My Lords, I understand that it will be convenient to your Lordships if those Bills are taken which we have at this moment before us in print. Owing to the period of the session a certain amount of delay has, I understand, taken place in the printing, with the result that the Coal Mines Bill, as amended, is not yet in your Lordships' possession. I therefore think it would be convenient if we proceed with the other Orders and take the Coal Mines Bill as soon as it is possible to do so.

May I ask your Lordships' attention for a moment to the extraordinary position in which we are placed. The proceedings of this House terminated before nine o'clock last night, and the printing might have been done for this morning's sitting long before noon. My experience of another place is that it is constantly done there. We might have had the Coal Mines Bill two or three hours ago if the printers had done their duty. The question I should like to ask is, whose business it is to attend to these matters in your Lordships' House, and why the printers cannot be compelled either to give up the task of printing for this House or to deliver Bills at the proper time.

I need hardly tell your Lordships that the control of the Government over the printing from day to day depends more on the general practice and rule of the House than on the initiative of the Government with regard to particular Bills. Having had the same experience as the noble Viscount in the House of Commons, and knowing the great and admirable rapidity with which the printers in the other House, especially at the end of the session, deliver printed matter at very short notice, I quite appreciate and understand what has just fallen from the noble Viscount. I am sure I can say that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, who is unavoidably absent at this moment, will make it his object to do what he can to obtain a remedy for such delays as have occurred, which are equally as inconvenient to His Majesty's Government as they are to noble Lords opposite.

My Lords, at times I have had a suspicion that the difficulty in the printing in connection with this House arises from differences in the printing contracts of the two Houses between the printers and the Treasury. I am not certain that I am right, so I put it tentatively. My belief is that the Treasury do not care to spend quite as much on the printing in this House as they spend on the printing in the other House, which has more control over the Treasury than we have. If the noble Lord conducts his inquiries in that direction, he will, I think, find some useful information.

Although undoubtedly the Government are responsible for everything which entails public expenditure, immediate responsibility in this matter rests not so much with the Government as with what is generally known as the authorities of the House. But I am sure I can, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, promise that the matter shall receive attention.

My Lords, I propose to give your Lordships a few words of explanation with regard to this Bill. It was taken before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, where it underwent a very careful examination extending over two or three days, and I was able to assure the House that it was strictly a Consolidation Bill. There now appear certain Amendments from the House of Commons. These Amendments are to remedy a small mistake that has been discovered in the wording, to incorporate an Act relating to the Colonies which has been passed since the Committee sat in July, and to exclude certain clauses of the Consolidation Act which have been spent since the deliberations of the Committee. I have thought it necessary to see the officer responsible at the Board of Trade and satisfy myself that these Amendments are as stated. I propose to ask your Lordships to take the Amendments together, with the exception of the one which corrects a small mistake upon which I will say a few words in a moment.

I gather that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has satisfied himself that the Amendments made by the Commons are in entire harmony with this being a Consolidation Bill, and so recommends them to the House.

That is so.

With regard to the other Amendment — in Clause 102—the matter stands in this way. In the clause as it was sent down to the House of Commons it was provided that certain copies of documents and also the register of mortgages should be open for the inspection of the public. It was not intended that copies of the documents, but only the register of mortgages, should be open to inspection by the public, but by the omission of two or three words in the former Act a different effect is produced. The Amendment of the Commons is, I am satisfied, to make the law what it was intended to be before consolidation.

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Secretary of State for India I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is an enabling Bill, and I do not think the character of the measure necessitates any further explanation. The Bill does not raise any large question of controverted policy, and, in the circumstances, I hope your Lordships will be ready to give the Bill a Second Reading.

My Lords, I only propose to trouble your Lordships with one observation on this Bill. I believe that there will be a unanimous feeling of approval at the introduction of this Bill, and also that the Secretary of State has taken so considerable a sum that he will not be hampered by the conditions of the money market or otherwise in pushing forward the railways proposed under the Bill. If the noble Viscount the Secretary of State had been present, I would have urged him not to restrict his programme in the near future. For some years past larger amounts could have been profitably expended on railways in India, but the condition of the money market has made the Indian Council shrink from raising money at somewhat higher rates to meet the expenditure. Every mile of railway which has been laid in India has more than paid the interest on the money expended on it, and the effect of railway extension on India, commercially and in other respects, has been incalculable. I therefore hope the noble Viscount will not hesitate to come to Parliament even for further sums, if necessary.

My Lords, the object of this Bill is to prevent the spread and to provide for the treatment of tuberculosis in Ireland. Your Lordships are no doubt aware of the terrible ravages of this disease in Ireland in recent years, and of the attempts which have been made to check it. I may mention that deaths from tuberculosis form 16·7 per cent. of the total mortality in Ireland. The Bill is divided into three parts. Part I. deals with notification and disinfection, and may be adopted by any rural or urban sanitary authority. When this Part is adopted it will be necessary for medical practitioners to notify certain cases of tuberculosis which occur in the course of their practice. It is not desirable or necessary that every case should be so notified, but only cases where there is danger of infection spreading. Part II. confers on county councils the necessary powers enabling them, if they think fit, to establish hospitals, sanatoria, and dispensaries for the treatment of tuberculosis. There is no compulsion upon those local authorities to establish such institutions, but it is left to them if they feel that the necessity exists in their counties for dealing with the disease in this manner to take steps for the purpose. Part III. deals with sanitary matters, and contains a number of provisions which may be availed of by local authorities for the purpose of combating the disease in some of its aspects. I may add that it has been my business now, I think, for three sessions to take some part in the arrangements at the end of the session as to the business of the two Houses. I think I am able, therefore, to form some idea of what it is reasonable to expect this House to consider at a late period of the session, and although my own ideas of what is reasonable may differ slightly from those of noble Lords opposite, more especially when they are in opposition, I confess it is with some misgivings that I move a Bill of this magnitude at this period of the session. Therefore I will only say that if there is any considerable opposition to it in any quarter I should not think of pressing the Bill at this period of the session. But if the Amendments are not numerous and the Bill does not meet with opposition after your Lordships have examined its provisions, I think it would not be unreasonable on my part to ask that it may be passed through all its stages to-day in order that it may become law before the prorogation.

