Sitting of 15 December 1911

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Coal Mines Bill,
House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.

COAL MINES BILL.
Lords Amendments to be printed.
HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be printed.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Table showing the Number, Accommodation, and Average Attendance of Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales during the period 1902 to 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (COLONIES).
Copy presented of Statistical Abstract for the several British Self-Governing Dominions, Crown Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates, in each year from 1896 to 1910 (Forty-eighth Number) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Copy presented of Papers relating to the Appointment of the Staff of the Insurance Commission for National Health (England) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MOTOR CAR ACTS, 1896 and 1903.
Copy presented of Regulation as to the restriction of the driving of Motor Cars on
2698
parts of certain highways situate within the parish of Wansford, in the county of the Soke of Peterborough, made by the Local Government Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
Copies presented of Four Orders made under the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, by the following County Councils: (1) Brecon, (2) Huntingdon, (3) Surrey, (4) East Riding of Yorkshire [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
WAGES AND EFFECTS OF DECEASED SEAMEN.
Copy presented of Account of the sums received and paid in respect of Wages and Effects of Deceased Seamen in the year ended the 31st March, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
JUDICIAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th December; The Lord Advocate]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure of Universities and Colleges, Ireland (including the Fee Fund Grant), for the period to 31st March, 1911, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
POST OFFICE (ESTABLISHED POSTMEN).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 30th October; Mr. Brady]; to lie upon the Table.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table:—
List of the Bills, Reports, Estimates, and Accounts and Papers printed by order of the House, and of Papers presented by Command, Session 1911, with a General Alphabetical Index thereto, 30th Parliament, First Session, 1st and 2nd George V., 31st January, 1911, to 16th December, 1911; to be printed.
General Index to the Bills, Reports, Estimates, and Accounts and Papers printed by order of the House of Commons, and to the Papers presented by Command, 1900 to 1909.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Post Office (Casual Workers).
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Postmaster-General whether the casual workers who were engaged at the post offices and sub-post offices were still paid less than 6d. an hour at; any offices, and, if so, at how many; and whether he would order that not less than 6d. an hour should be paid under any circumstances during the present Christmas season and at all future periods?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The rates of pay for the Christmas casual force in the provinces are those recommended for Auxiliary Postmen by the Select Committee of 1907, and vary from 4½d. to 6d. an hour according to the classification of the particular office. The usual time allowance for night duty is allowed, and work performed on Sunday and Christmas Day is paid for at special rates. It is not proposed to alter this system of payment for the coming season.

  Great Northern Railway (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was aware that the Great Northern Railway
  2700
  Company of Ireland had a sick and mortality fund for their employés to which all men entering the service were compelled to contribute; that, as a consequence of the recent strike, the company had locked out sixty of the men employed at the Dublin terminus and refused to reinstate them on any terms; and that many of these men had thirty years' service and during all those years had contributed to the sick and mortality fund, and were now too old to join any friendly society; and whether, under these circumstances, he would devise a scheme under which the men could continue to pay their subscriptions to and receive benefits from the fund, or, as an alternative, whether the company could be obliged to refund the contributions of the men, less what amount might have been drawn in sick benefits?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for West Belfast on the 30th November.

  Teachers' Pensions (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if, in connection with his examination of the question of national teachers' pensions in Ireland, he would also take into consideration the case of those teachers who, although promoted to a higher grade, had not received the corresponding increase of salary, in consequence of a limitation of numbers imposed by the Treasury?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): As I have already stated in reply to numerous questions asked by the hon. Member and others, I am prepared to recommend to the Treasury an expansion of the standard numbers to meet the case of the forty-seven teachers who have been promoted without a corresponding increase of salary, provided that no further promotions are made save on the occurrence of vacancies, but the Commissioners have declined this offer.
  Mr. HORNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the treatment of these teachers, having regard to the regulations of the Commissioners, amounts to what is little short of a breach of faith?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. I have said they have a very good case, and the Treasury were prepared to meet them, but the Commissioners have declined to do so.

  Industrial Co-partnership (Inquiry).
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether he could now see his way to recommend a public inquiry, whether by way of Royal Commission or otherwise, into the applicability of the principle of co-partnership to the principal industries of this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade informs me that he is prepared to give instructions for the preparation of a report on profit-sharing and co-partnership schemes. He will be glad to confer with the Noble Lord on any special points in which he is interested.

  Shipbuilding Yards (Accidents).
  Sir WALTER MENZIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he would give the number of men employed, the total number of accidents, and the number of fatal accidents in the works of Cammell, Laird, and Company, Limited, Birkenhead; John Brown and Company, Limited, Glasgow; and Armstrong, Mitchell, and Company, Limited, Newcastle-on-Tyne, respectively?
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked what was the total number of men and boys employed in the shipyards of Messrs. Cammell, Laird; Vickers, Son, and Maxim; John Brown and Company; and Armstrong, Whitworth, respectively; and how many had in each yard been either killed or injured in the last two years?
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he would state the total number of men and boys employed in Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company's shipyard at Newcastle, and the number employed at Messrs. Cammell, Laird, and Company's shipyard at Birkenhead, in each case giving figures for the shipyard only; and the total number of accidents in each yard during the past two years, showing those which were serious enough to necessitate absence from work, or partial or total disablement, together with the number of fatal accidents?
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give statistics for the same time with reference to the Thames Ironworks Company?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Before giving the figures asked for in
  2702
  respect of the different firms mentioned in the questions, I must explain that the figures which I gave the other day for Cammell, Laird, and Co., in reply to the hon. Member for Bow, were, as I have since found, the figures for the whole of their works, and not for the shipbuilding yard only. I should also say that the figures available in the department of persons employed in shipbuilding yards do not relate to the present year, but to the last year for which returns were made by the firms, that is, 1907 in the first three cases, and 1904 in the last case; and further, I must warn hon. Members that the figures of persons employed cannot be regarded as strictly comparable, as the Department cannot be certain that the same operations are carried on in the shipbuilding yards in each case. The figures are as follows:—

  Cammell, Laird and Co.: Number employed, 1,601; number of accidents in 1910 and 1911, 708, of which ten were fatal.

  Armstrong (Elswick): Number employed, 3,917; number of accidents, 439, of which one was fatal.

  Brown and Co. (Glasgow): Number employed, 3,735; number of accidents, 501, of which eight were fatal.

  Vickers, Son, and Maxim (Barrow): Number employed, 3,836; number of accidents, 1,061, of which three were fatal.

  The return of accidents made to the Factory Department do not distinguish between cases of partial and cases of total disablement. No accident, however, is reportable unless it causes, in the certain classes of accidents, disablement for at least one day, and in other classes of accidents, disablement for a week. I have written to my hon. Friend to explain that it is practically impossible to give comparable figures for the Thames Ironworks Company.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries respecting the yard at Birkenhead with a view to ascertaining how many of the accidents have been due to bad lighting, and could he arrange that the inspector should visit the yard at night to see the conditions of the lighting?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. I think the suggestion of the hon. Member is a very reasonable one. I will take care that, steps are taken in the direction indicated.
  Mr. CLYNES: Does the inspector in his report give information as to the cause of these accidents generally? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of taking steps to receive such information?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the information includes that. Of course, a special inquiry is held where an accident of a very grave character is reported.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proportion of accidents at the Thames Ironworks Company, especially as regards deaths, is very much smaller?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures for the Thames Ironworks Company cannot be compared with the others. It depends so much on the particular kind of work done.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am talking about the figures as they exist.
  Mr. McKENNA: For the class of work? I will look into the figures.

  Begging (Conviction at Marlborough Street Court).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been drawn to the sentence of one month with hard labour imposed upon William Deacon at the Marlborough Street police court, for placing himself in Oxford Street with a barrel-organ for the purpose of gathering alms; and whether he would take into consideration the circumstances of the case with a view to lightening this sentence?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have communicated with the magistrate and ascertained that this was a case of persistent begging and obstruction of a crowded thoroughfare at a busy time of the day; the magistrate, however, himself reduced the sentence to fourteen days. I understand the police court missionary has given assistance to the prisoner's family during his imprisonment.

  Royal Fleet Reserve.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a Royal Fleet Reserve man received £50 gratuity for ten years' service in the Reserve, making twenty years' service altogether in the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Reserve; whether he was aware that men who were invalided from the Royal Fleet Reserve received no gratuity; and whether he could see his
  2704
  way to amend the regulations so that men invalided might receive gratuities at the rate of £5 for every year they served in the Royal Fleet Reserve?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Twenty years' combined service in the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Reserve (Class B) is one of the conditions for the award of the gratuity of £50, but the proportion of this period to be spent in the Reserve is not fixed at ten or any particular number of years. Provision is made in the regulations for the award of gratuities to men of Class B who are invalided from the Reserve or refused re-enrolment on medical grounds if they are wholly unable, or able in a small degree only, to contribute to their own support, and if their incapacity is not due to their own misconduct. The suggestion in the last part of the question cannot be adopted, as in some cases it would involve payment of a larger gratuity than the maximum of £50, membership of the Reserve not being restricted to a period of ten years.

S.S. "DELHI."
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given private notice, namely, whether he can give the House any further details connected with the wreck of the P. and O. steamship "Delhi"; whether there was any loss of life amongst the passengers and crew; whether there was any loss of life amongst the officers and men of the British squadron which went to the assistance of the "Delhi"; whether he can inform the House how many French seamen lost their lives in their heroic efforts to save life; and whether he can see his way to send an expression of gratitude from the British House of Commons to the Government of the French Republic for the gallant part the French officers and men took in the work of rescue, and an expression of sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives?
The PRIME MINISTER: Two telegrams have been received from the Vice-Admiral Commanding the Atlantic Fleet, one on the 14th, the other during the night of the 14th-15th. In the course of the former it was stated: "A few passengers and over 200 crew still on board wreck, so far impossible to land anyone to-day. Much regret to

2705
report three men 'Friant' drowned yesterday through steamboat capsizing while attempting to save life. 'Friant' arrived first at wreck from Tangier, and took off some women and children before rising sea prevented further operations. Her assistance was invaluable. Have expressed personally to senior French naval officer and captain of 'Friant' gratitude for the services rendered, and profound sympathy at loss of life. We have several cutters' crews stranded at Spartel, and boat washed up on beach; impossible to recover them until weather moderates. Am sending 'London' to Gibraltar this afternoon with considerable number remainder of passengers."
The later telegram stated that "All passengers were ashore except one injured and his son. Crew were being landed, by rocket apparatus brought over from Gibraltar, at rate of six to eight an hour. Two hundred were still on board 3 p.m. Assistance from seaward impracticable owing to heavy surf. Sixty officers and men with Rear-Admiral Cradock working ashore. 'Delhi' lying quite comfortably, and in very shallow water. Only means of transport between wreck and Tangier is by mules. French military force from Tangier had been of great assistance in lending tents for passengers and working parties, and supplying food. The Spanish Government had sent the 'Reine Regente' to render every assistance. Have thanked captain, and informed him that in weather conditions prevailing any help from seaward impossible, and she is returning to Tangier."
I am glad to say there has been no loss of life among the officers and crews of His Majesty's ships. We deeply regret the loss which has been sustained by the gallant sailors of the French navy, and His Majesty's Government yesterday telegraphed a message of gratitude and admiration to the British Ambassador at Paris. I am sure the relatives will know that they have the hearty sympathy of the House of Commons and of the country.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

  BUNTINGFORD ASSOCIATION.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the Paper containing Mr. Watson's figures with regard to the Buntingford Association will be circulated?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I really know nothing about it, but I am told by an hon. Friend who has referred to the Votes and Proceedings that the Paper was laid yesterday.

  SCOTTISH COMMISSIONERS.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: I wish to ask the Lord Advocate a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he is now in a position to give the names of the Scottish Commissioners under the Insurance Bill?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am not yet in a position to do so.

APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES.
Mr. PRIMROSE: I desire to ask, on a point of Order, whether, if the Bill which is down in the name of the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) is introduced, the discussion on my Motion will be in any way circumscribed?
Mr. SPEAKER: It will be limited somewhat, because the Bill deals with the appointment of magistrates in the future. It is to provide "for granting powers to the Lord Chancellor better to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission" in the future. The Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member and his criticisms—I will not put it higher than that—of the Lord Chancellor's action relate to the past, and to the methods in which the Lord Chancellor has carried out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I think the discussion as to the future would be limited by the Bill.
Mr. PRIMROSE: Shall we be at liberty to vote against the introduction of the Bill?
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no question put.
Mr. KING: The Bill refers only to county benches. Surely the discussion with regard to borough benches will not be circumscribed?
Mr. SPEAKER: As far as the Motion relates to borough benches the question will be open.
Sir CHARLES HENRY: May I draw your attention to the concluding words of the Resolution, namely, "that the measures taken by the Lord Chancellor … will not remove the cause of the

2707
dissatisfaction." Does not that imply that in this Resolution we want to deal with future recommendations with regard to the magistracy?
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no doubt the hon. Member does desire to deal with the future, but that will be blocked if this Bill is introduced.
Sir C. HENRY: May I take it that we shall not be precluded from making suggestions as regards what we consider to be the best course to be taken in the future?
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, you will be precluded from so doing.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Would not the difficulty in which the hon. Member is placed be got rid of if he put down a Motion simply of condemnation of the action of the Lord Chancellor?
Mr. SPEAKER: No Bill could be introduced to block that, except, perhaps, one of attainder.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Would any discussion with regard to magistrates other than those on the county benches be in order, seeing that the Motion is limited to "the method in which magistrates to the county benches have been appointed"?
Mr. SPEAKER: We will wait and see how the matter develops.

FINANCE BILL.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I desire to ask a question of which I have given you, Sir, private notice, namely, whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Speaker's certificate is not appended to the Finance Bill which passed this House on Wednesday last, the Bill in question is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act?
Mr. SPEAKER: In my opinion that Bill is not a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act.

BILLS PRESENTED.

  APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES BILL.
  "To provide for an improved method of appointing Magistrates to the county benches, for granting powers to the Lord Chancellor better to give effect to the
  2708
  recommendations of the Royal Commission, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. AMERY; supported by Viscount Wolmer, Mr. Rupert Gwynne, and Mr. Worthington-Evans; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed.

  LAW OF LIBEL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law of Libel in Scotland," presented by Sir HENRY DALZIEI,; supported by Mr. Munro-Ferguson, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, and Mr. MacCallum Scott; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed.

APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES.
Mr. PRIMROSE: I beg to move, "That this House recognises the widespread discontent which has existed at the method in which magistrates to the county Benches have been appointed, and is of the opinion that the measures taken by the Lord Chancellor to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission will not remove the cause of the dissatisfaction."
I think that we on this side of the House should be very grateful to the Government for having given us a day for the discussion of this subject, and I think we shall not be considered unreasonable if, now that our discussion upon the future administration and the Lord Chancellor is so circumscribed, we ask for a further opportunity next Session of discussing this question. I think, however it is a matter for regret that the last day of the Session should have been chosen when it is difficult to get any adequate expression of opinion from this House, upon a matter on which it is so necessary to get an expression of opinion from the House, knowing as we all do what the feeling in the constituencies is. The reason wiry my friends and I wish to bring this question forward is, in the first place, because we feel that the Report of the Royal Commission should not be acted upon without discussion in this House. After all, Royal Commissions are not divinely inspired; they are composed no doubt of eminent Members of the Houses of Parliament, but it does not in the least follow that their findings may suit the wishes of Members of this House, and in any case a question which involves such an immense amount of patronage it seems to me should not be decided without discussion. Secondly, we feel that the recommendations contained

2709
in the Report do not suit the exigencies of the case. I think I understand from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that our discussion of the Report is rather circumscribed. Am I to understand that we are not to discuss the Report of the Commission at all?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to discuss the Report of the Commission, but I do not think he is entitled to suggest what should be done for the future; that part of the subject is shut out. The hon. Member is certainly entitled to criticise the Report or to make any criticism upon it he wishes.
Mr. PRIMROSE: I am very glad of that ruling, Mr. Speaker, because I think we all feel that whatever cure might be suggested for the purpose of our present grievances, that cure should be suggested by the Government itself. My Motion deals with the past as well as the future, and the fairest instance which I can give of the injustice to which Liberal constituencies have been subjected is by quoting what happened in my own Constituency. Last autumn the Lord Chancellor appointed two Conservative magistrates, and the proportion on the bench already was about three Conservatives to one Liberal. I thought I should write to the Lord Chancellor and ask him if he would mind my suggesting some names for his attention. He wrote back, through his secretary, to say that there was no chance of the question being reopened for some little time. There were a good many complaints in my Constituency of the great disparity in numbers of the political parties on the bench. On the strength of that I thought I would make a further attempt, and not having any confidence in my own powers of persuasion, I approached my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and trusted his well-known gentle handling of very delicate situations would bring about a successful result. The answer from the Lord Chancellor was that he would not consent to consider them now, and that the new practice of Advisory Committees had been established. That was quite a fair answer and attitude which the Lord Chancellor had a perfect right to take up, but what was my surprise when very shortly after this six magistrates were created, every one of them Conservatives, and without the Advisory Committee being consulted. I have nothing to say against the gentlemen appointed. No doubt they are admirable in every way. If I may coin a word
2710
from Lord Eldon, I would express the hope that they may be as "Eldonian" in their administration of justice as they are now in their political principles. But I cannot agree with the Lord Chancellor that there are no Liberals in my Constituency who are fit to be appointed as magistrates. The explanation of this transaction is even more extraordinary still. It was explained in a letter from the Custos Rotulorum to the Lord Chancellor himself. I will not weary the House with the whole long account, but I will read an extract from his letter. Lord De Ramsey wrote to the Lord Chancellor:—
"You will doubtless remember that when, at your request, I called upon you on February 14th last, and placed before you the names of the four gentlemen, two on each side of politics, to form a consulting committee which you asked me to lay before you, those names you approved. I then suggested six names for your appointment, to the Commission of the Peace, and remarked that 'if the family Bible were in my hand, I would swear I did not know their politics.' You replied, 'I shall not put you to that test.'"
Another instance of political impartiality:—
"But will you place them before your consulting committee?' to which I answered that I was leaving for Egypt the following morning, and that owing to the Commission of the Pence having been closed by you pending the Report of the Royal Commission, the matter was urgent; you kindly acceded to my request."
The Lord Chancellor wrote back to Lord De Ramsey:—
"I am much obliged for your letter, and your account of what was said between us is quite correct. It was understood that any other names would come before the committee for the future."
With regard to Lord De Ramsey's statement that he did not know the politics of the gentleman he recommended, it must be very galling to those gentlemen if he did not. Lord De Ramsey is president of the Wisbech Conservative Association, and a very active president, and one of the gentlemen whom he recommended is a member of the executive committee. They frequently sat together on various festive occasions and I think they were probably together at the festive occasion when the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin was selected as my opponent. But what I cannot account for is the action of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor told me in answer to my right hon. Friend that he would not appoint any more magistrates without his Advisory Committee being consulted. There, upon his own admission is a case, because a Conservative Lord Lieutenant gives him names and they are appointed without further delay. I say deliberately the Lord Chancellor committed a breach of faith. That may be a strong expression,

2711
but it is not too strong. I am here as the representative of my Constituency, and if I find that my supporters are being treated in a contemptuous and unfair way I believe it to be my duty not to let that contempt pass unchallenged, whether it is done by a private individual or by the Lord Chancellor of England. The office of Lord Chancellor is an illustrious one, but no occupant of an office, however illustrious that office may be, should shelter himself behind its great traditions for action for which any private individual would be condemned, and I say that the titular Keeper of the King's Conscience should not neglect his own. The explanation of the Lord Chancellor's conduct is found in the evidence before the Royal Commission. An hon. Member of this House in giving evidence said as follows:—
"I know what the Lord Chancellor told me himself that he certainly should not act without the consent of the Lord Lieutenant: that a good many Lords Lieutenant were Members of the House of Lords, and he was not going to differ from them."
That is the keynote of the Lord Chancellor's policy. What his object was I cannot, of course, say. It may have been the hope that Liberal measures would more easily glide through the House of Lords, and if that was his hope it was doomed to failure. On the other hand, his object may have been social, and then perhaps he was more successful. I do think it is a most humiliating position for the Liberal party that one of the Ministers of the Government they support ignores all Liberal dissatisfaction in the country and takes no notice of this burning discontent in the constituencies. I will now speak about the Report of the Royal Commission. That Report, as usual, expresses the hope that politics may not enter in future into those appointments, and I entirely agree with that view. I do so, however, on three conditions. The first condition is that for the future no politics should not mean no Liberal polities. The second condition is that the present disparity in number of the political parties on the Bench should be redressed; and lastly, if you are going to make these offices non-political, you should begin at the top and not at the bottom. I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor himself was appointed for his superior legal knowledge. I have had no practical experience of the Lord Chancellor's legal powers, but I do say that although we concede willingly that the Lord Chancellor may have stood out in the forefront of all those qualified for that post, we must admit that he would
2712
have had no chance for that position if he had not been a member of the Liberal party. Let us begin at the top and not at the bottom. The Report further recommends that the Lord Lieutenant should maintain the practice of making representations for the magistracy, but that he should receive recommendations from the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committees are to comprise two Members of each party, with the Lord Lieutenant as chairman, presumably with a casting vote. The first question is, how are these Advisory Committees to be appointed. In the first place, I should like to ask whether they have been appointed at all. I received a letter from the constituency of the Home Secretary, in which the writer says:—
"I have sent many resolutions to Mr. McKenna during the last few weeks. It is most unsatisfactory as far as Monmouthshire is concerned, for they have not even appointed the Advisory Committee yet."
I want to give an instance which I know of as to how these Advisory Committees are appointed. The Conservative Lord Lieutenant made representations to the Liberal Member who represents the constituency, and asked for two names to be put on as the Liberal members of the Advisory Committee. The Member sent the names down, but he afterwards discovered that those two names were not the names submitted to the Lord Chancellor and the reason why they were not submitted was that they were considered too partisan. I think the only possible chance of these Advisory Committees being of any use to the Liberal party at all is if you put on two real partisans, because you do not want to put on two Liberals who will not take their sides against the Conservatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] There is no question about the Conservative Members being partisans, and if you want any success from this system of Advisory Committees the Member must be consulted, and he must put on two men who will stick up for his party. The second point about Advisory Committees is that I do not see how it is possible in this way to equalise the disparity in numbers on the county benches. If the House will allow me I will put an analogy of how the Advisory Committees will work. Let us suppose for a moment that the present system of the creation of Peers is altered. Let us suppose the Advisory Committee is composed of two Liberal Peers and two Conservative Peers, presided over by a chairman or the Lord Chancellor himself. We must for the purpose of this illustra-

2713
tion banish from our minds the idea which we have of the natural reluctance of hon. Members on this side of the House to enter the House of Lords. Let us assume for the moment that there is a burning desire on the part of everyone sitting on this side to enter the House of Lords. I landowners who consider the right hon. Friends, do they think that such a committee would give them much chance of entering the House of Lords or, in fact, of redressing the balance of parties in the House of Lords in any way?
Sir F. BANBURY: They would all turn Tory.
Mr. PRIMROSE: I think in what I have stated you get a perfect illustration of how these Advisory Committees will work. We wish more advantage to be taken of the Act which abolished the property qualification. I know it is often said that they would appoint Liberal magistrates, only they cannot find the Liberals to appoint. I think that comes from making the field of selection principally from people who are landowners. I have never been able to understand why to own land was a particular sign of intellect, or even of common sense. No one pays any particular attention to landowners nowadays, except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I believe there are some landowners who consider the right hon. Gentleman's attentions superfluous. We do wish some measures to be taken which will widen the field of selection, and eventually not only redress the inequality between the two parties on the Bench, but also enable the method of selection to be fairer. I understand the Prime Minister is going to speak, and I am afraid anything we say will not be of any avail against the powerful eloquence of those who will speak later, but, if I may, I will mention one or two arguments which may be brought up against us from some quarters. In the first place, we may be told some of the figures we published in the summer showing the disparity of numbers on the Benches were incorrect. I very much regret if that was the case. We printed them as they were sent to us, and we could check them no more. We trusted the people who sent them, and we were unable to check them any further ourselves.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Who was "we"?
Mr. PRIMROSE: My hon. Friend the Member for the St. Austell Division of
2714
Cornwall (Mr. Agar-Robartes) and myself. Then it may be further said that many of the recommendations sent to the Lord Chancellor by the Liberals were invalid. It may be some of our recommendations that were sent in were bad, but surely it is not fair to damn the whole of the Liberal party for that reason. It may be said that people have been selected for magistrates because they subscribed to the party funds or took part in party politics. I do not know if the person who subscribes to the party fund is to be the outdoor man in the future, but why should you stigmatise any man who in the dark days of Liberalism stuck to his party in the country and choose to subscribe to his local association, not with any ulterior motive except to keep it going, and debar him for ever from sitting on the magisterial Bench? And, as regards taking part in party politics, surely that should not be a sign of unfitness for sitting on the Bench. How is a man in the country districts to give free play to the activity of his mind? Why should he not? Do you wish to banish every village Hampden from the county Bench and to say a man who takes part in politics, principally on the Liberal side, is to be disqualified from serving on the Bench? I think the whole idea is absurd. Since this question has obtained publicity a certain change has come over the situation. Since last summer some Advisory Committees have been set up, and two days before this Debate came on a certain number of magistrates were appointed. All I say about that is——
The PRIME MINISTER: Does my hon. Friend mean to suggest that announcement was delayed until this Debate was about to take place, or that it had any connection whatever with the Debate?
Mr. PRIMROSE: I do not for one moment suggest it was for the purposes of the Debate, but I think the action of the Advisory Committees was stimulated by the idea of the Debate.
The PRIME MINISTER: Why?
Mr. PRIMROSE: To show some justification for their existence. That is the way a temporary change may have come over them, but we cannot be expected every time we wish some magistrates to be made to conduct an agitation in the Press and in the country which shall bring the matter to the attention of those who make them. I sincerely hope the Government will see their way to recommend some system in

2715
the future which will remove the inequalities between our party and the Conservative party in the country. I do think it is a most necessary step for them to take, and it is with that sincere conviction I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
Sir CHARLES HENRY: I beg to second the Motion. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wisbech is to be congratulated on the moderation and the firm conviction he has shown, but he is to be congratulated for another reason. He has been successful where Liberal colleagues of mine in the Parliament of 1906 signally failed. He has been successful in obtaining from the Government a day to discuss this matter. We were unable to do so. I think the Opposition require some word of commiseration. They endeavoured to avail themselves of a Parliamentary method to stop this discussion. I can quite well understand and appreciate their reason for so doing. They do not desire this matter——
Mr. BONAR LAW: On a point of Order. What right has the hon. Gentleman to make that statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a point of Order."] It is a point of Order. What right has the hon. Gentleman to impute motives to my hon. Friend who put down that Motion?
Sir C. HENRY: I will tell the Leader of the Opposition. I think those motives are so apparent, though I will not express any further opinion about it. I will leave it to the judgment of the House. What I do say is this: I think my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will agree it is time this matter was discussed in Parliament. The question of magistrates generally never has an opportunity of being discussed in this House. The salary of the Lord Chancellor who has the appointment of them does not come under the Estimates. Therefore, I consider it is, if for no other reason, desirable some change should be made in the existing conditions under which magistrates are appointed. I hold the strong opinion that those duties should be delegated to one who can he questioned in this House regarding the appointments, and who will be responsible for them, and, as the Home Secretary is practically the arbiter of these gentlemen, he should have some hand in their appointment. What was the position with which we were confronted
2716
at the beginning of 1906? The Unionist party had been in power for a large number of years, and, during that time, most of the appointments made belonged to Members of that party. In fact, it had been the policy, not an unusual one, that to the victors belonged the spoil. It was expected, and naturally so, when a Liberal Government was returned to power with such an overwhelming majority as that Government was in 1906, that gentlemen qualified in every respect who belonged to the Liberal party would receive some recognition, and that the flagrant inequality and the predominance of one political party on the bench might in some way be mitigated. I would like to tell the Lord Chancellor this. He is a Scotsman, and, as a Scotsman, he will be the first to admit that his fellow countrymen not only like to have but are on the look-out for recognition and appreciation. I think the Lord Chancellor will be the first to admit that his party, whenever the opportunity has presented itself, have recognised and have shown appreciation for his great political services. I would like also to add that Englishmen are not very different from Scotsmen in this respect. They also like recognition and appreciation, and I say a large number of Liberals throughout the country had reason to take exception to the policy adopted by the Lord Chancellor when he said that no magistrates would be appointed on account of political services rendered. The Lord Chancellor had a difficult situation to contend with, but he had not the difficulties to encounter with which his predecessor—Lord Herschell—was confronted. The Prime Minister will remember that in the Parliament of 1892, in which he was Home Secretary, Lord Herschell said, in connection with this question, which was at the time very much in the forefront, that:—
"While the legal right of appointing magistrates for counties as well as for boroughs was vested in him alone, he himself did not feel justified in setting aside the long standing practice and constitutional usage which had grown up of limiting the county appointments to persons nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, unless he was fortified in doing so by an unequivocal declaration of the opinion of the House of Commons."
In May, 1893, the late Sir Charles Dilke moved a Resolution to this effect:—
"In the opinion of this House it is expedient that the appointment of county magistrates should no longer be made by the Lords Chancellor of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being only on the recommendation of the Lords Lieutenant."
The Prime Minister, then Home Secretary, adopted the Resolution on behalf of his

