at one time might have been expected, and I thought that,
  2310
  under the circumstances, it would not be right to let a private Bill of this importance pass without one word of explanation.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am glad the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has taken the opportunity of mentioning this extremely important measure. The accomplishment of this great work is a source of personal satisfaction to myself, as I happen to be a landowner in the neighbourhood, and I have taken great interest in this matter for some time past. What used to be known as the five towns, but are now six towns, are to be turned into one municipality. This was by no means an easy matter to have brought about, as all those connected with it are aware. I think great credit is due to the Local Government Board for the part they have taken in assisting this operation, and great credit is due also to those who locally initiated the scheme and who have worked hard to reduce the almost inevitable friction which arises in a matter of this kind, especially on the question of rating. It will, I know, be a source of keen satisfaction in Staffordshire that the measure has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and I desire to congratulate everybody concerned.
  On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.
  House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock, to Monday next, Two o'clock.