My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to consider Standing Order No. 143 in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill, and that the Bill be read a third time. Your Lordships had the circumstances which had caused the delay explained the other day. All that is asked now is that this Standing Order, which provides that the print of an amended Bill must lie three days with the Departments concerned before the Bill is read a third time, should be suspended. If that were not done, it would be impossible to get the Royal Assent given to the Bill this week. I may add that the Board of Admiralty, the Department concerned, consent to this course.

My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to agree to the Amendments to the Standing Orders which appear in my name on the Paper. I think a short explanation is due to the House, having regard to the postponement of this notice for some days. It was a matter of conversation between myself and the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees and I undertook to move the Amendments to the Standing Orders in the form in which they were left by my noble friend. In that form they proposed to extend to Ireland the provision which obliges municipal corporations to deposit the estimates of any work they propose to undertake by private Bill or provisional order with the Government offices concerned. I still adhere to the view that that provision ought to be extended to Ireland, and I understood it was practically agreed that it should be so extended. But since my noble friend the Chairman of Committees has gone away, representations have been made to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland objecting to the proposed extension, and as it is not customary to make alterations in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons so near the end of the session, the Chairman of Committees in the other House has resolved not to press the matter at this moment, but in all probability he will renew it at an early period in another session of Parliament. In these circumstances, although we have not the same understanding here, I think your Lordships will agree that this House should not make a change in the Standing Orders which would make them different from those of the House of Commons except for grave reason. I am of opinion that, in all the circumstances, it is advisable to postpone making the change for another year, and therefore I have not renewed the notice as it was left by the Lord Chairman. As I had to act on my own responsibility, I thought it due to your Lordships to make this explanation. I move the Motion in the amended form.

Will the noble Earl tell us what the Amendments are?

In the absence of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, I am unable to explain the technical details; but I understand there is no opposition to the Amendments. Of course, if the noble Earl desires it, I will put the Bill off fill another occasion and give him a complete exposition on the subject.

We have an enormous number of Bills on the Paper, and really His Majesty's Government, if they put Bills down, ought to know something about what is in them. I do not wish to delay the progress of this Bill, but the noble Earl appeared to think it unreasonable to ask what the Amendments were. He seemed quite injured at being asked such a question. I do not wish to oppose the Motion, but I think it would be well if for the future the noble Earl would learn what the Amendments are which he is asking the House to agree to.

rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the question of motor-car legislation was being considered, and to call attention to the dust nuisance in country districts. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to a matter of considerable public importance. I am very sorry to detain your Lordships on this question at this period of the session, but I will make my remarks as short as I possibly can. It is useless to expect the Government to produce any legislation dealing with the motorcar question, in view of the large amount of work which Parliament has before it; but I submit that this question is at least as important as the proposal to get everybody out of bed an hour earlier between the 1st April and 1st September. That, however, may be a matter of opinion. Your Lordships will remember that the Royal Commission reported in July 1906. Nothing was done during that session of Parliament, but a debate on the question was raised in your Lordships' House in July, 1907; when Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who I am glad to see in his place, said the use of the automobile was becoming less unpopular every day. I think that was a particularly fortunate time for introducing a discussion upon automobiles, because we had had a very wet summer, and the dust nuisance was not so apparent as it usually is at that time of the year. The noble Lord further said, I think, that he hoped legislation would not be produced in the dog days when the dust nuisance was at its highest and motor cars were not enjoying that popularity which perhaps they ought to enjoy. The question was again raised in March of this year when Lord Allendale informed your Lordships that no general legislation was contemplated. I know, of course, that in calling attention to this matter nothing that I say can possibly injure the very powerful motor industry. It is only repeating a platitude to say that the introduction of motor-propelled traffic is in most cases good for the country at large, but, of course, it has its drawbacks. It has had a very bad effect on horse-breeding, and the displacement of a large number of horses will probably give serious cause for alarm to those who are interested in maintaining the armaments of this country; but there is one crumb of comfort to those interested in the horse question, and that is that the introduction of motor-cars has put an end to the breeding of the hackney horse, which has had such a deleterious effect on horse-breeding generally in this country. I think your Lordships will agree with me that some legislation on this question ought not to be very long delayed. I venture to call attention to it because motorists have got every possible social and financial influence behind them. Their principal protagonist the noble Lord behind me (Lord Montagu of Beaulieu), has very properly been lifted to the dignity of big print in The Times, and consequently his views claim the attention of the nation, while the poor people who dwell by the roadside are, to the extent to which they are harassed by motor cars, dust, and so forth, really absolutely defenceless, and it is on their account that I wish to say one or two words on this subject this evening. As to motor 'buses in London, I think the people of London are quite able to take care of themselves. I do not propose to address myself to the motor bus question at all. Parliament has been already very influentially memorialised by those who dwell in the City, and it is to be hoped that something will be done in that matter. It is the country districts to which I particularly desire to call attention. When we begin arguing about the dust nuisance and the danger, and so forth, the usual line of defence taken by motorists is tint it is only the wicked owner of motor cars, the scorcher and the inconsiderate man, who gives offence, and that they would willingly join the rest of the public in putting that down. That may be true with regard to many accidents, but the dust nuisance is absolutely inherent to the use of any kind of motor car. I think I shall not be overstating the case when I say that it is almost impossible for anybody, however philanthropic he may be, to drive a motor car on a dusty or muddy day without inflicting some annoyance and discomfort on somebody. And to that extent they are trying to adapt to the roads of this country a form of traffic which in their present state they are not intended to carry. It is quite easy to produce figures to show that there have been an enormous number of accidents owing to motor cars being driven at a high rate of speed. I have had compiled from the newspaper reports of 1907 figures which show that 932 accidents resulted from motor traffic of all kinds, in which 215 people were killed. Accidents are inseparable, it is contended, from this kind of traffic, and will eventually become fewer and fewer. I may be asked what remedy I propose. Well, I have a suggestion to make. If the use of the horn or warning signal by motorists was for-bidden, they would have to take the same chance as drivers of horse vehicles; they would have to go much slower round corners and through populous places, and would not be able, by blowing a horn, to order everybody else out of the way. Their speed would be greatly reduced, they would have to pull up oftener, and they would be forced to be a, little more considerate of other people. I know what the answer to this argument is. It is said that if motorists were prevented from using the horn they would have continually to shout when coming behind a covered van or vehicle of that kind. But I have to shout when I am driving a horse vehicle, and why should not motorists? Personally I do not think there is such a great deal in that as many people try to make out. As to the dust nuisance, we have some very telling evidence in the Report of the Royal Commission. A market gardener at Brentford said that the effect of the dust was to destroy the value of his produce, and other evidence of a similar kind was given by persons residing in the vicinity of the main roads. It is to the dust nuisance that Parliament ought, I maintain, to address itself very strenuously. There is no doubt whatever about the dust nuisance. It is abundantly complained of on all sides, and is admitted by motorists themselves. It would not be difficult to work up a case and to speak in language of emotion of the terrible scourge inflicted by motor traffic on roadside dwellers and cottagers on dusty days, and more particularly on Sunday afternoons, their only holiday. The Royal Commission declare that there is no doubt all at about the dust nuisance, and that it causes material damage, discomfort and annoyance to users of and dwellers by the highways. The Royal Commission went on to say that there were three ways in which the dust nuisance might be mitigated—first by an alteration in the structure of the car; secondly, by the treatment of the roads: and, thirdly, by some regulation with regard to speed. I am not an expert in regard to the construction of motor-cars, Perhaps my noble friend Lord Montagu will be able to tell us something about that later. But I think it is not unfair to say that the motor car which does not raise dust when driven at twenty miles an hour remains yet to be invented. I think the same argument applies with reference to the remedy of treating the roads. It is in the first place an exceedingly expensive thing to carry out, and though tarred roads do not raise such clouds of dust as ordinary roads, they do raise black dust of a particularly venomous, hurtful, and mischievous kind. I do not think I am going too far when I say that, however thoroughly you may prepare the surface of the road, and however much money you may spend upon it, the enormous width of the steel-shod tires will wear through any specially-prepared surface in a comparatively short time. Therefore, I think we may dismiss that suggestion as impracticable. There is no doubt whatever, if we are to place credence in the Report of the Royal Commission, that dust does increase in a corresponding ratio to the increase of speed, This is what the Commissioners say—

"Speaking generally, we came to the conclusion that at a speed below ten miles an hour the dust raised is comparatively slight, that it increases very greatly at from twelve to twenty miles an hour, and continues to increase, but in a smaller proportion, at higher speeds. It, therefore, follows that the dust nuisance is largely within the power of the motor driver to control if he be content to reduce the speed of his car to that of ordinary horse-drawn traffic."

It is speed which, in my humble opinion is the real mischief. I do not want to recommend anything savage or Draconian with regard to the speed-limit, but there is no doubt whatever that dust will increase in corresponding ratio to the increase of speed. I am not going to propose that Parliament should require that anybody who has a motor car should go no faster than anybody who has a dogcart. That would be ridiculous and impossible to enforce. I was one of the few who went into the lobby in favour of the twenty miles per hour speed - limit, which was subsequently adopted by the other House, but it has been found impossible to enforce, that in the open between one village and another. I do not wish to lecture any Member of your Lordships' House or anybody else. I may say that I have not got a motor car of my own, but have constantly been in one, and I am not sure whether breaking the law in somebody else's motor car is not more disreputable than breaking it in your own. But I do think that it is very deplorable that at this time of day society should have set itself to thwart and embarrass the police in the execution of their duty and in trying to enforce the law and obey the orders of their superiors. I think that to bring the Executive into discredit as has been done is a very regrettable thing indeed. It is no use for Parliament to attempt to pass a law if society generally has resolved not to obey it. You produce an impasse from which it is impossible to get out. But I do urge upon His Majesty's Government, most respectfully and most strongly, that if they would only let it be made clear that the central authority intends to enforce a reduction of the speed limit to something like ten miles an hour in villages and populous places, they would have the support of the whole of the better kind of opinion among both motorists and non-motorists, and would earn the thanks of the very much oppressed dwellers in country districts. This ought not to be difficult to do. At the end of this Blue-book there is an extremely able report by the Secretary of the Royal Commission upon motoring in other European countries, and in every one of the countries mentioned there is a provision that motor-cars shall not go beyond a certain speed—the highest is twelve miles an hour—through villages and populous places. It may be said that this ought to be done by the local authorities. I believe the local authorities in several places have done what they can to mitigate this nuisance by placing notices outside the villages, but I think that in a very short time familiarity with the notices of the local authority without any extra penalty behind them will breed contempt, and that these notices, though possibly efficacious here and there for a short time, will soon come to be disregarded and will not have the same authority as they would have if placed there by the central Government. I ask the noble Lord whether he cannot send round some kind of requisition or instruction to each local authority to schedule all villages and populous places; but unless a more stringent penalty is enforced for driving through villages at a high speed, the dust nuisance will still continue and be just as bad as ever. Noble Lords opposite know quite well how to deal with local authorities who do not do their duty, and if they would only "ginger" the local authorities a little bit with regard to enforcing penalties and scheduling populous places in rural districts, their action would receive a, great amount of support. Noble Lords who live in the country know that this is a very serious matter. It may be thought a trifling domestic affair, but it is a matter which is very likely to have a serious effect upon society at large. I am told, and I know from my own experience, that there is nothing which sets the poor against the rich and class against class so much as the practice of driving through their villages and smothering them with mud in the winter and dust in the summer. These people who live by the roadside have a right to be protected, and I trust that we shall hear that attention is being given to the matter by His Majesty's Government.