2717
Government, and in the course of his speech expressed himself as follows:—
"Far be it from me to say that the magistrates show bias in these matters; but so long as the bench is constituted as it is at present, there will always be in the minds of people a feeling, which yon cannot say is unreasonable, that magistrates belonging exclusively to one class slightly depress or raise the balance in favour of the class to which they belong."
Then he went on to say:—
"The only condition under which justice can be administered so as to inspire general confidence is that the bench should represent all parties and all schools, and should be free from all suspicion one way or the other."
That Resolution of the House of Commons has never been modified. It gave the Lord Chancellor power to act independently of Lords Lieutenant. In addition, his task in equalising the political complexion of benches was much facilitated by the fact that one of the first Acts of 1906 was a measure abolishing the qualification for county magistrates, to which my hon. Friend has referred. Lord Robson, then Solicitor-General, gave the following reasons for the necessity of this measure:—
"I need not point out that these qualifications very materially restricted the area of choice in the appointment of gentlemen living in the county to this important judicial office: indeed, there are some industrial districts in mining and manufacturing counties where it has not been only difficult, but almost impossible, to procure gentlemen in any way competent to fulfil magisterial duties, but who at the same time possess this qualification as resilient landowner or occupier. But there is a wider reason than that for the alteration in the law which we propose by the Bill. When the qualification by estate was originally devised and enacted there was some reason for it in the fact that education, especially that higher education which is derived from the responsible conduct of public affairs, was almost a monopoly of the propertied classes. You might say it was the privilege of property. That state of things exists no longer. Not only is education of the scholastic variety more widely spread, but public life has been thrown open to all classes, with the happy result that in every district of England are found men of position and authority well qualified to hold office quite irrespective of the wealth they may possess, especially landed wealth."
We expected that legislation would lead to the result of selecting magistrates on a more democratic basis. What has been our experience? During the 1906 Parliament, together with many of my Liberal colleagues, I approached the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the present Lord Chancellor and the present Prime Minister, and, as a result, in 1909 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the subject. The hon. Member for Wisbech (Mr. Primrose) referred to his own personal knowledge in connection with his own Constituency. If I may be permitted to do so I should like to give some figures as regards the county of Shropshire—one of the Divisions of which I have the honour to represent.
2718
At the end of 1905 there were 194 county magistrates of whom may be stated with fair degree of accuracy that 139 were Conservatives, five Liberals, and fifty neutrals whose policy it was difficult to determine. In spite of these facts twenty-five more Conservatives have been appointed, seventeen Liberals, and six non-partisan, so that the bench now consists of 164 Unionists, twenty-two Liberals, and fifty-six unattached. In my own Constituency—the Wellington Division—what was the position at the end of 1905? There were seventeen magistrates, of whom fourteen were Unionists, one Liberal and two unattached. There are now eighteen Unionists, four Liberals and two unattached. I ask the Prime Minister, can he justify that position of affairs? Does he not think we are justified in trying to bring about some remedy for this flagrant monopoly? I have repeatedly approached the Lord Chancellor in connection with this question of the magistracy of Shropshire. I have never had the privilege of an interview with that august person, but I make no complaint about that. I recognise that the Lord Chancellor's office is an onerous one, that he has multifarious duties in participating in the Executive of the Government, as Speaker of the House of Lords, and as President of the Supreme Courts of Justice. For this reason alone I consider an alteration of the present system is absolutely necessary. What was my experience in presenting recommendations by which the anomalous position as regards Shropshire benches might be altered. The Lord Chancellor, when he assumed his present office, brought with him as secretary a certain Mr. Neish, to whom he delegated all matters connected with the magistracy. I do not think I am exaggerating when I state that no more unfortunate selection could have been made than the appointment of this gentleman in that capacity. I do not think I wrongly describe him by saying that he showed himself entirely opposed to the advancement of Liberal views. I believe my experience was by no means isolated. After Mr. Neish had done all he could to thwart Liberal views, he was removed from that position, and I think he may be congratulated—certainly the Liberal party may be—as he is now appointed to the office of Registrar of the Privy Council, at a salary of £1,200 a year. I hardly think this appointment is free from political influence. In 1909, owing to the continued protests of Liberal Members, a Royal Commission was appointed for the

2719
purpose of dealing with the selection of justices, and the Prime Minister was asked that its Report might be discussed in the House of Commons before it was acted upon. The Lord Chancellor put it immediately in operation. I take the view that as this Royal Commission was appointed by the Government, and as the expenses of the Commission come out of the Exchequer, this House had a right to pass an opinion upon the Report before it was acted upon, because there might be matters in it with which we wanted to deal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have desired an opportunity of criticising the Report, because it did not pronounce that women should also be qualified for appointment as magistrates. This Report was, however, put into operation, with the result that my hon. Friend has indicated. I do not propose to deal very much with the evidence contained in that Report, but I cannot refrain from drawing attention to the evidence, or part of the evidence, of Sir Offley Wakeman, Chairman of the Shropshire Quarter Sessions. He said, quite frankly:—
"I quite recognise that there is an enormous preponderance of Unionists on the Bench, but the reason for that is that there is not the same proportion of material on the other side. It is very difficult to find gentlemen of Liberal opinions in Shropshire who are properly qualified to be put on the bench."
What was the condition of things in Shropshire at the General Election in 1906? In the county divisions 18,209 votes were recorded for the Liberal candidates, as against 17,956 for the Unionist candidates. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he considers that from amongst these 18,209 voters a sufficient number could not have been found in order to some extent mitigate the inequality which existed on the Shropshire bench, instead of that inequality and predominance being further accentuated, as it has been since 1906. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government endorses the theory that from ranks of adherents to Liberalism men cannot be found with equal judicial capacity as amongst those drawn from the Unionist ranks? I should also like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Lord Chancellor, to his knowledge, had any evidence forthcoming that justice administered by Liberal magistrates is open to more criticism or is in any way less efficient than that administered by Tory magistrates?
The PRIME MINISTERindicated dissent.
Sir C. HENRY: At any rate I have got that admission from the Prime Minister. Lord Halsbury, in his evidence before the Commission, admitted that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he accepted the recommendations of Lords Lieutenant as a matter of course, and the present Lord Chancellor stated that 98 per cent. or 99 per cent. of his appointments were only made with the concurrence of Lords Lieutenant. In fact, it must be admitted by all sides that Lords Lieutenant, and those connected with them in the counties, have been mainly responsible for the appointment of justices, and that the Lord Chancellor and the previous Lord Chancellors have only been instruments in their hands.
It must not be overlooked that there is another body of magistrates, that is the borough magistrates. I know this Resolution does not refer to them, but for my argument it is necessary that they should be brought to the notice of the House. These appointments are made without the intervention of the Lords Lieutenant, but largely on the recommendation of Members of Parliament. On these benches far greater political equality exists. I do not think anybody will assert that the justice meted out on borough benches is in any way unfair or that it does not command equal, if not greater, satisfaction than that meted out by county benches. I should like to know why it is necessary in the case of county benches that 99 per cent. of the appointments have to come through the Lords Lieutenant, whereas in the case of borough benches no such concurrence is necessary. Is it considered that a lower standard of justice is permissible on a borough bench than on a county bench? In the Report of the Royal Commission there is no recommendation that the Lord Lieutenant should have any control over the appointment of magistrates for the borough benches. The Report recommends that the Lord Chancellor should continue to advise the Crown as to the appointments of county magistrates. This is supported on account of his being the head of the Justiciary, but the same power is entrusted to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. May I ask why it is suggested that the Lord Chancellor as the head of the Justiciary in England should make the appointments in all counties except Lancashire, while in Lancashire the appointment of magistrates is relegated to a layman, who has no connection whatever with the Justiciary.

2721
Advisory Committees have been appointed, and I will acknowledge this, that the Lord Chancellor has done his best to make the Advisory Committees as equal as possible in regard to Liberals. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he has done that. I will go so far as to admit that since some of these Advisory Committees have been in operation a certain number of Liberal magistrates have been appointed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not everywhere."] I admit not everywhere. But even if in the counties of Kent, Devon, and Oxfordshire, Liberals have been appointed, that in no way will do away with the present injustice. That state of affairs may be promising at the beginning of the Advisory Committees, but it will not last. The Advisory Committees have been appointed in some counties with far different results. In the county of Berkshire, in which I live, previous to the appointment of the Advisory Committee, the predominance of Unionist magistrates over Liberal magistrates was about five to one. What has the Advisory Committee done? They have appointed six Liberals and five Conservatives. I shall probably be told that they could not find the men, but I think I can assure the Prime Minister that that is not the case, because I know the facts personally. The Commission recommend that in future Members of Parliament or candidates should not make recommendations for appointments, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wisbech has pointed out, they have entirely overlooked the fact of the inequality that at present exists. I maintain that before that recommendation is made effective, some steps should be taken to remove the present inequality and the prevailing predominance. Let me refer to what the Prime Minister said in 1893. He said,
"I entirely agree with those who say that politics ought not to be regarded as a qualification for the judicial bench."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps hon. Members who cheer that will also cheer what follows:—
"Yes, but if I may quote a familiar saying of an eminent Frenchman, who, when asked his opinion about the abolition of capital punishment, suggested that the assassins should set the example. I would say that it does not lie with those who have packed the county and borough benches with political partisans to hold up their hands in holy horror and argue, as against their opponents, that politics should have nothing to do with judicial appointments. I make a fair offer to hon. Gentlemen. Once let us redress the inequalities of the past, and we and our party will be perfectly prepared to enter into a truce and to agree that, for the future, the politics should have nothing to do with appointments to the magistracy."
2722
On behalf of my party I believe I can accept that proposal of the Prime Minister. I maintain that it is imperative that men should be chosen for the bench who will command absolute confidence, but it is not in the interest of the community, but an injustice, that the predominance of one political party should exist as at the present time. The Report of this Commission will not bring about this effect. I consider this matter requires the immediate attention of the Government. I hope the Lord Chancellor will recognise that the efforts of hon. Members have not been directed towards him in a captious spirit or in antagonism to himself, but in the desire of the party of which he is one of the leaders, may receive equal justice and equal treatment.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The discussion to-day has been carried on in somewhat unusual circumstances, owing to the ingenious procedure of the hon. Member (Mr. Amery), but although to some extent the Debate is more circumscribed than it would be but for his intervention, I think I ought at once to say a few words by way of comment on the two speeches in which the Motion has been submitted to the House. The hon. Member (Mr. Primrose) made a lively and interesting speech. I regretted that it should be disfigured, as I think it was, by quite unnecessary personal imputations against the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is a hard fighter in politics, and was for many years a much-respected Member of this House. It is sufficient to say there is no one who knows him, either as friend or opponent, who is not prepared to say, as I say, that there is no man in politics whose conduct is more scrupulously regulated by the highest considerations. It is a complete mistake to suppose that the Lord Chancellor has shown any desire to burke discussion in regard to this matter. I take the whole responsibility that we did not give a day for the discussion of the Report of the Commission. The Lord Chancellor was anxious for such a discussion, but there was not, in my opinion, adequate Parliamentary time for the purpose, and further, having regard to the fact that it was a unanimous Report of a most representative body, including a large number of Members of this House drawn from both parties, it was desirable to give the system proposed by the Report a little trial to see how the experiment worked, and then the House would be in a

2723
better position to pronounce a mature judgment on the whole matter. If that was wrong, I take the responsibility for the mistake. The Lord Chancellor has nothing to do with it.
The hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Henry) has quoted at some length from a speech which I appear to have made—I confess I had totally forgotten it, eighteen years ago, when I held the post of Home Secretary. It is not always the case when one's past utterances are disinterred from the oblivion to which we should often be only too happy to consign them, but I feel that I am in complete sympathy and concurrence with the opinions which I expressed upon that occasion. What did they come to, stated in simple language? That as far as possible political considerations ought not to enter into the composition of the magisterial Bench. No one would dispute that as an abstract proposition. Next I appear to have said, and I think it is perfectly true now, that that principle had not been in fact observed in the appointment of magistrates, and that the result of the system which then prevailed, and which prevailed up to the time of the appointment and the Report of this Commission, was without any imputation of corrupt or unworthy motives, that the magisterial Bench was composed, to a very large extent, of men who were chosen upon political grounds and recruited from one party in the State. That was a state of things which, although the magistrates might, and I believe did, act as a rule in a spirit of perfect impartiality, was not calculated to increase or to quicken public confidence in the administration of justice. I believe that is a perfectly sound proposition, and when the Lord Chancellor came to office at the beginning of 1906 he found that the state of things which I describe in these terms had been sensibly aggravated. When we criticise the action of the Lord Chancellor or of any Lord Chancellor in this matter, it is surely fair to remember that a more invidious and uncongenial duty cannot be cast upon any human being. Here is the Lord Chancellor, a very busy man, the highest judicial officer in the country, and a member of the Cabinet, and the duty is cast upon him of pronouncing upon the fitness or unfitness of tens, hundreds, even thousands of names which are poured in upon him to a large extent by political supporters, but also no doubt from other quarters, and in the determination of whose fitness or unfitness
2724
he is bound of necessity, because they are totally unknown to him, to have recourse to a more or less unsatisfactory local inquiry. That really is a duty from which anyone might shrink, and it is a duty in the performance of which the greatest possible consideration should be shown in the way of criticism.
Evidence given before the Commissioners shows that in the course of the four years up to the time of the appointment of the Commission, he appointed in all 7,000 justices. That includes England, Scotland and Wales, boroughs as well as counties. The Lord Chancellor says, quite frankly, that when he came to office there was an enormous preponderance of justices belonging to the Conservative party and consequently he felt that, as far as possible, he ought to find suitable Liberal magistrates to redress the balance. What was the quality of the complexion of the appointments actually made during those four years? It is not always possible to ascertain the precise political complexion of the appointments. These are the figures. In English and Welsh boroughs he appointed 1,100 Liberals, 284 Conservatives, and 115 persons whose politics were unknown. In the counties in those years he appointed 1,658 Liberals, 580 Conservatives, and 1,618 persons whose politics were unknown. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were mainly Conservatives."] That may be. I am not prepared to say. At any rate that was the state of the knowledge of the Lord Chancellor at the time the appointments were made. I am not at all surprised at the suggestion made by my hon. Friend that a large proportion of those persons whose politics were unknown turned out to belong to the Conservative party.
In the Scottish counties—there has never been any substantial complaint made there — there were appointed 439 Liberals and 141 Conservatives. The result of that in particular localities—for instance, in the two Divisions whose representatives have spoken to-day—may have been unsatisfactory. But if you look into the aggregate it cannot possibly be said that in the face of these figures the Lord Chancellor did not make an honest attempt, so far as his opportunities allowed, to redress the unfair balance which prevailed at the time of his appointment to office. We all agreed—and no one more than the Lord Chancellor when various representations were made to him by my hon. Friends behind me—that in many cases there was

2725
good foundation for complaining of the unsatisfactory way in which appointments were made. No one admitted more cordially than the Lord Chancellor that there should be a thorough, impartial, and independent inquiry as to the best system of dealing with this matter. That led to the appointment of the Royal Commission in 1909, and, pending the investigation and the Report of the Commission, the Lord Chancellor altogether held his hand, and I think during the whole period he appointed no magistrates, or only those needed for emergency purposes or to fill up gaps as required. Nothing has been said by either of my hon. Friends in the shape of adverse comment on the Commission presided over by my learned and lamented Friend the late Lord James of Hereford, and there sat upon it a very large number of gentlemen who either were or had been Members of this House. That Commission presented in substance a unanimous report. What was the substance of it? They agreed that politics ought not to be the determining factor, or, indeed, a governing ingredient in the appointment of magistrates. They agreed further that there was, owing to the operation of past appointments, a heavy political balance as against the Liberal party in the composition of the bench in most of the counties, if not in the boroughs of England and Wales. They agreed that for the future it would be desirable if possible to exclude political influence, and any opportunity of solicitation by political partisans, whether on the spot or in this House from the sphere, on behalf of nominees. They adopted the suggestion, which I think was put forward by the Lord Chancellor, that the appointment of these Advisory Committees would prevent Lords Lieutenant from being in future the sole, or even the principal channel and medium of communication between the locality and the Lord Chancellor, and who from their composition and their representative character would be able to sift the list of appointments and to present a list which could be safely accepted by the Lord Chancellor himself. That recommendation has been carried into effect. My hon. Friend (Mr. Neil Primrose) asked how many of these Committees have been appointed. I am told that Advisory Committees have been set up in all counties with few exceptions, and even as to those exceptions they are in every case approaching completion. Roughly speaking, in about half the counties recommendations have been already made by the Committees.
Mr. WATT: Is that in Great Britain. Does it include Scotland?
The PRIME MINISTER: No. I am speaking of England and Wales principally. As regards the composition of the Committees, I am told by the Lord Chancellor that they are not composed on party lines, and though in most cases there is an equal representation of Liberals and Conservatives, there is, as a matter of fact, taking it as a whole, a slight Liberal preponderance. But the appointments to the Committees are not supposed to be on party lines. In almost every case they have come to unanimous decisions, but it is always open to any member to make direct representations to the Lord Chancellor if he thinks any injustice has been done. These bodies are not executive, but consultative. They are formed to advise the Lord Chancellor, and he takes full responsibility as regards the names submitted to him by the Committee. Though he has adopted the recommendations practically in toto he still considers every name and reserves the right of rejection, and I am informed by him that in no case has he rejected any name. The choice has been wholly that of the Advisory Committees, and I am informed by him that in practically every case the choice of the Committees has been unanimous, and so far as he knows has given general satisfaction. I think I ought to add that an examination of the lists of justices shows that the Committees have evinced a great desire to recommend Liberal justices, and the Lord Chancellor believes that the Conservative members of Committees are, if anything more ready to nominate Liberal justices. They have shown a spirit of fair play, and I share the view of the Lord Chancellor. That is the system which has been brought into existence, suggested originally by the Lord Chancellor himself, adopted after full consideration by the Royal Commission, and now in full working order in most of the counties of England and Wales. I do not believe that anyone can suggest that there has been, since the appointment of the Committees and in the names submitted, a great deal to call for adverse comment or objection. My hon. Friend cited a particular case in his own Division where an appointment was made without consultation with the Committee. I am told that the explanation is that the matter was represented to the Lord Chancellor as one of great urgency, and had to be dealt with

2727
accordingly. That took place before the Advisory Committee, at any rate, was in full working order. I have not heard, either in this Debate or outside, any serious criticism of the action of the Committees since they have been in working order, and of the way in which they have endeavoured to carry out the new functions which the Commission recommended should be entrusted to them.
In these circumstances, I venture to ask my hon. Friends to be content with the explanation of this subject, which I have only been too happy to give them the opportunity of hearing. Do not let it be supposed for a moment that there was any desire on the part of the Government that the matter should not be discussed in the freest and frankest manner. I admit that it is a very difficult question. I suppose that if we were starting afresh there is not one of us who would adopt this very cumbrous system, which throws upon the chief judicial officer of the State, through the co-operation of the Lords Lieutenant of the counties, this very invidious and very difficult duty. I can imagine many better systems which the ingenuity of man might devise for dealing with this problem, but, at any rate, I think we may take it that we have got rid of the principal anomalies and difficulties which clung to the working of the system prior to the appointment of these Committees. We have started, in place of the old system, a new one, which, so far, has borne excellent fruit; and I trust that further experience will tend more and more to justify its institution; and the House of Commons, I am sure, will be well advised at this stage of the development of what I conceive to be a great reform to discourage at the inception of its operations these doubts as to the possibility of its ultimate success. I could not possibly assent to the Motion which casts a reflection on the conduct of my Noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor; but I think I have shown from the facts which I have laid before the House and the reasons which I have given that in the appointments which he made that, while everyone of us must admit that in the performance of a duty of this kind errors of judgment are made from time to time and may have been committed, yet throughout he has been animated by an honest desire to perform his duty in the public interest and in a spirit of fair play; and now that we have the invaluable assistance of these Advisory Committees
2728
there will be less ground in the future than in the past for anything in the nature of adverse comment.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I am glad to say that I find myself in the position of agreeing with what has fallen from the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the circumstance that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Amery) had put down a Motion which caused this Debate to be conducted under somewhat restricted conditions. I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law) for saying that when he himself saw the ruling upon this matter he expressed his desire that this Debate should not be curtailed, but my hon. Friend, while anxious that this Debate should take place, felt it his duty to put down this Motion as a protest against a condition of things the existence of which is admitted on all sides to be vicious and which has been constantly protested against by both sides.
The PRIME MINISTER: I did not attribute anything to the Leader of the Opposition. It was put down by the hon. Member, and I quite understand the motive which led him to do so.
Mr. MORTON: Did the Leader of the Opposition endeavour to induce the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I at once saw my hon. Friend and expressed my wish that the matter should not be curtailed. He at once explained to me that he had put down the Motion at the request of another hon. Member who was absent, but that the object of it was not to interfere with this Debate, but to make a new protest against the fact that the Government have allowed this system to continue and that these Motions are possible.
Sir C. HENRY: Has not the effect of putting down the Motion been to prevent hon. Members from making suggestions in accordance with the recommendations of the Report?
Mr. BONAR LAW: The object of putting down this Motion was to renew a protest which has often been made before. The Prime Minister has never yet had an opportunity of making arrangements to get rid of this system.
The PRIME MINISTER: Because I cannot get a general consent, which is not my fault.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: On the general merits of this question, I think that both sides will agree that it is a misfortune that there should be any very great disparity between the representation of Conservatives and Liberals on the public bench, but it would be a still greater misfortune when that disparity existed if measures were taken to redress it by appointing men who were not qualified for the very difficult task which magistrates have to execute. I think that the figures which the Prime Minister has given have shown absolutely conclusively as a whole that the Lord Chancellor has redressed in part the preponderance which existed of Conservatives when he came into office, and I think that I can say for everybody on this side of the House that we associate ourselves entirely with the language of the Prime Minister as to the Lord Chancellor. I sat with him for many years in this House. I should think that no man could have stronger political opinions or express them with greater strength and sincerity than the Lord Chancellor when he was an hon. Member of this House. Notwithstanding that, every one of us, I think, who knew him, and who sat in the House with him during those years, felt absolutely certain of his transparent sincerity, integrity, and the probity of his nature and character, and I say, without being able to go into minute particulars of these thousands of appointments which have been made on the magistrates' bench, having some knowledge of that kind, that the appointments which the Lord Chancellor has made on the judicial bench on which we can all form an opinion, have convinced hon. Members on this side, and the country, that he has the highest possible conception of the responsibilities of his office, and of the necessity of getting the best possible men for these high and responsible duties. When this is said I really do not think there is much to be added. It really would be unfair to criticise closely the speech of a young Member of this House, evidently suffering in regard to the conduct of the Lord Chancellor from some idea of a grievance in his own constituency. The Member for Wisbech frankly put it that he desired Liberals to be appointed to the bench in order to oppose and counteract the Conservatives.
Mr. PRIMROSE: No; I said I wanted Liberals to be put on the bench in order to equalise the disparity of numbers.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I accept what the hon. Member states. I noted the words at
2730
the time, but I may be under a misapprehension as to what he said. At all events, nothing would be more lamentable than that there should be on Advisory Committees or magisterial benches conflicts between people of different political opinions. Anybody who really considers the matter, or has any experience of it, will recognise that if the magisterial benches or the Advisory Committees were to become a sort of cockpit of controversy between Liberals and Conservatives, all respect that the country bears to them at present would almost instantaneously vanish. I will only add that the Commission, as to which again I wish to associate myself with everything said by the Prime Minister, was composed of men of most varied political opinions. There were Labour men upon it, and I think there was a larger number of Liberals than Conservatives among the members of it. It is a most wonderful tribute, I think, to the great skill, resource, and wisdom of Lord James of Hereford that he was able to achieve the remarkable result of a unanimous report on so controversial a matter. The last word upon this subject appears to me to be said in the recommendations of the Royal Commission, in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7. They say in paragraph 5:—
"We are of opinion that it is not in the public interest that there should be an undue preponderance of justices drawn from one political party."
In the next paragraph they say:—
"We strongly condemn the influence and action of politicians being allowed to secure appointments on behalf of any political party."
That, I think, will be the desire of hon. Members. In paragraph 7 the Commissioners say:—
"We submit to the Lord Chancellor for the time being that he ought to reject and repudiate any such influence, and we equally urge that Lords Lieutenant and any one recommending persons for appointment as justices should decline to recognise political or religious opinions as any ground of qualification or disqualification."
When the Advisory Committees are being appointed on the recommendation of this Commission, and with the object of carrying out the proposals which I have read, and which have the assent of men of experience on this matter, it seems to me amazing that Liberals should rise in this House to make the comments they have on the Lord Chancellor, who has tried to strictly comply with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and who has fallen in most readily with the suggestions made—suggestions I believe which are a large part due to him. I only wish to say one word with regard to the real difficulty

2731
there is in getting an absolutely equal balance of Liberals and Conservatives in the country. I believe you can have no better member of the magisterial bench than a sound artisan, labourer, or workman, of good education and good character. Such men make excellent jurors, and good jurymen are often desirable appointments to the bench. The difficulty is for them to find time for the duties. It is useless to deny that, as a rule, wealthy men tend to Conservatism. Wealth gives leisure, and leisure gives opportunity to sit on the bench. You may have admirable men drawn from the poorer classes who simply have not the leisure to give to magisterial duties and, therefore, they cannot be appointed. That will give a monopoly still for a very long time, and no doubt it is due to that that there is a preponderance of Conservatives on the bench at the present moment. I would invite the House to consider that, although the preponderance exists, and that although all reasonable means ought to be taken to redress it, nothing would be more unfortunate than to redress it by appointing unqualified and undesirable persons.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment, after the word "That," to leave out all the words to the end of the Resolution, and to insert instead thereof the words,
"this House approves the action of the Lord Chancellor in giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the selection of justices."
I wish to express my gratitude to the Prime Minister for having taken so much of the burden of supporting my case off my shoulders. I agree that this matter might very well have ended with his speech, but my hon. Friend so far from being satisfied with to-day's Debate, is anxious for another day next Session; therefore, I think that in some way or other the matter should be brought to a conclusion now. His Resolution has remained on the Paper for a very long time, and, no doubt, but for the pressure of business, we should have reached it sooner; at any rate it should be disposed of now. The object of my Amendment is to maintain the policy laid down by the Royal Commission in the selection of justices, and to defeat what in my opinion has been too often a vicious system of patronage in the nomination of justices. The agitation
2732
on this subject has been stimulated by some extraordinary figures given in the "Daily Chronicle" in several issues during July last. In that journal figures were given for various counties, and being interested in the new system of local committees I went to the Lord Chancellor and was put into communication with Mr. Butler. As regards these columns of figures, I do not think it is possible to test the religious opinions of justices in forty-two counties. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I am a justice, I am an elected justice, and I do not know how my hon. Friend would set about testing my religious opinions. But what can be tested is the principle of appointments. The list given in the "Daily Chronicle" dates from the year 1906, but without saying whether it is the beginning or the end of the year. But whether it is the beginning or the end, the list is inadequate. In almost all the counties it is often very inaccurate indeed. In Northumberland the figures given were 159 creations of justices since 1906, whereas the total number appointed since January, 1906, until the publication of the list was only sixty-eight. In Oxfordshire, the figures given of new appointments were 152, and the actual total was fifty-seven, so that almost two-thirds of those men are the creation of a fertile imagination. These are given as counties in the list. There are numerous other inexplicable blunders, and the figures given in half the counties given are inaccurate to the extent of 30 per cent., and in the remainder to the extent of about 10 per cent. So far as I can find out, the misstatements as regards the political opinions of those appointed are at least as great as the misstatements of the actual numbers. I would like to know where those figures came from, whether they have been shown to the Lord Chancellor, whether the Lord Chancellor has been asked for information, whether those figures have been checked or corrected, and whether they emanated from the party agents or caucus. I have no belief in the verbal inspiration of the resolutions or returns emanating from the caucus upon this matter. In my experience the great majority of justices of the peace are not active political partisans, nor do I see the public advantage in their being so. I readily admit that to extract the administration of justice from the political sphere is not an operation that can be carried out upon the spur of the moment, or that it can be carried out without mistakes and, at least, there are