My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill has indulged in language rather conveying that he was giving a lecture to the House as to how Bills should be approached and considered at this period of the session. Each Bill, of course, has to be taken on its own merits, and there has been no desire in reference to this Bill, so far as I know, not to treat it with the sympathetic consideration which a measure dealing with this prevalent disease may require. The Bill is undoubtedly an important one, and I should have been glad if it had come up earlier so that it could have been gone through in some detail. I am aware of the spread of this dread disease in Ireland, and of the great efforts that have been made, notably with the sympathetic aid of Lady Aberdeen, to cope with it, and I would be extremely sorry if anything interfered to prevent this Bill passing into law. Experience may show the necessity for change, and the Bill may require to be supplemented as time goes on. When the Bill was first brought in a considerable amount of alarm was excited owing to the generality of the provisions for notification, and it was thought that there would be great anxiety if in every case where a person was seized with any form of this disease the doctor was bound to notify it, thus placing the person in a very painful and distressing position. This led to a modification in the Bill which I think has removed, to a large degree, the necessity for alarm. The Bill has attracted a good deal of attention and been discussed at length in another place, and it is not my desire to offer the slightest opposition to it. I hope it will become law, and that it will be attended by all the results anticipated by those who have so benevolently applied themselves to the examination and study of this question. With these remarks I readily accord, with every sympathy, my support to the Second Reading.

My Lords, I should not have intervened but for an observation made by the noble lord in charge of the Bill with reference to the state of mind of those who are in Opposition. I think what he said is absolutely without foundation. I believe no harsher testimony has ever been borne against the practice of introducing Bills at a late period of the session than by those who sit on the same side as the Minister who introduced this Bill, and I do not think there is the least foundation for saying that there is any accentuation of the objection entertained to the late introduction of Bills according to the side on which noble Lords sit.

My Lords, I fully sympathise with the intentions of the Bill and desire to express my admiration for the extraordinary devotion, unselfishness, and energy which Lady Aberdeen has shown in endeavouring to cope with the terrible ravages of consumption to which the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading referred. But I should not like the occasion to pass without saying that, in my opinion, the measure will accomplish very little. It will possibly prevent a certain amount of infection, and, so far as hospitals are founded, will relieve those persons who go to the hospitals, but, speaking as one who lives in Ireland, I do not believe that the extent to which tuberculosis exists there is due to causes with which the Bill deals. The reason why the number of cases of the disease is so large in proportion to the population of Ireland is that the healthy young people are emigrating month, after month, while unhealthy persons who seek to emigrate are sent back by the medical inspectors in Ireland or in America. This summer I had the greatest trouble in reference to the daughter of a peasant woman in my own neighbourhood. This woman had sent her daughter, eighteen years of age, who was apparently in the best of health, to America, and instead of hearing in a fortnight's time of her safe arrival she received a notification from some union in a suburb of Glasgow to the effect that her daughter was shut up in a lunatic asylum there. This girl had left Ireland in apparently the best of health, but, as a result of the voyage and the change of scene, had became more or less insane, with the result that when she arrived in America, she was sent back. Therefore you constantly have emigration of the healthy, while the unhealthy remain and become the parents of the next generation. There is another side to this question. None of the healthy emigrants come back to their native land; but the most appalling cases of consumption return to Ireland to die. I know of cases in my own neighbourhood where men have returned from America to spend the few remaining months of their lives hovering over the fireplaces in their old homes or in the homes of relatives who give them shelter, reading Yankee newspapers sent to them by their old pals in America, and actually expectorating consumption all over the floors of those houses. Those are, to my mind, the real causes of the terrible statistics of consumption in Ireland. Not alone is the emigration of the healthy and the return of the unhealthy the cause of the spread of tuberculosis in Ireland; it is also the cause of the terrible statistics with reference to madness. While the population of my comity is dwindling we are constantly having to add new wings to the lunatic asylum, which is the only thing that is thriving in the county. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred the other day to the enormous number of old people in Ireland. That is due to the fact that the young and middle aged who are healthy leave the country. Thus we are left in Ireland with an extraordinary and abnormal number of sick people, of mad people, and of old people.

My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to both noble Lords from Ireland who have spoken for their references to the efforts of Lady Aberdeen and others to combat this disease, and I desire to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, for the friendly and sympathetic reception he has accorded to the Bill. I regret that I should have given him the impression that I was endeavouring to read a lecture to noble Lords opposite upon what they should or should not consider at this period of the session. I am afraid I must have expressed myself very badly, because all I was trying to point out was that I thought I had no right whatever even to ask noble Lords opposite to consider a Bill of this magnitude at the end of the session, and that it was only by the favour of the House that I could do so.

said he was in entire sympathy with the Bill, because, although it might nor succeed in grappling satisfactorily with the terrible disease of tuberculosis, no possible harm could result, and it might effect a great improvement. He regretted t Bill conceived with that object should be disfigured by a clause like this, introduced at the last moment, and introduced, he thought there was more than a suspicion, in the interests more of butchers resident in an urban authority than of the suppression of this disease. He had no objection to the inspection of meat, but he thought it was evident, from the provisions of the clause, that it had been introduced in order to make impossible the importation of dead meat from the country into any urban authority.

said he understood this clause met with the approval of Irish Members in the other House, and he was also informed that a regulation, similar to this clause, was in force in the city of Belfast and had been found to work perfectly well. But, apparently, it had no friends in this House, and, having regard to the circumstances in which the Bill was being considered, he should certainly not oppose its omission at this stage.