My Lords, this debate is very similar in tone to those we have had on two or three previous occasions on which I have had the honour to address your Lordships. But to-day we have had an able and conciliatory speech from the noble Lord, and with many of his conclusions, although I am a very keen motorist, I am bound to agree. I thoroughly agree as to the ill-feeling which might be caused between motorists and the general public, especially those who dwell along the roadside, by the inconveniences to which they are put; but, on the other hand, I am bound to say that the number of careful drivers is very largely on the increase. I think people offend in these matters more from thoughtlessness than anything else; but I have seen an immense improvement in this respect within the last year or two. The Government are continually being given good advice from the parties interested on both sides. No doubt they can take care of themselves perfectly well. Everyone who has followed the Answers given by the President of the Local Government Board must be convinced that he is trying to find a solution to the question, and that pending a solution he is prepared to consider any suggestion that may be submitted to him. The noble Lord made one suggestion which, if he would extend it a little, I should be prepared to agree to. He said that there should be a reduced speed limit in villages and populous places. If he would add to that, that we might outside villages and populous places, where obviously there is no danger and no risk of life, exceed the twenty miles limit, we should be quite prepared to give that suggestion very careful and friendly consideration. It is really in populous places, streets, and villages, where the danger and nuisance exist. There are a great many miles of main road in this country where no nuisance or danger can be said to arise except when you are meeting vehicles, and then every reasonable person—and I am glad to think they are in the majority—slows down. In the dog days we are apt to think that dust is always with us, but, as a matter of fact, a friend of mine at the Meteorological Office informs me that on the average there are only fifty dusty days out of the 365 in the year, or one in seven. Therefore, it is not so serious a question during the greater portion of the year, and I think more impartial consideration is likely to be given to the discussion of the subject if it takes place in February rather than in July. As to accidents, everybody, of course, deplores them, but they are bound to occur with every kind of vehicle. Though I do not wish to say that motor vehicles are not driven sometimes much too recklessly, on the whole I do not think the motor car can really be called a dangerous vehicle. I made a rough calculation while the noble Lord was speaking of the number of miles which would be likely to be run in a year by motors and motor cycles. There are to-day, in this country, roughly about 60,000 motor-cars and 40,000 motor cycles. If anything that is an under-estimate. Let us assume that they run 100 miles a week apiece. On that basis they would run over 500,000,000 miles a year, which is a very considerable mileage, and the number of accidents is only about 1,000 a year. That is small in proportion. I am not such an efficient mathematician as to be able to work out the exact percentage, but it is very low indeed, and probably far lower than the percentage in the early days of railways. If one considers the great mileage run, I do not think the number of accidents, although deplorable, anything out of the way. Then the noble Lord referred to the horn, and suggested that if horns were done away with there would be less furious driving and fewer accidents. I do not agree with him. All vehicles which go at any speed have a means of signalling their approach. Hansom cabs that were fitted with rubber tyres had to have bells on the harness; that was only another way of giving a signal to the public of their approach. The use of horns was prohibited in Paris, but the Paris authorities admitted that their abolition had not added to the safety of the public. I do not think that in the present state of our roads, with high fences at each side and children making mud-pies in the middle, it would be safe to do away with the use of the horn. Then there is also the difficulty in driving at night and meeting carmen asleep. I have often had the misfortune to meet sleeping carters whom it has been most difficult to wake. A sleeping driver on the road in the country is by no means rare. Then there are carriers' vans filled with clattering parcels, and the driver, with the best will in the world, is frequently not able to hear traffic approaching from behind. The abolition of the horn would lead, I am afraid, to a noisier form of engine, whereas the present tendency is to secure a quiet form. The arguments for and against all these questions are so well known to your Lordships that I will not detain you upon them, but if the Government intend to bring forward any legislation on this subject, they ought to do so very carefully indeed. At the present moment the industry is not by any means in a flourishing condition, and any really drastic legislation would affect a large number of workers and a large amount of capital, and would strike a very serious blow at what is a great and growing trade. As regards dust, I have hopes that we are on the eve of a solution of this question. I have spent a good deal of time during the past year in visiting places where dust material has been put down on the roads, and I have come to the conclusion that a great deal of progress is being made in this direction. In a great many counties, notably in Hampshire, great portions of the villages, by public and private money, have been laid with dustless paving with excellent results, and I believe we shall in that way do a great deal to abolish the dust nuisance. We certainly should not stand in the way of the Government in the matter of fresh legislation. But while I do not think considerate motorists would oppose a reduced speed limit in populous places, they would ask for some relaxation in regard to those parts of the country where there is no danger, and also that the penalties under the Act of 1903 should be reconsidered and revised. The desire among motorists generally is to be considerate to the public and to minimise the nuisance which we are quite aware in some places we are guilty of creating.

My Lords, I have no reason to complain of this question having been raised again, or of the tone of the speech of the noble Lord who introduced it. If I have any complaint at all to make, it is rather that the question was not raised earlier in the session, as we have had a good many sittings occupied with only minor matters when we might have discussed this subject with advantage. To-day, however, there is a great deal of business on the Paper. There was, as Lord Willoughby has reminded us, a debate op. this question earlier in the session, initiated by Lord Montagu, to which I had the honour of replying. That discussion dealt with another aspect of the question—that of the taxation of motor-cars—there being at the time some apprehension as to possible increased taxation being announced in the then forthcoming Budget. I intimated at the time that the Government were not contemplating any legislation during the present session amending the Motor Cars Acts. However, the Government and the Local Government Board have not lost sight of the question, nor of the fact that the existing Acts require amendment in many particulars. The working of these Acts is being considered. Although the noble Lord who raised this discussion did not allude to any personal grievance, he has, I know, a personal and justifiable grievance against motor cars, for a year or two ago serious damage was done to some very valuable horses. The noble Lord has my fullest sympathy as a hunting man. As to the suggested abolition of the horn, I think it is the abuse of the horn or siren which has led to complaint. I quite agree with what fell from my noble friend Lord Montagu on this subject. I daresay your Lordships, in reading the reports of prosecutions for excessive speed or accidents, have noticed that the question is often asked: "Did he blow his horn?" Very often the driver is told that he ought to have blown his horn; and, if a man is nearly run over, one of the first things he says is: "Why on earth"—or something stronger—"did not you blow your horn, and let me know you were coming?" Therefore, with regard to the abolition of the horn, there are two sides of the question to be considered. The use of motor cars was, as your Lordships know, first made possible in this country by the Act of 1896, which was amended in many particulars by the Act of 1903. Heavier motors have been allowed, identification plates and registration insisted upon, and the speed limit raised to twenty miles an hour. It was felt then that the motor car industry was still in its infancy, and, in view of further legislation, a Royal Commission was appointed. Most of your Lordships are aware of the recommendations of this Commission. The question of the speed limit is undoubtedly one of the most important dealt with by the Royal Commission; but, at the same time, the Royal Commission were by no means unanimous in their recommendations. On this question precisely opposite opinions are held by motorists and the general public, and I can only repeat that the matter is receiving the attention of the Local Government Board. Other business, however, has made it impossible to introduce legislation up to the present. The existing Act is, therefore, scheduled again in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Government are not without hope that the delay which is taking place in the introduction of legislation may meanwhile result in more general agreement being come to on many points in order that fresh legislation when passed may be permanent and not have to be tinkered with continually. I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Montagu said, that there is not now so much opposition to motor cars as there was formerly, and that as a rule the drivers are much, more careful and the owners much more considerate than was formerly the case. Whatever may be the difference of opinion as to the speed on open roads, I think all reasonable persons will agree with Lord Willoughby that the greatest care should be exercised in populous places and when going through towns and villages. The local authorities have certain powers, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, of limiting the speed, and I understand that when this question of the continuance of the Motor Act was raised two days ago in another place the President of the Local Government Board intimated his intention of issuing a Circular drawing the attention of local authorities to the provisions of the existing law which may be put in motion in order to control the inconsiderate and dangerous use of motor cars. I am sure that if the noble Lord has any suggestions to make to my right hon. friend as to anything that could reasonably be embodied in this Circular, it will receive most careful consideration. The Local Government Board have certain drastic powers under the Act of 1903, but of course, they naturally do not take action until they are asked to do so by the local authorities. Speaking for myself, I certainly think that the minor authorities, the urban district councils and rural district councils, might also have power, without having to go to the county council, to schedule certain districts where motor traffic is dangerous. I should like to see the speed-limit considerably reduced in crowded and populous places, and in villages. A good deal of the noble Lord's speech was taken up with the question of the dust nuisance. I do not think there can be any doubt in the minds of your Lordships that the dust nuisance is one of the greatest disadvantages of motoring, both to the general public and to motorists themselves, but there are, as the Royal Commission states, obvious difficulties in making dust production a statutory offence. As Lord Willoughby said, the dust nuisance is to a considerable extent aggravated by excessive speed. Then the question of road-making was alluded to. I think it is obviously impossible to have a uniform system in all localities. Various experiments have been tried, but, largely owing to the expense, they have been tried only on a small scale, and the attempt, has not been sufficient to secure reliable information. Anyhow, whatever system is adopted it must increase the cost of road-making considerably. The type of car has also been alluded to. Although some cars throw up more dust than others, I am afraid that any motor-car driven, even at a moderate speed, on a dusty road would throw up a considerable amount of dust. There is to be a congress shortly in Paris to consider the subject of road construction, at which a number of experts from this and other countries will meet. One of the engineering inspectors of the Local Government Board has been deputed to attend on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and it is hoped that some information on this important subject may be forthcoming. As I have said, I have no complaint to make of this question having been raised. All I will say in conclusion is, that the whole development of motor traffic in this country is being watched with a view to supplementary legislation, and that I will represent the views which the noble Lord has put forward to the President of the Local Government Board.

My Lords, I cannot help feeling a little disappointed at the noble Lord's statement, because I think there is serious and urgent necessity for the protection of life in the Metropolis. I observed that both the noble Lord who raised this question and the noble Lord who followed him disclaimed any interest in London. They devoted the whole of their remarks to country districts. I am a Londoner; I see a great deal of what goes on in the streets of the Metropolis, and I cannot help thinking that it is a matter which urgently demands attention. It is impossible to doubt that a great number of people are deterred from ordinary circulation in London by reason of the state of the traffic in various streets. There are certain streets which it is manifest cannot be crossed without peril to life unless one has a policeman with him. Although I have been a Londoner all my life, and am used to the streets, I find it difficult to cross some of them except at points at which are stationed the police, who so admirably discharge their duties. I walk a great deal; I always walk if I can, and from time to time I find a whole procession of motor vehicles on both sides of the road, following each other in rapid succession, and going at such a pace that to attempt to cross is a very rash thing. Surely this is not a question that need demand long deliberation before an end is put to the present state of things in the Metropolis. I can quite understand that there may be some difficulty in dealing with the question of dust, although in my opinion, I think the dust question might be solved very well by an indictment for causing a nuisance. But that is not the question which at present seems to be so urgent. As far as the cost of road construction is concerned, I think those who use the roads should be made to pay. My own view is that we shall have to go back to the old turnpike system. But, as I say, that is not what seems to me the most urgent matter. Day by day one is struck by the number of accidents caused. A speed limit may be applied to vehicles travelling over a country road; but it would be absurd to apply the same limit to such thoroughfares as Piccadilly or the Knightsbridge Road at three o'clock in the afternoon. If there were no speed limit applicable to such streets, it would be clear that a driver would be responsible for travelling at a rate which was injurious to the public in the sense that it made it dangerous to pedestrians to cross the road. That view unfortunately was over-ruled, and it was determined to fix a speed limit; but I think everybody must be struck by the absurdity of making the rule apply equally to such places as Piccadilly and a country road. There is another matter which seems to me to call for consideration. In regard to bicycles, the use of which by boys in the employ of traders has become general, it is not so much a question of the bicycle doing mischief, but a question of the cyclist dodging in and out and preventing the ordinary passenger using a crossing, because he has to calculate what will probably happen before he can reach the other side of the road, and before he had finished he would probably be run over. These are difficulties which exist in fact now, and to remit them to a general consideration of the whole motor industry and what may be done in country roads is small consolation to those persons who have to cross thoroughfares in London. It appears to me that some drastic measure is needed in respect of the mode in which motor cars can be driven on London streets. I rather doubt the value of the motor horn in this respect. I think it acts as a deterrent against people crossing the road, and the effect is that the horn-blowers have established a reign of terror. It is all very well to say they have no right to drive you off the road, but people do not wish to try the experiment at the risk of their lives; they therefore have recourse to the ignominious expedient of running out of the way. I think the public convenience in that matter ought, to be considered, and I am very much disappointed that this should only be the subject of contemplation by the proper authorities. I should have thought that something for the convenience of the public could have been done at once, and that the other and remoter questions might be left for future consideration. It appears, however, that until the number of accidents reaches a still larger figure and exceeds what is considered a fit proportion in comparison to the number of miles run, nothing will be done. I protest against its being supposed that nothing is to be done, and that the state of the London streets is to be permitted to continue as at present.

