Sitting of 7 March 1913

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Westmoreland (South or Kendal Division), in the room of Sir Josceline FitzRoy Bagot, Bart., deceased.—[Lord E. Talbot.]
TUBERCULOSIS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Final Report of the Departmental Committee on Tuberculosis, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
Copy presented of Annual Report and Accounts of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty for the year 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to Notices to he given by Insured Persons transferring from the Voluntary to the Employed Rate [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 543.]
COMMITTALS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Returns from the Clerk of the Crown and Peace of the number of persons committed for trial in 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND), 1875.
Copy presented of Regulation dealing with the time for lodging papers of Candidates for seats on the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY
Copy presented of Rules for Military Prisons in the Field [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

  PILOTAGE BILL.
  That they have agreed to the Amendments made by this House to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Pilotage Bill.
  That they do not insist on their Amendment to the said Bill to which this House hath disagreed.

  That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill to which this House bath disagreed.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message received to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

1. Appropriation (1912–13) Act, 1913.

2. Clerks of Session (Scotland) Regulation Act, 1913.

3. Shops Act, 1913.

4. Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Amendment Act, 1913.

5. Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1913.

6. Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1913.

7. Pilotage Act, 1913.

8. Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1913.

9. Trade Union Act, 1913.

10. Robinson's Trust Scheme Confirmation Act, 1912.

11. Beverley Charities Schemes Confirmation Act, 1912.

12. Whitby Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1912.

13. Haberdasher's Company Loan Fund Bearing Interest Scheme Confirmation Act, 1912.

PROROGATION.

  HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have also to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, being one of the High Commissioners, delivered His Majesty's most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of His Majesty's Command, as follows:—
  My Lords, and Gentlemen,
  After a prolonged and exacting Session, I regret that you should enjoy only a nominal period of release from your labours. It is, however, necessary to call upon you again within a few days to consider the provision required for the service for the coming year, and to renew your deliberations upon public affairs.
  I shall then have occasioa again to address you in the ordinary course.
  Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
  I thank you for the liberal supplies which you have granted in order to maintain the full efficiency 0f the Public Service in its various branches.
  My Lords, and Gentlemen,
  I have assented to an Act which enables effect to be given to the administrative changes in India which I announced at my Coronation Durbar.
  I have sanctioned a number of Statules dealing with domestic reforms, from which I anticipate beneficial results.
  It is my earnest prayer that the blessing of the Almighty may rest upon all your past and coming labours.
  A Commission for Proroguing the Parliament was read in the House of Lords.
  After which the Lord Chancellor said:—
  MY LORDS, AND GENTLEMEN,—By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name, and in obedience to his Command, Prorogue this Parliament to Monday, the Tenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly Prorogued to Monday, the Tenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirteen.
  End of the Second Session of the Thirtieth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the Third Year of the Reign of His Majesty King George V.

  PETITIONS PRESENTED.
  The following Petitions were presented, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
  Licensed Houses (Oxford)—Petition from Oxford, for reduction.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petition from South London, in favour.

  Sorters as Clerks.
  Sorters as Clerks.
  Boys' Occupations.
  Boys' Occupations.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Lords Amendments agreed to, and one other disagreed to with a Reason for such disagreement: The said Reason to be printed. (No. 225.)

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations of the Welsh Insurance. Commissioners as to notices to be given by insured persons transferring from the voluntary to the employed rate;
2. Provisional Regulations, dated 22nd February 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners as to the administration of benefits provided out of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund for discharged Seamen, Marines and Soldiers;
3. Provisional Special Order, dated 22nd February 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Provisional Order, 1913 (No. 1);
4. Regulations, dated 25th February 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs Notice) Regulations (England), 1913;
5. Regulations, dated 28th February 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners entitled the National Health Insurance (Inspectors' Certificates) Regulations (England), 1913;
6. Provisional Regulations of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to Compensation Agreements;
7. Provisional Regulations of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to the sums payable in respect of Deposit Contributors towards the expenses incurred by Insurance Committees in the administration of benefits;
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 226.)

