Commons Sitting of 4 May 1893

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE RETURNS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Returns required from the Laud Commission under Section 33 of "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891," which are prescribed to be made as soon as possible in April of each year, will be issued?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOB IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I understand that the Return is already at the Treasury, and that it will be presented in the prescribed manner in a few days.

  THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India with reference to his recent statement that the scheme adopted by the Government of India for classifying and grading the officers of the Indian Telegraph Department had been approved by the Secretary of State, whether the effect of the classification and grading now instituted by the Indian Government has been that contemplated by the scheme authorised by Lord Kimberley, and ordered by Lord Cross to be carried into effect in 1887; whether, when an officiating appointment occurs in the first grade of a class, it is filled up from the second grade, and if in that case the officer remains in the same class without any increase of pay for the higher work; whether he is aware, as stated in The Pioneer, that recently cases have occurred where every (telegraph) officer in the country in the second grade of a class has been officiating in the first grade for months together, bearing additional responsibility without receiving one rupee of extra pay; if so, whether there are other changes advantageous to officers which the Secretary of State has sanctioned to outweigh the loss sustained by the officers under this state of things, and what the alleged advantages are;

  49
  and whether it was intended by the Secretary of State that in Classes V. and VI. men should be drawing less pay now than they would have done under the old rules?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL,): Yes, Sir; but certain modifications were made in the original scheme by the Government of India with the sanction of Lord Cross. With regard to the second and third questions of the hon. Member, the answer is that officiating promotions from grade to grade have been abolished, though not from class to class. The officers concerned receive benefit from the special terms of retirement offered to increase the flow of promotion; and those in the four assistant superintendent grades receive personal allowances. The Secretary of State is not aware whether the statement quoted from The Pioneer is correct. The answer to the last question is, No, nor is the Secretary of State aware that any such cases have occurred.

  THE OATH IN IRISH COURTS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. J. A. Smith, of Brookboro', County Fermanagh, after being sworn before Mr. Molony, R.M., at New-town Butler on the 3rd inst., with uplifted hand, was asked whether he held that form of oath binding on his conscience; and if there is any legal warrant for asking members of the Presbyterian Church such a question?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the Resident Magistrate did make this inquiry, which I understand is not unusual in Courts of Justice in Ireland. There is, of course, no legal warrant for putting the question, and the Resident Magistrate's attention has been drawn to the matter.

  THE IRISH EDUCATION ACT.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the passing of the Irish Education Act of last Session, a large number of clerks in the Education Department have been compelled to work overtime without any remuneration; and whether, seeing that a request for consi-
  50
  deration has been met by a threat of dismissal, he will allow a further statement to be made to him on the matter?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: The Commissioners of National Education regretted they had no funds at their disposal out of which to give extra remuneration for the additional work imposed upon their staff consequent on the introduction of the Act of 1892. The Commissioners are now preparing a scheme for submission to the Treasury which would enable them to award extra remuneration in certain emergencies. It is not true, I am informed, that any threat of dismissal was ever made to a clerk under the circumstances mentioned.

  REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he proposes to place upon the Notice Paper the clauses rendering the Registration of Electors Bill applicable to Ireland; and why, as in the case of Scotland, a separate Bill has not been introduced?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I can only say that ample notice will be given before the House is asked to consider the clauses. As to the last part of the question, I do not know of any reason except want of time.

  DISTURBANCE AT CLOGHEEN.
  MR. O'NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, on the night succeeding the passing of the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill, a Nationalist band paraded the streets of Clogheen, County Tipperary, and stopped and played opposite the residence of Dr. Richard Walsh, a medical gentleman, who had not illuminated his windows, and that stones were thrown through the windows of that gentleman's house; and will he state what steps have been, or are being, taken by Her Majesty's Government to protect loyal citizens in that neighbourhood?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: This account is a very highly-coloured narrative of what actually took place. I learn that one stone was thrown at Dr. Walsh's house, and broke one single pane of glass. No one has been made amenable, but the

  51
  police are giving the matter their attention. I am informed that Dr. Walsh is himself a Nationalist.