My Lords, I have not much to add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Montagu, but I should like to call your Lordships' attention to one or two general considerations of this question which I think are perhaps a little lost sight of. First of all, I suggest that the figures which were given by Lord Willoughby de Broke of the number of persons killed should be accepted with a good deal of reserve. They were, as the noble Lord said, extracted from the newspapers, and I think your Lordships ought to be assured that they did not include accidents from traction engines and tramcars and vehicles of that kind. Your Lordships will no doubt remember that before the Royal Commission many instances were brought forward of supposed deaths from motor car accidents which were reported in the newspapers, but the accuracy of which the local police, on being approached, denied. In one case a large motor car was said to have crushed a man to death in Oxford Street; but the Commissioner of Police said he had heard of no such accident and no man had been killed. Therefore, I suggest that the figures taken from the newspapers should be accepted with reserve. Much has been said as to the abolition of the horn. I think it might make careful men drive more carefully, but the drivers who are to be feared are the reckless and inconsiderate drivers. They would not, I am afraid, be led to drive any slower in consequence of the abolition of the horn, but would be inclined to take the risk. Personally, if I were coming to a cross road, at whatever speed I was approaching it, I should not think that I was doing my duty without sounding the horn; and I think the abolition of the horn would place people in a danger they need not be placed in. As to the question of speed, I think the noble and learned Lord opposite has sounded the right note. You will not attain public safety by imposing any artificial limit of speed, because when traffic is congested ten miles an hour is as ridiculous a speed as twenty miles an hour. It is not wise, I venture to think, to distract people's attention from that which should always be present to their minds—driving safely, having regard to the traffic, the state of the road, the condition of the car and the amount of control over it—by directing their attention to any artificial limit of speed. It may be perfectly safe in many streets in London at certain times of the day to drive at fifteen miles an hour, and it may be extremely dangerous in other streets to drive at four miles an hour. It is quite true, as the noble Lord opposite has said, that it is difficult to cross a continuous line of traffic, but I suggest that that is not a characteristic of motor cars alone. The same thing might have been observed in the early morning on the Embankment before motor cars became so fashionable, when City men were driven to business, and I am afraid that that is really an incident not of motor cars but of the ordinary congestion of traffic. It could, of course, be overcome by making it the law that the driver of a motor car should stop if a pedestrian desiring to cross held up his hand. Personally, I should not think of interfering with the progress of a pedestrian who had begun to cross, but should give him plenty of time. Lord Montagu is right when he says that the proportion of considerate drivers has very largely increased, and is continually increasing. Your Lordships, I am sure, will not, lose sight of the fact that the three largest organisations to which motorists belong are continually impressing on their members the necessity not only of safe driving, but of considerate and courteous driving. That is being done by example, by individual cases of discipline, and by the issue of pamphlets and circulars. The drivers' organisation is also directing its attention to the same subject. As to the suggested speed of ten miles an hour, I think the Local Government Board ought to reflect that that is not, as a rule, a reasonable speed. Figures were placed before the Royal Commission which showed that a horse-drawn omnibus in Victoria Street, Westminster, was going at a speed of thirteen miles an hour, that hansom cabs travelled at a speed as high as sixteen miles, and that tramcars went at sixteen and seventeen miles an hour. I submit that a tramcar, which is on rails and cannot swerve, travelling at seventeen miles an hour is almost necessarily more dangerous than a light motor car travelling at that speed. If rates of speed are to be fixed, I would suggest, in the interests of having them observed, that they should be fixed at some reasonable rate. Ten miles an hour is almost impossibly slow for an ordinary motor car. It appears hardly to be moving. Those of your Lordships who drive in the Royal parks, where the speed of ten miles is rigidly enforced, know perfectly well that you are constantly passed by hansom cabs and even by four-wheelers. I think your Lordships will see that that is putting a very considerable strain on human nature. Then with regard to the dust problem, what can be done in the way of speed and of construction is, I fear, only in the nature of a palliative. A pair-horse van ambling along at six miles an hour on a dusty road will cause a large cloud of dust to rise. I fear that the tarring of the roads would also be only in the nature of a palliative. I do not think the noble Lord who initiated this discussion was quite right when he said that the effects of tarred roads were injurious. If they were, it is strange that those who live in villages should themselves subscribe to the cost of tarring the roads. The real remedy, I venture to suggest, is to put the main roads under a central board and to assist them with national money—to create in this country something corresponding to the routes nation-ales in France. The real remedy is to adopt the suggestion made by two Departmental Committees and one Royal Commission—to make these main roads a national charge and to construct them in the best possible way. A good many experts have said that if once a road is made up in a proper and satisfactory manner the cost of maintenance will be enormously reduced, and I venture to think that that will be the ultimate remedy for the dust nuisance.

My Lords, I want very strongly indeed to support the general contentions which were put forward by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Halsbury). The noble Earl who has just sat down talked about considerate drivers. The difficulty is, when you want to cross the road, that you do not know whether the driver is going to be considerate or not, and you do not find out that he is inconsiderate until you have been run over, and that is rather late. I think the noble Earl must have been fortunate in his choice of four-wheel cabs. My experience of them, and I go about a good deal in them, is that they never exceed the limit of ten miles an hour. I think that statement, if I may use a colloquial expression, is rather too thin to be of much weight in a discussion of this kind. The noble Earl used the expression, "Driving with safety, having regard to the circumstances of the traffic." I think that is a rather dangerous provision, because it is generally the more experienced driver who takes the greater risks. Many of those who are skilful think that they can take great risks, and, though they may succeed many times, when they fail there are usually lamentable results. But I rose for the purpose of expressing my hearty sympathy with the suggestions made by the noble and learned Lord. I think that the Commissioner of Police, who has considerable powers in this matter, should be stirred up to action in regard to motor traffic, and, if he has not sufficient power, he should be armed with powers to place trusted members of the police force on the watch at certain points in London and to prosecute drivers guilty of reckless acts.

My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down threw some doubt on the statement that hansom-cabs and four-wheelers go more than ten miles an hour. The other day I was going along the Mall at, according to a very accurate speedometer, twelve miles an hour, when a hansom cab ran away from me. I desire to repudiate the suggestion that the more skilful a driver the more risks he takes. In my experience, the more skilful the driver, the more he appreciates the dangers of the road and the more considerate he is to the public.

My Lords, on the Motion to go into Committee I desire to say one word on the subject of this Bill. I believe it was read a second time under circumstances which rendered discussion difficult or impossible, and I do not think the House has heard very much as to the reasons which have induced His Majesty's Government to take the Bill up. It undoubtedly contains some extremely drastic and inquisitorial provisions. I was very much struck by an observation which fell from Lord Willoughby de Broke, who, in the course of his speech earlier to-day, said many sagacious things, to the effect that it is no use passing a law unless you can see your way to make people obey it. The law embodied in this Bill is certainly one which it will not be very easy to enforce. Beekeeping has increased enormously in Ireland. You hardly see a single cottage in the poorer parts of the country where there are not beehives, and the owners of these hives will be subject to the legislation contained in this Bill. Now what does the Bill do? It compels every owner of bees whose bees show symptoms of this disease to notify the fact, and if he fails to notify it he is liable to a severe penalty. Then inspectors are to be appointed who are to have power to enter at all reasonable times any premises where bees are kept, and anyone obstructing an inspector is liable to penalties. In the next clause the department or the local authority may order the destruction, not only of the bees supposed to be infected, but of all articles and appliances used in connection with bee-keeping which are infected with the disease or suspected of being infected; and there, again, a penalty is imposed for failure to comply with the clause. Finally, there is power taken to proclaim a whole area in which this bee disease is found to exist, and within that area the department may cause the whole of the bees, as well as the articles and appliances used in connection with beekeeping, to be destroyed. These are very strenuous powers, and I find at the end of the Bill that they can be delegated by the county council to a local authority. What I wish to know is whether His Majesty's Government have satisfied themselves by taking the advice of practical people that this is a kind of legislation which there is any prospect of successfully enforcing. Has there been any inquiry? Have the county councils been consulted? If not, I should like to know why there is so much hurry to force the Bill through Parliament, when, of course, there would be ample time for considering it at our leisure after the summer adjournment.

My Lords, I should like to say a few words with regard to the remarks of the noble Marquess. Other places besides Ireland have suffered from this bee pest. I am told by a noble Lord near me that every bee in the Isle of Wight last season was killed by this disease, known as foul brood. The Bill is required in order to encourage and promote the cottage industry of bee-keeping in Ireland. I cannot agree with the noble Marquess that this Bill is too drastic in its effect. The noble Marquess quoted the expression of opinion of Lord Willoughby de Broke, that it was no good having a law unless it could be enforced; but I must point out that there are provided in this Bill penalities for not declaring the existence of this pest in particular hives. Where there are penalties surely the law can be enforced. I can assure your Lordships that the Bill is really wanted in Ireland.

My Lords, I hope I shall be able to show the noble Marquess that, although the provisions of this Bill appear at first sight to be of rather a drastic character, yet they are not really so. The Bill, as the noble Earl opposite has just said, is urgently needed to stamp out, and to stamp out as soon as possible, this disease. The noble Marquess asked if the local authorities had been consulted. The answer to that is that we are promoting this Bill at the request of the local authorities in Ireland. I believe that nearly all the local authorities and the Council of Agriculture as well as the bee-keepers of Ireland have asked the Irish Department of Agriculture to introduce a measure of this kind. Our desire is to meet, as far as possible, the wishes of these local authorities and of the people interested in the success of bee-keeping. The disease with which the Bill deals has spread rapidly and caused very great loss. Experts are agreed that the only way to cope with the pest is by destroying the infected bees and also the appliances. That is what this Bill seeks to do; and compensation is to be paid to the owner of any bees or appliances destroyed to the extent of half their value. This compensation will be paid out of the funds of the Agricultural Committee of each county. These funds consist of a small rate, generally of 1d. in the £, and a larger sum in the shape of a contribution from the Department of Agriculture. The Department will bear a large proportion of the cost of administering the Act, for not only will they supply a considerable part of the funds but they will also provide the cost of inspectors and other people necessary to carry out its provisions. The Department of Agriculture recognise the urgency of this matter. I do not know whether the noble Marquess will consider that I have answered satisfactorily the points he raised. The noble Earl opposite, Lord Donoughmore, has some Amendments on the Paper which would considerably enlarge the scope of the Bill, and with the great majority of which I am unable to agree. I hope that, although the Bill has been brought up at a late period in the session, noble Lords opposite will not resist the passing of it into law before the adjournment.

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. If I had been in possession of the information he has given to the House I should not have troubled him.

said he would accept the Amendment if the noble Earl would delete the word "isolation." He had taken legal advice on the point, and had been told that there would be some difficulty in the matter of isolating a bee.