PILOTAGE BILL.
Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendments to one other of the Lords Amendments considered (according to Order).
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (206) as first printed for the Rouse of Lords.]
Lords Amendment.
Clause 7, page 5, line 40, after ("Order") insert ("and (m) provide, if it appears just, for compensation being paid to any pilots for any loss or damage which may be incurred by them in consequence of the Order").
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because they consider that it is unduly general, and should be limited by the qualification now inserted, and because the provision as to compensation may most conveniently be put in the same subsection.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 7, page 5, line 18, after ("compulsory") insert ("or provide that pilotage shall be non-compulsory in any area where it has been compulsory").
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by inserting after ("provide") the words ("in connection with any re-arrangement of a pilotage district") and after ("compulsory") the words ("subject to provisions being also made for the payment of compensation to the pilots concerned for any loss or damage which may be incurred by them in consequence of such re-arrangement").
THE EARL OF GRANARD: When this Bill was first introduced in the other House it contained a provision by which any compulsory pilotage area could be changed into a non-compulsory pilotage area, and vice versa. The question came up twice in the House of Commons and on both occasions the Government were defeated, and the provision by which it was possible to turn a compulsory pilotage area into a non-compulsory pilotage area was deleted from the Bill. During the Committee stage in your Lordships' House the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, carried an Amendment putting back this provision into the Bill; and although the Commons do not agree with the actual wording of that Amendment as sent down front your Lordships' House they have substituted an Amendment which has been drafted by the Government and to which, I understand, Lord St. Aklwyn agrees as carrying into effect the provision which he was anxious should be reinserted

1503
in the Bill. If your Lordships agree to the Commons Amendment, it mean that a compulsory pilotage area may be changed into a non-compulsory pilotage area, in the same way as a non-compulsory pilotage area can be changed into a compulsory pilotage area. I venture to hope that your Lordships will not insist on your Amendment, but will see your way to agree to the Commons Amendments.
Moved, That the House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Granard.)
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I am glad that His Majesty's Government have agreed to the insertion of an Amendment enabling the Board of Trade to reduce compulsory pilotage areas into non-compulsory pilotage areas. The compulsory areas were mostly made at a time when our charts were very defective compared with what they are now. They have been immensely improved, and the sailing directions are much better written. Moreover, there has been an immense increase in the number of light-houses, light-ships, beacons, and buoys, and night navigation has been greatly assisted by illuminated buoys. One has only to compare the present day charts of the Bristol Channel and of the Thames with those of fifty years ago to see the great additional aids that there now are to navigation. Another point is that mercantile marine officers are better educated than in former days, and are better able to grasp the meaning of a chart in a short time. Consequently it is absurd to delay all ships by embarking or disembarking pilots, and I am glad that a clause has been introduced into this Bill which does make it possible for the Board of Trade, where it is considered desirable to do so, to turn a compulsory pilotage area into a non-compulsory pilotage area.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRADE UNIONS (No. 2) BILL.
Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments considered (according to Order).
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (199) as first printed for the house of Lords.]
Lords Amendment.
Clause 3, page 4, line 17, after ("Act") insert ("or (f) on the publication or circulation of any newspaper or periodical having any political purpose, unless the main purpose of the newspaper or periodical is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of this Act").
The Commons disagree to this Amendment:
Because they consider that the Amendment would involve an undue limitation of the powers of Trade Unions.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the other House have agreed to the Amendments inserted in this Bill by your Lordships with a single exception. The Amendment to which they do not agree is the Amendment which your Lordships inserted in Clause 3, providing that the political objects to which the clause applies should also include the expenditure of money "on the publication or circulation of any newspaper or periodical having any political purpose, unless the main purpose of the newspaper or periodical is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of this Act." I think it will be generally agreed that there is at any rate a certain plausibility, to put it no higher, about the Amendment which was carried in your Lordships' House, because the terms employed are identical with those which in the previous paragraph, paragraph (e), apply to the holding of political meetings or the distribution of political literature or political documents of any kind; and it might appear, therefore, that what applies to political literature ought to apply to newspapers.
But it is undoubtedly the view held in another place that, as a matter of fact, political literature such as pamphlets or handbills are not quite in pan material with newspapers or periodicals. I think that that may be reasonably argued, for this reason—that the interpretation which a Court of Law would put upon the main devotion of a pamphlet or political document to the purpose of a trade union as distinct from a purpose of a political