  THE COASTGUARD SERVICE.
  MR. E. H. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total number of men employed in the Coastguard Service, the rate of wages, and the total annual cost; whether they could be advantageously employed in manning steam life and salvage boats for which they are qualified; and whether a percentage charged upon the salvage would fully cover the cost of the undertaking?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The number of petty officers and seamen in the Coastguard Service provided for this year is 3,879; their wages and allowances vary from 2s. 11d. to 4s. 6d. a day, and the total amount of wages and allowances is £150,956 for the present year. It would be highly inconvenient to divert the Coastguard men from their regular duties for the purpose suggested. The saving of life and property from wrecks is already an important part of their duties.

  THE LANCASHIRE CHANCERY COURT.
  SIR HENRY JAMES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the accumulations of the Suitors' Fund in the Chancery Court of Lancashire amount to £130,000; and if the Government will consider the advisability of devoting such accumulations or part thereof to providing a better system of administration of justice in Lancashire?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BEYCE,): The amount of the accumulations of the Suitors' Fee Fund will be found in the Return very recently presented to Parliament at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Harrow. At the end of last year it was (as in that Return mentioned) £12,400 in India Three and a Half per Cents, and £127,558 11s. 5d. in New Consols. This accumulation belongs in right of Her Duchy and County Palatine to Her Majesty, who was pleased in 1876 to direct, by order, its appropriation to the ex elusive use and purposes of the
  52
  Chancery Court of the County Palatine. Owing to considerable reductions in the scale of fees and to other causes, the increase of the surplus has in recent years been comparatively slow; and if further modifications in favour of the suitors, which have been suggested, are carried out, the whole income of the fund will not, having regard to various contingencies, be more than sufficient to provide for the expenses of maintaining the Court in efficient working. I should be very glad to do anything coming within the scope of my office to promote a better system of administering justice in Lancashire, but do not think that this particular fund can be diverted from the Lancashire Chancery Court.

  THE MONEY ORDER CLERKS AT COLDBATH FIELDS.
  MR. GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there has been a large increase of sickness among the Money Order clerks since the removal of this branch of the Service from Aldersgate Street to the disused prison in Coldbath Fields; and whether the removal of this branch to Coldbath Fields, which was stated to be temporary four years ago, is now intended to be permanent; and, if not, when will it be removed from the disused prison of Coldbath Fields?
  MR. HANBURY: At the same time, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the largely-increased amount of sickness among the Money Order Office clerks since their removal four years ago from St. Martin's-le-Grand to the old chapel in Coldbath Fields Prison; whether he will at once take steps to remedy the existing insanitary conditions there; and what was the Report of the independent sanitary expert who inspected this office in 1891?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): With reference to the Money Order Office at Mount Pleasant, I have given to this matter considerable attention. I have visited the office myself, as did both my predecessors, and I have received several Reports from the Medical Officer of the Department and also from the Office of Works. I have come to the conclusion that there is no real

  53
  ground for regarding the premises as insanitary. The branch was transferred to Mount Pleasant four years ago, in 1889, and since that time the average sick absence has not been abnormal except during the last two years, when there has been an increase, similar to what has taken place in other branches, and which has been due to the epidemic of influenza. There was no Report of an independent sanitary expert in 1891. There was a Report by the Office of Works dated 13th November, 1891, in which it was stated that the sanitary arrangements were in good working order, and that there were no grounds for an independent examination of the premises. If either of the hon. Members can furnish mo with evidence in support of their statements I will gladly examine them.

  RAILWAY WHISTLES.
  MR. GRAHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the nuisance of railway whistles at night from the coal traffic on the London and North Western and Midland Railways in Camden and Kentish Town; whether he would endeavour to put a stop to the practice; and whether any accident has ever been reported as having taken place in consequence of the whistling having been temporarily suspended?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Board of Trade have no authority, and it would not be compatible with the necessities of railway working, to stop the practice of whistling on railways. I have communicated with the Railway Companies concerned, and I am assured there has been no unnecessary whistling. In the case of an accident at Finsbury Park, 10th February, 1886, Major Marindin, the inspecting officer, who reported on the circumstances, states that the
  "driver of one of the trains concerned in the collision had not, during the time he was standing waiting for the signal to start, sounded his whistle, and had it not been for an order to avoid any unnecessary whistling in consequence of complaints of the nuisance caused thereby he would have been greatly to blame for not doing so."

  THE DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY.
  MR. QUILTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information about the progress of the Arbitration upon the claim of the Delagoa Bay Railway Company against the Portuguese Government for the forcible seizure of their property some three years ago?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The Arbitration is proceeding at Berne before the tribunal instituted for the purpose. At the request of the company, the Court of Arbitration recently granted them an extension of three months—namely, to June 30 next, for the presentation of their reply to the Portuguese counter case.