My Lords, early in the tenure of office of His Majesty's present advisers the minds of a good many stern economists among their followers who had been taught to believe in the gross extravagance of the Administrations of Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour must have been much cheered by the statement made by the Prime Minister that he considered that the Estimates for the Supply services, as they then stood, at £111,000,000, were quite excessive, and that he held it to be the first and paramount duty of the present Government to return to a more thrifty and economical administration. The effect of that announcement was seen last year by the reduction of these Estimates by something less than 1 per cent. This year I am sorry to say that the £111,000,000 has been exceeded by nearly £1,000,000. I do not complain of that. I allude to it solely for the purpose of expressing the hope that, now it that was been shown by the experience of the present Government that the charges of extravagance which they so freely launched in the days of their predecessors were wrong, these charges will not be repeated in the future. What is the present position? We have Estimates for the Supply services of nearly £112,000,000, but that is by no means all. We have before us in the years that are immediately to come anticipations of large additions to those Estimates, not including any question of old-age pensions, but for the ordinary services of the country. Bills have been passed or are passing, such as the Irish Universities Bill or the Small Holdings Act, which must necessarily add to the expenditure. When the question of elementary education is settled, and I suppose all of us hope that a reasonable settlement of that question may be arrived at before long, a further large charge will undoubtedly be imposed on the Exchequer. Then there are other more important items of increased expenditure to which we may look forward, first in Army services. Unless the rumours which have been abroad within the last few weeks as to intended reductions in the Army are true, as I cannot imagine for a moment they are, and if the Territorial Army scheme is a success, very considerable additions must be made to the Army Estimates in the coming years on that account, especially in order to establish the Territorial Artillery. Then those who are acquainted with the needs of the services tell us that both in the Army and Navy, stores have been depleted in the last two years which will have to be replaced in future Years. Lastly, the new construction vote for the Navy for three years running has been reduced to a point which has been unknown for many years previously, with the certain result that if the promises of the Government with regard to the maintenance of our Navy in an effective state are realised the new construction vote must be increased in the years before us, probably by several millions. In addition to those charges there are two important permanent naval works—the docks and harbour at Rosyth and the Portsmouth lock—for which a sum of no more than £100,000 is taken in the Estimates of the present year, but for the completion of which at least £4,500,000 will be needed. We have been told that the works at Rosyth are to take ten years. If the policy of spending money at Rosyth is sound, and I believe it to be necessary, there can be no question that these works to be brought to a conclusion at the earliest possible date. I believe at the present moment there is not a single naval dockyard on the whole east coast of this country capable of receiving a ship of the "Dreadnought" class. If by postponing the execution of this great work owing to their desire to keep down naval Estimates, that work should be found to be not ready in the event of a possible naval war in the North Sea, a responsibility will rest on the shoulders of the Government which I should be sorry to bear. Taking all these matters together, and remembering that the Government have set their faces against loans, I believe a sum of several millions must be added to the ordinary annual peace Estimates during the next few years. That is not all. We have now before us the Old-Age Pensions Bill, which will impose a burden commencing at £7,500,000 or so, and extending to an amount which no man can foresee, upon the finances of the country. What has been the policy which the Government have pursued with a view to preparing for this great increase? We have been told by the Prime Minister that he budgeted not merely for one year, but that his Budgets form part of the whole of a great financial policy. Last year he gave up £3,500,000 of indirect taxation in the shape of coal duty and reduction of the tea duty. This year he follows that action up by giving up £3,500,000 of the sugar duty—£7,000,000 of indirect taxation given up in two years with these great liabilities before us. I have never contended, and am not about to contend now, that either the coal duty or the sugar duty is free from objection. I defy any man to discover a tax against which no objections can be made. Least of all can that be said for the income-tax, the high rate of which is certain to have a direct effect upon the employment of the people and upon the condition of trade. But what I have contended is that, granting that there are objections to the coal tax and the sugar tax, just as there must be objections to every kind of tax, it would be absolutely impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise the amount which those taxes have produced with less disturbance to the general trade and industry of the country, and with less injurious effects upon the masses of the people. I have no doubt that the repeal of the coal duty benefited the employers and workmen concerned in the production of coal. It did not benefit them to the extent that was anticipated, because I think the rise in the price of coal that took place last year was due not so much to the repeal of the coal duty as to the great expansion of trade on the Continent, which largely increased the demand for our coal, and consequently together with the repeal of the duty, had this effect upon the general consumers of coal in this country that, it materially added to the price which they had to pay for a necessary article of consumption. But the coal duty has gone. The reduction of the sugar duty, so far as sugar is used as an article of manufacture, has certainly given relief to manufacturers. It may have given some relief, like the reduction of 1d. on tea, to the direct consumers. I do not believe that the reduction in either case gave much if any relief to the very poor classes among us who purchase both their tea and sugar in very small quantities indeed. The reduction of ¼d. a pound on sugar can be of no benefit to the poor person who buys no more than half a pound of sugar at a time. But what I contend with regard to both these duties is that neither of them pressed severely upon the masses of the people. That is clearly proved by the fact that the consumption both of tea and sugar, in spite of the duties upon them, has been considerably increasing, and the sugar duty in 1907 produced a larger sum than has ever been known before, while sugar was at what the Prime Minister described as a satisfactory price. The Prime Minister described the sugar duty as vicious in principle, burdensome as to its incidence, and unequal as to its operation as between different classes. If it is vicious in principle His Majesty's Government would have carried out their principles by repealing it altogether instead of leaving half of it in existence. I contend that it is not vicious in principle. It is in accordance with the strictest canons of free trade. Nobody has ever denied that. No doubt it is a tax on food and a tax on raw material also, but sugar is mainly used as a raw material of manufacture by two classes in this country—the manufacturers of confectionery and the manufacturers of aerated waters. I pass by the brewers because they have no business, in the opinion of many persons, to use sugar at all. The two trades that I have named are the trades which complain of the sugar duty. Yet it is a remarkable fact that their trade expanded while the sugar duty was at the full amount. Therefore I should contend that it is not burdensome in its incidence. But the Prime Minister said that it is unequal in its operation as between different classes. No doubt both with regard to tea and sugar the great masses of the people pay more to those duties than the comparatively richer classes. But that is the very object of taxation of that kind, unless it is taken for granted that the taxation of this country is to be confined to those who pay direct taxation and the ever-decreasing number of the working classes who consume alcohol and tobacco. That is a principle which I believe cannot be maintained as sound finance. It was all very well to talk of a free breakfast table when the expenditure of this country was small as compared with the enormous expenditure which we see nowadays, and when the income-tax was at 5d. in the £. A free breakfast table is a very different thing when we have income-tax in peace time at the rate of 1s. in the £, when our expenditure is already £111,000,000 for the Supply services, and is certain to be increased, and when we are about to impose, in the name of social reform, a largely increased burden on the taxpayers of this country. In these circumstances I contend that it is not sound finance to exempt altogether from taxation those members of the working classes—and they are many—who consume neither alcohol not tobacco, but that they ought to pay something to the great expenditure of the country, and especially to that kind of expenditure which is described as social reform. It was by repealing taxation of this kind that His Majesty's Government thought fit to prepare for the increased expenditure which may be anticipated in the future. They have not suggested that they are about to increase taxation in any shape. What they have stated is that they will devote part of the sum which is now used for the redemption of Debt towards the cost of old-age pensions. I was not surprised at that suggestion from the Prime Minister, because a few weeks ago I observed that he taunted the Government of Lord Salisbury, in which I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, for annually raiding the Sinking Fund between 1896 and 1899, instead of devoting it to the formation of an old age pension fund. If your Lordships will pardon me, that charge having been made, I should like to show that it is a grossly unfounded charge, and that it is even audacious on the part of Mr. Asquith. I will not dwell on the fact that during the years named the subject of old-age pensions had not been sufficiently examined to be ripe for being dealt with in any way; but I challenge the statement as an entire misrepresentation of what I did. Between 1895 and 1897 the Exchequer received a realised surplus in those three years of £10,250,000. That would, according to law, have been automatically devoted through the old Sinking Fund to the reduction of Debt. The Debt at that time was unpurchasable at its nominal value; if you wanted to buy Consols you would have had to pay £110 for £100 nominal value on an average during those three years. It appeared to me and I remember it appeared also to Lord Wolverhampton—that that would have been very great waste of public money. And, therefore, instead of devoting that £10,000,000 to the reduction of Debt during those years, what I did was to devote £9,000,000 of it to public works, which otherwise would have had to be provided for, under the precedent set by Lord Rosebery's Government in 1895, by borrowing for short terms of years. That proposal was approved by the House of Commons at the time. I think it was approved unanimously, and I am glad to see that view confirmed by the noble Lord opposite. What were those works? They were the formation of docks and other important naval works at Devonport, Keyham, Gibraltar, and elsewhere, the building of barracks, urgently required at that time for the comfort and health of our soldiers and sailors, the provision of ranges and manœuvring grounds for the training of our Army—all matters that were urgent, because in days previous to the years to which I am referring they had been delayed until it was absolutely necessary, owing to the great increase in the size of ships and the increase in our Navy and Army, that a large expenditure should at once be incurred in that way. It had to be done. It could only have been done, either by loan or by the devoting of that realised surplus to that purpose, and that is what I did. And that is described as raiding the Sinking Fund! That is not all. Of the £9,000,000, £2,500,000 was devoted to the erection of great public buildings—South Kensington Museum, the Admiralty, and those great offices in Whitehall which I think are a credit to the country. And I am very glad to observe that in the Bill now before your Lordships Mr. Asquith has followed my example. In the ninth clause of this Bill it is proposed to raid the Sinking Fund to the extent of £600,000 for continuing that very range of buildings on which much of my £2,500,000 was expended. After this action on the part of Mr. Asquith I hope I shall hear no more of my sins of raiding the Sinking Fund for the very purpose for which he proposes to raid it now. I turn to another point. The Prime Minister is specially proud—and I admit that it is a subject of pride to the country—of the amount of Debt which he hits paid off during the last three years. He claims to have paid off—and I dare say it is quite correct—£47,000,000 of Debt in three years. He claims also to have restored the credit of the country. I wish the credit of the country had been restored. What are the facts? I suppose that the price of Consols is a pretty good measure of the credit of the country. Consols were never so low during the Administrations of Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour as they were last year. The present price of Consols is actually lower than the lowest price which they touched in 1905—the last year before His Majesty's present Government came into office, the last year of those extravagant Administrations. Of course, it would naturally stand to reason that a large reduction of Debt should increase the credit of the country. Why has it not done so? At the present moment, if His Majesty's Government wish to issue a comparatively small amount of 2¾ per cent. Irish land stock, they cannot get any more than 89½ for 100 of it, on their own showing. Why is not the credit of the country better after this reduction of Debt There are reasons for which His Majesty's Government are in no way responsible which have undoubtedly affected the question, but there is one reason for which they are responsible, which has affected the credit of the country materially. I am afraid one of the reasons why the price of Consols has not increased, but has rather fallen, since their administration began, is the support they have given to the attacks which so many of their supporters have made on property in every shape and form. Further, at the very moment that the Prime Minister prides himself on paying off £47,000,000 of Debt in three years, he is about to impose a new burden on the country, commencing with £7,500,000 to £8,000,000, ending nobody knows where—a charge equal, if noble Lords will consider it, in amount to what represents £250,000,000 of capital. These are reasons, for which His Majesty's Government are absolutely responsible, which have kept down the credit of the country and prevented Consols from rising in spite of the redemption of Debt. I now come to the way in which this redemption of Debt has been effected, and I think some little attention should be given to that, because, although I entirely congratulate His Majesty's Government on having made it, yet we ought, to consider how it has been done. Now, Out of these £47,000,000, £13,500,000 have been found by the realised surplus of the three years. What is that realised surplus due to? It is due to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day has under-estimated the yield of his taxation and overestimated his expenditure. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer I always carefully guarded myself against taking any credit whatever for a realised surplus. To my mind it is rather discreditable than otherwise, because it shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's calculations on one, if not both sides have been wrong. Well, £13,500,000 have been found by the realised surplus. Then the process has been made more easy by the price at which the Debt has been redeemed. It has been possible during these three years to redeem Consols at a discount varying from 20 per cent, to 1·2 per cent. Lastly, the bulk of the money which is devoted to this purpose has come through the New Sinking Fund out of the Fixed Debt charge of the country. That unquestionably is a matter for which the Prime Minister as Chancellor of the Exchequer may take credit. He has kept that Fixed Debt charge at the amount of £28,000,000. He even raised it last year to £29,500,000, and that has no doubt tended largely to this reduction of Debt. Now it is suggested, that that amount should be reduced next year. The Prime Minister said that the New Sinking Fund would next April amount to as much as £9,785,000, and out of that sum a certain portion might be sot free in order to go as far as it could, towards providing for old-age pensions. I, for one, should have no quarrel in principle with such a proposition, and I observed the other day that Lord Welby, speaking on the Old-Age Pensions Bill, took a similar view. But when, in 1899, I pointed out, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the House of Commons of that day, that owing to the approaching reduction of the interest on the Debt, and falling in of terminable annuities, the New Sinking Fund would very shortly amount to a sum much larger than that to which it had ever amounted before, and, therefore, that it was advisable to do precisely what the Prime Minister suggests now—namely, to, reduce the fixed Debt charge—why, I was denounced up hill and down dale by the leading Members of the Opposition of that day, including, I am quite sure, Lord Wolverhampton, whom I now see opposite. I think I was right, and I think if Mr. Lloyd-George, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, should decide to take a similar course next year that he will be right also. But I have two things to say. In the first place, the deadweight Debt, as it is called, will next April be £70,000,000 more than it was at the time to which I was alluding—in 1899; and, secondly, if the fixed Debt charge is reduced, I think that anything that is gained by that reduction ought in accordance with all precedents to be devoted to the relief of taxation. What has enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote so large an amount out of the Fixed Debt charge to reduction of Debt during the last three years? It is just this, that he has maintained the income tax at a shilling in the £. If the income-tax had stood at 8d. in the £ during those three years, the rate at which it stood before the South African War, the Exchequer would have received £30,000,000 less in income-tax in, the three years than it actually did. Therefore, what has happened is this, that the £47,000,000 of Debt has been mainly redeemed out of the extra 4d. on the income-tax and out of the realised surplus of the three years. But, my Lords, there is no prospect that if the Fixed Debt charge be reduced next year, the sum by which it is reduced will be devoted to the reduction of the income-tax. We know very well that it is to be devoted to old-age pensions. I venture to say that that is not sound finance, considering the source from which it comes. Considering the great reductions that have taken place in the last two years in indirect taxation—no less than £7,000,000—it is not finance that in my belief would have been sanctioned by any of the predecessors of the present Government. What does it mean? You are imposing in the name of social reform an enormous new burden on the country for the benefit of the masses of the people. You are proposing to pay for it, so far as we know at present, solely at the expense of that small class on whom direct taxation falls. That is the proposal, so far as we know it. Perhaps I am anticipating rather the Budget. of next year, but I hope I am not, unduly detaining your Lordships in doing so, because it does seem to me that these questions deserve the attention and consideration of the country, even before that Budget is proposed. Let me give two reasons why the income-tax should not be retained at 1s. in the £. The first reason is that it is a very heavy tax indeed upon a certain class of the community. In my belief, with an income-tax of 1s. in the £, persons who receive unearned incomes of between £700 and £1,500 a year are about the most heavily taxed persons in the community at the present moment. Secondly, a point which I have over and over again endeavoured to impress upon the country is this, that to retain the income-tax at 1s. in the £ in time of peace is wrongfully to deplete what should be your resource in time of war. When the South African war broke out, the income-tax was 8d. in the £. The income-tax is now 1s. in the £. If war should unfortunately break out tomorrow, the country would be the poorer for war expenditure than it was in 1899 by no less than £10,000,000 a year, because 4d. in the £ of income-tax has already been appropriated to peace expenditure. I will not labour that point, but I will say this, that, looking to the hints that have been thrown out that some further contribution is to be derived from payers of direct taxation towards the cost of old-age pensions, it does appear to me to be a matter which now more than ever before, deserves to be considered by the country at large. What is the position? Here, in the name of social reform, you are actually imposing a burden, the extent of which in the future nobody could foresee, upon the taxpayers of the country. So far as we know at present it is practically to be paid for solely by the payers of direct taxation, while indirect taxation has been reduced by £7,000,000 in two years. Why did the Prime Minister reduce the sugar duty this year? He said it was because he did not need it for the expenditure of the Year. That was not the view he took of the circumstances in his Budget of 1907. In his Budget of 1907 the Prime Minister deliberately levied £1,500,000 more than he required for the expenditure of the year on the ground of the burden about to he imposed on the country by the institution of old-age pensions. He devoted that sum very properly last year to the repayment of the Debt and this year it goes towards old-age pensions. If the Prime Minister had followed this year the wise and sound financial policy he adopted last year in making provision for the future burden which he knew was imminent he would have continued the sugar tax and would have devoted £3,500,000 this year towards additional repayment of the Debt and have had £3,500,000 in hand next year as a most important contribution towards the cost of old-age pensions. Had this been done it would have been not only in accordance with financial prudence but with justice in the allocation of taxation, because I cannot conceive a tax that could be more appropriately used to bear a part of the burden of old-age pensions than the sugar duty. But no; financial prudence and justice have been thrown aside; they have given way to the party political exigencies of the moment and to the clamour of the supporters of the Government in the House of Commons for a part repeal, at any rate, of the sugar duty, and this is done precisely at the moment when we are imposing this great burden on the country without knowing how it will eventually be met. I have heard this described as a popular Budget. I suppose it is a popular Budget, because, no doubt, it has met with little opposition in the House of Commons and in the country. I can only say that in my opinion it is a Budget fraught with evil omen for the future. It seems to me utterly devoid of any financial foresight; it seems to ignore any equitable distribution of our burdens among the different classes of the population, and to disregard what is even more important, the absolute necessity of maintaining unimpaired in time of peace our principal resource for what may be vital needs in time of war.