I am very glad to hear that His Majesty's Government do not intend to persevere with this clause. It is evidently a very drastic clause indeed, and we understand it formed no part of the original scheme of the Bill, and was inserted at the last moment. The danger of all legislation of this kind, however well meant, is that, if we make it too drastic and too inquisitorial, we set up a feeling of irritation and lose that public support and sympathy upon which the success of Bills of this character so largely depend. The Bill already contains some large and stringent proposals, and I am sure it is wise not to hamper it with this particular provision. The noble Lord mentioned that a somewhat analogous regulation was in force in Belfast. It would be instructive to know whether there is any rule of the same kind in any parts of the United Kingdom. So far as I am aware, there is not.

My Lords, your Lordships will remember that long discussions have taken place in more than one session over this Bill, discussions which, I am glad to say, are now brought to a close by the few Amendments standing on the Paper to this Bill, and which I hope your Lordships will have no difficulty in accepting. They represent the final agreement which has been come to between the different parties—that is to say, the regular chemists on the one hand, and the representatives of drug stores and similar commercial bodies on the other. I do not know that there is any special point on which I need trouble your Lordships, and I will, therefore, proceed to move the Amendments. The Commons' first Amendment is to omit from the first subsection of Clause 2—

'2. (1) So much of the Pharmacy Aot,'1868, as makes it an offence for any person to sell or keep open shop for the sale of poisons, unless he is a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist and conforms to regulations made under Section one of that Act, shall not apply in the case of poisonous substances containing arsenic, tobacco, or the alkaloids of tobacco, to be used exclusively in agriculture or horticulture for the destruction of insects, fungi, or bacteria, or as sheep dips or weed killers, if the person so selling or keeping open shop is duly licensed for the purpose under this section by a local authority, and conforms to any regulations as to the keeping, transporting, and selling of poisons made under this section, but nothing in this section shall exempt any person so licensed from the requirements of any other provision of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, or of the Arsenic Act, 1851, relating to poisons,"

the words "containing arsenic, tobacco, or the alkaloids of tobacco," and to insert, after the words "weed killers," the words "which are poisonous by reason of their containing arsenic, tobacco or the alkaloids of tobacco." I move that the Commons' Amendment be agreed to.

The next Amendment is in paragraph (a) of subsection (3)—

"(3) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make regulations as to: (a) The granting of licences under this section and the local authorities by which such licences may be granted; and"

The Commons propose to omit from this paragraph all words after the word "section."

The next Amendment is to insert, at the end of the clause, the following new subsection—

"(4) The local authority for the purposes of this section shall, as respects the area of any municipal borough in England having a population of more than ten thousand according to the last published census for the time being, be the council of that borough, and as respects the area of any royal, parliamentary, or police burgh in Scotland, be the town council, and as respects any other place be the council of the county."

The local authority is defined in this Amendment instead of being left to be settled by regulation. I move that we agree.

The next Amendment is in subsection (4) of Clause 3. The subsection provides that—

"A body corporate, and in Scotland a firm or partnership, may carry on the business of a pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, if in every premises where the business is carried on the business is bona fide conducted by a manager or assistant being a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, as the case may be, and if the name and certificate of qualification of the person so qualified is conspicuously exhibited in the shop or other place in which he so conducts the business."

The Commons propose to omit from this subsection all words from the first mention of the word "druggist," and to insert: "(a) if the business of the body corporate, firm, or partnership, so far as it relates to the keeping, retailing, and dispensing of poisons, is under the control and management of a superintendent who is a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, whose name has been forwarded to the registrar appointed under the Pharmacy Act, 1852, to be entered by him in a register to be kept for that purpose, and who does not act at the same time in a similar capacity for any other body corporate, firm or partnership; and (b) if in all premises where such business as aforesaid is carried on, and is not personally conducted by the superintendent, such business is bona fide conducted under the direction of the superintendent by a manager or assistant who is a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, and whose certificate of qualification is conspicuously exhibited in the shop or other place in which he so conducts the business." This was the clause round which the controversy raged for so long, and these Amendments in fact represent the compromise which I suggested earlier in the year when I received a deputation on the subject. They have beer, accepted by the Pharmaceutical Society and also by Lord Ebury on behalf of the co-operative stores, and I believe they may be said to represent the final and a very fair arrangement on the question. The real point was as to what ought to be done to prevent the formation of bogus companies, and I think these words, which have been very carefully thought out, meet that point altogether. Therefore, I move that your Lordships agree with this Amendment.

As I understand, the governing idea in these subsections is that there shall always be in every establishment, whether it belongs to a company or an individual, a qualified pharmaceutical chemist, and that it will not be possible to get behind that by any regulation.

That is so.

The Commons Amendment to paragraph (b) of Clause 4—

"(b) Providing for the registration, upon payment of the prescribed fee, as pharmaceutical chemists or chemists and druggists under the Pharmacy Acts, 1852 and 1868, without examination, of any persons holding colonial diplomas or of qualified military dispensers who produce evidence satisfactory to the council of the society that they are persons of sufficient skill and knowledge to be so registered,"

is to insert, after the word "dispensers," the words "or certified assistants to apothecaries under the Apothecaries Act, 1815." This simply increases, to some extent, the discretion of the Pharmaceutical Society as to the persons they may recognise under their by-laws. It is considered that without the Amendment there would be some hardship.

In Clause 6—

"6. This Act may be cited as the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908, and shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nine,"

the Commons have made an Amendment leaving out the word "January" and inserting the word "April."

The next Amendment is a new clause—

"(a) Upon the death of any person registered under the Pharmacy Act (Ireland) (1875) Amendment Act, 1890, as a chemist and druggist or registered druggist and actually in business at the time of his death, it shall be lawful for any executor, administrator, or trustee of his estate to continue such business if and so long only as such business is bona fide conducted by an assistant being a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or licentiate apothecary, or duly registered chemist and druggist, or duly registered druggist."