  DISTURBANCE AT DOON.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, early upon the morning of Sunday, the 23rd March last, the house of Patrick Maguire, at Doon, Derrylin, in the County Fermanagh, was fired into by some persons armed with firearms; what is the alleged cause of this attack; and have any of the persons employed in it been apprehended?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: The outrage referred to was committed on the morning of the 24th April. One arrest has been made in connection with the occurrence, and, pending the hearing of the case, it would not be prudent to disclose the motive assigned for the crime.

  TOBACCO DUTIES IN IRELAND.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual sum received by the Customs Authorities in Ireland upon manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The net amounts of Customs Duties in each of the last two financial years are as follows:—March 31, 1892—manufactured, £1,418; unmanufactured, £1,437,340; 1893 — manufactured, £1,528; unmanufactured, £1,469,341.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in possession

  55
  of the actual figures of the receipts and expenditure in Ireland for the last financial year?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am not; but rapid progress is being made with the preparation of the Return.

  STILL BIRTHS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when the Return of "Still Births in England and other Countries," for which an Address was voted by the House of Commons on the 9th May last on the Motion of Viscount Grimston, will be issued to Members?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I understand that the delay in presenting this Return has arisen from the necessity of obtaining some of the information from foreign Governments; but that it is now in the hands of the printers, and will shortly be presented.

  HEALTH MATTERS IN ROSS-SHIRE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a report of the recent meeting of the Ross-shire County Council, by which it is shown that health matters in Ross-shire are in a deplorable condition; and whether he will cause immediate inquiry to be made into the actual condition of things by other than a member of the Board of Supervision?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): On inquiry I am informed by the County Council of Ross and Cromarty that they know of no such meeting or report as mentioned in the hon. Member's question. As to health matters being in a "deplorable condition," I am informed that the rate of mortality on the land ward part of the Lewes is exceptionally low—under 16 per 1,000. I have a telegram from the Council to say that nothing has occurred which could give rise to the report.
  MR. WEIR: Then I will let the right hon. Gentleman have further particulars.

  DISTRESS AT ULLAPOOL.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that in and around Ullapool a large number of families are absolutely without seed oats and potatoes, and are unable to find employment at or near their homes, and have no means to go elsewhere in search of work, he will place at the disposal of the Scottish Office sufficient money to provide employment for these persons on public works, or re-consider his decision with regard to granting a subsidy for the construction of the Garve and Ullapool Railway, or make other provision to open up communication with this populous and inaccessible district?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will ask the hon. Member to address these questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: I will do so, Sir.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am prepared to answer this at once; £400 has recently been sanctioned for road making in the district of Loch Broom, in which Ullapool is situated. The Board of Supervision send in fortnightly Reports of the state of destitution in the Western Highlands and Islands, and none of them contain any allusion to distress at Ullapool. Under these circumstances, the Government does not consider it necessary to take any further measures. In any case, the question of whether or not a great subsidy should be given for the construction of a railway would have to be considered apart from the question of finding work to meet temporary distress.

  THE THAMES CONSERVANCY BOARD.
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that his Predecessor declared it advisable that there should be a Parliamentary inquiry into the composition, constitution, and powers of the Thames Conservancy Board; whether he is aware that the London County Council is seeking representation on that Board under its General Powers Bill; and if he will move for a Select Committee to consider the whole question?
  MR. MUNDELLA: There is a Bill at present before Parliament promoted by

  57
  the London County Council which proposes to give representation to the London County Council on the Conservancy Board. If that Bill is carried, I assume that the object will have boon attained. I shall be quite prepared to consider the question of the appointment of a Select Committee if necessary.