2733
many cases of complaint like those to which the House has listened and others.
2.0 P.M.
If I do not pursue the hostile criticism which has been made further it is because I have my own statement to make, and I do not wish to take up more than is necessary the time of the House. I will give some examples showing what has been done towards equalising the political element upon the bench. In Kent, which is a highly Conservative county, the Committee consists of two Conservatives and four Liberals, and their nominations have been forty-three, of whom six-sevenths are Liberals. That is that six out of seven of those recommended by the Kent Committee are Liberals. I do not think it is desirable that everybody on the bench should be known to the political agents as an active partisan. In the last list in Devonshire about nineteen out of the twenty-two nominated are sent in as Liberals. Those are two Conservative counties. In Midlothian about five-sixths of the twenty-five nominated were Liberals. The recent appointments have been made, I am assured, as soon almost as they came in and as they became ripe and in the ordinary course. The organisation of these committees is a matter that had to take some time, especially when the Lord Lieutenant does not cordially welcome them. In my own county our list was out last spring, but there the Lord Lieutenant was one of the originators of the scheme, and our list was done eight or nine months ago, and, so far as I can judge all over, progress has now become rapid. This question of the appointment of justices has perplexed people for nearly a century. For more than a generation political parties have been increasingly apt to regard the creation of justices of the peace as a thing to be used for the purpose of keeping the party together. That is a view prevailing more in some parts of the country than in others. In many districts the subject is not a burning one at all, but wherever the party managers on both sides have come to regard this form of patronage as one to use for the consolidation of their respective parties they try to make the most of it, and that is a system which is apt to lead to undesirable consequences. No doubt the present system has often worked extremely well. I can justify it myself. In my own Constituency my agent usually prepares a list of nominations for the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant under the old system, and nothing could have been
2734
easier or more happy than my relations with the Lord Lieutenant. His lists were usually received with general approbation of all parties, and doubtless others can say the same. But even so, most of us Members would be glad to get quit of this kind of thing. What is the office which you may fill under the old system by party agents drawing blank cheques on the Lord Chancellor? What are the qualities required in the men? Except where there are stipendiaries, which I believe are not common in England, every criminal case in some stage or another has to come before the justices of the peace. At quarter sessions penal servitude can be given and at Petty Sessions terms of imprisonment. The justice of the peace is far more than His Majesty's judge—he is the man who administers justice to the poor. As to the necessary qualifications, the Royal Commission refer to them, and I may remind the House of them. They recommended:—
"That the office should be filled by men of sufficient ability, of impartial judgment and high character."
They have said that—
"the present practice and system of selection frequently results in the absence or deficiency of such attributes."
They have referred to the activity of the political agents in preparing the list of applicants. They have pointed out that the chief qualifications sought for in preparing these lists is political service, and that it is difficult for the Member of Parliament to reject the agent's list. They added that all political parties seek to take advantage of every available opportunity to demand and secure the appointment of justices, and that such demand proceeds from a desire to strengthen the party interest. Everyone knows that most Members of Parliament detested this political system of making judicial appointments. Look at the first paragraph of the Memorandum of 1906 sent in by eighty-eight Members of Parliament giving most earnest support to any suggestion that would get rid of political influence. It says:—
"We desire to state that we believe the present system of appointment of the persons charged with the local administration of justice in county districts to be a wrong one, and would warmly welcome a proposal of the Government which would put it upon an entirely non-political basis."
It was recognised that the whole thing tended to degenerate into a party job. I believe that the Lord Chancellor who permitted such a system to develop would be deserving of impeachment. I would like to allude very briefly to the work involved

2735
on the Lord Chancellor. I admit the delay which has occurred in very many counties, but in 1906 the appointments of justices of the peace in ninety-eight counties and nearly two hundred boroughs rested solely with the Lord Chancellor, and one man in. London and one secretary, with some clerical assistance, had to do the whole of the work. There was no organisation by which advice could be obtained from outside. Therefore the work was enormous. In the first four years of office, as the Prime Minister has stated, until the activities of the office were suspended by the appointment of the Royal Commission, there were 7,000 nominations made and 20,000 applications were declined. The figure 7,000 was largely in excess of the average number created in previous years, that excess being due to the attempt to rectify some of the more glaring discrepancies. That is not the whole of the work, because separate nominations have to be made for each Petty Sessional division and for each ward of the great cities, in order that the bench may not be either over-manned or under-manned. In my own experience in Scotland I have known the administration of a licensing bench to become a fiasco owing to the court being filled with a huge organised mob of justices. I have seen seventy or eighty justices sitting in a licensing court. Hon. Members will realise what the result of that might be.
Mr. LEIF JONES: Could they justly be described as unorganised on that occasion?
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: As a whole, yes; in part, perhaps otherwise. The expansion of the undue predominance of Conservatives upon the bench results in great part from the fact that between 1886 and 1906 there was a high property qualification in England, and most persons possessing it were Conservatives; and whilst before the split in the Liberal party in 1886 a considerable number of magistrates could be drawn from a class who were then to a large extent Liberal and available for the magistracy under the property qualification, that source of recruiting was lost when the split took place. That difficulty was removed by the 1906 Act, which was carried by the Lord Chancellor. Obviously the preponderance of the Conservatives upon the bench would necessarily have remained the same if it had not been for that Act. In dealing with the counties, on whom could the Lord Chancellor rely for information?
2736
There were the Lords Lieutenant. But if you take the county of London, with its sixty-six constituencies, or the West Riding of Yorkshire, it is obvious that the Lord Lieutenant could not speak from personal knowledge. He had largely to be guided by the chairmen of Quarter and Petty Sessions who are mostly Conservatives. The advice of the Lords Lieutenant and of Members of Parliament is open to the criticism which has been made. The question was, how is one man to do the work? The Lord Chancellor, in speech and evidence, has shown that he has had to do it as best he could, asking advice from the Lords Lieutenant and from the representatives, taking advice from whatever quarter he could get it, where he found it reliable, and supplementing it by correspondence with County Court judges and stipendiaries. But although the work entailed was enormous the result was not satisfactory, because the sources of information were not sufficient.
It was proposed, then, to set up some machinery to effect the object in view—namely, first of obtaining the most trustworthy and impartial men—those most suited to the administration of justice, and to prevent an undue preponderance one way or the other on the bench; and, secondly, to break down and destroy so far as it could be done the system which was sought to be set up in some districts, of keeping the patronage of the nomination of justices for party ends, with all the dirty business that that imports. That is why the Lord Chancellor in his evidence advised the Royal Commission to consider the appointment of local committees to advise. That was also the proposal of the Lord Lieutenant in my own county, Lord Elgin, from whom I first heard the outline of the scheme. The Royal Commission adopted that view. It went further, and recommended that the Lord Chancellor should keep clear of Members of Parliament. It recommended—
"That the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Lieutenant should refuse to receive any unasked for recommendations for appointment from Members of Parliament or candidates for such Membership in their own constituencies or from political agents or representatives of political associations."
One Commissioner, Mr. Verney, dissented from that recommendation. He agreed with the description of the evil, but apparently he thought the recommendation was too strong. That shows how fully the Royal Commission realised the danger and mischief which lurked in the old system. The character of the Commissioners have

2737
been described by the Prime Minister. Six Members of the Commission were either Labour or Liberal Members of this House. They were unanimously in favour of the local committees. That is the policy to which effect is being given by the Lord Chancellor, and from which I most earnestly trust the House will not depart.
Under the old system two streams of recommendations flowed in. When the Lord Chancellor was a Liberal, all or nearly all the Liberal recommendations came from political sources. The Conservative recommendations have come almost entirely through the Lords Lieutenant. The Lord Chancellor has stated that not half a dozen names have been given to him by Conservative Members of Parliament. That shows how completely the drift has been on party lines. It was to get rid of this that the Royal Commission recommended the local committees—a practice to which the Lord Chancellor has said he will adhere as long as he holds office. The Royal Commission, as can be judged from its Report, was not in the least indifferent to the need of satisfying the people that a fair and honest selection was being made. What is condemned is the influence of politics, and the people must be satisfied that the best means are being taken to rescue the bench of justices from the grasp of the caucus. I will turn, in conclusion, to what the Resolution says. The wording has been left pretty well as vague as it could be. The House will recollect the letter signed by sixteen Members of Parliament asking for a day. They objected to the Advisory Committees. They asked for the transfer of the patronage, of the nomination, from the Lord Chancellor to a Minister responsible to the House of Commons—that is sitting in the House of Commons. I should have thought myself that the Lord Chancellor was responsible to the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The House of Commons can hold him responsible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not directly."] It is doing it now, to-day! If the first part of the Motion may be taken to mean that every fair-minded man disapproves of party methods of nomination, then it represents that on which everybody is agreed. On the other hand, the suggestion that the country disapproves of the Lord Chancellor's action is, I believe, entirely contrary to the fact, as the necessity for that policy is generally recognised.
The Motion states that this policy will not remove the cause of dissatisfaction.
2738
Does that mean that the Committee system is wrong? We have heard some arguments advanced to show that it is essentially wrong. That system was recommended by the best men who could be got together for the purpose of investigation in the Royal Commission. Does it mean that the Lord Chancellor has not appointed the Committees fairly? Or does it mean that the system is not approved by the party managers? If that be the attack on the Committees, it would appear to be that some other Minister sitting here in this House is to exercise the patronage without the Advisory Committee, though that has not yet been made plain; that is to say, that the evils of the old system would be reproduced, and Members of Parliament would be subjected to the closest political pressure to force some Minister to make political appointments. That, in truth, to my mind, would be the result of this Motion. You would have justices appointed all over the country, mainly through local political influences. My belief is that no Liberal should support such a proposition. I agree with the Report of the Royal Commission that the new system should remove all honest cause for dissatisfaction. A list of the County Committees have been published. Those Committees have been formed in nearly all the counties. What is the objection to that system? Consider the authorities in its favour I have already quoted. What conclusion can be drawn except that this protracted Commission has been forced on to coerce the Lord Chancellor, or any Lord Chan-by active partisans or party agencies of cellor, to accept the bills drawn upon him all colours? I know many of my friends are quite sure that the Lord Chancellor has not appointed a sufficient number of declared Liberals. It is very difficult to get proof of that. On the other hand, many have been appointed, and for many reasons stated by the Commission. They recognise the existing inequality, and regret it, although they say the disparity of which Lord Lansdowne spoke in 1907 has been appreciably reduced during the last few years. The last paragraph I shall quote from the Commission says:—
"Those who appoint justices or make recommendations for appointment ought not to be indifferent to the existence of this inequality, and should endeavour to redress the balance as far as public interests will admit. It is well that this gradual process should be pursued, for it is better that time should be given to curing or mitigating the disease than that resort should be a remedy which will tend to perpetuate the disease itself."

2739
All I can say is that if Members of Parliament are to be made unworthy conduits of pressure from political agencies, and if justices of the peace are to be appointed as nominees of a partisan system, then it will be far better to elect justices. Let us have a clean and not a dirty democracy. Let us vote for our judges by ballot. I am an elected magistrate, and I am a believer in the method which prevails in the Scottish Burghs. I find myself all the stronger for the administration of justice upon the bench under that system. But it must be borne in mind that in the Scottish Burghs the magistrates are elected by the town council in very limited numbers, and that local government is non-political, which is apparently not the case in England. Uniformity of practice is readily obtained under those conditions. The difficulties of an elective bench are greater in the counties than in the burghs. The jurisdiction of justices in Scotland is much less in favour than in England. My experience of the county system is more limited, but I can say that as a Vice-Lieutenant and member of the local committee in Fife, that I really possess no knowledge of the politics of those who are nominated for the bench, any more than I know the names of the members of my town council, or of my brother elected magistrates. I can hardly advance, therefore, the Scottish Burgh system as a precedent for an English elective magistracy; but it does occur to me if you were to make the magistracy elective in England, that there might be some counties where no Liberal would be elected, just as I once knew a county in Scotland where no Liberal need apply.
I dwelt upon this matter because to my mind it is the only alternative before the House to the present system, and it is an alternative so far as I know which works uncommonly well. I admit that in relation to the Sheriffs' Courts, we may not know much about the law, but we know something about the facts. I admit at once where political feeling runs high, it may be necessary to give special weight to political considerations in making nominations to the bench. But it cannot be either in the interests of the administration of justice in England, nor for the interests of the proper administration of licensing in Scotland if the first qualification of a justice ceases to be impartiality, character, capacity, and zeal for the public service. The difficulty of finding a fair proportion of Liberals in the districts
2740
rapidly disappears when the population have self-government, and with the progress of education, and no such difficulty should be met with in future. In my opinion the country owes the Royal Commission and the Lord Chancellor a deep debt of gratitude for their efforts to rescue justice from the struggles of the political arena. I believe great progress has already been made; that the Conservative domination exercised in so many counties has been for ever broken; that it can never be revived, even if the Conservative party be entrusted with another long lease of power like the last.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend. I do so as an English Member. I am aware that in Scotland the dissatisfaction that exists has been much less marked than in England. I do not wish for a moment to deny that there has been dissatisfaction in England for reasons which we quite understand. I think I should like to be associated with the protest which has been already made against the tone of personal offensiveness introduced by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Withdraw."] Personally, I regret that on the strength of the report of a conversation, which is, frankly, incredible, that there should have been any imputation of unworthy motives which I think the House as a whole will repudiate. It is quite unnecessary for me to attempt to defend the character and reputation of the Lord Chancellor. I admit, as I have said, that discontent does exist to some extent, but I find the roots of the discontent in the property qualification and in the long domination of the Conservative party. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton), to express the sentiments of fair-mindedness with which we should all at once credit him, but there is the widest possible gulf between his sentiments as expressed to-day and the actual practice that prevailed. Lord Halsbury was perfectly frank before the Royal Commission. He stated the system under his own administration in all its purity. He declared this practice was very simple. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, indeed, he put it more strongly than that, he said, "I accepted the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant as a matter of course," and he

2741
went on to say, "I daresay there was some foundation for the complaint that the magistrates were more or less of one particular complexion, but I do not think it made any difference. The country gentlemen were Conservatives and the country gentlemen were the people from whom naturally the magistrates would be taken." I think that the word "naturally" is significant. Before the property qualification was swept away political partisanship and social exclusiveness were at the bottom of these appointments. The appointments were in fact saturated with class feeling. I do not want to attack the Lords Lieutenant by any manner of means. Some of them were very fair-minded men, but in the knowledge of most of us here there were at least one or two pretty bad scandals.
That is the situation in which we found ourselves when the change came in 1906. Everywhere there were Liberals and Nonconformists well qualified for the bench who had been excluded on the ground of their political or religious opinions. What was the action which ought to have been taken in these circumstances? I do not wish to misrepresent hon. Gentlemen who have associated themselves with all the criticism which has gone on, but I believe what is in the back of their minds is that there should have been an immediate and sudden reversal of those traditions, and that the object should have been to capture the political representation of the county benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] And that besides the 7,000 appointments somehow or other there should have been shovelled on to the bench, irrespective of vacancies, another 20,000; and that after brief search and short inquiry. It seems to me that the real object that lurks in the minds of these people is a desire that the majority on the county benches should change hands with every General Election, just as the Lord Chancellor himself changes in accordance with the politics of the party of the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I do not wish to misrepresent anyone, but I believe that is really in their minds. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] If that is not in the minds of hon. Members here it is the view according to some statements I have seen in the Press and elsewhere. If such action had been taken it would have been a real disaster, and would have defeated the ends we all have in view. It would have stereotyped the present system, and could have had but one single
2742
defence, namely, that the party opposite have in practice always acted upon this principle, and that they would probably act again upon this principle if they got back to power, and that it was no use for us to be more immaculate than the other side.
If anything of that kind had been done it would have stereotyped the dominance of political interests in these appointments, and it would have defeated the action which we hope to see taken. It is quite true the position of the Lord Chancellor is extremely anomalous. He is a politician at the head of a great judicial system, but surely we do not wish for this violent see-saw after every General Election. Surely we do not wish to have a scramble of political partisans or promotion to the bench to be the appanage of party; we do not wish for the introduction of the spoils system.
An HON. MEMBER: No one suggested it.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: Then it is agreed nothing of that kind is possible, and hon. Members say nothing of that kind was in their minds. All they ask for then is a gradual process, and that the principle of appointment should be personal fitness and personal qualification, impartiality of character, and independence of judgment, and that these should be the ground of appointment; and in view of the fact that the existing preponderance leads really to loss of respect for the bench and for the administration of the law there should be an attempt made to redress legitimate grievances and the sense of exclusion. If that is all that is asked, and if the other alternative is repudiated, then I venture to think that the action of the Lord Chancellor, as shown by the figures, proves that he acted upon sound lines. There have been 7,000 appointments. The average rate of appointments has been doubled, and of the justices appointed whose politics are known there are three Liberals to one Conservative. It is quite true that there are 1,700 justices whose opinions are unknown. The Minutes of Evidence throw considerable light upon that. The explanation is that there were agreed lists in many counties, political parties in the localities or local bodies having themselves agreed upon a list, in which case the Lord Chancellor accepted the recommendations without inquiry into the political opinions. That is the explanation of the large number of unknown cases on the

2743
county bench. I think it is quite unfair to say that the present Lord Chancellor adopted the same attitude towards the Lords Lieutenant as Lord Halsbury did. It is perfectly plain Lord Halsbury took the nominations direct from the Lords Lieutenant. It is true that, as a matter of fact, the Lord Chancellor has in most cases obtained the concurrence of the Lords Lieutenant of the counties, but it is perfectly clear, as he himself says, he did not accept the list of the Lords Lieutenant without examination on his own part; and in a great number of cases he has interposed.
Mr. PRIMROSE: May I ask the hon. Member what about my Constituency?
Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have nothing to add, with reference to that, to what the Prime Minister said, but there is a complete difference in the attitude of the Lords Lieutenant, and I believe the Lord Chancellor's attitude is much more likely to obtain really satisfactory results. This Debate has been very limited and circumscribed, and the only suggestion of an alternative has come from the hon. Member for Shropshire, who suggested that the whole process of the appointment of magistrates might be handed over to the Home Secretary. At the present time the Home Office is not exactly a bed of roses, and what I understand is suggested is that there should be a system of appointment affording an opportunity of canvassing the appointments by means of Parliamentary question and answer across the floor of this House as though the candidates were claimants for old age pensions. I do not think the Home Secretary would rest more easily on his pillow if such a change were introduced, and obviously the great objection to it is that it would really concentrate these appointments along political lines. If arguments with regard to alternatives are in order, I would like to say that if this system of Advisory Committees does not prove satisfactory in obtaining the best men——
Mr. AMERY: Is the hon. Member entitled to discuss alternatives?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think what the hon. Member is saying is quite in order.
Sir C. HENRY: I was not allowed to discuss them.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: The only way out of the difficulty would be to hand over to stipendiaries the judicial part of the justices' work. It may have been that the discontent which has arisen is not due so much to administration as to the inherent difficulties of the present system. It may be that the system itself is wrong, but we shall see whether in practice the Advisory Committees are able to overcome them. For the present, however, I think this system is far fairer and better than the one which has prevailed in the past, and I commend the Advisory Committees to the approval of the House on the ground that they will provide an authentic channel of information for the Lord Chancellor which will enable him or any future Chancellor to get over the great difficulty of obtaining reliable and trustworthy information. I commend the new system also on the ground that it will tend to minimise party pressure, and I am sure every Member of Parliament will only be too glad to fall in with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on this point, and while we may be willing, if asked, to supply information within our personal knowledge, under the new system we shall be free from the constant pressure put upon us to press the claims of candidates. I hope and trust that if these Advisory Committees become the normal procedure and are adopted as a permanent assistance to the Lord Chancellor in making these appointments, perhaps we shall get away from the bad traditions which existed between 1886 and 1906, and we may get, in the course of time, and by a gradual approach, to a system under which the appointments to the bench will be open to members of all classes, the working class included, as far as possible, and these appointments should be made amongst men of all creeds without favouritism. We ought to have a system under which the bench is really open to men of all shades of opinion. From that point of view I beg to think there is no real case to be made against the Lord Chancellor's action, and I hope that the institution of these Advisory Committees will, in the course of time, remove all this discontent.
Captain JESSEL: The hon. Member who has just sat down rather found fault with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton), because he seemed to express satisfaction with the present position of affairs, and with what the Prime Minister

2745
has said. The hon. Member himself really supplied the answer to that criticism when he referred to the Report of the Royal Commission. The reason, no doubt, why on the county benches there has been and there is a vast predominance of Members of the Unionist party is owing to the fact stated in the Report that this state of things has been accentuated by secessions from the Liberal party in the case of those who opposed Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule policy. Another cause is that the property qualification was not abolished until the year 1906, and that restricted the field of selection, and no doubt excluded a large number of Liberals who were otherwise suitable for the position. That is the reason why hitherto there has been such a vast preponderance of Members of the Conservative party on the bench in the county divisions.
The Prime Minister at the close of his speech said that the hon. Member for the Wisbech Division who brought forward this Motion ought to be content, because he has had an opportunity of ventilating the grievance that has been growing and which has existed for a good many years. That opportunity has now been given to us in Parliament, and it is one which many of us are very glad to take advantage of. At the same time, I desire to entirely associate myself with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, when he stated that on this side of the House we had no wish to make any attack upon the Lord Chancellor. Having had the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons with the Lord Chancellor when he was a Member of this House, I can agree with every word that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman about the Lord Chancellor. At the same time, I should like to point out that there is a great deal of discontent with regard to the appointment of magistrates, more especially in the County of London. If the House will bear with me, I should like to state the position in my own Constituency, the Southern Division of St. Pancras. My Division represents one-third of the rateable value of the great borough of St. Pancras. There are in that borough some thirty-six magistrates on the bench, and out of that number there are only four who belong to the Southern Division. I and my family have been connected with this Division for twenty-five years. I had a little accident in 1906, and I was not a Member of this House for four years. During the whole of those twenty-five
2746
years there have on the Conservative side only been two magistrates appointed. During the four years I was out of the House there were two magistrates appointed on the Radical side, very eminent gentlemen, one of them it may be of particular interest to the House to know being one of the greatest assets of the Liberal party, Sir Francis Carruthers - Gould, whose pictures we all admire in the "Westminster Gazette." I have not a word to say against him. I am delighted he was appointed. But how extraordinarily disappointing that two magistrates should be appointed on the Radical side in four years, while, during the whole twenty-one years only two should be appointed on the Conservative side. We have had eleven Mayors of St. Pancras. No less than seven of them have belonged to the Southern Division. Out of the eleven, three who belonged to the Radical party have all become justices of the peace, and out of our heroic seven only one has been appointed to the bench who is of Tory opinion. That shows, though hon. Members opposite have grievances as regards the numbers on their side, we also have our grievances on our side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) tells me that during the thirteen and a-half years he was Member for Peckham only one Liberal-Unionist was appointed, and, of course, he is rather extreme in his opinion, and thinks a Liberal-Unionist is not quite of the same character as a Conservative. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) told me the other day that during the whole twenty-five years he has been connected with Fulham no single magistrate has been appointed for that division.
The Lord Chancellor, with the very best motives in the world, has appointed an Advisory Committee for London. I could not understand the composition of the Committee when I read it in the paper, because I found a great many well-known gentlemen—I hope I am not treading on their toes—of rather pronounced political opinions from the Radical point of view, and very few who are well known on the Conservative side. It seems to me, if this system is to work well, a little more attention should be paid in London to what we may call the geographical distribution of these magistrates. It is a most peculiar thing that no less than three out of eighteen of these gentlemen are connected with St. Pancras. They have nothing to do with my Division, but I am glad to see

2747
St. Pancras so well represented. It is a fact, however, with which the rest of London has found considerable fault. There is a Municipal Reform majority on the London County Council, but not one single member of that party has been appointed, though the deputy-leader of the Progressive party has been appointed. There are also three members of this Committee who are not magistrates at all, and, though we are very pleased, no doubt, to have with us in this House the picturesque personality of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward), he can hardly be said, even from the Labour point of view, to be connected prominently with the Labour party as regards London questions. Under those conditions, I fail to see how the system is going to work well in London unless more care is exercised in the appointment of the Advisory Committee. There are four Petty Sessional divisions in Westminster, and the rateable value is nearly one-seventh of the whole of London; but so far as I can see no active member of any one of those four Petty Sessional divisions has been appointed to a place on the Advisory Committee. I quite agree, if this system of appointing justices of the peace unpaid is to continue, the only thing is to try and work upon the lines of the Report of the Royal Commission. A great many of these men naturally—I do not see why they should not—look for some recognition of their services to their borough or the county in which they live, and, as far as I can see, the only appointment of public recognition which is open to them is that of being awarded the distinction of being made a justice of the peace, and I ask the Government in all consciousness to take into consideration whether it would not be possible to get a system by creating something analogous to what is done in the Civil Service.
Mr. WATT: On a point of Order. Has it not been held by the Speaker to-day that no suggestions as to the future will be permitted in the discussion?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member is rather transgressing the ruling laid down by Mr. Speaker, or he is very near doing so.
Captain JESSEL: Of course, I bow to your ruling. I was only going to suggest that some other method of recognition of those who do good work in municipal life should be invented by the Government
2748
rather than rely upon this system of appointing everybody to be a justice of the peace. I venture to throw out this suggestion as a means of getting over this difficulty, because, after all, a man would be quite content with some recognition, and the only one which at present exists is to make him a justice of the peace. In conclusion, I can only say that I, for my part, am going to vote for the Amendment, because, as things are at present constituted, it does seem to me the best possible way out of the difficulty, and to make the present system wrok properly and successfully, as I hope it will, some little more care should be taken as regards the composition of these Advisory Committees.
Mr. SILVESTER HORNE: I am afraid I have somewhat failed to understand the exact consequences of the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken. He tells us he is going to support the Amendment which approves the action of the Lord Chancellor in giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and at the same time the fact that the Lord Chancellor has acted on those recommendations in the appointment of Advisory Committees is the one point against which he protests, explaining to us, as he did, that the Advisory Committee in connection with London was not well constituted and was not working well.
Captain JESSEL: I think the Lord Chancellor may alter the constitution after this Debate.
Mr. SILVESTER HORNE: The fact remains that the committee has been constituted in a way which has already aroused the disapproval of the hon. Member; yet he proposes to support the Lord Chancellor in carrying out that recommendation. All of us who have sat in this House welcomed the intervention of the Prime Minister in this Debate. We know he does, in his heart, sympathise with those who want these benches to be made more representative of the interests over whom the jurisdiction of the Commission of the Peace extends. At the same time, I venture to say that the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman disclosed one of the difficulties of the situation. The Lord Chancellor is not in this House, and the right hon. Gentleman had to tell us that on some of the cases which have been put to him he was not fully informed. The case put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Wisbech Division is certainly a very extraordinary case, and one which he