1505
kind would probably be the same as that which the ordinary observer would place upon it. But when you come to a newspaper, as I understand, the fear of the trade unions is this. They do not know how far a newspaper which, in the view of the ordinary observer, would be regarded as mainly a trade union newspaper devoted to the purposes described in this Bill as statutory—how far a Court of Law might in certain circumstances take the view that a newspaper, or a particular issue of it, was not mainly given to those statutory purposes but was engaging too deeply in politics. That element of uncertainty somewhat terrifies those who are responsible for the conduct of trade union newspapers. It may be that those fears are not entirely well founded; but at the same time I can quite conceive that some discontented member of a trade union might seek to obtain an injunction against the appearance of a newspaper on the strength of one particular number of that newspaper which appeared, or might appear, to a Court of Law to be more devoted to political issues than to those which could be described as statutory within the meaning of this Bill.
Those fears are honestly entertained, and, that being so, I venture to put it to the House whether it is worth while to sacrifice this Bill, which is of real importance both to the trade unions and to the public, for the sake of retaining a safeguard of this kind, which would probably, I venture to think, not prove to be of much material value, because as a matter of fact the newspapers in question are undoubtedly in the general sense trade union newspapers issued for the furtherance of trade union objects, and the political side of them must be regarded as, generally speaking, subsidiary and not the most prominent feature in those publications. I venture, therefore, to move that your Lordships do not insist upon this Amendment. And I do so with some confidence, because although, as I have stated, there is a superficial air of reason and equality about this particular Amendment, I do not think it is an air which will bear very close examination and which ought to impress itself on your Lordships to such an extent as to bring about the sacrifice of the measure.
Moved, That the House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The argument of the noble Marquess, so far as the merits of the Amendment are concerned, seemed to me to be a not very convincing one, and indeed as I listened to him I could not help feeling that he was himself not wholly convinced by his own argument. This Amendment has been a good deal misunderstood. Some people are evidently under the impression that it was framed with the object of forbidding trade unions to use their funds for the purpose of promoting the publication of political newspapers. Of course, that is not the effect of the Amendment. Again I have seen it stated that if this Amendment had remained in the Bill it would have been necessary for a trade union desiring to use its funds in connection with the publication of a political newspaper to obtain a special ballot for that purpose. That, of course, is also an entire misapprehension. All that tins Amendment did was to include the publication of a purely political newspaper amongst those objects to which a trade union would not have been entitled to apply the funds of its contributors without a special authorisation from those contributors. That, I must say, appears to me a most reasonable requirement.
I venture to recur to an illustration, which I gave when this question was under discussion on the Report stage, of the effect which will result if no words of this kind remain in the Bill. I put it to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that without the protection of these words it would be possible for a trade union to apply its funds to the publication of a newspaper avowedly intended to promote Syndicalist doctrines, and to do that without any authority from the members of the union who might have contributed to the funds of the union with the intention that, those funds should be applied solely and entirely to what are spoken of under the Bill as statutory purposes. The noble and learned Viscount did not contradict me, and therefore I assume that the omission of this Amendment will have the result which I anticipate from it. The noble Marquess who leads the House evidently felt that we were on fairly strong ground when we appealed to the language used in the paragraph which immediately precedes this one, and in which the same expression "the main object" of the publication is to be found. There may be, as the noble Marquess contended, some slight difference between the two cases, the