  BRITISH PICTURES AT THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to some letters by Mr. James Orrock in The Westminster Gazette, in which the increasing deterioration of the British pictures in the National Gallery, more especially those in which asphaltum has been freely used, is described; and whether, in order to counteract the dry heat which hastens this decay and causes the panel pictures to shrink, he can arrange some convenient process by which the air may be moistened by steam?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): I am informed by the Director of the National Gallery that it is not correct to say that certain British pictures in the National Gallery show increased deterioration. He states that the evil effects of the use of asphaltum by Sir Joshua Reynolds and other painters of that period could not be averted by additional moisture in the atmosphere. As to the heating, the temperature of the rooms in winter is not allowed to exceed 56 deg. or 58 deg. Fahr. In the galleries containing the panel pictures of the old masters, the experiment of placing shallow water tanks over the hot-water pipes, in order to mitigate by evaporation any excess of dryness in the air, has long been tried. Although the late Dr. John Percy, after careful investigation of the hygrometric condition of the air, pronounced it to be normal, the use of the tanks has been continued, with other precautions.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THE COLONIES.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will submit the Postal Convention of 1891 to the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown, with a
  58
  view to determining whether there is anything in its terms or provisions that would prohibit or prevent the adoption of a penny postage rate between the British Isles and the Australian Colonies?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I do not think it is necessary to submit the Postal Union Convention of 1891 to the Law Officers of the Crown with the object named in the question. As I explained in the Debate on the 28th April, and as was stated by the Prime Minister on the same occasion, the main obstacle to the adoption of Imperial penny postage is to be found outside the Convention itself—in the covenant entered into by all the members of the Union with the Australasian Colonies as to the conditions on which the latter should enter the Union.
  MR. LAWSON: May I ask if it is true that Germany is at present arranging a postage at about 1½d. to her Colonies?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have no information as to that.

  INCOME TAX STATISTICS.
  MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to Table 14 of the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom for 1892, compiled by the Commercial Department of the Board of Trade, in which, while the income from land subject to Income Tax is stated to have decreased in England and Wales to the amount of £ 10,432,645, and in Scotland to the amount of £1,314,854, between the years 1877 and 1891 inclusive, the income from land subject to Income Tax in Ireland has increased by £3,687 during the same period; and whether he can state the class of laud to which this increase is due, and say in which portion of Ireland it is situated?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are endeavouring to procure this information; but, as they have had to issue circulars to various officers in Ireland, there has not been time to collate the replies. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down the question for Monday week.

  POLICE COURT BAIL.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the present method of testing the bona fides of persons offering themselves for hail at the North London Police Court, as disclosed before Mr. Justice Mathew in the case of Richard Hall, he will take steps to insure the adoption of such procedure in all Police Courts and police stations as will prevent any such mistake as was disclosed in the case of Richard Hall; whether he is now aware that Richard Hall, although protesting that he had been personated by some person unknown and was being wrongfully imprisoned, was nevertheless imprisoned without any opportunity being given to him of proving the truth of his story before any Court or Judge; and whether, in view of the fact that Richard Hall was wrongfully imprisoned as a Crown debtor from the loth March, 1893, to the 21st April, 1893, any compensation will be given to Richard Hall?
  MR. ASQUITH: From the inquiries which I have made, it appears that the case of Hall is unique, no similar instance being known to have occurred of a mistake in the identification of bail. This appears to show that the existing practice has worked satisfactorily, but the case of Hall undoubtedly shows a possibility of abuse which ought to be guarded against, and I am considering the best means to be adopted for the purpose. Since notice was given of the question, I have received a Memorial from Hall's solicitors, accompanied by affidavits in which all the circumstances are gone into and a claim for compensation is set up. The matter requires and will receive careful examination, and I am not yet in a position to give a final reply.

  FREE EDUCATION AT PIMLICO.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has received a large Petition from Pimlico calling his attention to the want of free school places in that neighbourhood, and asking that they may be supplied; and whether he can state what action has been taken on the Petition?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The Department has received a Memorial signed by about 600 persons calling attention to the want of free school places in Pimlico, which was referred to the School Board for London on March 11 with a request for full particulars as to the accommodation available for this district. After more than five weeks had elapsed the Department wrote to the Board pressing for an early reply; they stated in answer that their School Accommodation Committee were collecting particulars which would be laid before the committee at an early day, and thereafter reported to the Board. More than a fortnight has elapsed since, but the Board's Report to the Department has not yet been received.
  MR. PICTON: Are we to understand that the determination of this question rests solely with the School Board?
  MR. ACLAND: It is the duty of the Board to provide a sufficient number of free places, and before that can be done the Board must have the Report of the Committee. I very much regret the delay that has taken place.