2749
3.0 P.M.
was fully justified in bringing before the House. The Prime Minister said he did not know the circumstances of that case, and one of the difficulties in which we are placed is this, that the influence of the House of Commons in regard to the general administration of justice in this country is made exceedingly difficult because of the procedure in connection with the appointment of justices of the peace at the present time. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the Wisbech Division on the tenacity with which he stuck to his Resolution. It is quite true that the agitation is not a new one. It has been going on in this country for twenty years. The other day I turned up a speech delivered in the House of Lords in 1907 by the Earl of Malmesbury, in which the Noble Earl said it was a matter of common knowledge that for the last fifteen years an agitation has been on foot to deal with the system under which Lords Lieutenant appointed to the county magistracy and to substitute appointment by the Lord Chancellor direct. That was in 1907. The Earl of Malmesbury pointed out that for fifteen years previously there had been this agitation to alter the system, and this was a confession by one of the Conservative Members of the House of Lords. I do not suppose anyone will deny that the Lords Lieutenant have practically appointed the magistracy of this country. What we wish the Prime Minister had dealt with is the question of the new status of Lords Lieutenant in connection with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. In the first place, I think we ought to know whether the Lord Chancellor, by his action, has or has not divested himself of some of the responsibilities of his office. He cannot legally divest himself of the ultimate responsibility for the appointment of magistrates, but at any rate we want to know if he has practically transferred the responsibility to these new committees which he has appointed. This is a very serious matter. It is a big social and constitutional change, and if there is one thing about which the House of Commons ought to have been consulted it is about this matter. New machinery has been set up all over the country. New methods have been introduced which will determine the future administration of justice, from one end of the land to the other, and all this has been done without the sanction of Parliament, without this House having been taken into consultation, and without
2750
it being given an opportunity of pronouncing its opinion one way or the other. We certainly urge from these benches that this Debate ought to have taken place earlier. The question is one so far-reaching and will have such important effects in days to come, that surely the sanction of Parliament ought to have been required in a matter of this kind.
I want to raise one or two questions in connection with this point which have not been touched upon up to the present time. It is evident, in the first place, that the Lord Chancellor intends to make these Committees practically responsible in the future for the constitution of the Commission of the Peace. But we all know that the tendency of these Committees is, when they can, to clothe themselves with various powers and to establish various vested interests. Undoubtedly it will be exceedingly difficult and exceedingly invidious for the Lord Chancellor, after having appointed these Committees, to refuse the nominations which are sent by them. It can result in but one thing, that the whole power is now going to be transferred from the hands of the Lord Chancellor to the Advisory Committees, whom this House cannot possibly control. We shall have no sort of control over them. I admit that practically we have no control over the action of the Lord Chancellor, but he is a Member of the Government, at any rate. When, however, the power is transferred to the hands of these Advisory Committees we lose practically all voice in the mattter. I venture to think that this alone is a reason why this Debate should have taken place and why my hon. Friend should have raised this question.
The next question I wish to ask is whether any particular instructions have been given to these new Advisory Committees. Have they been instructed, for instance, that it is part of their duty to make these benches representative of all the various classes and interests within their jurisdiction? Are they to be told it cannot make for confidence in the administration of justice in this country that the justices should be drawn from one party or from the adherents of one Church? Are they to be told that they are to take steps to redress the inequalities of the present situation, and that they are not to take into account social considerations? Are they to be told it is their duty to remember that the property qualification has been abolished, and that it has not been

2751
abolished in order that it may be a farce and a sham, but that they are to proceed to take advantage of that abolition to appoint certain qualified working men to serve on county benches? All these questions are of great significance and importance to us, and we want to be assured, as a result of this Debate, that there is going to be a certain social change which is going to affect the whole administration of justice. I believe there are some Members of this House who do not understand how the people in the rural districts feel in regard to this matter. They cannot understand why some of us for years have been agitating that there should be a fair proportion of representation of interests which are exceedingly dear to us on the Commission of Peace. Let me give the House an illustration of what I mean. A little while ago there was a contested election in one of the divisions of Lincolnshire, and in the middle of it a workman made certain charges against the moral character of the Conservative candidate. I pronounce no opinion whatever as to whether he did or did not say what was attributed to him. I am quite willing to accept the fact that in the heat and excitement of the moment he did use the words that were attributed to him. What was the result? This man was first of all clapped into prison. Then he was brought before the bench of magistrates, and he was tried for this offence. A gentleman rose in the midst of the Court and asked whether he might be allowed to bear testimony on behalf of this man. He was refused leave to deliver his testimony. The magistrates adjourned for consultation, and then they came back into Court, apparently feeling that they had gone a little too far, for the chairman announced that if anyone had any testimony to give on behalf of this man they would receive it. Whereupon this gentleman, with a great deal of pluck and courage, went to the front and gave his testimony that the man was a simple sort of fellow, and that obviously in the heat of the election he had said probably what he had no justification for saying, and he pleaded the man's cause on the simple human ground that everyone in this House will recognise. What was the result? Without further adjournment, they fined this man £10, and they disfranchised him. He was totally unable to find the £10, but eventually it was found for him by certain friends.
On that bench, sitting to try a political question, there was not a single Liberal.
2752
Although I am perfectly willing to admit that any bench of magistrates with common sense and ordinary feelings of humanity might do the best they could in circumstances of that kind, I do not think it is a fair position to put anybody in. I do not think it is a fair thing that the general mass of the people of this country should at any rate believe, and have some warrant for believing, that they are not likely to get absolutely fair play because there is no representative on the bench of the particular interests to which they are attached. Take another instance. This is so common that I suppose all Liberals are familiar with it. We find innumerable cases in which men simply want ordinary documents signed which have to receive the signature of a member of the Commission of the Peace. It is an unfortunate thing in this country that our political quarrels do produce certain dislikes, certain animosities and certain asperities, and the consequence is that there does tend to be that line of cleavage between men of one party and men of another party. When your ordinary Liberal or your ordinary Nonconformist wants to get some document signed for which he must have the signature of a justice of the peace he must go to some member of the other side, with whom probably he has had at election time some dealing which have, perhaps, not been characterised by Christian charity, or perhaps there has been a certain feud between them which has grown up. Perhaps he is a Nonconformist who has to go to a clergyman or somebody who has put him down at a public meeting. It is an unfair and an unjust thing that there should be no one of his own type of feeling to whom he can go.
This is not an invented grievance. Anyone who travels much about England, especially in the rural districts, knows very well that there is absolutely nothing that these men feel so much as they feel this question. I do not see in the least degree why we should not adopt the Resolution of my hon. Friend. If I thought that the constitution of these Advisory Committees was going to bring relief to this situation, undoubtedly I would oppose his Resolution and I would support the Lord Chancellor. I think we are making a very big social and constitutional change without any guarantee whatever that it is going to work out in the way that we all trust, at any rate, that it may. But at the present time the House of Commons has not pronounced upon this question. We have

2753
really not been consulted upon this question, and it is so big a question, and it may be fruitful of so much difficulty and mischief in the future, that I venture to think it deserves more consideration than we have been allowed to give it. It does not very much impress me that we are sometimes handed lists in which we see certain people marked with an "L" and other people marked with a "C"—that is, certain people who are supposed to be Liberals and certain people who are supposed to be Conservatives, because I know quite well that there are certain Liberals who are far more Conservative than the most conservative of Conservatives, while there are many Conservatives who are more liberal than the average Liberal. You cannot distinguish between the two simply by putting an "L" against one name and a "C" against the other name. We know this, that when the Liberal Government happen to be in power some people suddenly discover in themselves Liberal sympathies which have never been very marked up to that particular time, and when there is a possibility of their getting on the Commission of the Peace it often means a belated and sudden development of Liberal principles. It therefore does not convey very much to me that certain people have an "L" against their names to distinguish them as Liberals. In point of fact, there are a good many Liberals about whom I must confess that their Liberalism is invisible to the naked eye. We want some people there who will be there to stand up against very considerable opposition. I want to suggest that it is not sufficient simply to put on one solitary Radical, who will have a poor time when he sits there. He will be received with distant, chill, and remote courtesy. There ought to be more than one, so that they can support each other.
I am one of those who believe that there is no question more vital to the social well-being of England than this one. A very eminent man once said that the greatest asset of England was its belief in justice. We shall have another asset one of these days for England, and that is the belief in the certainty of getting justice. It is all very well to believe in justice as an abstract proposition, but the people in the rural districts want to believe that they can get some kind of real justice, and that they can get it with some degree of certainty. I support the Resolution because I do not believe that we have yet any guarantee that steps are going to be taken
2754
to redress the existing inequalities on the bench, which are recognised by hon. Members opposite as well as by ourselves, and because I am perfectly sure of this, that the most necessary thing for our country at the present time is that the people shall really come to believe that in the administration of justice in this country particular prejudices will not merely be accepted for principle and that property will not be above human life.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has complained, with tears in his voice, that His Majesty's Government has carried a great change in the administration of the country without consulting the House of Commons. He must be a very innocent man, as well as we all know from his life outside a very able man, if he does not know that this Government is never tired of making great administrative changes without consulting the House of Commons. It is the natural course of their policy, and it is the last thing the hon. Gentleman should be surprised at. He says that it has been done with regard to the magistracy. I need hardly say that we on this side of the House will heartily concur in the Amendment with the hon. Member opposite, who doubted whether he had sufficient religious character to commend it to the House. I can assure him that he has as much religious character as any other Member of the House. There is not a man on this side who doubts the bona fides or sense of honour of the Lord Chancellor. We knew him in this House sometimes as a bitter and convinced Radical. There was no stronger Radical in this House than Sir Robert Reid. We all recognise that he has exercised his high functions as an officer of State as conscientiously as any man. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Resolution. He certainly embellished it with the Attic salt of inherited humour, which we all appreciate; but I do not know why he introduced so much personal passion into it. It struck me afterwards that perhaps he had tried to get nominated to a bench of magistrates, and had failed. But I am quite sure that the reward will come in time, and that he will also be on the commission of the peace.
Mr. PRIMROSE: I am on the commission of the peace.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am very glad of it, but I still less understand the note of passion in what was a very amusing and

2755
interesting speech. But what we have not here is any real justification for the Motion. The only justification would be to impugn the administration of justice in the country by example to show that the stream was polluted, to show that people were not getting justice from the bench of magistrates as at present constituted. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoke gave an example which I am very glad to deal with. It seems that in some case arising out of a political election a man who was brought before a bench of magistrates, being unable to make good his case by any proof, had a friend who came into Court, and that friend, knowing nothing about it, did not come as a witness, but wanted to plead. He was not qualified to plead, and quite rightly the bench did not allow him to plead. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he thinks any bench of magistrates would allow a friend who came casually into Court without knowing the facts, to make a speech on behalf of the accused. There was no prejudice. The bench was simply following "Stone's Manual" and the ordinary canons of the administration of justice by local benches, and that is the sort of thing that is brought in in support of such a Motion as this. Why did not the hon. Member (Mr. Primrose) give us a single proof of the mal-administration of justice? That is the real crucial point in this Debate, and if these cases have not been brought, there is one very good reason, they do not exist.
Mr. PRIMROSE: I never imputed mal-administration to the Conservative magistrates. My idea is that a great taint on the administration of justice in the country is that the fact that Liberals have to appear before benches which are entirely Conservative; however just the decisions may be gives rise to a kind of suspicion.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: That I understand is the allegation, that there is a want of confidence in the administration of justice, but that will not be met by any such Motion as this. But the hon. Member (Mr. Primrose) says it is no good labelling a man a Liberal. He must be a Liberal at heart according to the judgment of the hon. Gentleman. I understand he would have a sort of committee of selection in this House or in the country which would even try those who were Liberals or supposed to be Liberals in politics, and see if they were of the true faith. It would purge even the party to
2756
which he belongs of halting, doubtful Members who are always on the side of the winning party. Therefore it is not enough to get a man labelled a Liberal. It is not enough for him to have been on the Committee of the hon. Member. He must prove himself afterwards to be in truth and in conscience a Radical of the Radicals and a man of pure Radical spirit. I do not know who is to be the judge, but that is the sort of thing to which the House is treated in support of a Motion such as this.
I should like to have heard one hon. Member opposite point to the true fault and defect of the administration of justice, and that is that we are trying to administer justice in the country by means of a mob. If there have been faults it is because a mob is not a good instrument for administering justice in Petty Sessions. There are far too many magistrates at present, and it would be a good thing if we could reduce them by a half or three-quarters. I think the time is ripe for some other system. I have attended meetings of justices in London. Public meetings I have addressed have often been smaller in numbers than an assembly of justices, and that is the experience of every man who knows anything of what is going on. The reason is that the bench has been packed in order to placate and cement political parties. In the first four years after 1906 the Lord Chancellor appointed 7,000 justices—they were 7,000 too many for the administration of justice—yet there is not a word said to-day about the real crux of this question, that we are attempting, I believe, to administer an obsolete system of justice conceived in other days, in which I think there ought to be some real change to bring it into harmony with the changed conditions of our life.
Sir C. HENRY: If it had not been for the presentation of the Bill by the hon. Member's colleague, we might have discussed that.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am very sorry the hon. Member was precluded. I only said what I had heard, not what I should have heard, if the hon. Member had addressed the House at the length he desired. That is the real thing, and I do not believe we shall improve by carrying further the American system by distributing offices by spoil. Frankly, it is in the spirit of Boss Croker that hon. Gentlemen opposite are looking at the question of justice. If they

2757
turn to that book which is so often quoted, I written by Mr. Bryce, they will find that the city judges are appointed solely because of their subservience to the dominant party in the State, and there is one example he quotes, and it is rather a good one. When something was supposed to be unconstitutional one of those gentlemen said the constitution ought never to be allowed to come in between friends. That is the way in which, if their principles were carried to their furthest point, justice would be administered here. But there is one very good reason why it has been impossible to meet even what are the reasonable requirements of the party opposite. How is it possible to find men of leisure in the country districts among the labouring class for appointment to the Commission of the Peace? In the towns it has been found necessary to have meetings of the municipal and local authorities in the evening in order that those who are engaged in manual labour and other toil of the same kind can attend. It is not possible to have Petty Sessions held in the evening, and for that reason, and it is a very good reason, it has been impossible to appoint many who, I quite agree, would be a source of strength and common sense to the bench.
I do not see how that is dealt with by this Resolution. You cannot get men from the classes engaged in manual labour who have the leisure for Petty Sessional work, and, apart from the work, what is there in the question? Why should there be this extraordinary craving for the distinction of fixing the magic letters J.P. after the name, just as Germans are said to run after decorations. It seems to me a very diseased taste. A great many of those who seek these distinctions cannot perform the duties of the office and cannot participate in public work because of the onerous character of their employment. I am quite aware that the letters J.P. are supposed to be a reward for party services, but that is not an idea which should be encouraged in this House. What we want to do is to improve the administration of justice and the faults that there are are not because of the party character of the bench, but because, in many respects, the unpaid magistracy, as at present constituted, is not able satisfactorily to meet the requirements even of rural England to-day. That matter cannot be pursued further, but so far as the mere dignity is concerned, the outward show of the letters after the name, I really think the party opposite ought to be satisfied. In many
2758
respects they have been almost gorged with the appointments which have been made. I think, if hon. Members sitting opposite confessed and spoke with frankness, they would admit that they have got a very fair share of the appointments. I do not think we want more of the spoil system than we have already got. It is unsatisfactory when applied by either side. This Resolution which is moved will do nothing to improve the existing conditions, but would make things worse. It would make the impure impurer still, and would add to the local jobbery which is the curse of most countries with Parliamentary Government, and which might very easily be greater here than it is now.
Mr. BECK: This Motion is one which lends itself peculiarly to ridicule and misrepresentation. Any one a great deal less able than the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lawson) could draw amusing pictures of supporters of the Government hungering for the honour of writing "J.P." after their names. I do submit that it is not generous for Members of this House—many of whom have attained the bench at an early age without any merits of their own—I was on two benches before I was twenty-eight—to sneer at men who have a perfectly legitimate ambition to serve their country in a way they could be of service.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I did not sneer at them. I asked would they perform the duties of the office and not use the title without doing so?
Mr. BECK: All Liberals have knowledge of suitable men—we cannot expect hon. Members opposite to have knowledge of men qualified and fit to sit on the bench—who for twenty years have not been able to get there simply and solely because they are Liberals. It is not in order to make these benches a spoil for the party system that this Motion has been brought forward. Our contention is that men who ought to have been placed there by a Conservative Lord Chancellor were not placed there, and when a Liberal Lord Chancellor came into office he also ignored them in favour of less qualified Conservatives. I think this is the least deeply interesting part of this Debate. The real thing we have to consider is the administration of justice, and I beg to associate myself with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Silvester Horne) in his statement that in the rural districts there is a distrust of the county bench. I believe that distrust

2759
to be totally without foundation, but to say that it does not exist is to ignore plain facts. In my opinion, the administration of justice by county benches has, on the whole, worked well. They have local knowledge; they take a good deal of pains, and I think the policy of appointing stipendiary magistrates all over the country would be very unnecessary and costly. To say that men who are Liberals and Nonconformists will not have justice when they come before county benches is, I think, quite inaccurate. I remember one very small thing which burned itself into my mind when a man charged with an offence appeared for the first time in his life with one of those buttons which Primrose Leaguers are accustomed to sport. He had never been seen with one before, and I believe he has never been seen with one since. That is amusing in one sense, but I am perfectly convinced that the magistrate sitting there would have been harsher with that man if he had not appeared as he did. I say when men have possessed their minds with the thought that Liberals will not get justice then there is something wrong with the whole system.
The Mover of the Amendment stated that the Lord Chancellor had carried out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Personally, I say frankly that I do not agree with the Royal Commission. I do not think they have gone nearly far enough. There are thirteen recommendations, and the Lord Chancellor has only partially carried out one of them. It is not accurate to say that he has carried out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. What seems to me to be the absolutely necessary thing to do is to kill this system once for all, and to get the appointment of magistrates into the light of day. I do not mean to have public elections or the names in the papers, but that members of the Liberal, Conservative, and the Labour parties should get on a Committee and openly and publicly go through the names to be nominated for the bench. These Advisory Committees have been appointed in a most peculiar way. They are very good, I say, and I know some that are excellent, but it is a fact that in some counties they have been appointed without the leading Liberals being consulted at all. I do not say that they have not been well appointed. I think most of them have been well appointed, but I say that system will inevitably break down. I think it is a great mistake to allow the Lord
2760
Chancellor to have the nomination of the Advisory Committees without consultation with Members of this House or anything of that sort.
I hope that one of the results of this Debate will be to finally kill the system of politics on the county bench. I hope the Government will take the opportunity of thinking out some scheme which will do away with the present system, and which will entirely remove from the influence of Members of this House the recommendation of justices. It is a most invidious and unpleasant task to have to refuse to recommend men for county benches because one happens to be the Member for the Division. Indeed, from the political point of view, it is a very precarious course, because there may be people who are excellent political workers, but who, one considers in his own mind, would be very bad justices. In that case one may have an unpleasant duty to perform in refusing to forward the name to the Lord Chancellor. On the whole it would be far better to remove this sort of thing out of the field of party politics. To claim that the Lord Chancellor has taken a single step towards doing this is to claim a thing that has not occurred.
I think the present system of appointing Advisory Committees leaves as much in the hands of party men with regard to the appointment of justices as before if they care to use their power for party purposes. I believe that though the Lord Chancellor may not be anxious to advance his own party interests, he can perfectly easily be used for that purpose under the Advisory Committee scheme. It is for that reason that I say the House must face this thing much more fully than it has done. The whole system of the appointment of magistrates is very peculiar. Magistrates have a great deal to do in connection with the administration of justice among some of the poorest of the population, and yet at the present day justices are appointed not in respect of the convenience of locality. There are villages where there are four or five justices, and other places where there is not a justice within four or five miles. One knows of men who have been for years in public office and are not justices, while young men of twenty-two or twenty-three years of age are appointed. All these things cause dissatisfaction with the present system of appointing justices, and the House must face the fact and deal with the question, Are you going to keep the benches of justices as a social distinction? No doubt, at

2761
the present moment, benches are in many places extraordinarily overcrowded. [HON, MEMBERS: "No." "You cannot get magistrates sometimes."] The remedy is not to appoint Liberal magistrates to the bench, but to do something to enable the men who are not taking an active part on the bench to retire and to appoint more active men in their places.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wisbech (Mr. Primrose) is to be congratulated on having had the courage to bring forward this Motion. It was a most unpleasant Motion to bring forward, as it lends itself easily to ridicule and misrepresentation. As one who at one time sat for the Division of Wisbech, I may be allowed to associate myself entirely with my hon. Friend's indignation at the way in which he was treated by the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor between them over the recent appointments of magistrates. To refuse to appoint magistrates to the bench because you are going to set up an Advisory Committee, and then, before that Committee comes into existence, to appoint six county magistrates on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant, is a thing which requires very strong language to do justice to it. I hope that this Debate will lead to some further reorganisation of this system. I think it was some great French thinker who said that justice was the bread of nations. It is not sufficient in the administration of justice to avoid maladministration, which I believe we do at the present moment, but you must avoid all suspicions of maladministration. I do say that the present way in which our county benches are constituted, in what can only be described as the hole-and-corner way in which magistrates are appointed suddenly, does cause a great deal of dissatisfaction and bitterness. There is, of course, one difficulty. I quite understand that you ought to have a larger number of working-class representatives on the county benches, but in the rural districts I admit it is very difficult. I say quite frankly that one of the difficulties is that in magistrates you ought to have a measure of independence, and that magistrates ought to be afraid of no one; and while it is quite easy in towns to get able working-class representatives who need be afraid of no one, one can often imagine circumstances arising in country districts where a man working as a manual labourer in some small shop or something of that sort would find it very difficulty to give a decision without favour.
2762
I believe that this Debate will have done good, and I only regret that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Amery) should have blocked to a certain extent the discussion of the Motion by bringing in a Bill dealing with the subject of the Motion on the very morning on which the Motion was down for discussion, in order to burke discussion upon the subject.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON: My only ground for taking part in this Debate is that I happen to be a member of an Advisory Committee and that I have sat for a good many years administering justice at Petty Sessions. As regards the last of these qualifications, I have sat with justices of every shade of politics, and I confess that I have never detected any political conviction in their views as to the administration of justice, whether they were, Liberal or Conservative. I rather gathered from the opening speech that what was in question was the question of patronage, that there were a number of agreeable distinctions to be conferred, and that the Liberal party had, neither in the past nor in the present, a sufficient share in them. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Home) has brought the matter down into what I think is the question. The question is really whether justice is well or ill administered under our present system. He holds that it is badly administered, and he gave two instances, neither of which I think was entirely convincing. He told us a pathetic story of a working man who had committed an offence in the heat of a General Election, that a friend had desired to appear as an amicus curiœ and make a speech to the bench, and that the bench had not unreasonably declined to allow him; that thinking it over they thought the poor man should have a chance of anything that his friend could say, and that they heard the friend and were not convinced. I think before pronouncing a final opinion as to the propriety of their decision we should hear a little more of what actually took place.
The other point was the great inconvenience that if you want to make a declaration or sign a document which has to be made or signed before a magistrate you may have to go to someone who has a different point of view in politics from you. I confess that that hardship never struck me as an oppressive one. If I wanted a witness to my signature, I think I should not have been greatly oppressed if I found that the nearest person whom I happened to know, that I was entitled to ask to

2763
discharge that kindly duty for me, was an hon. Member on the other side of the House; and, really, to say that it is a serious hardship that a Conservative should have to ask a Radical or a Radical to ask a Conservative to allow him to make a declaration before him is making a grievance where no grievance exists. I do not believe that there is any dissatisfaction among the persons who are mainly concerned with the administration of justice, and I do believe that the present justices who have considerable local knowledge do, on the whole, discharge their duties to the advantage of the community. There is one small matter which does suggest to me that there is considerable confidence in the authority of the present Court of Summary Jurisdiction. A great many cases come before every bench of magistrates who have to sit week after week, cases of indictable offence, which may be dealt with by summary jurisdiction. You give the man his choice of being dealt with at Petty Sessions or at Quarter Sessions or Assizes, and, however near the Quarter Sessions or Assizes may be, or however easily he can get bail, I have very rarely known a case in which a man does not say, "I will have my case dealt with now." That is they prefer the Petty Sessions to the Quarter Sessions or Assizes. That shows that there is not serious lack of confidence in the administration of justice by the justices as at present constituted. But I admit the inequality that there is between the parties in the number of places filled on the bench. The property qualification no longer exists, and what you want besides are capacity for the administration of justice, interest in local affairs, and leisure to deal with them. It is that very necessary qualification of leisure which, I think, excludes a great many numbers of the working classes who might otherwise be useful additions to the bench from taking their part in those affairs which, no doubt, they would be well qualified to undertake. How are you to remedy this inequality? It has been suggested, in the course of this Debate, that you are to remedy it by the drastic process of appointing Liberal justices in order to counterbalance, no doubt, an equal number of Conservative or Unionist justices. What effect would that have on the administration of justice? Anyone who has ever sat in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction knows how much easier it is to administer justice by five persons than by
2764
ten persons, and to add justices to the bench mainly because they are Liberals I think would clearly be adverse to the proper administration of justice. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) referred to his experience as an elective justice. I think he hardly went so far as to say that the election by a very large constituency would necessarily produce the happy result which he has experienced. His election was by the town council, which is a somewhat restricted area to exercise the choice of justices. The remaining method which has been adopted by the Lord Chancellor is that of Advisory Committees. It has been asked, What is the composition of the Advisory Committees, and what guarantee is there that they will do justice? I am a member of an Advisory Committee which consists of five persons—three Liberals and two Unionists.
Mr. KING: Does that include the Lord Lieutenant?
Sir W. ANSON: No; the Lord Lieutenant does not sit on the Advisory Committee, and on this occasion the Advisory Committee was left to discharge its functions. The Lord Lieutenant is a Conservative. The Committee came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to flood the benches in order to redress the inequality. They considered very carefully what benches really needed reinforcement, and they suggested persons to fill the places. It so happened that everyone of those persons was a Liberal. So far as my experience goes, and I think the experience of others in this House, the Advisory Committee is a promising arrangement which ought to have a fair trial. It is not open to the risk which has been suggested of undue influence exercised either by the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Lieutenant. I believe that, in spite of the suspicions of hon. Members opposite, most of those who take part in these affairs are anxious, if they are appointed on the bench, to do justice, and, if they are on the Advisory Committee, to appoint suitable persons to discharge the duties of magistrates. I trust that the House will support the Amendment, and give a fair trial to the procedure which has been adopted by the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: There are times when this House shows to advantage. Any man who heard the Foreign Minister's reply to Germany the other night must have felt, even though his position in this House was one of reluctance, that it was