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Viscount St. Aldwyn, had said the present Government accused the late Government of extravagance but had not been very much better themselves. He has said that the present Government in their first year reduced the Budget by £1,000,000, and in the present year have slightly increased it, but it ought to be borne in mind that the present Government have adopted the principle that public work, such as barracks and docks, should be done, when they are done, out of the revenue of the year, whilst the Government of which the noble Viscount was a Member, in addition to the monies raised by taxation which they spent every year, spent further sums, almost every year of their life, in public works which, though they have been said to constitute a capital charge, meant, many of them, the spending of money on wasteful objects. They ought really, I think, to have been paid for out of the revenue of the year. That, I think, is the policy of the present Government, and for which the noble Viscount ought to have given them some credit. Then the noble Viscount has said that the farthing a pound off sugar will be very little relief to the very poor classes, because they buy their sugar half-a-pound at a time. That may possibly be the case, but I have very vividly before my mind that just after the announcement of this reduction in the price of sugar I was taken on a motoring tour across the country, and I was struck immensely by the number of notices which I saw in the village shops to the effect that because of the Budget the price of sugar was reduced. We must remember that although there may be those who buy their sugar half-a-pound at a time, most of the village people throughout the country go into the towns shopping on Saturdays and buy considerably more than half-a-pound of sugar at a time. They very often buy several pounds, and those people in almost every case have got the benefit of the reduction from the very day it was made. The noble Viscount has said that the sugar tax was said by Mr. Asquith to be vicious in principle, and that yet the Government have only taken off half of it. The Government have a good deal to do, and the fact that although in office only two and-a-half years they have taken off half a tax is considerably to their credit, whilst the noble Viscount would not probably have given them any additional praise if they had taken off the whole of it. The noble Viscount went on to say that taking off taxes from coal and tea and sugar was, in his opinion, unsound finance. I am very interested to hear it, but it is very vividly before my mind that there is a great propaganda going on in the country in favour of what is called tariff reform, and what the tariff reformers are saying from one end of the country to the other is that they propose to take off the taxes of tea and sugar the moment they have the power. The noble Viscount himself may not hold that view, but it must be in his knowledge that his own colleagues and members of his political party are advocating every day on public platforms that taxes shall be put on corn and other articles of consumption in Order that taxes may be taken off tea and sugar. The noble Viscount went on to say that the credit of the country had not improved under the present Government. He gauged the credit by the price of Consols, and he told us that in his Judgment the price of Consols had failed to rise, partly because of the old-age pensions scheme, and partly because of general attacks on property by supporters of the Government. But I think we ought to recognise that there is no party in this country, not even the extremest socialistic party, that has ever proposed any attack on public credit. We have never had in this country any party wild enough to say that the public debt should be repudiated or the interest on it reduced. Whatever attacks we have had we have never had attacks on public credit. I should like to remind the noble Viscount that there are other causes for the low price of Consols. One of them is, undoubtedly, the fact that we have had very good years of trade and that when trade is good it is a commonplace that money goes from the banks into trade and that there are not big sums to be invested by the banks and by capitalists in Consols as temporary investments. There is also the fact that in the last few years we have had nearly all commodities at a much higher price than the average. That means that a big merchant who, perhaps, all his life has been in the habit of borrowing from his bank, say, £100,000, merely because the prices of commodities in which he deals are higher, will, on the same volume of trade, have to borrow £120,000 or £130,000, instead of £100,000. That is one of the main reasons why Consols have been low. There is another reason, and one for which the party opposite is entirely responsible, and that is the law under which trustees in this country are allowed to invest in Colonial stocks. I do not think we felt the full effect of that on the price of Consols when it was done, because trustees are very lethargic bodies, and when holding Consols or anything else are very slow to move out of those securities and to go into something else. But we now have the Colonies borrowing money and coming to the British public to do it. Canada the other day issued a loan at par paying 3¾ per cent., and the Cape of Good Hope quite recently issued a loan at par paying 4 per cent. When trustees are allowed by law to go into securities that pay 3¾ per cent. or 4 per cent. is it not likely that they will cease putting very much money in Consols which, will pay much less? That was, undoubtedly, one of the causes of the low period; a cause we are only just beginning to realise and a cause for which the noble Viscount and his friends are entirely responsible. I should like to see some Government repeal that law altogether. I would not compel those who have made Colonial investments to go out of them, but I do not think trustees should be allowed to make such investments in the future unless, of course, provisions to that effect are made in their trust deeds. The noble Viscount went on to say that a reduced fixed debt charge whenever made ought, as a matter of principle, always to benefit the taxpayer. That may be so, but, after all, there is not such an enormous difference in the minds of some of us between a taxpayer and a ratepayer. If a reduction in the fixed debt charge of this country is to be used for old-age pensions we must remember that as the old-age pensions scheme becomes operative it must tend to keep down rates by taking these poor old people off the rates. The noble Viscount wound up by saying that he thought it was a serious matter that the income-tax was no longer available as a war tax. He pointed out that it is being kept at Is. in the £, instead of 8d. where it used to stand, and that that means that £10,000,000 a year out of the income-tax being used for the ordinary purposes of the year, it cannot, therefore, be put on as a special war tax. That, no doubt, is so, but in the last two years by reducing taxes on coal, on tea, and on sugar, the Government have given up at any rate, £7,000,000. If a big war should unhappily come upon us it would be necessary to put on some taxes, and for myself I cannot help thinking that it should be well understood that taxes would have to be put on that everybody would feel. It would tend to reduce the war fever if everybody knew that a wai was going to be a serious burden. I do not see why the Government should not be able to reply that if they have not got available the £10,000,000 that could be raised from income in time of war they have these £7,000,000, at any rate, which they could raise on taxes on tea, sugar and coal.

My Lords, I did not come to the House with any intention of speaking on this Bill, but I should like to say a few words, more especially in connection with the partial repeal of the sugar duty. The noble Lord who has just spoken took credit on behalf of the Government for a reduction of taxation. I should like to hear that question discussed twelve months or two years hence, when we know what further taxation is going to be imposed. For my own part, speaking as a free trader, I want to say that it would be a very great mistake to suppose that all free traders welcome the reduction of the sugar duty. It is not, of course, that we like the sugar duty. We are very glad to see it reduced; but many of us certainly think the moment for reducing it was singularly inopportune, for the very good reason that the country could not afford it. The noble Viscount has dealt at length with some of the fresh charges which are about to come upon the country. There is, in the first place, the altogether uncertain charge for old-age pensions. In connection with that subject I wish for one moment to diverge and to say that I altogether repudiate the charges made—not, indeed, in this House, but outside—that those of your Lordships who thought it your duty to oppose, in some measure, the old-age pensions scheme of the Government are not animated by any sympathy with the poorer classes or do not think old-age pensions of some description desirable. It is not by any means a pleasant thing to take all the odium and misrepresentation which naturally accompany opposition to a law which presumably is popular. It is certainly, as far as I am concerned, only a very strict sense of duty that has induced me to do so. Old-age pensions are to cost we do not know what. The noble Viscount said £7,500,000. I think the lowest estimate given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is £6,500,000; whilst in 1910, unless the Government's scheme undergoes some amendment, there will be an additional £3,500,000 sterling. Then there is for education an altogether unknown sum; the question of unemployment will have to be dealt with; there is a perfectly unknown sum to be expended for increasing the Navy, the amount of which does not altogether depend upon us, but upon what is done by other nations; and then there are the numerous charges arising at every moment. This afternoon we have heard a suggestion made that Imperial taxation should bear the cost of remaking all the roads of the country; and I think I have rarely heard any debate in this House in which there has not been made a proposal which, if accepted, would not add to the burden of taxation. What have we on the other side—the assets? First, the very problematical reform of Poor Law administration which, let us hope, will produce a saving, but of which we know nothing at present. In the second place there is the Sinking Fund. I quite agree that £10,000,000 a year is an excessive sum and that the amount devoted to the extinction of debt might very well be diminished. The noble Lord opposite did not say by how much he thought it would be safe to diminish it, but I suppose no Chancellor of the Exchequer would dream of reducing it by more than one-half, and, for my part, I think that sum would be excessive. That gives us only £5,000,000; and certainly, when we look at all these fresh charges which are coming upon us, which at the lowest estimate, I should say, will amount in a couple of years to £15,000,000, or more probably to £20,000,000, we are not very much advanced by getting £5,000,000 out of the Sinking Fund. I have been engaged in this sort of financial work all my life, and I have learned that it is very nearly impossible for any one who has to deal with the finances of a country to be popular if he wishes to do his duty. I cannot help thinking that there is a rather strained desire at the Treasury now, not to look at the facts or arithmetic but rather to look at what would be most popular in the country at the moment. I really regret that on every occasion I have to speak on this subject, I pose rather in the attitude of a male Cassandra, but all I can say is, whatever the noble Lords opposite may think, the financial future of the country inspires me with the very gravest misgivings.