  THE TROOPS AT HULL.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a resolution passed by a numerously attended public meeting of the inhabitants of Hull requesting the Government to withdraw the troops; and whether he will comply with the request; and, if not, whether he will cause an independent inquiry to be made as to the reasons for the continued presence of the soldiers and gunboats?
  MR. ASQUITH: No such resolution as that referred to by the hon. Member has been received at the Home Office from any meeting of inhabitants at Hull; but as I have already informed the House on more than one occasion, so long as the Local Authorities are of opinion, and I see no sufficient reason to differ from them, that the presence of the forces is necessary for the maintenance of order, they will not be withdrawn. There has been no collision of any kind between the forces and the people, and I

  61
  am satisfied from the reports which reach me daily that their presence has been attended with beneficial results.

  PRECAUTIONS AGATNST CHOLERA.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that Dr. Copeman recently paid a visit to Lowestoft as a representative of the Local Government Board, in order to instruct or advise the Port Sanitary Authorities as to the steps to be taken by them for providing against the importation of cholera; that he advised a large expenditure in fresh sanitary arrangements, the purchase of a steam launch, and the increase of the salary of the medical officer and his staff; and, on being pressed by members of the Town Council as to how the expense was to be met, replied that the Local Government Board would not contribute a farthing towards the cost unless the recommendations were carried out in their entirety; what office Dr. Copeman holds in connection with the Local Government Board; whether Dr. Copeman has made similar statements to other Port Sanitary Authorities in the Kingdom; and what course he proposes to take to secure to the Lowestoft Port Sanitary Authorities repayment of the money spent by them on the representations of an officer of the Board?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): Dr. Copeman, who is one of the Medical Inspectors of the Local Government Board, visited Lowestoft in March last for the purpose of advising the Port Sanitary Authority as to the stops which it was desirable to take with a view to providing against an importation of cholera. He made certain recommendations to the Port Sanitary Authority with regard to the maintenance of precautions which he already found in operation to some modifications that were, in his opinion, desirable, and to certain additional inspection of vessels which might have to be put into operation if need should arise. The arrangements actually in operation at the date of his visit were held by him to be in the main satisfactory, and he had, therefore, no occasion to advise a large expense in further arrange-
  62
  ments. He did not urge the purchase of a steam launch, but suggested some arrangements with owners of steam tugs plying in the harbour. Neither did he recommend an increase of the salary of the Medical Officer of Health of the port. Being pressed on the question of a subvention from Imperial funds, he stated that at that date no decision had been arrived at as to the applications which had been made to the Government on the subject. At the same time, he expressed the opinion that any such contribution, if made, would only be granted subject to the conditions being fulfilled which are necessary to the carrying out of the Cholera Regulations. Dr. Copeman has, in answer to similar questions, made a similar statement in one or two other port districts. The Local Government Board are not aware that the Port Sanitary Authority of Lowestoft have incurred any expenses beyond those for carrying out their duties under the Regulations.

  MR. BALFOUR'S VISIT TO DUBLIN.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if 16 cases of persons injured during the visit to Dublin of the right hon. Member for East Manchester were treated in Mercer's Hospital; and how many of them were respectively Unionists and Nationalists? At the same time, I beg to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for having attempted, the other day, to put this in an irregular way.
  *MR. J. MORLEY: There were, I understand, more than the usual number of persons treated at the hospital referred to for injuries which were inflicted subsequently to the meeting, but, happily, none of the injuries were of a serious nature. The police have no knowledge of the politics of the injured persons. Patients are not classified on political principles.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: May I ask is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 15 out of the 16 were, as a fact, Unionists?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No, Sir.

  FOREIGN POSTAL RATES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether is aware that the United