1507
case contemplated by paragraph (e) and the ease contemplated by paragraph (f); but I venture to express my strong opinion that paragraph (f) as it stood in the Bill when it left your Lordships' House was a perfectly reasonable stipulation, and one which the Courts of Law need have had no difficulty in interpreting. I cannot, therefore, accept the view expressed in the Commons Reason to the effect that this Amendment involved any undue limitation of the powers of the trade unions.
But, my Lords, the appeal which the noble Marquess addressed to us was not based at all upon the merits of the Amendment itself. The noble Marquess put it to us very fairly that if we insisted upon this Amendment we should bring about the failure of the Bill so far as this session is concerned. The Bill has been met with general acceptance by those who sit upon this side of the House. We have admitted, freely that in our view legislation was necessary; and it would be to us, as it would be to noble Lords opposite, a matter of sincere regret if, after all the discussion which has taken place upon this Bill, it were to be lost upon an Amendment which may be of sonic importance but which is not in our view an Amendment of capital importance. Therefore I do not propose to ask your Lordships to insist upon your Amendment. At the same time, I cannot resume my place without saying that I think we have been somewhat unfairly treated, and that the real reason for which this Amendment has been struck out from the Bill is to be found in the reluctance of His Majesty's Government to face the pressure which has been put upon them by a certain class of their supporters in the House of Commons.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to ask the noble Marquess who leads the House what has become of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, because it is not one of the Bills which has reappeared here to-day. Your Lordships will remember that this Bill was returned from the House of Commons to this House on February 17 with some Amendments which your Lordships had made disagreed to. According to the usual course of the relations between the
1508
two Houses, your Lordships insisted on your Amendments in certain cases and in certain other cases agreed not to insist on them, and returned the Bill in that shape to the House of Commons. The Bill has not been mentioned to-day, and officially we have no knowledge of what has occurred to it. But on referring to the ordinary channels of information I see that yesterday a Question, no doubt a friendly Question, was put to the Secretary for Scotland with regard to the course which he proposed to take with this Bill. He was asked what action, if any, the Government proposed to take with regard to the Lords Amendments to the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, and Mr. McKinnon Wood replied—
"I regret to say that the Lords do not see their way to meet the views of this House as to the Amendments on the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, and therefore when the Message is read I do not propose to make any Motion."
So far as I am aware, that course is absolutely without precedent. Your Lordships, of course, know the ordinary manner in which relations between the two Houses are conducted—that when Amendments go from one House to the other the Message is considered and then such course is taken with regard to the Amendments as is deemed convenient. But in this case, so far as I know, no course appears to have been taken at all, and no Motion was made. Therefore the Message which your Lordships House sent back to the House of Commons remains without any answer, and apparently has been entirely ignored. As I say, I have not been able to find any precedent for such a proceeding.
I can see only two interpretations which can be placed upon the conduct of the Government in this case. The first is that they intended discourtesy to your Lordships' House, to which we are not entirely unaccustomed. But I have endeavoured to find some other reason for it, and I think the Government must be proceeding on Section 2, subsection (3), of the Parliament Act, which says that a Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses. But this section has not been strictly complied with, because the House of Commons have not finally ascertained that your Lordships will not agree to Amendments. That negotiation has not been concluded. But I ask whether this is