This clause deals with what is known as the widows' case—that is, where a business is allowed to be carried on by a successor in the family under certain circumstances. An extension is made to Ireland in this matter.

The last Amendment is in line 9 of the Schedule—

"Belladonna, and all preparations or admixtures containing 0·1 or more per cent. of belladonna alkaloids."

The Commons have inserted, after the word "admixtures," the words "except belladonna plasters." Belladonna plasters are excepted, I believe, by general agreement, but I do not know why.

The House of Commons have sent up certain Amendments to this Bill, which I think are very desirable. First, they have inserted after Clause 2, the following new clause—

"(1) Section 1 of the Judicial Committee Amendment Act, 1895, shall have effect as if the persons therein included any person being or having been Chief Justice or a Justice of the High Court of Australia or Chief Justice or Judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. (2) The schedule to the Judicial Committee Amendment Act, 1895, shall be read as if the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony were included therein as South African Colonies."

After Clause 3, the Commons propose the insertion of the following new clause—

"His Majesty may from time to time by Order in Council make a general Order directing that all appeals shall be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council until the Order is rescinded, and Section 9 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1844, shall have effect as if any such general Order for the time being in force were substituted in the first proviso to that section for the annual Order therein referred to, and the time for which the Order remains in force were substituted for the twelve months next after the making of the general Order. The expression 'appeals' in this section means appeals on petitions presented to His Majesty in Council, and includes any complaints in the nature of appeals and any petitions in the matter of appeals."

The other two Amendments are of a purely verbal character. I move that your Lordships agree.

My Lords, your Lordships will remember that we completely transformed this Bill after it came up from the House of Commons, but I am happy to say that, on its being returned to them, the Commons only made three Amendments. The first Amendment alters the date when the Bill is to come into operation. Your Lordships inserted a clause providing that—

"This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and nine."

The Commons propose to amend this clause by leaving out the word "January," and inserting the word "July." Considering how time has elapsed the reason for this is obvious. The next Amendment of the Commons is in the clause which provides that—

"In cases where the rent of the immediate tenant of the superior landlord is in arrear it shall be lawful for such superior landlord to serve upon any under tenant or lodger a notice (by registered post addressed, whether by name or not, to such under-tenant or lodger upon the premises) stating the amount of such arrears of rent, and requiring all future payments of rent, whether the same has already accrued due or not, by such under-tenant or lodger to be made direct to the superior landlord giving such notice until such arrears shall have been duly paid, and such notice shall operate to transfer to the superior landlord the right to recover, receive, and give a discharge for such rent."

The Commons propose to amend this clause by leaving out the words "whether by name or not." This alteration is made at the instance of the Postmaster-General and deals with the sending of a registered letter, which, according to the regulations, must be addressed by name to the person for whom it is intended. With both of these Amendments your Lordships will, no doubt, agree. The other Amendment is a more material one. The Bill, as sent down to the House of Commons, provided that—

"This Act shall not apply to any undertenant where the under-tenancy has been created in breach of any covenant or agreement is writing between the landlord and his immediate tenant, or where the under-tenancy has been created contrary to the wish of the landlord in that behalf, expressed in writing and delivered at the premises within a reasonable time after the circumstances have come, or with due diligence, would have come to his knowledge."

The Commons propose to amend this clause by leaving out all words after "the landlord and his immediate tenant." I have talked this matter over with the noble and learned Earl opposite. He has not seen his way to consent to the deletion of the whole of the words proposed, but would agree to a limitation. I therefore move to disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in this clause, but in lieu thereof, after the words "or whether the under-tenancy has been created," to insert the words "under a lease existing at the date of the passing of this Act."

I understand that the effect of the Amendment is this, that the new provision will only apply to leases made in the future, and that all leases already in existence will not be affected by the new statute?

That is so.

As to the other two Amendments, I move that we agree.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.

We shall be very glad to give the Return.

My Lords, on the question that the Report be now received I should like to ask His Majesty's Government a question. I will preface it with only a few words. As the Bill was introduced it was to come into effect on 1st January, 1909, but, as a matter of course, when delay took place and an autumn session had to be called, the date was put off until July, 1909. I understand that at a late stage of the Bill, in another place, an alteration was made giving a preference to certain districts in the North-East of England, and making the date in their case 1st January, 1910. Last night a further Amendment was made in your Lordships' House, altering the date for all districts to 1st July, 1910, and of course in that case all are placed on the same level. Some of us ventured to speak very strongly against the preference shown to one district over another, on the ground that in the case of two districts competing, say, for the export of coal, it is radically unfair that one district, such as the East of Scotland, should be put at a great disadvantage as compared with another like the North-East of England. But that is not directly connected with the question of the postponement of the date of the coming into operation of the Act to 1st July, 1910. I felt at the time that decision was come to that it was rather a long postponement. I felt also that it was arrived at without a completely adequate discussion, having regard to the importance of the matter. The noble Marquess who leads this side of the House made a very distinct appeal to His Majesty's Government to give us some help and guidance in the matter, having regard to the fact that the preference, which was the cause really of much of the discussion last night, was almost universally condemned on all sides of the House. Personally I deeply regret that that appeal was not responded to, and I venture to think that even now, at this late period in the discussion of the Bill, it would be only proper if His Majesty's Government would tell us whether some other date earlier than July, 1910—one which would be more generally convenient and would give people time to make arrangements as to their contracts, but would not make any preference between one district and another—might not yet be accepted. As on this stage of the Bill your Lordships have not the right to speak more than once on any particular question, I thought it would, not be inconvenient if I ventured to ask the Government whether, having regard to all that has taken place, they cannot give us some assistance in arriving at a solution that would be generally acceptable and avoid the much vexed question of a preference as between one district and another.