  63
  States Government has established a two cent. letter postage rate from New York to Alaska, crossing Canadian territory; and that Germany has established 10 pfennig letter postage from Germany to her settlements on the African coast; and under what clauses of the Postal Union Conventions these rates have been established?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am aware that there is an Agreement between the United States and Canada whereby the inland rates of each country are applicable to correspondence passing into the other country. The Governments concerned did not consult the other parties to the Union on the subject, and probably relied upon the 2nd clause of Article 21 of the Vienna Convention, which recognises the right of the parties to maintain and conclude Treaties, and to maintain and establish more restricted Unions, with a view to the improvement of postal relations. I have no information as regards the alleged rates between Germany and her African Colonies.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, at the Postal Union Conference at Vienna in 1891, liberty was conceded to this country to establish a postal rate to the British Colonies of l½d. per letter; if not, what concession in this direction or freedom of action was obtained?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. To the second part I have to say nothing in the nature of a concession in the direction indicated, or freedom of action was or could be obtained in the face of the covenant agreed to by this country, and all the other members of the Union fully explained to the House on the 28th April as to the conditions on which the Australasian Colonies entered into the Union.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Predecessor declared that greater freedom of action was obtained on the occasion of the Vienna Convention, and will he say what was meant by that?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I was not aware that my right hon. Friend did make that statement. I should be glad if the hon. Member will send me the reference.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD,
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether H.M.S. Triumph, the present guardship at Queenstown, is about to be removed; and whether, in view of the dearth of employment at present existing in Cork Harbour, the overhauling and repairs which she requires will be carried out at Haulbowline previous to her departure?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: There is no idea of discontinuing a guardship at Queenstown, but the selection of any probable vessel for this duty will depend on the requirements of the Service. Arrangements have been made for undertaking such repairs to the Triumph at Haulbowlineas can be conveniently carried out there.

  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT FOR SOLDIERS.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Committee sitting at the Treasury upon the employment of soldiers by the Departments of Government has yet reported; and what Departments have as yet offered places preferentially to soldiers?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Committee is, as I have before stated, not a Committee upon the employment of soldiers, but a Committee on the subject of messengers in Public Departments. The Committee presented its Report to the Treasury yesterday, but there has, of course, not yet been time to consider it. The two Departments which employ the largest number of messengers—namely, the War Office and Admiralty—have, the former since 1879 and the latter since 1881, filled vacancies in these posts exclusively by men who have served in the Army or Navy (including the Marines).
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Papers on the Table if I move for them?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I will consider that.

  LODGERS' LETTERS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there is any objection to a person changing his lodgings, notifying the Post

  65
  Office of the change, and having his letters officially re-directed to the new lodgings, as in the case of householders?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The movements of that part of the population which inhabits lodgings are somewhat eccentric, and the Post Office would find it onerous and almost impossible to be continually tracing these migratory lodgers even if a notification is supplied. In most cases no difficulty occurs now that re-direction of letters is free, and the Department has gone far to meet the convenience of these persons who make private arrangements to get their letters forwarded. Without making any strict rule, the Department will do its best to oblige lodgers where application is made.

  COMPENSATION FOR POST OFFICE DELAYS.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a parcel posted by Messrs. Minister to Mr. E. Stovel at Toronto, on the 8th April was, after some delay, returned to the senders because it was said to be insufficiently stamped, although stamped in compliance with the directions given in the current Post Office Guide; and whether, under these circumstances, compensation for the loss incurred by Messrs. Minister will be given, and in future care be taken that the directions in the Post Office Guide shall coincide with those given to local postmasters?
  MR. A. MORLEY: It is the case that the parcel referred to was returned in the circumstances stated; and the postage prepaid on the parcel has since been refunded to Messrs. Minister & Company. The law does not impose on the Post Office the payment of consequential damages in such a case; nor have I any funds available for the purpose, and I regret that I cannot, therefore, compensate Messrs. Minister & Company. The mistake arose from the fact that unforeseen delay occurred in carrying out a reduction of the rate which, when the Post Office Guide was sent to press, was expected to come into force by the date of publication.

  REVOLVERS AT HULL.
  MR. THOMAS ROBINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
  66
  whether he has seen the statement made in the Sunday Chronicle of 30th April, to the effect that a largo number of the men engaged at Hull are armed with revolvers and life preservers, in proof of which it is said the local gunsmiths have cleared out their stock of these articles several times during the present strike; and whether these persons have taken a licence to permit them to carry firearms; and, if not, what steps he intends to take in the matter?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed by the Chief Constable of Hull that it is the fact that there has recently been a considerable increase in the sale to the inhabitants of revolvers and life preservers. The Chief Constable is not aware, and has not the means of ascertaining, whether the purchasers have taken out or possess the necessary licences. It is a matter for the officers of the Inland Revenue, who will no doubt see that the provisions of the law as to licences are enforced.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: May I ask whether, in case the Government are unwilling to protect the peaceable inhabitants of Hull, they are not right in doing their best to protect themselves?
  [No answer was given.]