1509
the section under which the Government intend to proceed, and, if so, whether it may be regarded as an intimation to this House that the Government intend to proceed with this Bill under the Parliament Act. If that be so, it is a new development and a new application of the Parliament Act which at the proper time may, and no doubt will, call for some remarks; but in the meantime I merely wish to ask His Majesty's Government what is the meaning of the novel and unprecedented course which they appear to have taken with regard to this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: There are, as your Lordships know, several methods by which in another place it is possible to express disagreement with Amendments inserted in any particular Bill by your Lordships. In the classic on the subject, the work of Sir Erskine May, I read that when it is determined to disagree to Amendments made by the House of Lords an Order may be made that the Bill or the Lords Amendments be laid aside, or the Order for the consideration of the Lords Amendments may be discharged and the Bill withdrawn, or the consideration of the Amendments may be put off for three or six months or for any term beyond the probable duration of the session. What has been done on a few occasions, though very seldom, is that a message has been sent to the Lords that the Commons insist on their disagreement to the Lords Amendments. These are all courses for which I have no doubt a number of precedents could be found.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But none of which has been taken in this ease.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I confess I do not see, as a matter of respect or consideration for this House, that any material difference exists between the making of no Motion in another place or asking for an Order to be made that the Lords Amendments be laid aside. I cannot see, if the latter course had been taken, that it would have shown any greater consideration for the Amendments inserted in this Bill by your Lordships' House. The course, therefore, taken in another place—of which, by the way, we have no cognizance whatever as no communication has been made to us, which I suppose is really the subject-matter of the noble Earl's complaint—but equally if it had been moved—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My complaint was not that no communication had been made to us. I asked the noble Marquess, because presumably he knows what the Government intend and mean, whether he could inform us why they took this which appears to me rather peculiar course.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: To answer the noble Earl quite frankly, I have no reason to suppose that the existence of the particular section of the Parliament Act which he quoted, subsection (3) of Section 2, which runs—
"A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses,"
was the reason; but that subsection undoubtedly has a bearing upon the future of this Bill. The Bill will undoubtedly be deemed to have been rejected because the Amendments were not agreed to. But I have no reason to suppose that the presence of that section in the Parliament Act had any bearing on the particular procedure adopted in another place, or that any reason can be suggested why it should. Precisely the same result, I think, would have come about if my right hon. friend in another place had adopted one of those methods which I quoted from Sir Erskine May—namely, that the Order for the consideration of the Lords Amendments be discharged. The result would, I take it, have been precisely the same, and the effect of the section in the Parliament Act would also be the same. I do not know whether the noble Earl will consider that I have answered his question, but I have done so to the best of my ability.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The only doubt which the noble Marquess has left in my mind is this. If the regular course would have had the same effect, why did the Secretary for Scotland adopt a course which is irregular and absolutely without precedent?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, so far as the question of precedent is concerned, I did not gather that the noble Marquess was able to bring forward any illustration which really was relevant to the arguments of my noble friend behind me. What remains fixed upon our minds is that this House has not been treated in this