My Lords, I think the question is a very reasonable one for the noble Lord to have asked after the discussion that took place yesterday, but in saying a few words upon it it is impossible for me to avoid the merits or demerits of different dates which the noble Lord himself avoided, partly because the discussion itself depends upon them, and partly because as no Amendment has been, so far as I know, moved to the conclusion which the House reached at our last sitting on this subject, there would be no opportunity except this of going into detail on the matter. The noble Earl, Lord Camper-down, when I last spoke, complained that I had given no very definite opinion on the subject; but when the Government bring in a Bill in a particular form it has to be assumed that, unless they make some definite suggestion to the contrary, that is the proposal which they desire to submit to the House. At the same time thatdoes not, I think, prevent the Government doing what I did on the last occasion, which was to point out, as I hope quite frankly, that there are objections, so far as I can see, and I think we all agree, to every course that can be suggested in this matter. It very often happens in matters of policy, as your Lordships very well know, that there is no course which is entirely free from objection, and I think we are now in one of those situations. The question lies, I think I may say, between three different courses. There is the course which the House ultimately adopted, that of the postponement till July, 1910. The objections to that course I think are obvious. So far as the time of year is concerned, it is probably the best time that could be chosen, but still it is a very serious matter to postpone the operation of a Bill of this kind for a period of eighteen months; and it has to be remembered in this connection that those principally concerned, the coal miners, are not directly represented in this House, and that, therefore, their point of view was not and could not be explicitly stated. Under those circumstances the Government were not able to agree to such a long postponement. The next alternative is to make the Bill come into operation everywhere in January 1910. The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition directed his observations mainly to that point at the last stage of the Bill, and I think it was evident to everybody who listened to what he said that he and, I have no doubt, many who agree with him were most unwilling to take any responsibility whatever for that date. He pointed out, as I ventured to point out, that there might be some very considerable risk in bringing this Bill into operation in mid-winter for the whole country, and, as I say, the noble Marquess very clearly and explicitly announced that he meant to wash his hands of any responsibility that might arise from a panic and consequent rise of price, owing to that date being inserted. If that is the date which your Lordships prefer, I must say that it does not appear to me that you can divest yourselves of responsibility in this matter. Your Lordships take the responsibility sometimes of throwing out our Bills and at other times you will not take the responsibility of passing them. But, if you pass them, it really is not possible to say, being in possession of all the facts, that you at any rate will not, hold yourselves responsible for whatever the consequences may be. The Government also, under those circumstances, are not willing to take that responsibility, and therefore we cannot undertake to agree to the date of January, 1910. Noble Lords will see that I have dismissed two of the alternatives. There only remains, as far as I can see, the alternative of the preference. That we know is strongly objected to on account of its being a preference, but I think it is only reasonable to point out that it was not assented to by the Government on the ground of its giving any preference to the counties of Northumberland and Durham, and the noble Earl on the cross benches warned us that he asked for no preference of the kind. The extension to January in favour of those two counties was given simply and solely on the ground of their statement, which my right hon. friend believes to be correct, that the mere organisation of labour owing to the peculiar system which obtains in these counties would be an exceedingly difficult thing to effect by so early a date as July. Under those circumstances my right hon. friend thinks, and the Government also think, that, although we fully admit the-incidental objections which arise from a preference being given to those two counties for a period of six months and the unpleasant consequences which in some degree occur to other districts in consideration of that, yet on the whole the least objectionable of the three courses which I have indicated lies in the maintenance of the term as stated in the Bill. Therefore, while we do not ask your Lordships to readmit it at this stage, that remains the policy of His Majesty's Government.

My Lords, as I proposed the Amendment which was adopted by your Lordships, without any opposition from His Majesty's Government, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the subject. What was the position in which we found ourselves? The Government proposed that the Bill should come into operation for the country generally on 1st July next year, but for the counties of Northumberland and Durham not until six months afterwards. It was the general feeling in the House that it was unfair to give a preference to some districts over others. It was also clear that the Government were pledged to Northumberland and Durham that, so far as those counties were concerned, the Bill should not come into operation until January, 1910. Those seemed to be matters which were practically settled for us. Then came the question whether the date should be 1st January or 1st July, 1910. I think your Lordships were mainly guided in arriving at your decision by the views expressed on behalf of His Majesty's Government. At any rate that was my case. I had no particular preference for the date chosen, but I was muck impressed by what was said from the Government bench. The noble Earl the Lord Steward said that—

"it would be much harder on the consumer if the change took place in January than if it came in July,"

and my noble friend who has just sat down followed in the same sense. He said it would be—

"infinitely more serious if the change took place in winter than it would be in the summer."

Those were very strong words. If this Bill is to come into operation in January it is to be infinitely more serious to the consumer than if it comes into operation in July. Those words impressed me, and I think it was that language on the part of His Majesty's Government which induced your Lordships to take the course you did. If His Majesty's Government think it would be better to adhere to 1st January, 1910, instead of putting it off for another six months, then I submit it is for them to take the responsibility. If the Government consider, on the whole, that the effect of the Act on the consumer will not be so great as the language they used yesterday led us all to suppose, then surely it is for His Majesty's Government to take the responsibility of themselves determining what is the best date upon which the Bill should come into operation, and I have no doubt your Lordships would respectfully take into consideration any opinion that the Government might express. But the responsibility of fixing the date is one which surely ought to rest with them and not with the House.