2765
an honour and a pride to be a Member of this House. But to-day what happens? On the last day of the Session, in this House, we have practically a group of disappointed office seekers, massed and banded together for the purpose of making an attack on a great officer of State because he has not managed, in the course of twelve months' administration, since the Royal Commission sat, to redress the balance which is the result of centuries. This House has striven invariably to get rid of and shed away any suggestion that its Members could be influenced either to get office, honour, or profit for constituents. We have given up Civil Service nominations. It was a great abuse, and this House surrendered its right to Civil Service nominations. Some fifteen years ago I remember—I think it was the action of some of these altruists—a Resolution was passed in favour of the view that we should no longer have anything to say to Post Office patronage. Now a Royal Commission has been appointed, and it has reported—a Royal Commission with a majority of Liberal Members. But the view is now put forward that it is the function of the Members of Parliament to get the office of Justice of the Peace for constituents.
I should have supposed that every Member of the House would have welcomed the recommendation of the Royal Commission, so that we should get rid of continual pestering from constituents whether in England, Ireland, Scotland, or Wales—that we should get rid of this idea that we should have to go to a Minister and get these appointments for our friends. I must confess in this respect, as regards the present Lord Chancellor, that I am a disappointed office-seeker myself. A Liberal Member some five or six years ago asked me, Did I know the Lord Chancellor? I said I did slightly, having had the honour of his acquaintance in this House for twenty-five years. He asked me, Would I apply to have a magistrate appointed for him, as his seat depended upon it? I went to the Lord Chancellor, and I was promptly refused. That is my experience of the arbitrary action of the present Lord Chancellor in regard to magistrates. I speak on this matter to-day absolutely and solely from the point of view of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and their bearing on the general question of the administration of justice. In the first place, nobody has put forward a case such as we were able to make many years ago in Ireland, of
2766
gross acts of cruelty and of maladministration of justice, or any other matter of that kind. I have listened to every Member who has spoken in the Debate, and what has this case been founded upon?
It was opened by the hon. Member for Wisbech (Mr. Primrose) with, if I may say so, hereditary talent, and with an amount of acerbity and bitterness that I could not help thinking was also hereditary. I do not mean general bitterness, but I think that on this occasion there must have been something of that kind. What did he say, and it is upon this case, and this case alone, that this Motion was opened, and on which we are asked to censure a great officer of State, a great officer of State whose reputation I should have supposed hon. Gentlemen would have been anxious to conserve, seeing that he is the head of the judiciary not merely of England, Ireland, or Scotland, but of the Colonies of Canada, of India, of Australia, of Africa. Yet the hon. Gentleman accuses him, and I took the hon. Gentleman's words, "His object may have been social." A nice reputation to give the Lord Chancellor! "His object may have been social," said the hon. Gentleman, and that this should be said in reference to one whose decisions have hitherto commanded the respect of the millions of the races who have had to resort to this country for justice, and that it should be said by one of the lineage of the hon. Gentleman seems to be rather astonishing. What was his case? He said, as I understand him, that he had applied to the Lord Chancellor to make a number of magistrates, and that the Lord Chancellor, pending the appointment of a Committee, had stated that no more magistrates would be created in that constituency—I think I am stating the case not unfairly—and that then Lord De Ramsey, the Lord Lieutenant of the county, approached him, whereupon he immediately appointed six Conservatives. That is the whole case, and that is the length and breadth of the case, and it is upon that case, and that case alone, that the hon. Member founded his statement that the Keeper of the King's conscience had broken his word. He cheers that statement. I think if the hon. Gentleman is so tender of the conscience of the King he might have allowed His Majesty with regard to the oath question to have a little more freedom. Let us see how the matter stands. Take the position of one occupying that of our Chancellor. The Lord Lieutenant of the county comes to him and says, "I am going abroad"—that is the case the

2767
hon. Gentleman made—"and there is an impossibility in certain parts of the county of getting magistrates to attend to their duties. There is inconvenience created," and, mind you, inconvenience to the subject. [An HON. MEMBEK: "NO, no."] Does the hon. Gentleman correct me?
Mr. PRIMROSE: I only made two applications because those appointments were required. The Lord Chancellor said he would not make any appointments until the names had been put before the Advisory Committee. Later on he wrote a letter to Lord De Ramsey admitting that he made six appointments without them being placed before the Committee.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has added anything to what he formerly said or corrected anything I said. If hon. Gentlemen will allow me, I will continue. I am taking his case. I am not minimising it, I am taking it in all its bearings, and I am going to deal with it. He says that in spite of that the Lord Chancellor then made his appointment to Lord De Ramsey. Will he permit me to say if he were Lord Chancellor and if a Lord Lieutenant came to him and said, "I am going abroad, and the administration of justice suffers unless there is an immediate appointment, and I pledge you my honour (and that is the phrase he read out) and almost as if I were on my oath, that these are not partisan appointments, and I do not know the colour of anyone of these appointments—"Hon. Members show an unusual restlessness. I am not mis-stating anything. The Lord Chancellor is assured by Lord De Ramsey that he does not know that these appointments have any partisan or party character, that the administration of justice will suffer if they are not immediately made, that he is going abroad, and urges him to make them, and to say that the Lord Chancellor has broken his word because he then makes those appointments, is to my mind utterly ridiculous and absurd. What was the Lord Chancellor to do? Was he to say, "It is true law and justice shall suffer in the county, but I have pledged myself to Mr. Primrose that I will make no magistrate until Air. Primrose is satisfied. Bother justice. I will do nothing of the kind for him." The hon. Gentleman has made no case either of breach of faith or a justification of an attack, and as to the suggestion of social influence affecting
2768
Lord Loreburn I think anybody who knows him will feel that that is not so. Six years ago, when this Administration was formed, and before the election, I went down to my Constituency to stand my election. Nobody knew that the Liberal party were going to have a majority. I said to my Constituents that there was one reason for trusting the newly formed Administration, there was one man in it whom I had known for five-and-twenty years to be one of the most upright, honourable, and able men that could have been selected by the King for the appointment of Lord Chancellor, and that was the present Lord Loreburn. I said that without any reference to this Debate, and I never supposed I should have to stand up to say any word of that kind.
Mr. PRIMROSE: Does the hon. Gentleman still trust the Government on that ground?
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I prefer to be catechised on that point by a gentleman of better pretentions than the hon. Gentleman, and especially in regard to their Home Rule Bill of next year. But as he has put me the question I have no objection to answer it. I say this, that I believe any measure affecting Ireland which Lord Loreburn recommends and is prepared to support, any measure of that kind would be satisfactory to the Irish people. That is my opinion of Lord Loreburn. Let me, however, deal with the facts of the case.
What was the second ground of attack? The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. S. Home) said that during a recent election an unfortunate man made an attack on the moral character of the Conservative candidate. He was brought up at Petty Sessions, and at first the magistrates would not hear some volunteer advocate for him in the Court—[An HON. MEMBEK: "Against him."]—but they afterwards did so. What jurisdiction have any bench of magistrates to try a question of slander? The hon. Gentleman can hardly have stated the facts accurately. If the ground of the charge was an attack on the moral character of the Conservative candidate, how could the magistrates have any jurisdiction whatever to deal with it? I can quite understand, because we have had the same sort of feeling in Ireland for many generations, that the fact of a property qualification having been requisite for many years has undoubtedly given a preponderance to the Tory party. But what did the Liberal party do when they came into office? The first thing they did

2769
was to repeal the Act imposing the property qualification. The next step was to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject, and the recommendation of the Royal Commission was unanimous. How old is that Royal Commission? Twelve months. It was not in the early years of Lord Loreburn's administration that he was attacked. The Prime Minister has shown that no less than 7,000 magistrates—an extraordinary number—have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor during his administration. Another hon. Member has pointed out that in addition to 7,000 having been appointed, 20,000 have been declined—rejected. So that in the course of six years this Gentleman, who is the head of the Supreme Judiciary, who has to preside over the Privy Council and the House of Lords, has had to make personal inquiry into the character of 27,000 persons.
Mr. MORTON: He left that to the Lords Lieutenant.
Mr. KING: Does the hon. Member mean to say that the Lord Chancellor personally made inquiry into 27,000 cases?
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am taking the statement as made in the House. Take the 7,000 men who have been appointed. I take it that the Lord Chancellor must satisfy himself that those 7,000 are fit and proper persons for the bench. Take the 20,000 who were rejected. I presume, in a great many of these cases he was satisfied with the assurance of the officials that there was some objection either of character or something else to their appointment. I do not say that in all these cases he personally inquired, but he is responsible for every one of them. What are the figures put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wisbech? He has charged the Lord Chancellor with breaking his word. I think the figures put forward by the hon. Gentleman constitute a much more aggravated form of injustice. Let me ask him, seeing he is so particular in regard to accuracy of statement—on the part of other persons!—where did he get his figures from? Was it just of him to say as he did in this article in the "Daily Chronicle" in July last that
"there were 159 magistrates created in Northumberland, of whom 126 were Conservatives and 33 were Liberals—"
When the fact was that instead of 159 being appointed there were only sixty-eight? Has he made an apology to the Lord Chancellor for publicly putting for-
2770
ward that extraordinary statement? That was not alone. Take another illustration. He said:—
"In Oxford there were 152 appointments, of which 120 were Conservatives and 32 were Liberals—"
When the fact, as exposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs, is that instead of 152 there were only fifty-nine appointed altogether. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that entitles him to come forward here and charge the Lord Chancellor with breaking his word?
Mr. KING: The point really is this: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman taken into account that these figures include all the borough benches in the county, as well as the county benches? That is the whole explanation of it.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: This is a statement headed "counties."
Mr. KING: Yes, county boroughs.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I take it in its natural meaning. It was not published with any explanation. The word used is "counties." I am dealing with it as though it was a county matter. The facts then are these: Dissatisfaction existed, and I have no doubt justly existed, in the minds of Liberal Members at the present composition of the bench, and anxiety existed to find a remedy. What was the remedy suggested? I read with some interest the Report of the Royal Commission when it came out. The Report was of a very remarkable kind. It came from a remarkable body. It would certainly be an extraordinary thing if this House—a residuum of this House rather—that is a dissatisfied section of this House who have flocked to the standard of the hon. Member for Wisbech—on the last day of the Session—took it upon themselves to reverse the Report of a Commission so representative. The fact of the Commission being unanimous seems to me also striking. Who were the Commissioners? Lord James of Hereford, Lord Chichester, Lord Robert Cecil, Sir William Hart Dyke (for over forty years a Member of this House), Sir Henry Hobhouse (a Member of the Cabinet)—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am sorry I gave the hon. Member an honour to which he is not entitled. Sir Francis Mowatt, Sir Arthur Osmond Williams, (for a very long time a Member of this House), Mr. Frederick Verney, Sir John A Simon (the present Solicitor-General),

2771
Sir W. Ryland Adkins, Mr. Thomas Gair Ashton (since made a peer), Mr. William C. Bridgeman, and Mr. Arthur Henderson. This recommendation, therefore, included the Conservative, the Liberal, and the Labour parties. What did they recommend? Is there any man in the House who is exposed to daily petitions to get men made magistrates that can say that these are not sane, wholesome, and proper recommendations? They say:—
"We are of opinion it is not in the public interest that there should be an undue preponderance of justices drawn from one political party. We strongly condemn the influence and action of politicians being allowed to secure appointments on behalf of any political party."
And yet the hon. Member for Wisbech asks the House to reverse the recommendation unanimously made by the representatives of all parties in the State. The Member for Wisbech criticises these appointments, but what system will you substitute? These able and learned men took an immense body of evidence and heard every form of suggestion, including the suggestion made by the hon. Member who seconded this Motion, that the Home Office should have the appointments. Can anything be more absurd than this attack upon the Lord Chancellor? The crime Against him is that he acted upon the recommendation of this Commission. What is the suggestion to the contrary? It is that the Home Office should have the appointment of magistrates, so that we should be able to attack the Home Secretary here in this House, and that we should be able to Lobby him and buttonhole him and say, "Oh, John Smith, in my Constituency down in Wisbech, put up £100 to the party funds, and he ought to be a magistrate. Let us have a flat rate for J. P.'s." I read, coming down in the train this morning, a piece of Stock Exchange intelligence, which says:—
"The Stock Exchange members of the association are determined to adopt a rule to save them from the ignominy of dictation by clients."
Against the system recommended by the Royal Commission the hon. Member opposite wants to have recourse to the old system, whereby a man who subscribes to the party funds, or who works for his party, will be rewarded in this House by being appointed to the office of justice of the peace. Compare the two sets of recommendations. It is a most difficult question, and anybody who has considered it must say that the present system is a survival of ancient times, and one of the most difficult to deal with. What is the
2772
suggestion as against the Report of the Royal Commission that a Committee should be appointed in each constituency representative for both sides of opinion, and that they were the county lieutenants should put forward their recommendations to the Lord Chancellor? I do not suppose any suggestion you could make would be an ideal one, but this suggestion is the suggestion of men who consider the matter and have taken evidence. What is the suggestion to the contrary? That there is absolutely none except to revert to the old system.
Sir C. HENRY: We were not allowed to develop that.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not wish further to trespass upon the House, but it appears to me that this Debate is an effort to make the Lord Chancellor the scapegoat of an ancient system. He is not responsible for the present state of the magisterial bench. He has inherited this unpleasant legacy. The question is, Is it right to redress it? One Gentleman said there were some Liberals appointed to whom he would have preferred Tories, the suggestion being that the letter "L" is not enough. You must have some kind of magisterial X-ray to apply to see if the letter "L" is up to the standard. That is a most extraordinary suggestion. The hon. Member for Wisbech spoke of the dark days of Liberalism, but I do not think he lived through many of them. Perhaps the darkest of them—well, I will not say which were the darkest of them, perhaps it is better not to. But the Lord Chancellor lived through many of the dark days of Liberalism, and I can say, at all events, that Ireland never had a better friend not merely in regard to Home Rule, but let me point out that some of the most important proposals on the land question which have saved us enormous litigation came from him. The dark days of Liberalism were the days of the pro-Boers, and the Lord Chancellor was not then afraid of his name. I have seen him make a fight when he was only one of a small minority, and now the suggestion is made that this man is seeking social honour and distinction, and using his distinction to injure the Liberal party. He has done more for the Liberal party than all his assailants put together. For twenty-five years he was in this House, and most of that period were the dark days of Liberalism, and he stood up for the causes that have now triumphed. I believe

2773
this attack upon him is without foundation, and is as unfounded and unjust a charge as was ever made against an honourable man.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): May I now make an appeal to the House that this Debate should be brought to a termination?
Mr. MORTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know we have been sitting here since twelve o'clock?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid that is an experience we all have had.
Mr. MORTON: But you have not been here.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have been here a good part of the time. As we have a good deal of work to consider, including the Lords Amendments to the Insurance Bill, the Coal Mines Bill, and the Shops Bill, I wish to make an appeal to hon. Members to conclude this Debate. The case has been ably stated on both sides, and I am sure the House will be ready to come to a decision.
Mr. CLYNES: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just stated that both sides have been fairly heard. There is, however, one standpoint which has found no expression, and for that reason I regret that I cannot fall in with the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has just made. I want to address a few observations to the House on this subject from a labour point of view. I understood the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy) to say the Resolution is one recommending a reversal of the findings of the Royal Commission. I certainly do not understand the Resolution to mean anything of the kind else I could not vote for it. The Resolution speaks of the discontent with regard to the methods followed, and asks the House to say that the measures taken by the Lord Chancellor to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission will not remove the cause of the dissatisfaction. It is on the point that the Lord Chancellor has not adequately used the opportunities which he has so far had of giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission that I want to express the grievance of labour with regard to this subject. Generally speaking, I approve of the methods recommended in the Report of the Commission with regard to the appointment of
2774
magistrates. The machinery it proposes to set up, and the method of appointment are, to my mind, superior to the old practice, and are even superior to any method of appointing magistrates by election if the method of election had to be upon the basis and upon the lines of our present Franchise Law. The assumption throughout the Debate has been that there are only two parties to be satisfied.
I put it to the House that there is a third party, a third party which, in the majority of the constituencies, is capable of polling at least a third or a fourth of the votes recorded in any election contest. It is a bad thing to have the predominance of one party over another that has been spoken of this afternoon, but it is a worse thing to have the predominance of two parties over a third, and that third party the party that can claim to directly represent and is closely associated with most of the people who unfortunately find their way into the Courts over which the ordinary magistrates preside. I think, therefore, some public service has been rendered by the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Resolution, and he is entitled to our congratulations for the manner in which he has pursued this subject from the beginning.
The Commission distinctly recognised the claim of the Labour party. They recognised the necessity for the appointment of working men with first hand knowledge of the conditions of their class. My point is that the Lord Chancellor has not sufficiently regarded that deliberate recommendation of the Royal Commission. The same thing can be said of the Chancellor of the Duchy, as I think it will hereafter be shown. The poorer classes, because of their poverty, their conditions, and their environment and because of many other things, are often called before benches of magistrates to be tried for offences which in the case of the richer classes are not regarded as offences at all. In the very nature of things, it is inevitable poor people should come more into collision with the law as it now stands. On that account working men magistrates ought to be on our benches in much larger numbers than they are, because they know the conditions under which the poor live. Every one will agree that while the administration of the law is right and proper that administration should be tempered with some degree of mercy and some consideration for the position of the poor. Let me take one illustration. The other day a man was sentenced to two

2775
months' hard labour at the Marlborough Street police court because he had played a barrel organ in Oxford Street for the purpose of collecting alms. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was the decision of a stipendiary magistrate."] That may be so, but magistrates at any rate in the provinces frequently sit with stipendiaries. Of course it may not be so in London. But the fact remains that the stipendiary himself has seen fit to reduce the sentence to two weeks.
It is admitted that the appointments of magistrates have mostly been rewards for political services, and I think we are entitled to ask where we come in. We surely are entitled to be considered if political services are to be considered in these appointments. Another matter which I regret is that the findings of the Commissioners have not been carried out with respect to the composition of the Advisory Committees, and if they are not fairly constituted you are bound to have a recurrence of the complaints. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment told us there had been recently appointed an Advisory Committee in one county consisting of four Liberals and two Conservatives. There was no mention of a labour man. In another case there were five Conservatives and two Liberals, and still again no idea of labour representation.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: May I point out that as a member of an Advisory Committee I sent in the names of working men.
Mr. CLYNES: I have no doubt whatever that that is so. But I am calling attention to the general practice. The property qualification for many years stood in the way of labour representatives getting on to the bench. If the property qualification is abolished, let it be actually, and not technically or nominally, abolished. It is nominally abolished, but it is the fact if a man has no property and is not identified with established interests he has really no opportunity of being put on the bench. May I give some little evidence on that point. Take the case of Manchester and Salford, with a population of, roughly speaking, a million. There are 310 justices of the peace, and only nine represent labour. In Bristol, with a population of 400,000, there are seventy-seven justices, and only two labour representatives; and in Birmingham, setting aside recent
2776
appointments, with a population of 300,000, there are 130 magistrates, only two of whom were labour representatives, Leeds, with a population of 440,000, has eighty magistrates, and only four representatives of labour. Take a typical borough in Lancashire, Oldham. It has twenty-four magistrates, and but two labour representatives. Batley, a small town in Yorkshire, has twenty magistrates, and but one representative of labour. Taking the whole of the West Biding of Yorkshire, we find there are 238 magistrates, only six being identified with the working classes or who can be described as labour representatives.
It is not because there has been a want of appeal or representations that more appointments from the ranks of labour have not been made, because in all these and similar cases organised labour has persistently memorialised the Lord Chancellor, as well as the Chancellor of the Duchy. I am informed by the secretary to the Trades Council in Manchester and Salford that they have submitted lists of names on several occasions, and they have written letters to the Lord Chancellor, but the only reply was that the lists would be considered when fresh appointments were about to be made. I have similar information from practically the whole of those places in regard to which I have given figures. In Jarrow, quite recently, eight magistrates were appointed, four Liberals and four Conservatives; not one labour representative. Take the three towns of Gillingham, Chatham and Rochester, where there is a joint population of 130,000 and where there is but one labour justice of the peace. In respect to the Advisory Committees the same thing is true. A considerable amount of work is unfairly imposed upon the representatives of labour. I am told that in one case in ten months one of them had to sign no less than 220 documents. Although the right hon. Gentleman could not see any grievance in a person not caring to go to a man of another class or persuasion, he ought to remember that an ordinary village or an industrial town is not like the House of Commons, and that there are many influences at work to possess people with some sense of diffidence, amounting in some cases to almost a feeling of fear, in approaching those who they assume to be prejudiced in some way. I would plead for more labour representatives to be placed on the bench, chiefly because of the punishments so often inflicted on young persons, who are brought before the Court for

2777
misdeeds for which the rich are never punished in any way. Numerous cases have been brought to my knowledge, particularly of children of from eight to ten years of age, who have been brought before the magistrates and sent to industrial schools for four or five years.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will they attend Petty Sessions if appointed?
Mr. CLYNES: That is a point to which I am coming. We have repeatedly sent to the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Lord Chancellor the names of men who are available who can and are willing to give their time. There are some of my own personal acquaintances who are magistrates and who work at their trade in the ordinary way, and who are prepared periodically to sacrifice a few hours or half a day. The argument should not be used that men of our class have not time or opportunity to discharge these duties until we fail to submit the names of men who are able to perform the duties. The Commissioners recommended the appointment of men of good moral and personal character and general ability, men of business habits, men of independent judgment and common sense. Many men have been appointed to the bench who have not had all these qualifications. Taking the experience we have had of labour magistrates, the way they have performed their duties fully justifies us in making the demand for a greater number of appointments. Lord Halsbury, in his evidence, stated that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred he accepted the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant as a matter of course. How can we expect that the ordinary labour representative, the ordinary man of the working classes, can have means of approach to the Lord Lieutenant? We are really outside the influences which have operated in connection with the appointment in the past, and we are accordingly entitled to suggest that the machinery that is now set up in these Advisory Committees should be more fairly composed, that it shall be worked more equitably and more with due regard to the claims of this new and growing party than has been the case up to now.
A further reason why I suggest the appointment of a larger number of labour magistrates is that it is not always a question of justice in the ordinary sense that a Court has to decide. In these days of labour unrest and industrial turmoil, conflicts between capital and labour, struggles between employers and work-
2778
men are brought before justices, and it is essential that men of our point of view should have their share of representatives on the magistracy. These labour cases tend to become more numerous. We are not pleading that those who break the law should be excused or encouraged. I have had experience myself as a magistrate of sitting on a bench where a man has been before us for doing some act as a picket in connection with a trade dispute. Nearly the whole of the other persons on the bench besides myself were employers of labour, and however anxious these men may be to look at the matter purely from the standpoint of law and of justice, I say it is impossible for them to sever themselves from their personal associations. We have even had the experience of finding some magistrates of that class resenting the presence of Labour men on the bench, for the reason that they assume that we are prejudiced persons and will not give an unbiassed decision in regard to labour questions. On the whole, I think there is very good ground for asking the House to express its opinion that the Advisory Committee has not been used by the Lord Chancellor for carrying out the recommendations of the Commission. If the House is not prepared to go so far, I hope the Home Secretary and those who have influence at the Home Office will see that representations are made in the proper quarter so that the claims of labour which are reasonably founded will not go ignored.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My excuse for intervening in the Debate is that I was one of those who signed the Report of the Royal Commission. I am very glad to find that nobody has had the courage to complain that our Report was not a fair and perfectly reasonable one. It has practically been supported on all sides of the House. Hon. Members who have supported the Resolution have expressed their own personal views. They did not attack the principles which, I think, we have plainly put in our Report. The complaint is that the Report, which only came out a short time ago, has not yet had any great effect. Before the Report has been out a year, hon. Gentlemen opposite come forward and say that it has worked very badly, and that we must have some entirely new system. Surely no reasonable man would imagine that a very difficult question like this could be settled in a few months. In fact many people say that the Lord Chancellor docs not give

2779
sufficient consideration to the appointments which are being made. That is a very good reason for saying that he ought to have more time to consider the appointments. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck) said the Lord Chancellor had only partially carried out one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
Mr. BECK: I pointed out that the Commission laid it down that the Advisory Committee should be ordered not to take into consideration social qualifications. My complaint is that none of the safeguards have been brought forward in regard to the appointment of the Advisory Committees.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member said that only one of the recommendations had been carried out. I would refer him to No. 8, which says that the Lord Chancellor or a Lord Lieutenant should refuse to receive any unasked for recommendations from Members of Parliament.
Mr. BECK: I support that.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understood that a great many of the complaints were that unasked for recommendations had not been accepted. If that is not so, I withdraw that entirely. You cannot say that the Lord Chancellor has not carried out other recommendations. I agree with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Clynes) as to the representation of labour. I believe that certain Lords Lieutenant have been providing suitable representatives for labour on the Advisory Committee and on the bench, and I believe they will continue to do so.
Sir C. HENRY: They have not been very successful so far.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What I say is they are trying, and you cannot expect them to do it all at once. The only complaint that hon. Gentlemen have over there is that there are not enough Radicals, especially those who subscribe to Radical funds, whose generosity has been recognised by seats on the bench. If they are going to redress it in the way they suggest, they are going simply to aggravate further the disease which they are trying to cure. The complaint is that there is too much politics on one side on the bench, and the cure is that you should impose a still further test of politics and make the appointments to the bench depend entirely
2780
on political considerations. That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the remarks of the hon. Gentlemen who support this Motion. The Commission pointed out that you cannot cure this evil by a homoeopathic remedy of this kind, but that the whole idea of appointments in this connection was wrong; that instead of political parties being represented on the bench in fairly proportionate numbers, different classes, interests, and social grades should be represented irrespective of politics, and that we should try to get the best men of all shades. That comes in in our recommendation No. 10, which has been referred to. That is the remedy for this evil, and not the' remedy suggested by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck) told us that it has been burned in on the minds of a great many people that these local bodies do not administer even-handed justice. I do not know quite how it is burned in, because he took the trouble to tell us that he believed it was entirely untrue. I hope that he has taken the trouble to tell those who told him so the same thing.
I am not quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite—having done their best to try to prove that although the benches perhaps may have a larger number of Unionists upon them than Members of the other side, at any rate there has not been any miscarriage of justice—are not urging that there is a sense that the benches are not fairly composed, composed in such a way as to get justice for all parties, especially the poorer classes. If that is so it is not because of the feeling of politics in it, but it is because they feel that there are not on those benches men who understand the conditions of life in which these classes live; and you will not make it any better by putting on people who can afford to subscribe to the Liberal party. They are not the sort of men who create any great confidence among the working classes. The remedy is, as the Commission again points out, to abolish politics out of the question as soon as you can. It cannot be done at once. If the Lord Lieutenant and the Advisory Committee, who, I believe, have done their best, and the Lord Chancellor, who I am sure has been doing his best, go on trying to select the best men, and supposing we may assume that probably there is a fairly equal number of men of both sides, and they go on to choose the best men, the political balance, as they call it, will be redressed of its own accord

2781
in the course of time. This is a question which requires time to be given to it, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who satisfied themselves by showing an interest in their friends who, they were led to suppose, might become magistrates, wall now cease to attack the Lord Chancellor any longer.
Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I had the honour of a seat on the Commission, and I rise merely to say three sentences to show the reason why I cannot vote for my hon. Friend's Motion, if he goes to a Division, although I share the view which has been put before the House with so much force by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. It is true, for reasons which we may regret or think inadequate, that there is a great deal of public dissatisfaction, and that will only pass away when the undue predominance also passes away. But those Members of the House, and I hope and believe they are numerous, who have read the Report of the Commission must notice that the Commission itself stigmatises the unfortunate result of the political predominance, and indicates quite clearly that the Consultative Committees are, as far as they can, having regard to the public interest, to redress that inequality. Is it desirable that this Motion should be pressed to a Division? What is the effect of it? The effect of it is not merely to emphasise the evils of the present system; they have really been admitted before the Royal Commission by witnesses of every political opinion. The effect of the Resolution if passed would be to weaken the hands of the Lord Chancellor and Members of the Advisory Com-
mittee in the difficult work they have to do. What has happened in the past may conceivably have been due to two causes—one, the absence of knowledge on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, or, secondly, the absence of fairness. But the Members of the Advisory Committees, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission undoubtedly brought before them, will correct any want of knowledge, and will afford an opportunity for giving effect to those considerations which have been put forward as desirable to carry out. On the other hand, it is not fair even to Lords Lieutenant, who this afternoon have been the subject of criticism, to come to the conclusion that they have not been acting generally with fairness when the other alternative is still open that the difficulties have arisen from want of knowledge. As a Member of the Commission, and as Member of an Advisory Committee which has plenty of applications and of information pouring in upon it week after week, I shall not be able to vote for the Motion; and I am quite sure that if we want to redress the evils of the system, the Lord Chancellor and the Advisory Committees ought to be given a chance.
Mr. MALCOLMrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 121.

Division No. 451.]

AYES.

[5.0 p.m.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Goldstone, Frank

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Higham, John Sharp

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Rowlands, James

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Hudson, Walter

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Bryce, J. Annan

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

Chancellor, Henry G.

Lansbury, George

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Clynes, John R.