My Lords, the discussion on the Finance Bill in this House is more or less academic, but at the same time it seems to be an interesting question. There are three subjects as regards the Budget that stand out from among the rest, namely, the Sinking Fund, the pensions scheme, and the reduction of the sugar-tax. As regards the Sinking Fund, there can be no doubt that a Sinking Fund of £15,000,000 is a very fine and good one indeed. In my view it adds great strength to the Budget generally; it adds also prestige to Consols and has been of enormous benefit in adding to the stability of the stock markets. After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer regards the Sinking Fund as doing for the nation what any prudent man would do in business—helping to put by certain money as reserves. As regards old-age pensions I do not think anyone wanted for the moment to prevent old men who have served the State well, so far as they could, getting pensions. The whole argument really was whether the pension should be contributory or not. I was astonished when we were told that contributory pensions were impossible, and I think that assertion was founded on the dictum of Mr. Chamberlain. Now how can that be so when we only have to look at what is going on in Germany to find that contributory pensions there are working very well and have answered? Is it that in the prosperous state of this country we have become too lazy to try and work out for ourselves the possibilities of this case, or is it that in the avalanche of public business the human machine has given way and is not able to do the necessary work to keep up with legislation, and that as a result we have been too much inclined to say that a thing is not possible, because we have not time to attend to it properly? This Old-Age Pensions Bill, with all its far-reaching effects and complicated clauses, which ought to have been the work of nearly a whole session, has been put off, almost to the end of the session, and then three-quarters of it has been guillotined without discussion in the other House. Then there is the policy of the reduction of the sugar tax. Of course, that may be considered wholly and solely in the light of the next Budget. We do not expect, we cannot expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us what his Budget will be, what taxes he proposes to put on, but I think we have a right to ask this—that when a Chancellor of the Exchequer budgets for the coming year he should be able to feel the pulse of the market at the time. He should be able to know whether it is likely that his Budget figures will come out too high or too low. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer took off the sugar duty last April, he knew quite well that there had been a great depression in America, that trade was very bad there, and that trade in Germany also had been bad, whilst he also knew that trade was falling off in this country. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer budgeted on too prosperous lines. As a matter of fact we are face to face with a deficit of no small amount. I do not think we need be surprised if next year from £7,000,000 to £8,000,000, has to be provided for old-age pensions. Then let us take £3,000,000 for the Navy. If the figures continue to go as badly as now as regards next year's Budget, there will be a deficit of several millions. Therefore I think we have a right to demand that when any Chancellor of the Exchequer takes off a big tax like the sugar duty, he should prudently consider whether his Budget figures will come up to the mark. In this case unless the three-quarters of the year that is left goes very much better than the first quarter, there will be a deficit of several millions. How we are to find anything from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 I know not. If we make a raid on the Sinking Fund, we can only get from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000, and in any case I venture to think that either an attack on the Sinking Fund, or the raising of the income-tax would be very much more harmful than to have left the sugar-tax as it was. As regards the Sinking Fund we must admit it has been touched by the party to which we belong. Lord Goschen, in 1887 or 1889, dealt with it, and I believe the noble Viscount, Viscount St. Aldwyn, in 1899, but of course, on the latter occasion we were at the beginning of a big war and it was obviously useless to raise very large loans on the one hand and keep up a big Sinking Fund on the other. But directly the war was over we put the Sinking Fund at as high a point as it has ever touched If we attack the Sinking Fund now, it will have the effect of putting Consols still lower. A further point for consideration is that if the Government attack the Sinking Fund, they will knock down gilt-edged stocks, and if the Government has to raise money for the Irish loan and Exchequer Bills, they will be face to face with having to pay very much more for their money owing to the effect of the Sinking Fund reduction on gilt-edged stock. I agree that Consols are low because more money has been used in trade, but that was some few months ago. I agree also that the unconsidered utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer outside the House, and the considered utterances of the President of the Board of Trade in the House, have had a very disturbing effect upon men's minds, and. I think part of the fall in the Funds must be directly attributed to that. Finance is on far too narrow a basis; that is the truth of the matter, and the basis of taxation will probably have to be altered. When we had the interesting discussion on the Second Reading of the Old-Age Pensions Bill in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Cromer, touched on very interesting subjects, and there were two matters of which I took considerable note. The noble Lord said he thought that if this nation took up the question of tariff reform it might cause friction with important nations on the Continent; that friction in business would result, and that that would be bad for us. If the noble Lord is right in thinking that tariff reform would hurt this country, why does he suppose that our competitors in business on the Continent would take umbrage at our doing something which, as business men, would hurt us? On the other hand, I should think the nations of the Continent would be glad if we were to take a course that is harmful. The noble Earl made another remark that interested me. He said that so far as he could gather, tariff reformers were those who wanted to tax people—who thought that by taxing people they would make the country prosperous.

What I said was that that argument was occasionally put forward by tariff reformers. Many tariff reformers no doubt repudiated it.

I have never heard tariff reformers say that. What they do say is quite a different thing. They say not that to tax people will make the country prosperous, but that to tax other people will make the country prosperous. That seems to me to be rather a different state of things. There is one other question which is rather interesting but of a more technical character. How did the Government spend the £15,000,000 in reduction of Debt this year, and did they spend that £15,000,000 in the best way? The noble Viscount, Viscount St. Aldwyn, said that they spent about £600,000 on the buildings close to us. Besides that, they spent £4,000,000 on the purchase of Exchequer bonds and Treasury Bills. For those Exchequer bonds and Treasury Bills they gave par. The Exchequer bonds that the Government bought are short-dated bonds due on the average in 1911, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave as much in buying them at par as he would ever have to do. The Treasury Bill is also a short-dated loan, repayable at par, and therefore the Government obviously gave as much as they could ever be called upon to give for the Treasury Bill. And then they gave £6,000,000 for a certain amount of War Loan, for which they gave very nearly par—£99 12s. 0d. per cent. But here again the War Loan is short-dated. It is repayable at par in 1910, and therefore the Government again gave as much as they could ever have been called upon to give for the War Loan. Thus, of £14,500,000 they used £10,000,000 in buying short-dated stuff for which they gave the highest possible prices. The other £4,500,000 they invested, quite rightly, in Consols, which they started to buy at the lowest price on record—81½. That was a very good buy. The highest price to which Consols went up was 87½, and the average of their purchase was 85. My contention is that there was a very large scope for a rise in Consols, that the Government had £15,000,000 to deal with, and that it would have been very much better and wiser finance to have put more in Consols, and less in the stuff for which they gave the very highest possible prices. They would have saved money by a transaction of that sort. It would have been wise also to remember that, after all, Consols are the bell-wether of the market. If you support them, the effect on all stock is very marked, whereas to buy short-dated stocks has no effect whatever. The Sinking Fund is of very great importance. It supported the Consols market at a very critical time last year, and so far as I can gather it would have been rather better to have applied more of the Sinking Fund to the purchase of Consols.

I am sorry to rise at so late an hour, but I need not detain your Lordships at any very great length. I may, perhaps, be allowed to remark in passing, when we are told of the congestion of business towards the close of the session, I have observed that during the last fortnight of it, which is normally and naturally the busiest, quite half of our time has been taken up by debating very interesting Bills in the names of private Members, all of which, as far as I know, might perfectly well have been dealt with at some other time of the year. I propose to say a few words on this debate. It has always been the custom in this House for the Peer who occupied the position of Leader to speak on this subject. Had it not been for that I should have been very glad to leave the matter to my noble friend Lord Wolverhampton, who speaks with far more practical experience than I do. It is always customary also on these occasions not to make anything in the nature of a Budget speech, and those noble Lords who have taken part in the-debate have not entered in any degree into the intricacies of the Finance Bill, such as they are, but have rather dealt with large principles. I am relieved, therefore, from minor points in the Finance Bill. Had I been obliged to mention them I should have been glad to draw some attention to the interesting change which has been made in handing over what used to be called the assessed taxes to the collection of the county councils. That, I believe, will be a useful and practical change, and the manner in which it is to be carried out will, as we hope, throw no extra financial burden on those bodies, and will be altogether to their advantage. On the general question, the main indictment, I think, of the noble Viscount opposite, who, of course, speaks-with such great authority, is that we have carried too far the change in, the ratio raised by indirect taxation, in this country as compared with direct taxation. It is perfectly true that we have done so. That ratio five or six years ago was, I think, in the proportion of upwards of 52, and it is now as low as 46 9. Well, we make no apology for that. We believe that the proportion of the le-venue of the country, which is, even now, raised by indirect taxation, is, at any rate, quite as high as it ought to be. It is argued by noble Lords opposite—it was argued again to-night by the noble Viscount opposite—that, by keeping the income-tax at its present rate, you are really making the country poorer in the sense that you are diminishing the opportunities of employment. If that is to be taken as an absolute canon it would involve the proposition, which I am not at all disposed to admit, that all the income derived by the largest payers of income-tax is productively employed. Unfortunately we know that that is by no means the case, and, therefore, so far as that proposition is true at all it has to be taken with very considerable qualifications. The noble Viscount spoke all through his speech of an income-tax at Is. But the income-tax at Is. is paid by only some 20 per cent. of those who pay income-tax. It is, I have no doubt, or at least I hope, paid by all Members of your Lordships House on that scale, but as a matter of fact, it is only paid by 200,000 persons, of the whole body of income-tax payers. I think it is a familiar fact that about 9½d. is the average rate of income-tax which is paid in this country. The noble Viscount says that the case is very hard on those whose incomes range from £700 to £1,500 a year. There used to be a story of a very rich man who said he supposed that everybody got £700 a year, but we know that there are a large number who pay income-tax on less than that. But, so far as the observation of the noble Viscount goes, it points, possibly, if you will have it so, to a further scale of abatement, but it does not point itself to a reduction of the Is. income-tax on large incomes. And it is only fair to point out that we have made an important difference as between earned and unearned income, which, we believe, will prove a very great relief to the poorer class of income-tax payers in this country. On the general question of the revenue and the credit of the country, it must be borne in mind that the national wealth, happily, goes on increasing. What the actual national wealth is, I believe nobody knows. Most of the estimates that are made of the national revenue are, as I believe, pure guess-work. But there are figures for the United Kingdom of the gross income from all classes of profits which are brought under the view of the Inland Revenue and which show a very remarkable and progressive increase. Those figures have gone on rising from £704,700,000 in 1896–7 to £925,184,000 in the year 1905–6. And the other criteria of the national wealth cannot be held to be unsatisfactory. The taxation per head of the country is now estimated at £2 17s., which, of course, is some shillings less than it was three or four years ago. Taking the whole position of taxation as shown by statistics, I think it must be admitted that the capacity of the country to bear that taxation is distinctly greater than it was. On the point of the reduction of Debt, I am not competent to deal with the technical point raised as to whether it was wiser for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the Debt by paying off a considerable proportion of Exchequer bonds and bills, instead of devoting the whole sum available to paying off Consols. But I imagine it was the desire of my right hon. friend to deal to some extent with the floating debt; at any rate I fancy it is a point upon which financial authorities might well differ. The noble Viscount somewhat depreciated the work of the present Administration in the reduction of Debt. Still, the fact remains—of course I know it is subject to many examples and qualifications—that during the ten years in which the late Governments were in office they—without any mention of the war loans, which were little short of £160,000,000—paid off the National Debt at the rate of £2,200,000 a year, while since we have been in office we have paid off at the rate of £13,300,000 a year. That is subject to a number of qualifications, no doubt. The noble Viscount mentioned the £9,000,000 which he devoted to current expenditure in the form of necessary works. That was, no doubt, a proper allocation to make, but we think that, when large sums like that come to be spent all at once, they are not always likely to be very wisely or economically spent. We have to bear in mind also the line we have taken up of paying our way as we go in the matter of naval and military works. One reason which has undoubtedly actuated us in so doing is that we believe that it leads to very real and substantial economy. On the other hand we are very much impressed by the remarkably rapid obsolescence of many of these so-called permanent works. It is a deplorable thing to have to go on paying off a loan for a so-called work which, is admitted by everyone to be absolutely useless, a position in which we find ourselves in regard to some of the works authorised and undertaken by our predecessors. As to the question of the credit of the country, I do not think it is quite reasonable to take the price of Consols as the single criterion of the state of the national credit. Taken alone, I do not think it can be said to be a criterion. You are bound at the same time to look at the prices of kindred stocks in other parts of the world and to the state of credit of other nations. My noble friend behind me (Lord St. Davids) drew attention to what I believe is by far the most active cause in the continued depreciation of Consols—I mean the opening of Colonial stocks to trustees. I do not agree with him, I need hardly say, in the position I hold, that we should withdraw from the position, but I very much doubt whether at the time that was done, in a rather light-hearted way, it was realised what very serious effects it would have on the money market. Nowadays the proportion of trust funds invested in Consols is extraordinarily small. In regard to marriage settlements, it is almost invariably the rule to invest in other stocks. That, of course, is due to the great variety of other stocks which can be relied upon to produce a somewhat larger interest. Then we are told that we have driven Consols down still further by our old-age pensions scheme. On 6th May Consols stood at 85½; to-day they are just 87. It would be unreasonable, I think, either on one side or the other, to ascribe fluctuations of that kind to any fear of our great financial measures. Then as to the various reductions of taxes. We have been criticised for having taken off the coal duty. Coal is one of the subjects which the noble Viscount would have continued to tax. I do not enter into the controversy as to whether the Party of the noble Viscount opposite had pledged themselves to take off the coal duty at the first opportunity, although there have been statements to that effect which have not been contradicted. But I think it cannot be doubted—and I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Faber, who knows very well the trade of the northeast ports, will agree that the coal tax was a very serious hindrance to that trade. It is quite true it did not affect the Welsh high-class coal in the same way, because those coal-owners have somewhat of what is called a "seller's monopoly," and therefore I can quite believe that in that case, at any rate, a part of the tax was paid by the foreigner. But it was certainly not paid by the foreigner so far as the Yorkshire and Midland coal was concerned, and its repeal was recognised there as a great relief, not merely to the coal trade, but to the kindred trades. Then as regards tea and sugar, especially the latter. It is true we have given up £3,400,000 by the reduction of the sugar tax. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that by the method he has employed in rather more than halving the tax he has succeeded in reaching the consumer as a rule. Those who buy infinitesimal quantities of sugar can hardly be reached by any means, but so far as the general consumer is concerned, my right hon. friend believes that he has reached him. Then there is the question of the effect on trade. The noble Viscount said the confectionery and mineral water trades might have benefited. But those are two enormous trades; they employ a vast amount of labour, and surely it was worth while, if we could, to relieve them. I suppose that what the noble Viscount would have done is that, instead of taking off the sugar tax, he would have taken something off the income-tax, so far as it affects those who pay Is., on the ground that that would have added to his possible war chest. I confess I was impressed by the argument of my noble friend Lord St. Davids when he said that when you come to the question of raising an indefinite number of millions, it is apparently as easy to reimpose your indirect taxation as it is to reimpose your direct taxation.