1511
matter with the usual courtesy which prevails as between the two Houses of Parliament. It was, I think, due to us at any rate that if the whole of our Amendments in this Bill were to be, as they have been, virtually rejected by the House of Commons, we should have been given some kind of explanation of the reasons why this course was adopted. But my noble friend, who has had some experience of public life, must be perfectly well aware of the real reason why His Majesty's Government abstained from taking any of the courses which are usual in such cases. They no doubt had in their minds the recollection of previous discussions upon the question of disinterested management, which discussions had not gone altogether very well for them, discussions in the course of which some of the heaviest artillery was directed upon them from their own Benches; and having allowed a few hours only for the consideration of the Amendments made by your Lordships' House in this Bill, and in a whole group of other Bills, they obviously did not want to encore the debates which had previously taken place on this particular point.
My noble friend raised another point which I think is of some importance, and which has not perhaps been entirely cleared up. I gather, however, that the noble Marquess admits that the result of what has taken place has been to bring this Bill under the operation of Section 2 of the Parliament Act—that is to say, that what has happened with regard to it is to be taken as implying the rejection of the Bill by your Lordships' house. If that is the case, I must say that it seems to me that His Majesty's Government have been guilty of what I can only describe as a flagrant misuse of the Parliament Act. Why was the Parliament Act introduced? For the purpose of meeting cases where there was an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the two Houses; where, as it used to be put, this House had obstructed legislation which was desired by the country and advocated by the representatives of the people. But here is a Bill which is not a Party Bill so far as I am aware. It has not been treated as a Party Bill in this House. It is a Bill which we amended in a manner desired, not only by our own friends, but by a great many of those who habitually support His Majesty's Government. I cannot conceive a case in which there is less justification for using the steam-roller procedure of the Parliament Act than the case of this Bill. Surely this
1512
is a case where, by good-humoured discussion and interchange of ideas and a certain readiness on each side to compromise, it should not have been beyond the possibilities of the case to arrive at a solution acceptable to all concerned. What I am afraid His Majesty's Government are about to do in the case of this Bill is to fasten a quarrel upon your Lordships' House, and then to use the drastic machinery of the Parliament. Act in order to extricate themselves from the difficulty.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to add one word before this discussion concludes, because it does seem to me that those of us who tried to make the provisions in the direction of disinterested management as little disagreeable to His Majesty's Government as possible have not been quite fairly used. We proposed a scheme in the first instance which we thought in the abstract the best—in other words, giving a monopoly in particular districts which happened to vote for that option. That scheme was criticised somewhat severely in the other House by the Secretary for Scotland. I studied those criticisms with such care as I could bring to them, and the Amendments which I was responsible for asking this House to make in the original scheme were moved with a sincere desire to meet the criticisms, so far as it was possible, of the Secretary for Scotland. Every Amendment which this House made on the second occasion was made, so far as I am concerned, for the sole and only purpose of meeting those criticisms in so far as it was possible to do so.
I am bound to say that I associate myself with what has been said by the noble Earl behind me that we have not been quite fairly treated, for not even a single remark is made to the other House by the Government with regard to what we have done. Of course, we can understand that there were reasons. In the first place, I venture to suggest that one of the reasons which actuated the course taken—unfair as I think it was—was this, that the first of the Amendments which would have had to be considered in another place was one which we had made which the other House had refused to accept, and if they had insisted that would have killed the Bill—I refer to the time limit. That would have come up first before they reached the clause which dealt with disinterested management, and the Government were no doubt faced

1513
with this dilemma, that they had either to give way on that Amendment or themselves kill the Bill. I venture to think that that is a possible solution of the unusual course which was taken. I profoundly regret that we have not got nearer than we have to an agreement, and I am still hopeful that if fair minds are brought to this matter on a subsequent occasion a solution of the difficulties may be found. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite are as careful students of the Press in London which support them as I am, but I venture to think that if they peruse the leading article in the Daily News to-day they will find some cause for regretting the action they have taken.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government are as sorry as he is that it was found impossible to come to a compromise on this Bill, and that for the present at any rate we cannot expect to see it receive the Royal Assent. As for the future, I am bound to say that I think it is far more likely that the Bill will meet with general approval if the suggestion which I threw out on a previous occasion were adopted. My suggestion was that a Bill dealing with disinterested management generally should be introduced, and that the question of this principle being added to this Bill dealing only with Scotland should be eliminated altogether. I must remind the noble Lord who has just spoken that to the various Amendments which had been introduced in this House the Secretary for Scotland took objection, not only on points of detail, but also on points of principle. I gladly recognise the attempt which was made by the noble Lord to meet my right hon. friend's criticisms on points of detail, but he will see himself that, although he may have met them successfully by the Amendments which he moved on the last occasion when this Bill was before your Lordships, those Amendments did not touch the matters of principle, which are more important, naturally, than questions of detail.
The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition referred once more to a matter on which some discussion has already taken place in this House in connection with this Bill—namely, that some of the supporters of His Majesty's Government in the other House were anxious that the Amendments to which he referred should be introduced.
1514
Perhaps he will allow me to again explain that the discussion on that occasion was naturally short; that, as very often happens it was those hon. Members who objected to the course proposed who took part in the debate; and that there were a great many Members who were perfectly willing to express their support of the Government but who did not do so in order that the business of the House might be expedited. The Division which took place after the discussion shows how well founded is the opinion of His Majesty's Government that the representatives of Scotland desire this Bill in the shape in which they themselves introduced it.
Further objection was taken by the noble Marquess to the action of His Majesty's Government on the ground that if the Parliament Act was resorted to it would be using that Act for a Bill for which it was not originally intended, and that this was in no sense a Party Bill. I think it is difficult to define a Party Bill. Nor was it ever attempted, during the discussions of the Parliament Bill, to in any way define or limit the class of measures to which that Act should be applied. It was with some astonishment that I heard the noble Marquess express surprise at the possibility of the Parliament Act being applied to this Bill. Such a possibility has been in the minds of His Majesty's Government ever since they saw the Amendments which were introduced by noble Lords opposite. We felt them to be of such a character that if this House insisted upon them this was certainly one of the courses which His Majesty's Government would be obliged to take into consideration; and I think the noble Marquess will admit that on more than one occasion I did express the serious view which His Majesty's Government took of the Amendments moved by noble Lords opposite, which I said were, in our opinion, tantamount to the rejection of the Bill. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that sonic of the noble Marquess's supporters at any rate must have had it in their minds as a possibility that the Parliament Act would be used in connection with this Bill.
When all is said and done, the use of the Parliament Act in connection with this Bill does not prevent further discussion on the subject. There will be in the next session which begins all too soon for many of us, ample opportunity for discussing the Bill, and when it comes before this House again your Lordships will be able to propose