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Wardle, George J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Martin, J.

Watt, Henry A.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Morgan, George Hay

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

O'Grady, James

Glanville, H. J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Primrose and Sir C. Henry

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

Bull, Sir William James

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Bird, Alfred

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Boland, John Pius

Cameron, Robert

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Castlereagh, Viscount

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Brunner, J. F. L.

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hunt, Rowland

Radford, G. H.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Clough, William

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Cowan, W. H.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Sanders, Robert A.

Dawes, J. A.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Sanderson, Lancelot

De Forest, Baron

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Scanlan, Thomas

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Doris, W.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Shortt, Edward

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Ffrench, Peter

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Valentia, Viscount

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Lynch, A. A.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

Waring, Walter

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Gibbs, G. A.

Macmaster, Donald

Whitehouse, John Howard

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Goldman, C. S.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Gretton, John

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Gulland, John W.

Malcolm, Ian

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Hackett, J.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Younger, Sir George

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Norman, Sir Henry

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Munro-Ferguson and Mr. C. Roberts.

Horner, Andrew Long

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central)

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House approves the action of the Lord Chancellor in giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SATURDAY SITTING).
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, "That this House do sit to-morrow (Saturday) at Twelve o'clock noon."
I understand that Twelve o'clock will be more convenient than Eleven.

HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Ure.]
Mr. C. E. PRICE Mr. C. E. PRICE rose——
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member object?
Mr. PRICE: No, but I want to ask what are the Amendments. Last night we had a large number of Amendments sent down by the House of Lords on the Land Bill, and owing to the lateness of the hour, they were all allowed to pass through. The present Bill is one of vital consequence. Perhaps the Lord Advocate would in a few words indicate to the House the nature of the Amendments?
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): All the Amendments that have been made in another place are of mere detail. They make quite explicit that was clearly implicit in the Bill when it was in this House.

COAL MINES BILL (LORDS AMENDMENTS).
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: May I suggest that some hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Government Bench might give us some explanation of the meaning of those Amendments.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): The Amendments are purely-drafting Amendments with the exception of Amendments which were promised on the Report stage. In addition to these there are only two Amendments on small points—one with regard to the extension of time in connection with the safety lamps Clause, in Scotland, and the other small point is in connection with the provisions with regard to electricity.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Most of these Amendments are of a purely drafting character. An undertaking was given in the House of Commons with regard to the local health committee, and Amendments have been introduced to carry it out. The only Amendments, in substance, are alterations in the maternity benefit; and again there is an Amendment on Clause 21, inserted on the Motion of Lord Balfour of Burleigh; and I am afraid we shall have to make some slight alteration in that because it would not work as it appears on the Paper; and it would make it impossible to get any contribution from the borough, in certain events, in regard to sanatoria. There is an alteration in pages 60 and 61 in the Clause dealing with the seamen and relating to the engineers who are in the mercantile marine. The only other Amendment of substance is on page 81, where power is given to the Insurance Commissioners to apply to the Courts of obtain an opinion as to whether a class of persons should be included within the
2786
insured persons or not. There is another alteration in Clause 109 dealing with maternity benefit. There is an alteration introduced in the unemployment part of the Bill which is an Amendment of some substance, although it has not so much importance as it appears on the Paper, because it only applies to one part of the additional benefits. I understand that the Board of Trade's suggested Amendment will meet the views of those who object to the provision in its present form. Those are the only Amendments of substance, so far as I can find out at present. The rest are purely drafting Amendments.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope that when the Clerk reads these particular Amendments the right hon. Gentleman will call our attention to them, because certainly on some of them something must be said. The right hon. Gentleman said that Clause 87, which is now in the Bill, is again to be amended. The Amendment was made to-day in the House of Lords, not in the form in which notice was given on the Lords Amendment Paper. I understand it is now to be further amended.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was misinformed. The alteration which I referred to is the very alteration that was made in the Lords. It will not be necessary to move any alteration here.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The Clause as it stands now seems to be most objectionable, and when the Amendment is put from the Chair we shall have to deal with it. My difficulty is that the Amendments are not printed. I understood that this House was entitled to know what Amendments it was going to be asked to agree to. The right hon. Gentleman called the attention to another Amendment at the bottom of page 9, converting the age of sixteen into seventeen and upwards. It may mean something or nothing, but I am not sure what it does mean. As the Bill left this House it was at the age of over sixteen, and now it is converted into "at the age of seventeen and upwards." The right hon. Gentleman ought to explain what that means and what its actuarial effect is going to be, because it might have a very considerable actuarial effect. I do not say it is; I do not know; but it might bring in a totally different class of people from those who were in when the Bill left this House. There seems at least to be a difference of a year between sixteen and seventeen.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no difference between the age and seventeen and over the age of sixteen.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not prepared to argue it at the moment, but it seems it is quite possible that there is a very considerable difference. Two new Clauses have been put in by the House of Lords. Clause 19 in the reprinted Bill, if I am not mistaken, is a Clause which was proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Annan Bryce) and ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the Bill. It provides for the punishment or summary conviction of a husband who does not make adequate provision to the best of his power for the maintenance and care of his wife during confinement. Perhaps the Attorney-General can say whether it is in order now.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not explain the verbal Amendment which, I understand, has been inserted in the new Sub-section of Clause 57. We on these Benches are very apprehensive of what the effect of the new Sub-section may be, and I should like to know if the representative of the Board of Trade could explain the Amendments.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The verbal Amendment made this morning was to avert the danger apprehended by some of the labour representatives that the phrase "or allowance" might be taken to apply to maternity or sanatorium benefit. It was our opinion that the phrase could not be so read, but as there was some apprehension on the subject we altered it to "or disablement allowance," because in one of the Schedules a disablement allowance is permitted under the Bill.
Mr. MALCOLM: I want to associate myself with what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) in his complaint that we have not got the Amendments to the Insurance Bill before us. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so jealous for the dignity of the House ought to have allowed us to have the Amendments. The same remark would apply to another Bill which is coming before us. Effective discussion under these circumstances is really impossible, and all that remains for us to do is to register the decrees and decisions of an autocratic Government. It is impossible to do more
2788
than register their decrees now, and we can only enter a protest and express regret that the House of Commons should be reduced to this position of ineffectiveness as regards discussion at a late stage of a very important Bill which affects the best interests of the country.
Mr. SANDERSON: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. I saw it stated in the morning papers that two Clauses of the Bill had been struck out wholly by the Government in another place and that another Clause had been substituted in their place. I have not been able to ascertain whether that is a fact or not. If it is so, I think the House would like to know something about it. What are the Clauses which have been struck out? I submit it is a matter of great importance to the House, and we ought to have an answer to that question.
Captain JESSEL: I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) as regards the Lords Amendments. It is very difficult for us to follow what has taken place, and my only purpose in rising is to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a pledge given by his colleague has been carried out, namely, that the Metropolitan boroughs of London should not be grouped together in regard to the local Insurance Committee, but that they should be left separate for that purpose. I am under the impression that words were put into the Bill in the House of Lords to carry out that pledge.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure, but I think there were some words inserted in Clause 56 with the intention of meeting the pledge given in the House of Commons.
Captain JESSEL: That was not the number of the Clause in the old Bill.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not had time to look into the matter, but I think words have been inserted in Clause 56. I will let the hon. Member know. In reply to the hon. Member for the Appleby Division (Mr. Sanderson) I have to say that the only thing which was done was that certain Clauses were amalgamated and put in one Clause. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) I have to say that so far from this House registering the decrees of an autocratic Government, almost the only Motion I have to make is that this House

2789
register the decrees of an autocratic House of Lords. I am going to move with respect to the vast majority of the Lords Amendments that we agree to them. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are drafting Amendments."] Some are, but they are not all drafting Amendments. Some were moved by Lord Balfour and other Noble Lords and carried. As to one of Lord Balfour's Amendments, I am going to move that it be altered, and I am sure he would agree to the alteration I propose to make.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman's last observations were very relevant to the question now before us, but I cannot really allow it to be suggested, as one of the right hon. Gentleman's leading points, that all he is doing now is correcting the mistakes of a wicked House of Lords when, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself told us that the thing was poured out of this House in such a way that nobody knew in what condition it was, and he himself used the House of Lords in order to remedy one or two only of the hideous mistakes which were left in when it loft this House.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 9.—(Reduced Bates of Benefit in Certain Cases.)
Lords Amendment in page 9, line 33, in Sub-section (4), leave out the words "over the age of sixteen years," and insert in line 36 the words "and is, at the time of so becoming an employed contributor, of the age of seventeen or upwards."
[Sub-section (4): In the case of every person over the age of sixteen years who, not having been previously insured under this Part of this Act, becomes an employed contributor subsequently to the expiration of one year from the commencement of this Act, the rate of sickness benefit to which he is entitled shall (unless he proves that his time since he attained the age of sixteen has been spent in a school or college, in indentured apprenticeship or otherwise under instruction without wages, or otherwise in the completion of his education, or unless he undertakes himself to pay the difference between the
2790
voluntary rate and the employed rate, or pays to the Insurance Commissioners, to be credited to the society, such capital sum as will be sufficient to secure him benefits at the full rate) be such reduced rate as may be fixed in accordance with tables to be prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, but not in any case less than five shillings a week……]
Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would wish that the right hon. Gentleman should make some explanation of this Amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): This is only carrying out what was done on the Report stage, but in a more convenient form. It is in order to make clear that over sixteen years of age shall not mean a person who will be seventeen years of age on his next birthday, but shall mean a person who is seventeen years of age or upwards.
Mr. GRETTON: The Government inserted sixteen in the Bill. Then, for some reason or other—I strongly suspect an actuarial reason—sixteen was found to be very inconvenient, so on the Report stage they make the age seventeen by a roundabout method. Then they found that the words used were too definite, and other words are put in that they meant seventeen, and not sixteen. This is a most extraordinary course of proceeding. I can only imagine that the Government resorted to this because it has been said up and down the country that the age limit is to be sixteen, and now they find that they cannot adhere to it, and they want to take these words out of the Bill, and they proceed to say that those words do not mean what they mean in other places.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The age of insurance remains sixteen. The only point of the alteration was that in certain cases where the age mentioned is "over the age of sixteen" it is made quite clear that it means seventeen years of age or more. It does not affect the time at which insurance is to be calculated, which is the age of sixteen. The hon. Member completely misapprehends the point.
Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 5, after the word "Act" insert
"A county council shall not raise any sum on account of any expenditure incurred by them under this Part of this Act for the purpose to which the agreement relates within the borough or urban or rural district council which has entered into such agreement during the continuance of such agreement."
Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment comes within the category of privilege because it affects the question of rating. Of course it is open to this House to amend this Amendment if the House chooses to do that, and a note will be made in the Journals of the House recording the fact that the Amendments were made.
6.0 P.M.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I propose to the House that we waive privilege on this occasion, and I shall submit Amendments which will give effect to what Lord Balfour of Burleigh meant. The effect of the Clause as it comes to us is that it is not possible for the county council to make an agreement with a borough which expended moneys on sanatorium benefit for the county council afterwards to raise any money in that same area for the purpose of paying anything in respect of medical benefits. The object of the Amendment I propose is to leave it open to the county council to raise money in the same way for medical benefit, notwithstanding that an agreement has been arrived at between the county council and the borough to expend money in respect of sanatorium. As it stands, the agreement excludes any rating for sanatoria or medical benefit. I am quite sure that was not the purpose. After the five Amendments to the Lords Amendment which we propose, the Clause will read:—
"The agreement may provide that the county council shall not raise any sum on account of any expenditure incurred by them under this Part of this Act for the purpose to which the agreement relates within the borough or urban or rural district council which has entered into such agreement during the continuance of such agreement."
The effect of that is that, notwithstanding the agreement between the county council and the borough for sanatorium benefit or medical benefit, as the case may
2792
be, that money may still be raised by the county council in the particular area.
Amendment proposed to Lords Amendment to leave out the word "A," and to insert the words "The agreement may provide that the"
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am very glad that the Government has come to a better mind in respect of these Amendments of the Lords. It was claimed loudly that we could, under no circumstances, waive our privileges on Lords Amendments. We are waiving them now, and I hope the Government does not mean to insist literally on the privileges of this kind, and is prepared to accept advice from the Lords, even when that touches on those privileges.
Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments to Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 79, line 29, at end, insert
"(iii.) The Insurance Commissioners may, if they think fit, instead of themselves deciding whether any class of employment is employment within the meaning of this Part of this Act, submit the question for decision to the High Court in such summary manner as subject to rules of Court may be directed by the Court, and the Court, after hearing such parties and taking such evidence (if any) as it thinks just, shall decide the question, and the decision of the Court shall be final."
Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I wish to raise a question on the next Amendment made by the Lords—to add at the end of paragraph (2) of Clause 65 the words,
"The Insurance Commissioners may, if they think fit, instead of themselves deciding whether any class of contributor is employed within the meaning of this Part of the Act submit the question for decision to the High Court … and

2793
the Court after hearing such parties shall decide the question and the decision of the Court shall be final."
On this question I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the right of appeal is limited to the Insurance Commissioners and why there should not be a double and reciprocal right for the insured persons as well. If it is good in the case of the Insurance Commissioners that there should be a right of appeal, surely it is more so in the case of any person who might be aggrieved by their decision. If a person aggrieved by their decision had the right of appeal, they would have to pay the cost out of their own pocket, whereas in the case of the Insurance Commissioners the cost will come out of the Exchequer or out of the Insurance fund. I see no reason therefore why the right of appeal should not be extended. I think it would be a much more complete and satisfactory arrangement if the double right were given.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member must have overlooked Sub-section (1), because there is there the right of appeal to the County Court by persons aggrieved and a further appeal on questions of law to the High Court. This new paragraph simply says that the Insurance Commissioners when they have doubt in their own minds shall submit the question in doubt for the decision of the High Court.

CLAUSE 87.—(Disqualifications for Unemployment Benefit.)
Lords Amendment in page 100, line 5, at end, to insert the following new Subsection,
(4) A workman shall be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit while he is in receipt of any sickness or disablement benefit or disablement allowance under Part I. of this Act.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. MALCOLM: May I ask for an explanation of this from the Government?
Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: This Amendment was inserted in the other House really upon representations made by, I think, the hon. Member for Colchester
2794
(Mr. Worthington-Evans) and for Penryn (Mr. Goldman) in Committee upstairs. Their proposal was not there accepted, but it was felt afterwards there was a certain possibility of miscarriage for lack of this particular check. Strictly speaking, it might be held to be unnecessary. No one can qualify under both parts of the Bill. The benefits of Part I. are for persons incapable of work, and the benefits of Part II. are for persons capable of work. Therefore no one authority would give benefits both for sickness and disablement and for unemployment at the same time. Still, as separate authorities would be working, it did seem possible difficulties might arise, and the Amendments inserted prevent the possibility of a workman getting sickness and disablement benefit under Part I. and at the same time unemployment benefit under Part II.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member said this Clause was owing to something I suggested in Committee, but the Clause is not at all happily worded. It is going to have an effect I am not sure the Government would wish it have, and one I am quite sure I should not wish it to have. As the Clause stands, no one is entitled to receive unemployment benefit while he is in receipt, among other things, of disablement allowance. Disablement allowance may be one of the additional benefits under Part I. It may be payable while a man is partially incapable of carrying on his work. Take the case of a fitter who loses, say, three fingers and cannot go on with his job as a fitter, but who gets a job in an insured trade as a timekeeper. If he were insured under Part I., as he would be, and if he were insured in a society which enabled him to have additional benefits, he might be receiving two or three shillings a week all the time owing to his first partial incapacity. On the other hand, although he is partially incapable of work, he may get into an insured trade as a timekeeper, lose his employment there, and qualify for the unemployment benefit for which he has paid. The Clause, as it stands, would prevent such a man from receiving the unemployment benefit. If the Government wished to meet the point we discussed upstairs, it is quite unnecessary to put in "disablement allowance." It ought to be "or any sickness or disablement benefit," leaving out "disablement allowance" altogether. If the words stand, I shall challenge a Division against this Clause, because you are going to do an injustice.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member in regard to the omission of these words, and if he will move, I shall offer no objection.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Only by leave of the House can I speak again. The right hon. Gentleman has invited me to move an Amendment of this Clause. I would willingly do so, but I fear I shall be ruled out of order, because I am reducing the disqualification and increasing the charge, and that is why I did not give notice of the Amendment.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has given his case away. [HON. MEMBERS: "No—the Government case."] If the effect of his Amendment is to increase the charge, of course he cannot do it now.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It does reduce the disqualification, and to that extent it increases the charge.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I point out this is only a proposal to alter an Amendment introduced in the House of Lords. It does not alter anything done in this House.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: It may be a substituted benefit. It may not increase the charge.
Mr. SPEAKER: The difficulty is that it cannot be done by the House as the House. It must be done in Committee.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think I had better challenge a Division.
Mr. DENMAN: I rather think the Amendment is merely carrying out the intentions of the Committee, which was to prevent a workman, in the case mentioned by the hon. Member, coming on the unemployed fund.
Mr. SPEAKER: I understood that the word "disablement" was inserted before the word "allowance" in order to get rid of any ambiguity with regard to the word "allowance." If that is so the House can, if it wishes, strike out the word disablement.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And "allowance." May I point out it does not really increase the charge. It is the case of an alternative benefit. It does not involve a greater charge on the fund. Indeed, it may decrease the charge.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to mislead the House. I am
2796
afraid it does increase the charge, because it allows someone to get unemployed benefits. My hon. Friend appears to be arguing that it is a question of an additional benefit. That is not so. If this alteration is made it will enable someone else to get the unemployed benefit. That is all we want to do.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I think as my hon. Friend has swallowed so many camels he need not strain at this.
Remaining Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

SHOPS BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."—[Mr. Masterman.]
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I only wish to point out to the Under-Secretary that a serious thing has happened, of which I am quite certain he was unaware. The First Lord of the Admiralty circulated a White Paper giving the Bill as it was, and the Bill as it was proposed to be amended. That was in our hands when we came to the Report stage, and we followed it as if it were accurate. It, unfortunately, happens from the avalanche of legislation the Government have let fall that it was inaccurate. We did not know that the Government proposed to alter the authority in London for carrying out the Act of 1904. Under the Act of 1892 the London County Council was the authority. It appointed officers, and it did the inspection. The closing orders under the Act of 1904 were made by the borough councils, and that has been altered, without notice, to the great detriment of the dignity of the councils of the Metropolitan boroughs. They feel it deeply. It is not customary to take powers from important local authorities, such as they are, without notice. Owing to the extraordinary changes it will make in the Bill, which amounted, of course, to an entire renovation, they could not possibly know what was coming. The least which could have been done was to enable Members of this House to know. In the White Paper which we had the change was not notified. It is quite true it was in the Bill as it passed this House, and I am quite certain there is no question of bad faith, but owing to the want of notice and the rush and hurry

2797
in which the thing was done we could not have known it, and the borough councils of London could not have known it, so they are now in the position of losing their powers under the Act of 1904, because they are not given concurrent powers. All that is done is to enable county councils to appoint local subsidiary committees in the boroughs to carry out the Act, but it is not laid down that the borough councils are to have any voice in their election or appointment, nor is it even laid down that any proportion of the members of these committees are to be members of the local bodies. Under these circumstances it seems to me rather an affront to the borough councils, even admitting it was done quite inadvertently, and a strange method of legislation. I think it fair to bring this up, because the Under-Secretary, perhaps, may be able in part to rectify it, and the Amendments may be sent back as amended to the Lords.
The UNDER-SECRETARY to the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): The transfer of these powers from the borough councils to the county council was in the Bill as first introduced two years ago. It was in the Bill again as I introduced it last March. All the discussions in the Committee upstairs, in which the hon. Gentleman played an important part, were under the assumption that the transfer would take place. I remember it again and again being explained. It was never challenged in the Committee upstairs, and the Bill came down here with that assumption.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: It was a new Bill.
Mr. MASTERMAN: The same powers remain, in so far as they are left. All that we have done is to cut out powers. The powers as to early closing which remain are exactly what were discussed upstairs. It is true in the White Paper it appeared that that portion of the Bill was cut out. We had to rectify that. We put in an Amendment. It was on the Paper, and the discussion took place last Friday on that assumption.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Under a misapprehension.
Mr. MASTERMAN: No. There could not be any misapprehension, because not only was the Amendment on the Paper, but the First Lord of the Admiralty clearly explained on an Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Norman
2798
Craig), and seconded by the hon. Member (Mr. Gretton), that there should be powers of delegation, and that the powers of delegation should operate not only outside, but also inside London in the case of Metropolitan boroughs, if desirable, and it was under that promise that we proposed an Amendment, which the Lords have accepted, giving these full powers of delegation. Considering that it was debated and explained last Friday that there was an Amendment on the Paper, that it was not challenged then, that it was in the original Bill as it passed the Committee and was not changed in Committee, I do not think the hon. Member is quite right in saying the borough councils ought to be surprised at the course the House has taken.
Captain JESSEL: I asked a question on that very point. I asked whether we were to understand that the borough councils were the authority or the London County Council. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Norman Craig) replied that I need have no anxiety. I admit he was not speaking on behalf of the Government, but, being a member of a learned profession and a King's Counsel. I thought he was accurate in his law. He said I need have no apprehension on the point as it was clearly laid down in the Paper from which he was reading. It was a White Paper. Many of us in this House are also entitled to have a voice in the matter. We were content with the Bill so long as it did not contain this contentious matter, but I am sure the Under-Secretary will not suppose that the borough councils will regard what is proposed as non-contentious. It is an extremely contentious matter, and he should have considered that we object strongly to what is being done. Under these circumstances I think we are entitled to say that there was considerable misapprehension. I do not say it was done purposely, but this is only another illustration of the disadvantage resulting from the rush and hurry going on now in the legislation brought before the House. We have not had the Lords Amendments, and all I can say is that I very much regret what has been done. I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman is to see the Bill in working order, but if the whole of this matter is left to the London County Council, I am afraid it will be a most difficult thing to get an expression of the view of the majority of shopkeepers in London. How is that to be done? What would be regarded as a proper majority? Then there

2799
is the question of boundaries to be considered. The area under the jurisdiction of the London County Council ends where West Ham begins. How could anyone tell what is the opinion of the shopkeepers in that locality if some are in the area administered by the London County Council and others in West Ham? I think the hon. Gentleman should make the provision with respect to delegation more acceptable to those who object to the proposal in the Bill.
Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I very much hope the Government will not respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member (Captain Jessel). I am sure that Members who heard the Debate on the Report stage realised perfectly clearly that when the Bill was leaving the House the central authority was to be the London County Council. I am quite certain, if we were to go into the merits and debate the subject, we should have an absolutely convincing case for that proposal. Take the constituencies represented by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. One part of Mile End for certain purposes is in Bethnal Green, and another part is in Stepney. It would be obviously impossible for the Metropolitan borough in one case to apply an early closing order, while the other part of the district was to have different hours, without having an outcry as to the injustice on the part of the shopkeepers. Take the district represented by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain Jessel). On one side of the road you have the Metropolitan borough of St. Pancras, and on the other side the borough of Marylebone, while another part is in the borough of Holborn, You have three adjoining boroughs in the same road, and it would be obviously inconvenient for shopkeepers if these different boroughs adopted different closing orders.
Mr. GLYN-JONES: May I remind the House that this is not a new matter. As this Bill was before the Committee upstairs it was a consolidated Bill. It was made quite clear there that in London the authority for all purposes was to be the county council. The powers as to delegation were inserted in the Bill upstairs. I do not want to detain the House by discussing the merits of the question, but I am quite certain that, so far as closing orders are concerned, one of the reasons for making the proposal in the Bill with respect to London is the difficulty which
2800
would arise if particular boroughs were to make closing orders. I think we should be more likely to get satisfactory orders under the Bill as it stands and as it left the Grand Committee.
Mr. GRETTON: What has been said requires some short answer. The boundary difficulty must always occur in London. Obviously you cannot have the same weekly half-holiday for Mile End and, say, Kensington. Kensington is a fashionable place, with fashionable shops, where Saturday is obviously the right day for the weekly half-holiday. But Saturday would be most inconvenient for White-chapel or Mile End. There must be differentiation. The shopkeepers themselves vote in their own class in London, and close to suit the necessities of their trade. The Bill provides quite enough elasticity. The county council can no more get over the difficulty of the boundaries than this House can. It is much better to allow these arrangements to be made in the borough area rather than in the vast area over which the county council rules. As to the question being argued upstairs, it was discussed very shortly, and was not strongly pressed.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not want to argue the question. It would be impossible now to go back on the decisions that have been made. It would not be fair to those, including many hon. Members, on this side, who are members of the county council, who take a view on the whole for the county council in the matter. Under the Bill the county council has the widest powers of dividing up London into areas, as well as powers of delegation. The matter passed unchallenged, both in this House and upstairs, and we cannot go back on it. The Amendments we are proposing are draft Amendments, except those proposed to meet promises made in the House of Commons. We promised to meet a small point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, saying that all small shops should have a vote on the question of the day of closing. There are two small points to meet the hon. Member for Wiltshire bringing in "sale of work" after "bazaar," and "show" after "exhibition." The third point was very strongly pressed on us by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet and Mile End not to exempt the family from the operation of the Shop Hours Acts, except as my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty suggested from the Schedule of meal time. The fourth point was raised

2801
by the hon. Member for Croydon on a consequential Amendment, when we altered the tea-time from twenty minutes to thirty minutes, and the last point is the point I have already indicated, made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutland and the Member for the Isle of Thanet in connection with delegation. These are the only points on the English part of the Clause. There are a number of points on the Irish part of the Clause, but these are agreed and carried out according to the powers which are settled.
Further Amendments agreed to.
Lords Amendment: After Clause 12, to insert a new Clause,
Provisions with respect to Members of the same Family.
Mr. GRETTON: I do not think the Government can be aware of what they are really doing under the first Sub-section of the new Clause. It is proposed to repeal the provision which is contained in the Shop Hours Act of 1892 providing for the exemption of members of the same family except so far as relates to persons wholly employed as domestic servants. This provision has nothing to do with the Bill before us. It is a question which was never discussed either in this House in Committee upstairs, or on Report. It has never been considered in this House, or, as far as I know, in another place. The Section of the Act of 1892 is as follows:—
"Nothing in this Act shall apply to a shop where the only persons employed are members of the same family, dwelling in the building of which the shop forms part, or to which the shop is attached, or to members of the employer's family so dwelling, or to any person wholly employed as a domestic servant."
7.0 P.M.
Under Section 3 of the Act of 1892 there are the usual powers of inspection, fines, schedules, and so forth. What are the Government doing? They are invading the right of the family to make mutual arrangements for the working of the shop, and requiring the inspector to place a notice in a prominent place with the scheduled times of every one of the children, wife, sister, or anyone else in the shop. This appears to me to be a most astounding
2802
provision to slip through. I do not think the Government really mean what they propose. I am not dealing with the later Sub-section which was agreed to and carries out a pledge given by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I do protest in the strongest terms of which I am capable of to this attempt by a slip in legislation to interfere with the family life of small shop keepers, first of all by an inspector appointed by the local authority and then scheduled times——
Mr. GLYN-JONES: There are no scheduled times.
Mr. GRETTON: There is a provision for a schedule in the Act of 1892.
Mr. GLYN-JONES: With great respect there is not.
Mr. GRETTON: If I am wrong on this point I should like to say that there has been very little time to look up the matter. This Bill only passed through the other place about noon to-day, and this proposal is entirely new. However, after an inspector there comes the policeman and a summons to the occupier, who has to appear before the police-court, and is liable to a fine of £1 for every person in respect of whom he is summoned. The assumption is that the family are going to treat each other unjustly and to grind some into a state of slavery. I protest against any such assumption. It has always been, and ought to be, assumed that the family are each other's best friends, and are going to treat each other fairly and make the best of the lives they have to lead. To say that an inspector or policeman or magistrate is to interfere with them is an outrage upon that liberty which every subject in this country ought to enjoy. I hope the Government will withdraw this Sub-section.
Mr. MASTERMAN: This Sub-section was introduced to meet a promise made on the Report stage.
Mr. GRETTON: No.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I say it was introduced for that purpose, and as far as I know, it carries out the wishes of the House as they were then expressed. It is perfectly true that the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton), in the Debate, took exception to it.
Mr. GRETTON: I especially guarded myself on that point. The point on which I spoke comes at a, later stage, where the

2803
Government propose to leave out words which were then printed in the Bill. These words deal with an entirely different subject, and have nothing to do with the half-holiday and the meal times. They repeal a Section in a previous Act of Parliament, which is in no way involved in this Bill.
Mr. MASTERMAN: It is merely a matter of carrying out a promise——
Mr. GRETTON: Oh, no.
Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member is not very courteous. If he will refer to the Bill he will see it stated, "This Act may be cited as the Shop Hours Act, 1911, and the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1904, shall be construed as one with this Act." Therefore it is carrying out the promise which we made to the House, and about which, personally, I was not very enthusiastic, but which was the unanimous wish of the House——
Mr. GRETTON: No.
Mr. MASTERMAN: That, except in connection with the Schedule of meal times, members of the family should be put in exactly the same position as employés who are not members of the family. Not only is that so, but the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Norman Craig) definitely referred to this exemption in the Act of 1892. He said:—
"I am aware that in the Act of 1892 an exemption was made of members of the family in the case of young persons, and the only persons who are sweated under that Act are members of the employer's family and the servants. That is no reason why that provision should be repeated now."—[OFFCCIAI, REPORT, 4th December, 1911, col. 1550.]
The appeal, very strongly worded, came from both sides of the House, that a member of the family employed in the shop should be put in exactly the same position as if he were not a member of the family. Then my right hon. Friend said that he was willing to accept the decision of the House on that, except that he could not have in small shops a schedule put up, and the House agreed that that should not be done. The hon. Member for Rutland is perfectly wrong in saying that the Act of 1892 implies the posting up of schedules applying to members of a family. The only condition in the Act of 1892 is that a young person under eighteen should not be worked more than seventy-four hours a week, and the only notice that has to be put up is a notice that "in this shop no young person shall be worked more than seventy-four hours a week."
2804
There is nothing to do with schedule times at all. We believe we were carrying out the wishes of the House as expressed when we said that young persons should not be employed more than seventy-four hours a week just as much if they were members of the family as if they were not. It was solely with a desire to carry out what we thought were the wishes of the House that this Amendment was submitted to the House of Lords and carried there without opposition.