I did not find it so at all in the South African war.

Not to produce the same amount. I agree that you cannot be sure of imposing the same amount, but assuming that the noble Viscount had only taken off the equivalent in income-tax, I confess I do not see that the one would be more difficult than the other. I am, of course, assuming that a large sum has to be raised. I am not, of course, on the point of the advantage of the one course or the other, but it does not seem to be reasonable to assume that in one case the money is always there at command, and that in the other it is absolutely and irretrievably gone. I do not wish to enter at this hour into the old-age pensions controversy so far as it is a controversy. Still less do I desire to allude to the two points connected with tariff reform to which the noble Lord referred in allusion to what was said the other night by Lord Cromer. On this question of old-age pensions anything that is said must necessarily be absolutely uninteresting. It is impossible for any member of the Government to attempt to anticipate the Budget of next year. I was very glad to hear the noble Viscount say that he did not consider that course contrary to sound canons of finance. But I think it was a mistake to suppose that that is the only source from which, if necessary, some further increase of the national income could be derived. When noble Lords opposite, quite apart from that, talk of the continually increasing burden of old-age pensions, it is important to know what they mean. So far as the burden increases by the natural growth of the population, we hope it will be more than met by its automatic growth of revenue. But if noble Lords opposite mean the lowering of the age or the increasing of the amount, that is another matter., and a matter in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day will have to face the public, and will have to explain what his means permit of his doing. I do not propose to go into the question of the cost of the defensive services, because, although, of course, it is a subject which in a general view of national finance could not possibly be passed over, yet it is one which does not arise in immediate connection with this Bill. But with regard to what the noble Viscount said about the Construction Vote having fallen, the Vote must, of course, depend upon the needs of the year. There could be no more absolutely foolish, or uneconomical policy than to build more warships than you want at the moment. The modern warship fades almost like a flower after you have plucked it. From the moment it is sent on its trial trip it begins to verge upon becoming obsolete, and, therefore, to build more ships of a particular type than you require at the moment is one of the worst possible economies, because in relation to the programme of other nations it places you at this disadvantage—that although your paper strength may be equal or superior to that of another Power in the proportion you consider sufficient, yet their ships may be just a little newer and a little better than yours. Therefore, the Construction Vote ought to be most carefully watched with the object of always being ahead, not only in numbers, but also in novelty of type. I do not think I have anything to add further. I confess some of the statements which have been made outside this House as to the damage that we have done to national credit have been very unfair and most grossly exaggerated. We believe that we shall be able to go on paying our way so far as the defensive services are concerned, and we do believe that we shall be able, without any dramatic, or, still more, any melodramatic increase of taxation, to carry through this great scheme of benefit for the aged, of which we are very proud indeed to be the authors.

My Lords, a few days ago I made a Motion with regard to the practice which is known as legislation by reference, and the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say he agreed with the Motion in a general way, and that he would submit the-matter to the Cabinet so that they could consider what is the proper way to deal with this practice. I wish to put the Question standing in my name on the Paper:—"To ask the Lord Chancellor with reference to the Motion: 'That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire "whether means cannot be devised, either in the way of a detailed Memorandum or otherwise, for conveying to the House in plain language the effect of proposed legislation when reference is made in Government Bills to Acts and sections of Acts of Parliament without explanation," whether His Majesty's Government have taken the matter into consideration.'"

My Lords, I was under the impression that I had already stated our decision. We propose to appoint a Joint Committee of the two Houses to report on the drafting of Bills, and whether any improvement should be adopted in relation thereto.

My Lords, I will ask leave to say one or two words on this. This Bill was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and we then agreed to certain Amendments in order that the Bill should lay down exactly what we think the law should be. These Amendments have been already accepted by your Lordships, but when the Bill was before the Committee a noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, suggested with reference to certain points that arise that we should also have a schedule of the Amendments that we propose, Amendments merely relating to the small matter of tidying up or making more convenient the operation, of the law. I could not say that there is absolutely no change in the law, but there is no change in any important particular, and the Committee unanimously agreed to recommend certain Amendments strictly, of the character I have referred to. These are the Amendments which I propose to introduce at this stage in this House, as it was thought by the Committee that this was the most convenient way of dealing with the matter. If this matter goes to the House of Commons, as I hope it will do, they will be faced with the choice either of having the Bill consolidated with all its imperfections or of having it tidied up so to speak. I move that we take these Amendments as a whole.

My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name. It is of a very simple nature, and I need not trouble your Lordships with any explanation. My Question is: How much has been received (up to the present or any recent date), in respect of the sinking fund from tenants' annuities paid under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and how much thereof has been applied or invested in making further advances under the Act.

The Answer to the first part of the Question as to the accumulated amount received in respect of the sinking fund from tenants' annuities paid under the Irish Land Act, 1903, from 10th June, 1903, to 30th June, 1908, is £190,955, and of this £182,100 has been applied in making further advances under the Act. I think that gives the noble Lord the information which he desires.

I wish to put the first Question standing in my name on your Lordships' Paper, viz.: Whether the women agitating for the vote who were arrested on 30th June were prosecuted before Mr. Francis under Section 2 of the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act, 1885, whether the maximum penalty on conviction under that Act is a fine of £5 or imprisonment for two months in default; whether, in fact, a certain number of those prosecuted were not convicted under such Act, but were ordered to find sureties to be of good behaviour, and were in default imprisoned for three months, what legal authority exists for requiring sureties of good behaviour of these defendants, and for dealing with them in the manner indicated. I regret that this Question should appear on the Paper on a day when there is so much work to do, but I may remind your Lordships that I postponed it last week in deference to the request of His Majesty's Government. There is a rather peculiar circumstance with regard to the recent sentences in connection with the women who were arrested on the 30th of June. The prosecution took place under Section 2 of the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act, 1885, which has the effect of making a new crime of cases of resisting or wilfully obstructing any police officer in the execution of his duty. It provides that under that section a person convicted shall not be liable to a greater penalty than £5 or in default of payment imprisonment for not more than two months. The effect of that is that when a person is convicted under that section, if it is considered to be the worst possible case that could arise under that section, then the maximum penalty that can be inflicted is a fine of £5, and if the person who has the option of paying that does not do so the maximum sentence that can be imposed is two months imprisonment. Instead of passing that sentence, however, the magistrate proceeded to offer to bind over these offenders to be of good behaviour. It is difficult to see how that arises. There is the common law power which, I think, would not apply, and therefore this must have come under Section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act, passed last year. If that is the Act under which the magistrate acted you have the curious result that under a section of an Act which says that where the nature of an offence is trivial, and it is not considered expedient to inflict other than a nominal punishment, the magistrate gives three months imprisonment to people who would otherwise have only been fined £5 or in default would have been imprisoned for two months. It may be legal to do that, I dare say it is legal, but I think your Lordships will be of opinion that it is rather straining the provisions of an Act of Parliament which professes to hold out leniency. It may be said that these persons might have entered into the surety to be of good behaviour, but I do not think that that is a fair thing to say, for, though mistaken these ladies may be, they hold a certain view and they hold it as definitely as people connected with the Salvation Army hold their views, and they naturally refuse to be bound over not to do again what they think they have a right to do and ought to do. That they refuse is shown by the fact that all these ladies are, I imagine, still serving their sentences of three months imprisonment in the second division and the second division does not differ appreciably from the third division for it involves the wearing of prison clothes, the eating of prison diet, and solitary confinement each day for twenty-two and a half hours. We can hardly consider it reasonable that these ladies should be given an addition to their punishment under an Act which professes to ameliorate the punishment which can be given to them. They might have been charged with being disorderly, but they were not, and Parliament has limited the penalty under this particular section to £5. I should like to ask if it is under the Probation of Offenders Act that they have been imprisoned.

The Question of the noble Lord divides itself into two parts. On the question of fact he is entirely accurate. It is only in the last three lines of the Question that there comes a legal question, and with regard to that I am somewhat unwilling to enter the lists against the noble Lord. I do not think the Probation of Offenders Act had anything to do with the decision of the magistrates, and therefore the argument of the noble Earl, so far as it was founded on that Act, falls to the ground. The noble Lord asked what legal authority there is under Section 2 of the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act, 1885. These cases come under Section 12 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, under which any person who is convicted of an assault on any constable in the execution of his duty is guilty of an offence for which he shall be liable to a fine of £20, or in default to a term of imprisonment with or without hard labour. I apprehend that it was under this section the magistrates acted, and I am bound to say that I think the steps they took met with the approbation of the people of the country.

I am not sure how much I comprehend that answer. Now I want to ask the second Question in my name, viz.: Whether the women imprisoned in connection with the recent disturbances on 30th June, are not political offenders within the rule laid down in Re Castioni, and why their treatment in prison is more severe than that usually awarded to political offenders; and further, whether His Majesty's Government seriously contends that there is any legal obstacle to the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy in these cases. I do not want to trouble your Lordships, at any length, but I must remind you of the well-known case of Castioni, who shot and killed a person in a political rising and the question arose whether he was guilty of a political crime. I am well aware that the question of its being a political crime could only arise on the question of extradition, and that if he had shot and killed a man and been captured in his own canton he would have been dealt with in the ordinary course. The worst offenders among the ladies who have been arrested have been guilty of nothing worse than making speeches, and whatever their trifling acts may have been they were admittedly in furtherance of a political object. They are treated as second division prisoners, and this differs only from an ordinary sentence of hard labour in the fact that there is possibly not so much labour to do, better prison diet is provided, and possibly also they are better off in the privileges with regard to receiving visits; but they have to wear prison clothes, they are not allowed books or writing materials, and they have to spend twenty-two and a half hours out of twenty-four in their cells. This question has been pretty often raised in the other House, and I have watched the answers of the Home Secretary, but I have not been able to detect whether Mr. Gladstone says that the Royal prerogative of mercy does not exist in this case. On some occasions I gather that Mr. Gladstone said that these were not cases where he had the power to exercise the Royal prerogative of mercy. I should like to ask whether the Home Secretary cannot, and in some cases has not, exercised the Royal prerogative, and in some instances has interfered in cases in regard to contempt of Court. May I remind the House of the very different attitude adopted towards these ladies from the attitude which was adopted in regard to the squatters who have settled on the Island of Vatersay and for whom great sympathy was expressed, although they were treated as first-class misdemeanants.

In this case also the Question of the noble Lord devises itself into two parts. As to how far these ladies come within the rule laid down in Re Castioni the noble Lord, versed in the best arts of an advocate, forgot to say that this relates only to cases under Section 3 of the Act of 1870, which relates to penalties in respect of offences committed abroad.