1515
Amendments and to discuss it for such a length of time as may seem desirable to you. My point is that this does not shut the door entirely upon a compromise; that it does leave it open for discussion on a subsequent occasion; and that it is not impossible, if your Lordships will be content with Amendments less stringent than those which have been inserted during the present session, that agreement may be come to upon the Bill before the end of next session. With regard to the action in the House of Commons which has given rise to this discussion, there are many different ways in which your Lordships' Amendments might have been treated; but I do not think there is any very serious reason for complaint that the House of Commons should have chosen this particular one out of the many alternatives which presented themselves.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Earl has advised noble Lords interested to bring in a Bill of their own with reference to disinterested management. Upon that I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. Supposing that his advice is taken, will the noble Earl undertake that facilities will be given by the Government? Because unless he will give such an undertaking he must be well aware that to give such advice is really a farce.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am quite sure that the noble Earl would be one of the last to expect me to give a contingent promise in regard to a Bill which I have not yet seen.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2).

Clerks of Session (Scotland).

Shops Act (1912) Amendment.

Pensions (Governors of Dominions).

Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland).

Sheriff Courts (Scotland).

Pilotage.

Railways (No. 2).

Trade Unions (No. 2).

Samuel Robinson's Trust Charity.

Beverley Charities.

Whitby Charities.

Haberdashers' Company Loan Fund Bearing Interest Charity.

HIS MAJESTY'S SPEECH.
And afterwards His Majesty's most gracious Speech was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of His Majesty's Command) as followeth:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"After a prolonged and exacting Session, I regret that you should enjoy only a nominal period of release from your labours. It is, however, necessary to call upon you again within a few days to consider the provision required for the service for the coming year and to renew your deliberations upon public affairs.
"I shall then have occasion again to address you in the ordinary course.
"Gentlemen of the house of Commons,
"I thank you for the liberal supplies which you have granted in order to maintain the full efficiency of the Public Service in its various branches.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,.
"I have assented to an Act which enables effect to be given to the administrative changes in India which I announced at my Coronation Durbar.
"I have sanctioned a number of Statutes dealing with domestic reforms, from which I anticipate beneficial results.
"It is my earnest prayer that the blessing of the Almighty may rest upon all your past and coming labours."
Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
After which the LORD CHANCELLOR said:
MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN, By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name and in obedience to His Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Monday the Tenth day of March One thousand nine hundred and thirteen, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Monday the Tenth day of March One thousand nine hundred and thirteen.
End of the Second Session of the Thirtieth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the Third Year of the Reign of His Majesty King George V.