CLAUSE 13.—(Interpretation.)
Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "but shall not include a person so employed if he is the only person regularly employed in the shop, and is a member of the family of the occupier of the shop, maintained by him, and dwelling in his house."
Mr. GRETTON: This is not the same point as that with which we have just dealt, as I think I can show. It directly affects the Bill with which we are dealing. There is no sense whatsoever in this provision of this Bill if this Amendment is agreed. The only person who is dwelling in the shop who is not subjected to the whole of the provisions of this Bill is the person wholly employed as a domestic servant. Will a domestic servant going into the shop for half-an-hour on any day or at the tea half-hour, to lend a hand constitute himself or herself a shop assistant? But that is not the point I want to press. By leaving these words out the wife of the occupier of the shop becomes a shop assistant. The husband will have to satisfy the inspector under the Clause that he is giving his wife her weekly half-holiday, and he will have to schedule in the shop on which of the days of the week that weekly half-holiday has to be taken. He will have to schedule each of the hours at which are employed any member of the family, whether son, or daughter, or brother, or sister. I foresee, and I think the House will agree, the very greatest difficulty in carrying this out.
The chief difficulty occurs when a shop is connected with the dwelling house where the family lives. How are you to prove that any member of the family who may be scheduled at that particular hour or day for his half-holiday has not been in the shop to lend a hand? Where the husband and

2805
wife, as often happens, work the shop, the husband working out during the day, when the husband comes back in the evening, his wife has a chance then to go out. According to this schedule a wife must have one half-holiday in a week. She must leave the shop precisely at 1.30, whereas at present it may be found that the morning, or for the matter of that any other time, may be most convenient for her to have a change. The inspector comes round and finds perhaps that there has been a broach of the regulations. A policeman is sent for, a summons issued, and a fine, it may be amounting to as much as £10, imposed because the family arrangement has not been worked in accordance with the rigid provisions of this Bill. There is here a most serious and dangerous invasion of the liberty of the family to make its own arrangements, and I must protest against this Amendment being carried. I know that two hon. Members on this side spoke in favour of it, but I took the precaution to protest, and I got a considerable amount of support from hon. Members, who felt that this was going much too far, and that it was an invasion of the rights of the family and ought not to be carried into effect.
I hope the Government will not press this matter. I am sure that they are wrong and that they will find themselves in the greatest difficulty if the provisions of the Bill are put into operation. What is the reason for this? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I feel very strongly upon this point, and I claim the indulgence of hon. Members even at this late hour. The reason is that there is a fear that a family by making mutual arrangements outside the provisions of this Bill may gain some advantage over a shop that employs shop assistants. There will be every desire to find out whether or not families in the position I have indicated are evading this Clause, and one may be sure that there will be someone about who will bring the matter before the authorities, and that the transgressors will be indicted under the provisions of this Bill. The Government are wrong. By pursuing the course they are they will make their Bill unpopular, and I must beg of them not to press this Amendment, but to allow the words to remain in the Bill, as they said they would when it left this House.
Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not want to argue the question except to make one comment on the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He says there
2806
will be great difficulty in practice in dealing with the words, "or persona wholly employed," but these words have been in Act of Parliament for many years, and I do not think any practical difficulty has arisen in the matter. As to the general question, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member, because he is using arguments that originally influenced the Government when they put this exception in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will remember, I think, that the only conditions on which we were allowed to go on with the Bill—very proper conditions considering the lateness of the Session—were that the Bill should be made non-contentious.
Mr. IAN MALCOLM: That was an agreement between yourself and the Prime a Minister.
Mr. MASTERMAN: It was the promise we made to the House, and we loyally carried it out. Whenever hon. Gentlemen opposite said any matter was contentious we either straightened it out or dropped it. It was in order to make it non-contentious that my right hon. Friend accepted this Amendment now under discussion, and it went unchallenged except by the hon. Member. He spoke alone against it, and he did not think it worth while to carry his opposition to a Division. In these circumstances we are 5 carrying out a pledge we made that we would submit this Amendment to the House of Lords, and if approved by the House of Lords we would accept it.

CLAUSE 15.—(Application to Ireland.)
Lords Amendment: Leave out Sub-section (4), The business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premsies only shall be deemed to be included amongst the trades and businesses specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule and amongst the trades and businesses exempted from the provisions of this Act (other than the provisions of this Section) with respect to a weekly half-holiday.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. GLYN-JONES: This is so important an omission that I do not think the House ought to pass it without some explanation as to why it is necessary.

2807
Section 2 of the Act provides that all shops shall be closed on one half-day a week except as is otherwise provided in the Bill. Then you have a number of exemptions to these provisions including the sale of intoxicating liquors. In Section 5 as applied to Great Britain, you have a provision that where several trades or businesses are carried on in the same shop the exemption should apply, so far as the principal trade or business is concerned subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. That means if a grocer has a licensed trade he cannot close his shop for the purposes of his licensed trade, but if the grocery trade got a closing order it can be closed for the purposes of his grocery business. You differentiate between the businesses when you deal with Ireland. In Ireland all the shopkeeper has to do to get out of the whole provisions relating to early closing is to have a licence, and once he has got a licence he may carry out all the trades under the sun and no closing order can affect him. You get no early closing order in Ireland, and why should a grocer get an early closing order if none of his competitors with a licence are to be closed for the purposes of grocery. What I want to draw attention to is that this Amendment never appeared on the Paper upstairs, and it was not moved on Report stage at all. It has come down from the House of Lords at the last moment, and I think the provisions are so extraordinary that some explanation of them should be forthcoming before we agree to them.
Mr. MASTERMAN: My hon. Friend is not quite right in saying that this is a new thing. It was proposed on the Report stage as an alternative to Clauses which were going to be cut out, namely, Subsections (11) and (12) of the Irish Clause. If my hon. Friend recollects what happened was we found that there was universal agreement amongst the Irish Members, and they arrived at an agreement as to what they thought was good for Ireland. All the hon. Members of both parties from Ireland desired it, and the House agreed that on the Report stage the Irish agreement should not be excluded from the Bill. Clause 11, Sub-clauses 11 and 12 are the alternatives to the original Clause. Owing to the special and peculiar conditions of the liquor trade conducted in Ireland it was agreed that the shops which had licences for the sale of liquor should be exempted from the general closing provisions because it was impossible under
2808
the conditions which prevail in Ireland to separate the liquor trade from the other parts of the trade. The conditions are not parallel. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Rutland that the conditions in Ireland are not at all parallel, and that the conditions in England were quite inapplicable in the case of Ireland. It is not the case that we are putting in a new provision because this provision was in the Bill before.
Mr. GRETTON: I cannot agree with the description of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. This Clause was moved by the First Lord of the Admiralty in a slightly different form on Report, and I pointed out that, if it were proposed for any other part of the United Kingdom than Ireland the temperance or teetotal advocates in the House would have raised an uproarious clamour. The First Lord of the Admiralty then said that, as I took objection to the Clause, he would withdraw it, and he substituted a long Clause, which had been agreed to between the Members from Ireland and the Government in the Committee upstairs. Apparently that does not suit hon. Members from Ireland. They now want to have their cake and to eat it too, and they are going to have this Clause and their long arrangement as well. If this Clause is passed, practically more than half the shops in Ireland will escape any control under this Bill. This was never explained in another place. It was passed under the plea that it was an agreed Amendment carrying out a pledge already given, when, so far from that being the case, it is going back upon what this House did. I do not desire to press my opinion on this point, but I think the House ought to know what they are doing. They are importing into this Bill an entirely new development.
Other Lords Amendments agreed to.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

LISCANNOR HARBOUR.
Mr. LYNCH: At this hour I would not introduce the question to which I wish to draw the attention of the House were it

2809
not a matter not only of great urgency, but of considerable importance to the whole of the countryside of my Constituency. I have been moved to speak on the present occasion by a resolution of the County Council of Clare which is couched in very strong terms, and I may say the discussion which preceded the resolution was couched in still stronger terms. I believe the case will appeal to the Labour Members of the House. An English firm, whose headquarters I believe are in Bristol, has embarked on an industry in Ireland which at one time was very promising. There was a sum of £100,000 involved, and they asked the Board of Works to improve the harbour. The Board of Works had at its disposal a sum of £1,500, and they decided to proceed with the work of improving, including the dredging of the harbour. On that they spent about £500, and, so far as that work went, it was entirely satisfactory. But it was found that something more was necessary. It was deemed desirable to deepen the harbour and to bore holes in the rock bottom. While they were engaged in that task the apparatus broke, and, the money having run out, nothing further was done. I do not think any Department, even in England, would have been guilty of such a performance as to bore two holes in the rock bottom of a harbour and then disappear and leave it at that. The whole arrangement reminds me of a case in which a commander was asked how he proposed to capture a town. He said, "We will bombard it for three days and then take it at the point of the bayonet." That appeared to have been the programme of the Board of Works, but then, when they had bored two holes in the rock, they disappeared.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present——
The House was adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Eight of the clock till to-morrow (Saturday), at 12 noon.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
MONDAY.
Lunacy Bill—Petition from Paisley, in favour.
TUESDAY.
Lunacy Bill—Petition from Paisley, in favour.
THURSDAY.
Shops Bill—Petitions for alterations; from Bo'ness, and Leith.
FRIDAY.
Shops Bill—Petition from Edinburgh, for alteration.
  Customs and Excise (Amalgamation).
  Customs and Excise (Amalgamation).
  Land Valuation (Form IV.).
  Land Valuation (Form IV.).
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  OFFICIAL REPORT IN ONE VOLUME.
  OFFICIAL REPORT IN ONE VOLUME.
  APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS.
  APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS.
  APPOINTMENTS.
  APPOINTMENTS.
  General Valuation Office (Ireland).
  General Valuation Office (Ireland).
  Crown Property (Public Gifts).
  Crown Property (Public Gifts).
  Surveyors of Customs.
  Surveyors of Customs.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Flax Imports (Belfast).
  Flax Imports (Belfast).
  Congested Districts Board, Ireland.
  Congested Districts Board, Ireland.
  Catholic Population, County Meath.
  Catholic Population, County Meath.
  Cattle Loading.
  Cattle Loading.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Newtown Estate.
  Newtown Estate.
  Naval Hospitals (Dockyard Men).
  Naval Hospitals (Dockyard Men).
  Llanelly Disturbances.
  Llanelly Disturbances.
  Army Interpreterships.
  Army Interpreterships.
  Horse Inspection.
  Horse Inspection.
  Non-Provided Schools (Swansea Case).
  Non-Provided Schools (Swansea Case).
  Owners of Dogs (Prosecutions).
  Owners of Dogs (Prosecutions).
  Superintendent of Telegraphs (India).
  Superintendent of Telegraphs (India).
  Singapore (Charge of Assault).
  Singapore (Charge of Assault).
  Foreign Affairs (International Questions).
  Foreign Affairs (International Questions).
  Paupers (London).
  Paupers (London).
  Population (United Kingdom, 1911).
  Population (United Kingdom, 1911).
  Small-pox Cases.
  Small-pox Cases.
  Incorrect Trade Descriptions.
  Incorrect Trade Descriptions.
  "Tons Burden" (Merchant Shipping Certificates).
  "Tons Burden" (Merchant Shipping Certificates).
  Great Northern and Piccadilly Railway (Earl's Court Station Lift Service).
  Great Northern and Piccadilly Railway (Earl's Court Station Lift Service).
  Kilkenny Railway Station.
  Kilkenny Railway Station.
  Telephone Undertakings.
  Telephone Undertakings.
  Obliteration of Stamps.
  Obliteration of Stamps.
  Post Office Savings Bank Staff.
  Post Office Savings Bank Staff.
  West Clare Mail Trains.
  West Clare Mail Trains.
  Coronation Holidays.
  Coronation Holidays.
  Late Telegrams.
  Late Telegrams.
  Telegrams to Australia.
  Telegrams to Australia.
  Sappers at Cardiff Post Office.
  Sappers at Cardiff Post Office.
  London Letter Delivery.
  London Letter Delivery.
  Advertisements in Stamp Books.
  Advertisements in Stamp Books.
  Sugar Beet Cultivation (Great Britain).
  Sugar Beet Cultivation (Great Britain).
  Peasant Proprietors, Denmark.
  Peasant Proprietors, Denmark.
  Kirkintilloch Parish Church.
  Kirkintilloch Parish Church.
  Scottish Universities (Bursaries and Scholarships).
  Scottish Universities (Bursaries and Scholarships).
  Office of Works (Architectural Staff).
  Office of Works (Architectural Staff).
  House of Commons Indicators.
  House of Commons Indicators.
  Bury St. Edmunds Trustees.
  Bury St. Edmunds Trustees.
JUDICIAL BUSINESS.
Ordered, That this House do meet on Monday next at a quarter before Eleven o'clock for the purpose of hearing and determining Appeals and matters connected therewith, pursuant to the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876; and that during such meeting of the House leave be given to the Appeal Committee to meet and appoint their own Chairman.
ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Ancient Monuments Protection Acts, 1882 to 1900, and further to protect Ancient Monuments—Was presented by the Lord Eversley; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 253.)
BANKRUPTCY BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law with respect to Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement—Was presented by the Lord Granard (E. Granard); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 254.)
TELEPHONE TRANSFER AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
MARITIME CONVENTIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE (DOMINION NAVAL FORCES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL CARRINGTON): I ask your Lordships to be good enough to give a Second Reading to
1136
the Naval Discipline (Dominion Naval Forces) Bill. This Bill gives effect to an agreement that was come to at the Imperial Conference that the ships and fleets of the Royal Navy and the ships of the Dominions when co-operating together shall be treated as belonging to the same service so far as discipline is concerned. The effect of the Bill will be to place the Naval Forces of the Dominions in the same position in relation to British Naval Forces and to each other as if both were an integral part of the Imperial Naval Forces. This Bill was read without any comment and with very general satisfaction in another place, and therefore it is with great confidence that I ask your Lordships to be good enough to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, having had this question under my consideration some years ago I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words in support of this Bill, brought in so appropriately by one who was himself the popular Governor of the then Colony of New South Wales. I should like, however, to ask whether the actual Bill has been laid before the Dominion Governments. It may have been thought unnecessary to do so because, as I understand, it carries out the exact provisions agreed to at the Imperial Conference. Does the noble Earl know whether this Bill itself has been laid before the Dominion Governments?
EARL CARRINGTON: I believe not.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: If it had been laid before the Dominion Governments and received their approval it would assuredly have all the more received our assent. But whether that is so or not, no one can doubt the extreme value of this Bill, not only in itself as providing for the discipline of the Dominion Naval Forces, but also because it meets the views of the different Dominion Governments represented at the Conference. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will not only not hesitate to give it a Second Reading but will agree to pass it through all its stages to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think, perhaps, it may be expected that I should say a single word upon the fact that it is not a Money Bill. By the j Parliament Act which we passed this year it is provided in the third subsection of the first clause—the language is very familiar to us all—that "there shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is sent up to the House of Lords a certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons, signed by him, that it is a Money Bill." The Finance Bill in the present instance is not so endorsed by the Speaker, and therefore it does not come within the class of Money Bills. It comes before your Lordships like any other Bill. It is not for me—and it would be highly improper if I were to attempt it—to conjecture what parts of the Bill have moved the Speaker to withhold his certificate that it is a Money Bill. There, are about five clauses in the Bill—Clauses 4, 6, 7, and, I think, Clauses 13 and 18—which deal with matters that possibly might be construed, and possibly the Speaker has so construed them, as going beyond a mere money provision. Of course, we cannot go behind the fact that the Bill has not got this needed endorsement. I do not think I need go further in moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Morley.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, there are a few small Amendments as the result of last night's consideration that I have to move. They are none of them of any importance, but they are improvements. At the end of Clause 12 I propose to insert this as a new subsection, "Where
1138
a person who is entitled to any benefit under this part of this Act, or a woman whose husband is entitled to maternity benefit in respect of her confinement, applies for admission to any workhouse infirmary, admission thereto shall not be refused on the ground only of the right of such benefit." That is a just and merciful provision.
Amendment moved—
Clause 12, page 15, line 3, at end insert as a new subsection:
("(3) Where a person who is entitled to any benefit under this part of this Act, or a woman whose husband is entitled to maternity benefit in respect of her confinement, applies for admission to any workhouse infirmary, admission thereto shall not be refused on the ground only of the right of such benefit").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 14, page 18, line 19, leave out ("emoluments") and insert ("remuneration").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 66, page 81, line 8, after ("is") insert ("or will be").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 83, page 104, line 34, leave out ("such") and insert ("of those").—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): I have an Amendment which I should like to insert in Clause 87. It is after "benefit or," in subsection (4), to insert "disablement." Your Lordships will sec that, there was a new subsection put in last night in order to prevent anybody receiving the unemployment benefit at the same time as he got a sickness or a disablement benefit or allowance. There is some little difficulty with regard to the word "allowance," which might be held by some people to include such things as maternity benefit and so on, and with your Lordships' permission I should like to insert before "allowance" the word "disablement."
Amendment moved—
Clause 87, page 108, line 8, after ("or") insert ("disablement").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I move leave out the whole of Clause 109—
109. Where a person who, or whose husband, is entitled to maternity benefit, applies for admission to a maternity ward at any workhouse infirmary, admission thereto shall not be refused on the ground only of the right to such benefit.
The reason is that we have already inserted it elsewhere.
Amendment moved—
Clause 109, page 124, leave out the whole clause.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SHOPS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Hours of employment and meal times.
1.—(1) On at least one week day in each week a shop assistant shall not be employed about the business of a shop after half-past one o'clock in the afternoon.
Provided that—

(a) this provision shall not apply to the week preceding a bank or public holiday or any day of public rejoicing or mourning if the shop assistant is not employed on that day and if on one week day in the following week in addition to that day the employment of the shop assistant ceases not later than half-past one o'clock in the afternoon; and

(b) in any place where the local authority has suspended the obligation to close shops on the weekly half-holiday and where it is the practice in any shop to allow all shop assistants employed therein a holiday on full pay of not less than two weeks in every year, and the occupier of the shop has given notice to the local authority of such practice, this provision shall not apply during such parts of the year, not exceeding in the aggregate four months, as may be allowed by the local authority and specified in a notice affixed in the shop.

(2) Intervals for meals shall be allowed to each shop assistant in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act.
(3) The occupier of a shop shall fix, and shall specify in a notice in the prescribed form, which must be affixed in the shop in such manner and at such time as may be prescribed, the day of the week on which his shop assistants are not employed after half-past one o'clock, and may fix different days for different shop assistants.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: These Amendments in Clause I are merely verbal. It is found more convenient to define the word "holiday."
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out ("or public")
Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("or any day of public rejoicing or mourning")
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out ("that day") and insert ("the bank holiday")
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out ("that day") and insert ("the bank holiday")
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out from ("afternoon") to the end of the subsection.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Closing of shops on weekly half-holiday.
2.—(1) Every shop shall, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be closed for the serving of customers not later than one o'clock in the afternoon on one week day in every week.
(2) The local authority may, by order, fix the day on which a shop is to be so closed (in this Act referred to as the weekly half-holiday), and any such order may either fix the same day for all shops, or may fix—

(a) different days for different classes of shops; or

(b) different days for different parts of the district; or

(c) different days for different periods of the year:

Provided that—

(1) where the day fixed is a day other than Saturday, the order shall provide for enabling Saturday to be substituted for such other day; and

(2) where the day fixed is Saturday, the order shall provide for enabling some other day specified in the order to be substituted for Saturday,

as respects any shop in which notice to that effect is affixed by the occupier, and that no such order shall be made unless the local authority after making such inquiry as may be prescribed are satisfied that the occupiers of a majority of each of the several classes of shops affected by the order approve the order, and any such order may be revoked in like manner and subject to the like approval.
(3) Unless and until such an order is made affecting a shop, tins weekly half-holiday as respects the shop shall lie such day as the occupier may specify in a, notice affixed in the shop, but it shall not be lawful for the occupier of the shop to change the day oftener than once in any period of three months.
(4) Where the local authority have reason to believe that a majority of the occupiers of shops of any particular class in any area are in favour of being exempted from the provisions of this section, either wholly or by fixing as the closing hour instead of one o'clock some other hour not later than two o'clock, the local authority, unless they consider that the area in question is un reasonably small, shall take, steps to ascertain the wishes of such occupiers, find if they are satisfied that a majority of the occupiers of such shops are in favour of the exemption, or in the case of a vote being taken that at least one half of the votes recorded by the occupiers of shops within the area of the class in question are in favour of the exemption, the local authority shall make an order exempting the shops of that class within the area from the provisions of this section either wholly or to such extent as aforesaid.
(5) In places frequented as holiday resorts during certain seasons of the year, the local authority may by order suspend for such period or periods as may be specified in the order, not exceeding in the aggregate four mouths in any year, the obligation imposed by this section.
(6) Where a shop is closed during the whole day on the occasion of a bank or public holiday, or any day of public rejoicing or mourning, and that day is not the day fixed for the weekly half-holiday, it shall be lawful for the occupier of the shop to keep the shop open for the serving of customers after the hour at which it is required under this section to be closed either on the half-holiday immediately preceding or on the half-holiday immediately succeeding such bank or public holiday or day of public rejoicing or mourning.
(7) This section shall not apply to any shop in which a trade or business of any class mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act is carried on, but the local authority may, by order made and revocable in like manner as closing orders, extend the provisions of this section to shops of any class exempted under this provision if satisfied that the occupiers of at least two thirds of the shops of that class approve the order.
(8) The power under the Shop Hours Act, 1904, to fix a closing hour earlier than seven o'clock, shall cease to have effect, and any closing order which is in force at the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it fixes an hour earlier than seven o'clock for any shop to which this section applies.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to delete from the end of subsection (2) the words "and any such order may be revoked in like manner and subject to the like approval." This is merely drafting. It is proposed to add a new clause providing for the revocation of orders generally.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 29, leave out from the first ("order") to the end of the subsection.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The other Amendments to this clause are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 3, lines 12 to 10, leave out subsection (5).
Clause 2, page 3, line 18, leave out from ("bank") to ("and") in line 10, and insert ("holiday")
Clause 2, page 3, line 24, leave out from ("succeeding") to the end of subsection (6) and insert ("the bank holiday").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledger.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 4, line 23, leave out ("as").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 4, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("on any day or").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Provisions as respects shops where more than one, business is carried on.
5.—(1) Where several trades or businesses are carried on in the same shop, and any of those trades or businesses is of such a nature that, if it were the only trade or business carried on in the shop, the shop would be exempt from the obligation to be closed on the weekly half-holiday, the exemption shall apply to the shop so far as the carrying on of that trade or business is concerned, subject, however, to such conditions as may be prescribed.
(2) Where several trades or businesses are carried on in the same shop, no such trade or business shall, for the purpose of determining a majority under the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911. be considered as carried on in the shop unless the occupier of the shop satisfies the local authority that such trade or business forms a substantial part of the business carried on in the shop.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS*LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS moved to omit from subsection (2) the words "no such trade or business," and to insert the words in his Amendment. The noble Lord said: The two Amendments standing in my name to this clause are to meet a point raised on Report, in another place. Hon. Members there were anxious to make sure that small shopkeepers should not be excluded from a vote, and these Amendments are to provide that each shopkeeper shall have a vote.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 5, line 14, leave out ("no such trade or business") and insert ("the local authority may require the occupier of the shop to specify which trade or business he considers to be his principal trade or business, and no trade or business other than that so specified").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 5, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("such trade or business") and insert ("it").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I want to insert, after Clause 5, a new clause to give effect to a drafting Amendment that your Lordships have already agreed to. It is an amalgamation clause to give greater facility in the working of the Act.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5 insert, as a new clause:
(".—(1) In places frequented as holiday resorts during certain seasons of the year the local authority may by order suspend, for such period or periods as may be specified in the order, not exceeding in the aggregate four months in any year, the obligation imposed by this Act to (lose shops on the weekly half-holiday.
"(2) Where the occupier of any shop to which any such order of suspension applies satisfies the local authority that it is the practice to allow all his shop assistants a holiday on full pay of not less than two weeks in every year, and keeps affixed in his shop a notice to that effect, the requirement that on one day in each week a shop assistant shall not be employed after half-past one o'clock shall not apply to the shop during such period or periods as aforesaid").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Powers and duties of local authorities.
6.—(1) It shall be the duly of every local authority to enforce within their district the provisions of the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911, and of the orders made thereunder, and for that purpose to institute and carry on such proceedings in respect of failures to comply with or contraventions of those Acts and the orders made thereunder as may be necessary to secure the observance thereof, and to appoint inspectors; and an inspector so appointed shall, for the purposes of his powers and duties, have in relation to shops all the powers conferred in relation to factories and workshops on inspectors by section one hundred and nineteen of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and that section and section ore hundred and twenty-one of the same Act shall apply accordingly; and an inspector may, if so authorised by the local authority, institute and carry on any proceedings under this Act on behalf of the authority.
(2) A local authority for the purposes of this Act and of the Shop Hours Act, 1892, shall be the same as a local authority for the purposes of the Shop Hours Act, 1904, and the expenses of all local authorities under the Shops Regulation Acts, 1802 to 1911, shall be defrayed iii like manner as expenses of local authorities under the Shop Hours Act, 1904, are defrayed: provided that for the purposes of all the said Acts the local authority in London outside the City shall be the London County Council.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to leave out the present subsection (2) and to insert two new subsections. This Amendment sets out at length the authorities now referred to in subsection (2). It introduces no fresh matter.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 5, line 35, to page 6, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In this Act the expression "local authority" means—

"as respects the city of London, the common council;

"as respects any municipal borough, the council of the borough;

"as respects any urban district with a population according to the returns of the last published census for the time being of twenty thousand or upwards, the district council;

"elsewhere, the county council:

"and the sumo local authorities shall be the local authorities for the purposes of the Shop Hours Act. 1904, and shall, in so far as they differ from the local authorities specified in that Act, be substituted for those local authorities:
"Provided that a county council may with the approval of the Secretary of State, make arrangements with the council of an urban district in the county with a population of less than twenty thousand, or with the council of a rural district, for the exercise by the council of that district as agents for the county council on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed on of any powers of the county council under the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911, within the district, and the council of the district may as part of the agreement undertake to pay the whole or any

1145
part of the expenses incurred in connection with the exercise of the powers delegated to them, and the London County Council may, with the like approval make similar arrangements with the council of any metropolitan borough.
"(3) The expenses of a local authority under the Shop." Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911 (including any expenses which a council undertake to pay as aforesaid), shall, save, as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be defrayed—

"in the case of the common Council of the city of London, out of the general rate;

"in the case of the council of a borough, out of the borough fund or borough rate;

"in the case of a district council as part of the general expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health Acts;

"in the case of a county council, as expenses for special county purposes;

"in the case of a metropolitan borough council, as part of the expenses of the council").—(Lord Ashby St. ledgers.)