I said so.

The women referred to in the Question have been dealt with for offences under the ordinary law, for failing to keep the peace, and they have been dealt with in the same manner as others who have similarly offended. In regard to the Royal prerogative, His Majesty's Government does not contend that there is an absolute legal obstacle to the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy, but where Parliament has expressly given to the magistrates discretion in deciding in which class prisoners should be placed, it would, in the opinion of the Government, be unconstitutional to override their decision. Even if it were possible to exercise the prerogative in one case it could not be done in order to place a whole class of prisoners in a privileged position. There is an obvious difference between dealing with one person in ill-health and in exercising the Royal prerogative in the case of a class. I believe in this case, as in the other which the noble Lord has raised, the magistrates have interpreted the wishes of the people, and that they are entirely satisfied with the decision given by the magistrates.

I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill will remove a difficulty which exists in regard to sailors serving on His Majesty's ships. Very often they are away on commission for three or four years, and when they come back they want sometimes to get married and do not want to wait for three or four weeks. The object of this Bill is to enable the banns to be set up on board ship at the same time that the young lady is having them published in this country.

I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will furnish this House with a Return showing the number of subscribers, and the amount of money subscribed voluntarily by the Welsh people towards secondary education as the result of the passing of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889. The object of my Question is to show to your Lordships' House to what extent the Welsh nation have appreciated the powers of self-government in secondary education which have been entrusted to them by various Governments. In 1889 the Government of the day passed the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. This was followed in 1896 by a scheme based on that Act which provided for the establishment of a Central Welsh Board for Intermediate Education. The Conservative Government of that period—in fact the Conservatives were responsible for all these steps—were so much satisfied with the work of the Central Welsh Board that by the Board of Education Act, 1899, the Central Welsh Board is made a statutory body for the examination and inspection of the intermediate schools in Wales. I feel certain that the Return which I have asked His Majesty's Government to furnish your Lordships' House will, if granted, show that Wales has responded by voluntary contributions to the national recognition granted to her by the passing of the Welsh Intermediate Act, 1889, to an extent that cannot be equalled by any of the other three countries. The keen and general interest taken by the Welsh people in education can be proved by the following facts—

(1) The local taxation account money was devoted entirely by Welsh bodies to education. This was not done by any of the other three countries until they were obliged to do so by the Education Act, 1902.

(2) The amount of money raised per head for educational purposes in Wales is more than England and Ireland together or Ireland and Scotland together.

(3) The education rate per £ in Wales is more than that of England and Ireland together, or Scotland and Ireland together.

(4) The number of pupils per 1,000 population in Wales is nearly double that of England, Scotland or Ireland.

(5) The percentage of pupils who remain in the secondary schools of Wales for the third and fourth year courses is much greater than in the secondary schools of any other of the three countries.

(6) Secondary education has advanced during the last few years to such an extent in Wales that experts in education are of opinion that it will not be necessary after next year to provide for education lower than that of University grade in the constituent colleges of the Welsh University.

(7) More than 80 per cent, of the pupils attending Welsh secondary schools received their primary education in public elementary schools.

(8) The students who are selected to undergo normal training in the Welsh University colleges have received very much better training than those selected by English colleges, and this in spite of the statement in the last report of the Board of Education which says that the percentage of failures in the preliminary certificate examination in Wales is double that in England. In fairness to Wales the Report should contain a qualifying statement to the effect that Welsh students take the matriculation examination and the higher examinations of the Central Welsh Board instead of the preliminary certificate examination, and degree courses instead of the final certificate examination.

Perhaps I should add that with all this Wales has received very little encouragement from the Exchequer compared with what has been given to Scotland and Ireland.

(1) We have not received hardly one-tenth of the University building grants that have or are to be given either to Scotland or Ireland.

(2) Compared with either Scotland or Ireland the grants to the Welsh University colleges should be double or three times what they are at present.

(3) Museums, libraries, portrait galleries, etc., have been built and maintained by the Government in Scotland and Ireland. So far no such blessings have been conferred on the Principality.

Though I am sorry to have taken up so much time in submitting this statement to your Lordships' House, yet I felt compelled to do so in order to justify the action of the Welsh nation in opposing most strenuously the attempt that is being made by the Board of Education to cripple the powers, and undermine the influence of the Central Welsh Board. This they have no right to do. It is not constitutional, for the Central Welsh Board has been given as much control over secondary education in Wales as was given by the same Act of Parliament to the Board of Education over elementary and secondary education in England. The Welsh people are looking forward to the day—in fact the Welsh Members in Parliament are now considering a scheme—when it may please His Majesty's Government to establish a national council which shall have control over primary, secondary, and University education in the Principality, and in the meantime it is our sincere hope that the Government of the day, by administrative action, will do all in its power to place Welsh affairs in the best possible position to attain that object. No other nation in the world has sacrificed more for education, and therefore no other nation deserves greater freedom to establish a national system of education.

I rise to a point of order. I would ask the Lord Chancellor whether the Question before the House is not that a certain Return be granted. I do not know what document the noble Lord is reading, but we cannot make it out.

I beg your Lordships' pardon for taking up so much of your time, but this is a very important matter. It is so important that contrary to my usual custom I have written out my speech, and have supplemented my Question by the remarks I have just made.

I quite agree with the noble Lord, and the Question he has asked refers to a very large sum of money. It is an important question, and is regarded as especially important by the people of Wales. I am sorry the Government cannot grant the noble Lord the Return he asks for, but the very generosity of the people of Wales is the reason which makes it so difficult to ascertain the amount of money they have given for this object. The Charity Commissioners have asked that a certain minimum sum, generally including a site, shall be given, and when the Charity Commissioners have been satisfied that the minimum sum has been granted, they have done their part. In most cases, however, the people of Wales have given a great deal more than the minimum sum asked for, but the figures at the disposal of the Charity Commissioners and of the Government only give the minimum sum asked for. We consider it would be quite unfair to the people of Wales for us to give a Return of the minimum sum asked for; there are no figures in the possession of the Government or of the Board of Education except these inadequate sums, which do not represent the generosity of the people of Wales, and I hope the noble Lord will, therefore, withdraw his motion for a Return. I would venture to suggest that if the noble Lord wishes to obtain the figures he should apply for information to the various school governing bodies, which have been concerned in this matter.

I withdraw my Motion.

My Lords, my noble friend Viscount Midleton is unable to be here this evening, but I observe that the representative of the War Office is also absent. Prom that I gather that he would be willing that the address which Viscount Midleton asks for shall be presented. On behalf of the noble Viscount I beg to move.

The Undersecretary for War has directed me to say that he would be very glad to agree to the presentation of the address.

said he had to move several Amendments which the Government had promised to bring up on the Report stage. The first Amendment he had to submit to their Lordships was one which added to the definition of evidence which must be given in reference to the age of the applicant for a pension. The Amendment did not alter the clause, but added the words "by census returns or other documents or in such other manner as may seem well to the pension authorities." The whole clause would then read: "The statutory conditions for the receipt of an old-age pension by any person are: (1) The person must have attained the age of seventy as verified when practicable by a certificate of birth or baptism or in the absence of such documents by census returns or other documents or in such other manner as may seem sufficient to the pension authorities."

said he did not think it was quite clear as the words stood as amended by the noble Lord that such evidence would have, if possible, to be obtained. They ought to have more binding words in the clause, and he would move that the words should be inserted "where no such certificates or documents are obtainable."

said he thought the words were unnecessary. They had already the words "where no such documents or certificates are obtainable."

said the whole thing would be made clear by such words as he had suggested.

said if the noble Lord wished to have the words in he would accept them.

said he believed the noble Viscount had put down certain words, but he understood from Lord Saltoun that he had agreed with the Government in an Amendment which was different in words but really the same in substance. It would run as follows: "In page 3, line 21, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'If his term of imprisonment is not less than one month he shall be disqualified.' The result of that was that he could not receive a pension while he was imprisoned. When he left prison he would be disqualified for a further period of ten years if his term of imprisonment had been for one month.

The Paper handed in to me runs as follows: "In Clause 3, page 3, line 21, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'if the term of imprisonment to which he is sentenced exceeds one month he shall be disqualified.'"

said that was the agreement come to.

said that he had raised the point to which the next Amendment referred in Committee on the Bill, and he understood that Lord Wolverhampton would propose some Amendment to meet, in some measure, the point he placed before him. He now begged to move the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, because he imagined from what fell from the noble Viscount in Committee, it would commend itself to the Government. It was to insert after the word "him" in Clause 4, the words "as to produce the largest income that can be reasonably obtained from it."

said that this question was discussed at some length on the previous day, but the Amendment of the noble Viscount was, he thought, very much reduced in importance, if he might say so, by the suggestion he had now made. They had to point out that any modification of this clause presumably would come within the scope of the rule as to the privileges of the House of Commons, and that even if they agreed to accept it in any way they could only accept it subject to a warning on that subject; but having repeated that, he saw no objection to the words which the noble Viscount had proposed.

said he wished to move a clause in connection with what occurred on the previous night. He moved then that any member of the committee should have the power of appeal, and he did not withdraw the Amendment, but, on the contrary, he pressed it, and he understood it was agreed to. He now understood, however, that there was some mistake, and the easiest way of correcting that mistake was to move a new clause substantially the same as the Amendment he moved on the previous day. He dared say the fault was his. It enabled any member of the committee to appeal from the decision of the committee to the central authority. He thought that perhaps an objection might be made to that, that if a member did not choose to attend the committee he should not be allowed to appeal after the committee had arrived at a certain decision of which he might disapprove, and therefore he proposed to move a new clause in a more restricted form, as follows: "Section 7, Clause (d), the expression 'party aggrieved' shall include a member of the said committee who has taken part in the consideration of the report, and has dissented from the decision." The noble Viscount would see that that limited it very much and only conferred the privilege of appeal on a person who had come to the committee and endeavoured to do his duty in that respect.

said he understood from his advisers that there was a mistake on the previous night in the Amendment and that the Amendment now moved was substantially agreed to. Therefore, the Government would now assent to the Amendment.

said that Clause 9 as it originally passed the House contained these words: "If for the purpose of obtaining or continuing an old-age pension under this Act. either for himself or for any other person, or for the purpose of obtaining or continuing an old-age pension under this Act for himself or for any other person at a higher rate than that appropriated to the case, any person knowingly makes any false statement or false representation, or if it appears." Whom it was to appear to was not stated, and it evidently would create a great deal of doubt, and what he proposed was to strike out the words "it appears that," so that it would read: "Any person knowingly makes any false statement or false representation, or if any person has directly or indirectly deprived himself of any income or property in order to qualify himself for the receipt of an old-age pension, or for the receipt of an old-age pension at a higher rate than that to which he would otherwise be entitled under this Act, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, with hard labour." It was only a drafting Amendment.

said they proposed to make the Third Reading of the Old-Age Pensions Bill on the next day.

said he would be very glad to do so, but he was given to understand that it would be against the rules of the House. He would like, if their Lordships would allow him, to explain that this had been a very rapid progress, but the reason, he was sure their Lordships would appreciate, was the time of the session, and the absolute necessity if possible in order that Parliament might be adjourned on Saturday, that these Amendments, after the Bill had been read a third time tomorrow morning, which he hoped could be done, should go to the House of Commons at once. Otherwise they would run the risk of being kept there over Sunday. Would he be in order if he moved that the Bill should have precedence to-morrow over other business?

said they must give notice to suspend the Standing Orders, and it could then have precedence to-morrow, but he did not think they could move now that the Bill should have precedence without giving notice, as it was a matter which involved the suspension of the Standing Orders.

This Bill is produced with the utmost brevity my Lords, because all the clauses have already received the sanction of this House in former Bills. The real purpose of the Bill is to extend the administrative powers under the Lunacy Act, 1890, with regard to the estates of lunatics and other matters. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

This Bill is of a very simple character. It is designed to apply to Naval Volunteers, who were created in 1903, the same benefits as accrue to the land Volunteers or the Territorial Army, as I think they are now called, with regard to the hiring of land and the acquisition of land by these bodies. It is very useful for the erection of buildings and drill halls, and the Naval Volunteers can then borrow money at a lower rate of interest than they would otherwise be able to do. I move that the Bill be read a second time.

I beg to move to leave out subsection (1), in Clause 5, page 4. Off the coasts of Ireland, the whale has a different rank or class to what it has off Scotland. Off the coast of Ireland it is a Royal fish, but off Scotland it is only an ordinary fish.