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Balfour has recurred to the history of this matter. He has renewed the appeal which was made last night for some guidance on the part of noble Lords who occupy the Front Bench opposite. I do not know that that guidance has been of a particularly vigorous or distinct description. Let merecall to your Lordships what happened last night. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill, replying to an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Newton, admitted that in his opinion there were very great objections to bringing the Bill into operation in the winter months, and he also let us see very plainly that to his mind there was also a good deal to be said against granting a preference to one class of collieries against another. His attitude certainly did not show that, so far as he was concerned, His Majesty's Ministers had any very decided or precise views on the subject. Then the noble Lord who leads the House, in reply to a challenge from myself, made his contribution to the debate. He also let us see quite plainly that in his opinion it was a very dangerous thing to give a preference to one part of the country as against other parts and, so far as I was able to gather, he showed a certain preference for accepting the date of 1st January, 1910, for the whole of the collieries. That left us in rather an embarrassed position, and Lord Newton said, I think very truly, that he detected an attempt on the part of the two front benches to bandy responsibility backwards and forwards between them. I think we are quite justified in throwing back the responsibility on the benches opposite. The noble Earl has spoken this evening as if we on this side of the House were responsible for the Bill to exactly the same extent as he and his colleagues. Clearly that is not the case. Responsibility lies with the authors of the measure. Noble Lords opposite declined to accept that responsibility. Thereupon the back benches intervened, and intervened with great effect, and an Amendment was carried which I dare say would not have been carried at all if His Majesty's Government had had the courage of their opinions and had told us frankly what in their opinion was and was not a possible arrangement. To-night I gather from the noble Earl that His Majesty's Government are opposed, in the first place, to a long postponement, which would carry the operation of the Bill to July, 1910. I gather that they are also opposed to taking the midwinter date of January, 1910, and, therefore, the noble Earl is driven, I think rather reluctantly, to the conclusion that there is nothing for it but 1st July, 1909, and the retention of the preference. That is, so far as I was able to follow him, the conclusion which he recommends to the House. If that is so, all I can say is, speaking for myself, that if the Amendment carried last night does not find approval elsewhere, I will not take the responsibility of attempting to force it upon the framers of the Bill. I feel very strongly about, at any rate, one of the Amendments—the Amendment, I mean, which was put down and carried by my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn. To my mind that Amendment is one of vital importance, and I regard it in an entirely different light from that in which I regard the Amendment we are now discussing. The Amendment moved by Lord St. Aldwyn does not in any way interfere with the machinery set up by the Government for working the Bill as soon as it comes into operation. This Amendment, however, would very materially disturb and interfere with a scheme prepared, no doubt, after due reflection by the Government—a scheme to which we now learn that they desire to adhere in its original shape. That being so, I think it my duty to say frankly that I would not go the length of endeavouring to persuade them to accept the Amendment.

My Lords, Lord Balfour has entered a protest on behalf of those interested in the coal trade in the East of Scotland. I cannot let the occasion pass without entering a protest also on behalf of those interested in the coal trade in Yorkshire. Those who are concerned with Yorkshire coal mines and who will have to start a second shift will be confronted with difficulties at least equal to those that would have to be met by the collieries in Durham and Northumberland. They think they will lose considerably in their contracts, both for export and gas coal, in their competition—and the competition is keen—with Durham and Northumberland. I have had communications to the effect that whatever date is fixed, let every one start fair.

My Lords, in the year 1901 the late Sir Howard Vincent presided over a Committee appointed to inquire into various matters connected with the pay, allowances, and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Committee came to the conclusion that the emoluments received by that force were in certain respects insufficient, and they recommended that in some cases the pay and allowances should be increased. Owing to the pressure of business in the House of Commons in recent years there has hitherto been no favourable opportunity of introducing a Bill on this subject. This being a money Bill I apprehend that your Lordships will not desire to amend it, at all events, not in any important respect; and bearing in mind the high character for efficiency and devotion to duty, frequently in very trying circumstances, borne by that splendid body of men, the Royal Irish Constabulary, I trust that your Lordships will give no grudging assent to the Second Reading of this Bill.

My Lords, your Lordships are probably aware, from painful experience, that attempts are sometimes made to disturb public meetings and to dry up the natural flow of eloquence that we should expect to find at them. Your Lordships are also probably aware that the law provides absolutely no remedy in such a case unless an actual assault takes place or the facts warrant an indictment for conspiracy. The object of this Bill is to make disorderly conduct at a meeting for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business of the meeting an offence. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind your Lordships of recent events. I think it will not be denied that during the last three or four years the general tone of behaviour at public meetings has been of a distinctly lively character, culminating in a great meeting in the Albert Hall some ten days ago which was described to me by an eye-witness as pandemonium, and which has given rise to a rumour that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to address no more public meetings if anything in petticoats is allowed to form part of his audience. I do not know whether the rumour is true; but I cannot help sympathising with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the treatment he has had. Anyhow, I do not think it will be denied that disturbance, as a regular practice, is extremely undesirable. That is the case for this Bill. The Bill, perhaps, concerns Members of jour Lordships' House less intimately than it concerns Members of the other House, but still we are not uninterested. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will approve of the principle of the Bill. The first subsection of Clause 1 provides that any person who, at a lawful public meeting—I understand it is not lawful always to hold meetings in Trafalgar Square, for instance, and meetings of such a character will not come under the Bill—acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together—those words are important because they safeguard the practice of the heckler, whose questions and interruptions are generally a delight to the audience and sometimes to the speaker—shall be guilty of an offence, and, being summarily convicted thereof, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month. I am not actually wedded to the last three lines of the first subsection, and in Committee I will move an Amendment, drafted by the Government, slightly altering those words though not altering the intention of the clause. Subsection (2) makes special provision for Parliamentary elections. At Parliamentary elections, I am given to understand, though I have never had the privilege of going through one myself, feeling rises a great deal higher than at normal public meetings, and therefore it is felt desirable that the penalties of the Corrupt Practices Act, which are more stringent than the £5 fine in subsection (1), should be invoked. His Majesty's Government do not like subsection (3)—

"(3) Any fine imposed under this Act may be recovered as a civil debt due to the Crown,"

and I shall ask your Lordships, in Committee, to amend it. I have fully explained the object of the Bill, and I ask your Lordships to pass it on the ground that the right of public meeting is of importance to the enjoyment of constitutional government.