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I have an Amendment on the Paper the object of which is to make the metropolitan borough councils the authority for certain purposes under this Act, and although I do not wish to inconvenience your Lordships by a Division, yet I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he could see his way to allow my Amendment to form part of the Bill. Under the previous Shop Acts the metropolitan borough councils had certain powers of closing, and the noble Duke on the Front Bench below me (the Duke of Devonshire) last night explained the reasons why it was desirable that the metropolitan borough councils should retain these powers. I think that for the purposes of closing the borough councils are very much better authorities to be entrusted with this than the London County Council; they understand the local conditions better. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill last night described the difficulty of boundaries, and said that on one side of the street you might have one set of regulations and on the cither side another set if you gave the administration of the Act to the borough councils. But I do not think the conditions would be likely to be so dissimilar that different regulations would prevail. Supposing two borough councils have jurisdiction in the same street and the conditions of the whole area are much the same, these two borough councils would have the same set of conditions prevailing, and on that point I think there is very little to be said. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept my Amendment when we reach it. It would still leave the county council's power of inspection untouched.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I should very much deprecate it if the noble Earl who has just sat down were to insist upon his Amendment. This is an agreed Bill, and this clause is an agreed clause. There has been a rather unfortunate incident, to which the noble Duke referred last night, in the fact that the proviso which gives effect to this intention did not appear upon the White Paper when it was before the House of Commons on the Report stage, but I am grateful to the noble Duke for admitting last night that that was nothing but an inadvertence, and really nobody who was at all interested in the Bill could have been misled thereby. This question was discussed by a Committee of the House of Commons upstairs, and the decision to make the London County Council the authority for London was, after discussion, curried without a division. It was an agreement reached in Committee. I think nearly two months of Parliamentary time elapsed between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and no Amendment appeared on the Paper and no attempt was made in the House of Commons to reverse that decision, and when the question was put in another place from the Chair no division was challenged. Therefore, my Lords, I do submit that this is an agreed clause, and one representing on the whole the considered opinion of both Parties, and I think it would be extremely unfortunate if your Lordships at this late stage of the session were to attempt to reverse that decision. You will, of course, be aware that under the Amendment which I have moved, and which is now before the House, the county council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make arrangements with councils of urban districts, and so on, including the metropolitan boroughs, to delegate its powers. Consequently it cannot be said that this is an inelastic provision. If it is found, as the noble Earl contends, that there are places where the borough council can administer the Act as efficiently as the county council, then it is open to the county council to enter into an arrangement forthwith to that effect. I do not myself think that the noble Earl was very convincing when he said that as far as closing orders were concerned the borough council would generally, if not always, be the better authority. As he has taken an interest in the question of early closing he will know, and I am sure he will deplore, the slow advance which

1147
has been made in London in the direction of early closing. It is a most unfortunate thing that, although in many districts there is a general consensus of opinion amongst shopkeepers as to the desirability of applying for an order, very often owing to small hitches and local jealousies the parties cannot come together, and the closing order is not brought into existence. It is with a view of facilitating the early closing movement, a movement which commands the support of your Lordships' House generally, that this policy of making the county council the authority has been introduced, and I hope that, in view of that fact, the noble Earl will not press the Amendment which stands in his name.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have nothing to add to what I said last night. It is quite impossible for us to accept this as an agreed Bill. If anything was agreed, it was the Bill as printed on the White Paper. That Bill so printed, as the noble Lord himself says, was on the Table of the House for two months.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: No, no; I said that two months elapsed between the Committee stage and the Report stage. The Bill as it left Committee before it was reduced in scale on the Report stage did contain this provision. If the noble Duke will look at the original Bill as it left Committee he will see that.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Is that Clause 19?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Yes, Clause 19, subsection (3). I think there can be no mistake about that. It was agreed in Committee, and two months elapsed between that stage and its being introduced in that short form on the Report stage.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is clear that it was thought that the borough councils would be the authority. However, the matter is in the hands of the Government, and it is impossible to redress it; and after what passed last night I should advise my noble friend Lord Malmesbury not to press his Amendment on the Paper.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I will not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but I cannot admit for a moment that this clause was an agreed clause in any sense of the word.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the House is: Clause 6, page 5, line 35, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert the new subsections moved by Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Delegation of powers of county councils.
7.—(1) A county council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make arrangements with the council of an urban district in the county, with a population of less than twenty thousand, for the exercise by the council of that district, as agents for the county council, on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed on, of any powers of the county council under the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911, within the district, and the council of the district may as part of the agreement undertake to pay the whole or any part of the expenses incurred in connexion with the exercise of the powers delegated to them.
(2) The London County Council may, with the like approval, make similar arrangements with the council of any metropolitan borough, and if any such arrangement is made, any expenses which the metropolitan borough council undertake to pay shall be defrayed as part of the expenses of that council.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, does not move his Amendment to this clause?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: No.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS*LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS moved to leave out Clause 7.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 6, leave out clause 7.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Proof of closing orders.
9. Any order made by a local authority under the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911, may be proved by the production of a copy thereof certified to be a true copy by a person purporting to be the clerk of the local authority by whom the order was made.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The additional subsection which I move to Clause 9 is merely to supply an omission.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, page 7, line 30, after ("made") insert—
("(2) Any order made by a local authority under this Act may, unless otherwise provided by this Act, be revoked by an order made in the like manner and subject to the like approval as the original order").—(Lord Ashby St. ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Supply of necessaries to ships.
11. Nothing in this Act shall prevent customers from being served at a time when the shop in which they are sold is required to be closed with victuals, stores, or other necessaries for a ship, on her arrival at or before her departure from a port.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: This clause deals with the provisioning of ships coming into ports on days when there is a closing order in force, and it is an exemption in favour of the ships. It is necessary to insert the word "immediately" in front of "before her departure," in order to insure that the exemption is not abused.
Amendment moved—
Clause 11, page 8, line 23, after ("or") insert ("immediately").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Saving for fairs and bazaars.
12. Nothing in this Act shall apply to any fair lawfully held or any bazaar for charitable or other purposes from which no private profit is derived.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: This Amendment is merely to include "sale of work" as a charitable sale as well as a bazaar.
Amendment moved—
Clause 12, page 8, line 25, after ("bazaar") insert ("or sale of work").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
LOKD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I have a new clause to introduce here. I may say that a promise was given in Committee in another place that the exemption of one member of the employer's family, provided for in the definition of shop assistant, should not apply as far as the weekly half-holiday was concerned, but should apply as to the interval for meals. By this new clause this object is effected. It is a very small point.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12 insert as a new clause:
(".—(1) Section ten of the Shop Hours Act, 1892, which provides for the exemption of members of the occupier's family and domestic servants from the provisions of that Act, shall cease to have effect except so far as it relates to persons wholly employed as domestic servants.
"(2) The provisions of this Act with respect to the allowance of intervals for meals shall not apply to a shop if the only persons employed as shop assistants are members of the family of the occupier of the shop maintained by him and dwelling in his house").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Interpretation.
13. In this Act—
The expression "shop" includes any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on;
The expression "retail trade or business" includes the business of a barber or hairdresser, the sale of refreshments or intoxicating liquors, and retail sales by auction, but does not include the sale of programmes and catalogues and other similar sales at theatres and places of amusement;
The expression "shop assistant" means any person wholly or mainly employed in a shop in connexion with the serving of customers or the receipt of orders or the despatch of goods, but shall not include a person so employed if he is the only person regularly employed in the shop and is a member of the family of the occupier of the shop, maintained by him, and dwelling in his house.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to leave out the words "but shall not include a person so employed if he is the only person regularly employed in the shop and is a member of the family of the occupier of the shop, maintained by him, and dwelling in his house." It is not necessary to insert these words here, because they are in the new clause to which your Lordships have just agreed. The words I propose to insert are merely a matter of definition.
Amendment moved—
Clause 13, page 8, line 39, leave out from ("goods") to the end of the clause, and insert:
("The expression "bank holiday" includes any public holiday or day of rejoicing or mourning.
"The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made under the Shop Hours Act, 1904.
"The expression "closing order" mean a closing order under the Shop Hours Act, 1904").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Application to Scotland.
14. This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modification:—
The Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for the Secretary of State.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: To Clause 14 I wish to add a few lines to make the Act applicable to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Clause 14, page 9, line 8, after ("State") insert ("The local authority for the purposes of the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911, shall be the county council in a county (exclusive of the police burghs therein) and the town council in a ro37al, parliamentary, or police burgh; and the expenses of a local authority under the said Acts shall be defrayed, in the case of a county council, out of the general purposes rate, and in the case of a town council, out of the burgh general improvement assessment, or any other assessment leviable by the town council in equal proportions on owners and occupiers: Provided that the ratepayers of a police burgh shall not be assessed by the county council for any such expenses").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Application to Ireland.
15. This Act shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modifications:—
(1) The Lord Lieutenant shall be substituted for the Secretary of State:
(2) This Act shall not extend to any rural district or part of a rural district
(3) In the case of a shop assistant employed in a shop in which the business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors for consumption on or off the premises, or for consumption off the premises only,
1152
is carried on, subsections (1) and (2) of section one of this Act shall not apply, but, instead thereof, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) The assistant shall not, save as otherwise provided by this Act, be employed about the business of such shop for more than seventy-two hours (exclusive of meal hours) in any week;

(b) Intervals for meals shall be allowed to each assistant, amounting to not less than two hours on each day;

(c) The assistant shall, subject as herein-after mentioned, be allowed on one week-day in each week a holiday of not less than seven, hours (in this subsection referred to as a weekly half-holiday).

Unless the employer and the shop assistant otherwise agree the weekly half-holiday shall commence either at the time at which the shop opens on that day (in this subsection referred to as "a morning half-holiday"), or at a time not less than seven hours before the time at which the shop closes on that day (in this subsection referred to as "an afternoon half-holiday"), and the aforesaid half-holidays shall be so arranged that the assistant shall be allowed a morning half-holiday and an afternoon half-holiday alternately;

(d) An assistant who has been employed by the same employer for a period of not less than twenty-six consecutive weeks about the business of one or more shops of the employer shall, so long as he continues in the employment of that employer, be allowed an annual holiday of at least seven consecutive days, or, if he has been employed as aforesaid for a period of not less than fifty-two consecutive weeks, an annual holiday of at least fourteen consecutive days;

(e) In any week in which an assistant is absent from his employment in or about the business of the shop, either on his annual holiday or on account of ill-health or otherwise, the weekly half-holiday may be disallowed in the case of every other assistant employed in or about the business of the shop and the number of hours of weekly employment of every such other assistant may be increased by seven hours accordingly: Provided that where the assistant is absent for more than four consecutive weeks on account of ill-health the weekly half-holiday of the other assistants shall not be disallowed and their hours of employment shall not be increased by reason of such absence except in the first four weeks in which he is absent;

(f) No deductions from wages or salary payable to the assistant shall be made on account of any such holidays or half-holidays as aforesaid:

(4) The business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors fur consumption off the premises only shall be deemed to be included amongst the trades and businesses specified in Part. I of the (Second Schedule and amongst the trades and businesses exempted from the provisions of this Act (other than the provisions of this section) with respect to a weekly half-holiday:
(5) A local authority may, in addition to its other powers under this Act make an order fixing (he hours on the several week-days before which, either throughout the area of the local authority or in any specified part thereof, no shop in which the business of the sale of intoxicating liquors for consumption on or oft or for consumption off the premises only is carried on shall be open for serving customers: Provided that nothing in this Act and no order made thereunder shall affect the powers or provisions contained in section eleven of the Act 37 & 38 Vict, c. 69 in respect of the granting and withdrawing of exemption orders in respect of premises in the vicinity of markets or fairs:
Such order shall be deemed to be a closing order, and all the provisions of this Act with respect to closing orders, save those relating to the earliest hours to be fixed by a closing order, shall apply accordingly with the, necessary modifications:
(6) Shops in which there is carried on the business" of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors for consumption on or off the premises, whether such business is carried on alone or in conjunction with any other business or trade, shall, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act with respect to closing orders, be deemed to be shops of a separate class, and a local authority shall not make a closing order applying to shops of that class unless they are satisfied that the occupiers of at least two thirds in number of the shops of that class approve the order, or in the case of a vote being taken, that at least two thirds of the votes recorded by the occupiers of shops of that class are in favour of the order:
(7) Shops in which there is carried on the business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premises only, whether such business is carried on alone or in conjunction with any other business or trade, shall in like manner and for the purposes aforesaid be deemed to be shops of a separate class, and the provisions of the last preceding subsection with respect to the making of closing orders shall apply to that class of shops as a separate class accordingly.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move after subsection (1), to insert two new subsections, They are consequential and merely for the sake of uniformity in the application of the Act to Ireland.
Amendment moved —
Clause 15, page 9, line 12, after ("State") insert as new subsections:
"(2) A local authority for the purposes of this Act means as respects any municipal borough the borough council, and as respects any urban district the district council, and those authorities shall, as respects their several areas, be the local authorities for the purposes of the Shop Hours Act, 1904.
(3) The expenses of such local authorities shall be defrayed in the case of a municipal borough out of the borough fund or borough rate, and in the case of a district council as part of the general expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: This Bill does not apply to rural districts in Ireland, and the object of this Amendment is that there should be given these powers to local authorities in these districts under the existing Shops Acts.
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 9, line 14, after ("district") insert ("and nothing in this Act shall affect the powers or duties under the Shops Regulation Act, 1892 to 1904, of the commissioners of any town or township not being an urban district").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, hitherto I have been merely listening to all that has been going on, but now we come to Ireland I have to say that I wish His Majesty's Government would not so often alter their own Bills. It appears to me that they are always altering their Bills, and we are given about two seconds to understand what the alterations are.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: On that point I may say that this is really the result of the compression which took place in the Bill in another place. In consequence of that it was found necessary to make some variations in the case of Ireland, based upon an agreement, between the members of the trade in Ireland and their employers. That accounts for the rather short time which your Lordships have had to consider these Amendments. It is, I am afraid, the result of the period of the session in which we are now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The next two are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Clause 15, page 9, line 17, leave out from ("liquors") to ("is") in line 18
Clause 15, page 9, lines 18 and 10, leave out ("subsections (1) and (2) of").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to insert "week" before "day" at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (3). This Amendment confines the provision with regard to intervals for meals to week days in Ireland. On Sundays pubic houses are only allowed to he open for three hours and it is not thought necessary to apply it on Sundays.
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 9, line 28, after ("each") insert ("week").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: These subsections deal with the notice which it is prescribed that the shopkeeper should put up in his shop, and they also provide for overtime. The overtime is not to exceed ninety hours in any one year.
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 9, line 28, after ("each") insert ("week") and after ("day") insert:
("(c) The occupier of the shop shall fix within the limit aforesaid, and shall, specify in a notice in the prescribed form affixed in the shop, the times at which tin; employment or the several spells of employment, as the case, may be, of the assistant are to commence and end on the several days of the week, and the assistant shall not be employed about the business of the shop, except within the time so fixed.
"(d) The assistant may be employed overtime for not more than ninety hours in the calendar year, and such employment shall not be reckoned as employment for the purposes of the foregoing limitation of the hours of employment.
"Provided that during the first two months after the assistant has entered the employment the amount of overtime worked by him shall not exceed the proportion of two hours for every week he has been in the employment or is entitled under a contract to continue in the employment.
"(e) The assistant shall be deemed to be employed overtime if he is employed before the time fixed by the notice for the commencement or after the time so fixed for the ending of his employment or during the interval so fixed between two spells of employ-
1156
ment, and overtime shall be reckoned in periods of half an hour, and any period of overtime of less than half an hour shall be reckoned as a complete half hour; and the occupier of the shop when he intends to employ the assistant overtime on any day shall, before the overtime employment commences, record the prescribed particulars with respect to that employment in the prescribed manner").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Subsection (4) is no longer necessary owing To the alterations which we have made in the Bill. I move to omit it and to insert a new subsection.
Amendments moved—
Clause 15, page 10, lines 31 to 37, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert:
("(4) Any shop in which the trade or business of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors is carried on in conjunction with any other trade or business, shall, as respects all such trades or businesses, be exempt from the obligation to be closed on the weekly half holiday").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The next three Amendments are drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 10, line 39, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911")
Clause 15, page 10, page 11, line 3, leave out from ("customers") to the end of line 8.
Clause 15, page 10, line 10, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("the Shop Hours Act, 1904").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: This Amendment is merely to enable licensed premises to open at an early hour for the purpose of fairs and markets. If it were not for this provision it might be, found that it would be impossible for the licensing authorities to grant an extension of hours for fairs, and so on.
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 11, line 13, after ("modifications") insert ("Provided that an order made under this subsection shall not in any way affect the powers conferred by section eleven of the Licensing (Ireland) Act. 1874, of granting exemption orders in respect of licensed premises, or apply to any licensed premises during any time during which the premises are permitted to be open under any such exemption order").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
LORD ASHBOURNE: Were these Amendments relating to Ireland discussed in the House of Commons, or did the Irish Members preserve a dignified and haughty silence?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: No they were discussed, but they were not all discussed before the House. They will go there now.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Were they practically not dissented from by Irish Members in any part of the House?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: They were agreed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The other two Amendments on this clause are merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 11, lines 18 and 10, leave out ("this Act,") and insert ("the Shop Hours Act, 1904")
Clause 15, page 11, line 24, leave out from ("order") to end of subsection.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledger.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Short title and commencement.
16.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Shops Act, 1911, and the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1904, shall be construed as one with this Act, and may be cited with this Act as the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1911.
(2) This Act shall conic into operation on the first day of May nineteen hundred and twelve.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move the insertion of a new subsection, which is necessary as the result of setting out the local authorities m full in the clause we have passed.
Amendment moved—
Clause 16, page 11, line 41, after ("twelve") insert as a new subsection:
("(3) The enactments specified in the Third Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that schedule except so far as they relate to rural districts in Ireland, and to local authorities in those districts").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule:
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: These four Amendments are rendered necessary by the fact that the interval for lea has been extended from twenty minutes to half an hour, whether cm the premises or off the premises.
Amendments moved—
First Schedule, page 12, line 15, leave out ("intervals") and insert ("interval") and leave out ("and tea")
First Schedule, page 12, lines 15 and 16 leave out ("and half-an-hour respectively")
First Schedule, page 12, line 16, leave out ("the meals are") and insert ("that meal is").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule, as amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule:
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The object of these two Amendments is to include a show, and to make sure that u show like the Lincoln Stock Show should be included.
Amendment moved—
Second Schedule, page 13, line 7, after ("exhibition") insert ("or show")
Second Schedule, page 13, line 9, after ("exhibition") insert ("or show").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move that a Third Schedule be added. It is merely a consequential repeal of certain enactments.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 9, after ("exhibition") insert:

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Session and Chapter.

Short title.

Extent of Repeal.

55 & 56 Vict. c. 62.

The Shop Hours Act, 1892.

Section eight.

56 & 57 Vict. c. 67.

The Shop Hours Act, 1893.

The whole Act.

4 Edw. 7 c. 31

The Shop Hours Act, 1904.

Subsection (2) of section eight; section nine.

—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, before we advance further with this Bill I desire, at the risk of reiteration, to protest once more against the manner in which this House is called upon to deal with important legislation in the expiring hours of the session. This morning we have been asked to deal with Amendments covering seven pages of paper, Amendments which I believe were only placed in our hands to-day; and not only have we been asked to deal with those Amendments, but with other Amendments not on the Paper which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill produced.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I think it was only one.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then one certainly.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: There was one new clause put, but as a matter of fact it was down on the Paper, but in a later place.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I accept the explanation, but it is quite impossible for us to deal intelligently with the matters brought before us under such circumstances. The noble Lord himself, if he will forgive me saying so, in spite of the great presence of mind that he showed in handling his Bill, on two or three points evidently was not thoroughly master of the subject. Now what was the noble Lord's justification? It was that at the most his Amendments, he told us, were drafting or consequential Amendments. I do not for one moment question his bona fides, but still there is a limit to the amount of absolute discretion that we can afford to allow to noble Lords in charge of Government Bills. Another defence given by the noble Lord was that some of these things were matter of agreement, and that promises had been made in the House of Commons. I have no doubt that may be so. But that does not in the least, or it ought not in the least, to deprive us of our opportunity of considering the manner in which effect has been given to such agreements. Besides that, most of us have received suggestions from different quarters as to the Bill, and from influential quarters, which we should have been glad to have had time to consider. The noble Lord suggested that a great
1160
deal of our trouble was due to what he called the compression of the Bill. May I suggest to him that the trouble is due not to the compression of the Bill, but to the compression of the opportunities given to this House, which is quite another matter. I know that this Bill is desired by both sides, and I should be sorry to oppose its further progress; but I think noble Lords opposite must really realise that this kind of thing, particularly under the new dispensation to which we are to be subject for the future, ought not to be allowed to continue, and F hope that in another session we shall address ourselves seriously to the task of making some arrangements under which this House will be relieved from the necessity of hurrying, with the kind of indecent haste which has been exhibited this morning, through the provisions of important measures.
VISOUNT MORLEY: I do not at all complain of the noble Marquess for making the observations to which we have just listened, and I do not doubt that if this time next year I have the honour of sitting where the noble Marquess sits, and he sits on this Bench, I shall make a speech probably very similar to the one that he has now made. I thoroughly agree with the noble Marquess that it is deplorable that this House, which still by law has the power of revising Bills, should suffer from what the noble Marquess called compression of opportunities for debate. But the Shops Bill does not, I think, afford a very good opportunity for taking up that position and using that line of argument. It is an agreed Bill. The Bill was cut down in order that it might have the undivided support of both Parties in the House of Commons, and that support was given to it. I quite agree, of course, that your Lordships have really nothing to, do with the fact that the House of Commons came to this or that conclusion on the strength of this or that set of arguments. Your Lordships are responsible, and if we were in normal times that responsibility would be naturally exercised upon a Bill of this kind, which goes very deep into the social habits of an important class of the people. I agree that the House of Commons ought not to be allowed to overrule the proceedings of this House. But, circumstances being what they are, the changes that have been made this morning by the House on the motion of my noble friend behind me are not really of any signal importance. I do not think that they can be

1161
called important at all. They are changes that were worth making in the opinion of the Government and the Department concerned, and I do not believe if we had had the whole day to argue these Amendments it would have made any difference whatever in the ultimate conclusion. It is no use my saying more. I am as sorry as the noble Marquess that we are placed in this position. It has nothing to do, I must remind him, with the Parliament Act. It is not the Parliament Act or anything in the Parliament Act that causes this congestion of opportunity. It arises from quite different causes, from congestion of business, the causes of which lie far deeper.
Then (Standing Order Xo. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SALES FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order): Amendments (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I regret very much that this Report is not yet printed. It was sent to the printers on Wednesday, and in the normal course would have been here easily in two days, but your Lordships will recollect that the printers have been very hard worked during the last forty-eight hours, and doubtless for that reason the Report has not reached us.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Have the House of Lords' printers been hard at work?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Extremely hard at work reprinting Bills. They have been up all night doing so. But there are no special printers for the House of Lords. They print for both Houses, and they had to reprint the Bills as amended in Committee in order that they might be in your Lordships' hands for the Report stage, which is taken sometimes within twelve hours of the ending of the Committee stage.
1162
But there are only four items in this Report of the House of Lords Offices Select Committee, and when I explain their nature I do not think your Lordships will have any grievance that the actual print is not out. The first paragraph merely states that the Estimates for the House of Lords for next year have been approved by the Committee. The second deals with the superannuation of a messenger, which has been put down according to scale. The third deals with the gratuity allowed to the widow of a doorkeeper who has recently died; that is according to scale. The other paragraph is concerned with the important question of the transfer of two temporary I housemaids to the permanent establishment. I move that the Report be agreed to.
On Question, Third Report from the Select Committee agreed to.

TELEPHONE TRANSFER AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill, which is endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker as a Money Bill, be read a first time.
On Question, Bill read 1a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended),
LORD HERSCHELL LORD HERSCHELL moved that the Bill be read a second time. The noble Lord said: This is merely a Bill of a drafting nature. Under the Telephone Transfer Act, which was passed on the 18th of August last, the Treasury were authorised to provide purchase money in accordance with the purchase agreement and the award of the Railway and Canal Commission. This Bill only contains an amendment to authorise a payment on account of a sum not exceeding £3,000,000 to the company. This is in connection with the handing over of the plant, and it is most necessary that it should be passed.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
LORD ASHBOURNE: As this may be the last occasion on which one can ask a question with reference to the National Insurance Bill, I take the opportunity of putting a question to the noble Earl opposite. I would like to know how many doctors it is anticipated will be required to work the Bill, and how many it is expected will be willing to work the Bill, and it there is any deficiency how it is proposed to proceed with that Part of the Bill. Another point to which I desire to ask attention is this. Many thousands of persons are affected, and I wish to know what, if any, provision will be taken to secure, that qualifications of an adequate kind will lie laid down with regard to the filling of the appointments under the Bill, and what steps will be taken to indicate to the persons who make the appointments that, they are to be guided by public and not by Party considerations—that they air lo be influenced in making the appointments by rigorous consideration of the qualifications that are needed and the character and position of the men who apply. I would also ask whether those qualifications when they are laid down will apply, not only to England, but also to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I regret that my noble friend in charge of the Bill should not be here to answer these questions. There will be a further opportunity of interrogation, I think, fit the sitting tomorrow if the noble mid learned Lord finds my answers insufficient, and on that occasion no doubt the noble Viscount will be glad to give fuller and more detailed answers than I am able to do without notice. I may say, with regard to the first inquiry, that it is the hope of the Government that all the doctors in the country will be ready and willing to work under the Bill.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Has the noble I Earl seen the account of the proceedings at the doctors' meeting at Manchester yesterday?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have seen the report referred to and the statement that a certain number of doctors would be unwilling to act under the Bill. Very often resolutions of this kind are passed at gatherings of such a nature, but I am glad that they are not always acted upon afterwards. I hope, that this may be so in the present case, and that the doctors generally throughout the country, when they see the provisions which are made and the regulations that will be issued by the Insurance Commissioners, will be ready to net under the Bill. But, as I lie noble and learned Lord probably knows, the system will be that the doctors' names will be placed upon a panel, and then that each, individual may choose whatever doctor he likes from that panel.
LORD ASHBOURNE: But must not the doctors having their names on the panel be parties to it?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think I said that they will lie on the panel. Their names will be on the panel, and the various people will choose whichever doctor they like. We both hope and believe that there will be an amply sufficient supply of doctors on that panel for the patients to be able to secure proper medical attendance. With regard to patronage, I think that an undertaking has been given in another place with regard to the general question, of appointments under this Bill, and I can assure the noble and learned Lord in any case that what lie is afraid of is not really likely to occur. I believe, though I should not be ready to say it offhand and cannot give chapter and verse for it, that a pledge has been given that these appointments will be made under the Civil Service regulations.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Does that apply to Scotland and Ireland?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes.
House adjourned at One o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.