My Lords, it would obviously be an unfeeling and heartless action on my part if I were to interfere with the progress of a Bill which is urgently required for the protection of Members of the House of Commons, and especially of members of His Majesty's Government. I was given to understand that this was the Bill of a Member of the Opposition, but I rather gather from what has fallen from my noble friend that the Government have taken in under their protection. I suppose no Bill has been ever passed through the other House with greater rapidity than this one, except a Bill dealing with dynamitards, which, about twenty years ago, was passed through all its stages in less than an hour. The noble Earl has endeavoured to persuade us that nobody will be injured by the Bill; but I gather that any person who attends a meeting and shouts "Votes for Women," "Down with the House of Lords," or "Your coal will cost you more," will be liable to a penalty of £5 or imprisonment for a month; and when the noble Earl talks about the necessity of safeguarding free speech I should like to point out that he is interfering with one of the most cherished privileges of the public. It is an immemorial practice in the public life of this country to attend public meetings, not necessarily of one's friends, and the measure is such a startling departure from well-established national habits that I am disposed to suggest that, following the precedent to be established by another Bill which is before Parliament, it should be brought into operation by instalments. The most dangerous class ought to be dealt with first, and I would suggest, thereto re, that in the first instance it should be applicable only to women, and at a subsequent stage it should be brought into operation in regard to adult males, and, at a still later stage, should apply to the rising generation.

My Lords, I think I need only say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that they will be very glad to co-operate with the noble Earl opposite and afford every facility for the passing of this Bill.

said that, owing to the delay in printing, his Amendments were not available. He had, however, had three copies of them typewritten, one of which he had handed to the Government and one to the noble Earl in the Chair. The Amendments had been agreed to between those in charge of the Bill and His Majesty's Government, and he hoped they would be accepted. His first Amendment was in page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word "and" to the end of line eleven, and to insert the words "if the offence is committed"; and his next Amendment was to insert, at the end of line 13, the words "within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and in any other case shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding £5, or to imprisonment not exceeding one month."

said it was impossible to understand the full bearing of the proposed Amendments without having them before them. Again, what was the penalty under the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883? The Bill would not, he hoped, be susceptible of being applied to cases where members of the audience indulged in what might be regarded as legitimate expressions of opinion owing to the way in which the facts were presented by a particular speaker.

said he had been furnished with one of the few copies of the Amendments, and had tried, without success, to follow them. He had pieced them together, but they did not make English at all.

said the clause as he proposed to amend it would read—

"Any person who at a lawful public meeting acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together, shall be guilty of an offence, and if the offence is committed at a political meeting held during the progress of a Parliamentary election he shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and in any other case shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds, or to imprisonment not exceeding one month."

said that the copy of the Amendments furnished to him did not contain the latter half of what the noble Earl had read. Would not the better course be for the noble Earl to write out the clause as it was proposed to amend it, and substitute it for the clauses in the Bill?

said the substance of the Amendments might be known to two out of the three fortunate possessors of a copy—the Lord Chancellor appeared not to understand it—but other noble Lords were in complete ignorance on the matter. The House had to meet to-morrow. Could not the Amendments, therefore, be printed and inserted on the following day?

expressed the hope that, if subsection (2)—

"(2) Any person who commits an offence under this section at a political meeting during the progress of a Parliamentary election shall be guilty of an illegal practice,"—

were omitted, the proposed new clause which Lord Donoughmore had read should provide for the offence if committed "at a political meeting held during the progress of and in connection with a Parliamentary election."

agreed that it would be safer to insert the words "and in connection with."

hoped also that words would be inserted to cover disturbances occurring at meetings held in connection with municipal elections, especially in the Metropolis.

withdrew his Amendment, and said he would draft the Amendments in the form the Lord Chancellor had suggested, and bring them up to-morrow.

My Lords, there are two Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, but they both deal with the same point. The first is in Clause 1, page 2, line 2, where your Lordships struck out the word "ten" and inserted "twelve"; and the second is in line 13, where your Lordships inserted—

"By the Kent County Council, one; by the Essex County Council, one."

I beg to move that the House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. This matter occurred so very recently and has twice been under discussion in the House that it must be fresh in the recollection of your Lordships. The Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed were inserted on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Darnley. Your Lordships will remember that two further Amendments were moved, one by the noble Duke opposite, and the other by Lord Desborough, having for their object the inclusion of Surrey and Middlesex and the borough of West Ham amongst the bodies who were to be represented on the Port Authority. I should like to make it clear, which I am afraid I did not do the other day—I have thought since that perhaps your Lordships' action was rather due to that omission on my part—that what the Government are doing in this is not intended in any way as a slight; upon county councils. The Government have the very highest opinion of the value of county councils and of the work they do, and I am perfectly certain that if the constitution of this body had been in any way different these county councils and the borough of West Ham would undoubtedly have been included amongst the bodies who have representation on the Port Authority. The House knows that the intention has always been that this body should be, not of a municipal, but of a commercial character, and it was entirely for that reason that these four counties were omitted. It was stated, in the course of the debate here, that this matter was not considered by the Joint Committee. I do not think that was really the case, and I certainly never thought, during the two long and weary months in which I sat on this Committee, that we should ever be charged with not having given due consideration to any matter. This (indicating volume) is the Report of the Committee. Your Lordships can see that it is a volume of considerable size; and I do not think that any charge of that kind does lie against the Joint Committee. The claims of the two counties which your Lordships did include are entirely of a geographical nature, and the Joint Committee did not think it necessary to hear elaborate reasons for proving those claims. What we considered was this. There were two courses before us. The first course was to give representation to these four counties and to the borough of West Ham, but if we adopted that course we were met by a difficulty. If we wished to maintain the proportion between the elected and the nominated representatives on the Port Authority the inclusion of these extra five nominated representatives would have entailed our allowing nine more elected members in order to balance them. That would have meant that there would have been twenty-seven elected members and fifteen nominated members, making, in all, a body of forty-two members. That we considered would be an unwieldy and unbusinesslike body, and it was on that ground, and that ground alone, that we decided against including these counties. The only other possible course was the one we adopted, leaving out the counties altogether. We never thought for a moment of admitting some and leaving out others, and I think your Lordships will have seen from what took place yesterday that that course was likely to arouse a storm of indignation. The speeches to which we listened from the noble Duke and from Lord Desborough on that subject show how strong the local fueling is against anything of that sort being done; and the Board of Trade have had further proof this morning, if such were necessary, in a most indignant letter which I hold in my hand from the borough of West Ham. They protest, and I think with good reason, that it is unfair that representation should be given to Kent and Essex and should be denied to them. I submit that the course which the Joint Committee recommended, and which was embodied in the Bill as it came from the Commons, was the only course by which the three essential points in this matter could be attained, namely, that we should have a Port Authority of manageable dimensions, that we should maintain the balance of power as between the commercial and the municipal elements on the body, and that we should not do injustice as between the different local bodies. I would appeal very strongly to your Lordships not to insist on these two Amendments. I would ask you to consider that the Board of Trade have used every endeavour to meet all the reasonable objections raised in this House and outside. What we have done in this House may not have been so apparent to the general body of your Lordships, because the Amendments which were accepted were agreed to outside and not on the floor of the House. But these were two very important Amendments agreed to at the instance of members of this House. The first was the Amendment made to Clause 6, where we agreed to strike out of the Bill the power which the Board of Trade asked for to vary the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts. That Amendment will be in the recollection of your Lordships. I would also point to the other very important concession which was made at the instance of a noble Lord who was a member of the Joint Committee, Lord Ritchie, limiting the Port rates on goods to one three-thousandth part of the total. I think we have shown every disposition to meet reasonable opposition in this matter, and I would appeal to your Lordships not to impair the peaceful passage of the Bill at this late stage.

My Lords, I should like to support the appeal which the noble Lord has just made. I hope your Lordships will recognise that it is with no feeling of hostility to Kent and Essex that I made these remarks. Both of these counties are at the present time represented on the Thames Conservancy Board, and supply good and useful members; but the same thing can be said, with equal truth, of the other two counties whose claims were put forward last night—Middlesex and Surrey—and also of West Ham. I am confident that you would enormously increase the well-founded disappointment of those bodies if you selected only two counties to be represented and disregarded the claims of others having equal right to be represented. There are several ways of creating a new Port Authority, but the system selected by the Government is based on the principle that those who pay the dues should elect the representatives, who, therefore, will be persons well acquainted with the great shipping and trading interests of the port. Wherever we look we see, in connection with ports throughout the country, the municipal element being gradually eliminated in favour of the scientific trading element. It may be objected that although there are eighteen members of the new Port authority who directly represent the trade and commerce of the Port, there are still a large number of nominated members. The nominated members number ten, but these gentlemen will not represent any geographical or sectional interest; they will represent great Authorities whose voices should be heard in a business of the vast importance of the Port of London. Of the ten nominated members the Admiralty will appoint one. It is essential that the Admiralty, which is concerned with Woolwich and the defence of London, should be represented. The Board of Trade will appoint two representatives. The Department takes a paternal interest in this new body, and it is obviously necessary that they should have this representation. Then we come to the municipal element. I do not say whether the London County Council, which will elect two members from their own body and nominate two from outside, are given too many or too few representatives, but I contend that this is not the time to increase the nominated element. Then the Corporation of the City of London are to appoint one representative and nominate another. There is good reason for that, for from time immemorial they have been the Port Authority, and at the present time the Corporation spend £30,000 a year in carrying out the Port sanitary duties. Therefore, I think the Corporation is well worthy of having representation on the Port Authority. Trinity House, again, carry out the duties of buoying and lighting, and, therefore, should have representation. Without the slightest hostility to Kent and Essex I feel that I should not be doing my duty to Surrey and Middlesex and West Ham if I did not attempt to point out that it would occasion a sense of injustice to give to Kent and Essex representation which is denied to the other three, who also have representation on the Thames Conservancy Board at the present time.

My Lords, I shall not detain the House by re-arguing the question, but I think the remarks of the noble Lord opposite ought not to pass without notice. The noble Lord assured the House that the Joint Committee had fully considered all these questions, and he waved a voluminous Blue-book in order to convince us that that was the fact. No one has accused the Joint Committee of not considering the matter; but we know that they refused to give these local authorities any opportunity of stating their case for the consideration of the Committee. I confess that it is a rather peculiar argument to say that the Joint Committee fully considered a matter which they had never fairly stated to them. The local authorities are spoken of as merely having a geographical interest. I do not know what the noble Lord means by a geographical interest. They have the interests of the inhabitants who live along the river in their charge. The noble Lord said he spoke with great respect of county councils. I am extremely obliged to him for his kind remarks, but it would be more practical if His Majesty's Government would show that respect by giving these authorities credit for having something to say in the interests of their constituents and an opportunity of saying it. I daresay my noble friend Lord Desborough is right, that if all these bodies are not represented then none should be; but I confess I think county councils have very great cause of complaint that a Joint Committee of this kind absolutely refused to hear them when they made an application to be heard before the Committee.

My Lords, as a Member of the Joint Committee I should like to support the appeal of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I entirely agree with every word he said. We did consider this question, though we did not hear evidence on the subject. I therefore hope the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House may find it possible to give way in regard to these two Amendments.