  INDIAN HOSPITAL STAFF ALLOWANCES.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he will lay before the House a Despatch signed by General Wilson, then Military Member of the Council of the Governor General of India, sent to the Secretary of State for India about the year 1880 or 1881, recommending the grant of the staff allowance or medical officers in charge of hospitals of Her Majesty's troops in India, with the reply thereto of the Secretary of State for India; and also the Memorials of the brigade surgeons in India to the Secretary of State for India in 1886, asking to have extra pay given on account of the onerous duties they had to perform, with the reply of the Secretary of State thereto?
  *MR. G. RUSSELL: The question of the pay of the Medical Staff in India is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council, and it would

  67
  not be desirable to present the Papers relating to this subject in an incomplete state.

  REGULATIONS AS TO PETITIONS.
  MR. FELL PEASE: I beg to ask the Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee if it is in Order for one individual to sign two or more Petitions on the same subject as a member of different Societies or Bodies in one locality; whether if a person signs any Petition as an individual he is at liberty to sign a Petition upon the same subject as chairman of a meeting or company; and in the event of these being answered in the negative, can any steps be taken to prevent the practice of signing duplicate Petitions?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE (Mr. M'LAGAN,): It is not in Order for one individual to sign two or more Petitions on the same subject as a member of different Societies or Bodies in one locality; but if a person signs any Petition as an individual he is at liberty to sign a Petition upon the same subject as chairman of a meeting or company. Duplicate Petitions are returned to the hon. Member who presents them accompanied generally by a note indicating the particular Rule transgressed. A copy of the Rules on the subject is sent every Session to each Member for his own use and for distribution in his constituencies.

  DISTURBANCES AT CLONMEL.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a large mob paraded the town of Clonmel on the night of Saturday, the 22nd March, and stoned the houses of Protestants who had not illuminated their windows in honour of the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill; has any person been apprehended; and will the Irish Government take steps to prevent a recurrence of such a state of things?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: The account is decidedly exaggerated. Stones were thrown on the 22nd April at the windows of the house of one person only, breaking three panes of glass. There were many other houses not illuminated, but this was the only one that suffered any damage. No one has been made amenable.

  BOYCOTTING IN FERMANAGH.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the wife of a man named Peter Corrigan, living near Belcoo, in County Fermanagh, is being boycotted for the taking by her husband of an evicted farm; that she has been persistently boycotted in the Blacklion market, and butter and egg merchants warned against purchasing from her; and that she was assaulted at Belcoo on the 22nd March by a man named M'Grory, and pursued by two men with blackened faces on the Ora Mountain on the 5th April, who threatened her life unless her husband gave up the land; and has any action been taken by the police authorities towards affording her protection and prosecuting her assailants?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: There appear, I regret to say, to be grounds for the statements in the question. Prosecutions for assault and boycotting have been ordered, and will be heard at Petty Sessions on the 19th instant.

  THE ENGLISH AND WELSH COUNTY MAGISTRACT.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of County Justices in England and Wales; if he can state the average number appointed every year; the number of the Lord Lieutenants who at present appoint; how many of these Lord Lieutenants wore appointed by Liberal and how many by Conservative Governments; and whether there are any recent instances of appointments of County Justices by the Lord Chancellor without the intervention of a Lord Lieutenant; if the present Lord Chancellor is correctly reported to have told a deputation that he was ready to assume the direct appointment of all the County Justices on the passing of such a Resolution as now stands on the Paper for the 5th May; whether he intends, in that event, to deprive the Lords Lieutenant of their present right to recommend for the Commission of the Peace; and whether the Lord Chancellor, in deciding to act on such Resolution in England and Wales, intends to have any regard to the constitution of the majority by which it may be carried?
  MR. ASQUITH: The total number of County Jnstices will appear from the Return promised by the Home Office. Until the Return is presented, the figures cannot be given. The average number appointed every year can be ascertained from the same Return. The number of Lords Lieutenant is 60 — 24 were appointed by Liberal Governments, and 36 by Conservative Governments. There are no records kept which would show whether there have been recent instances of appointments of County Justices without the intervention of the Lord Lieutenant. What the Lord Chancellor intimated was that, if a Resolution were passed by the House of Commons, indicating that he ought not to confine himself to the recommendations of the Lords Lieutenant only in considering what appointments ought to be made to the Bench, he should pay regard to such Resolution. The answer to the last part of the question is "No."
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman, before the Debate comes on on Friday, give an approximation of the numbers asked for?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; I am in no better position than anyone else.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell when the Return will be presented?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not able to do so.

  COMMUNICATION IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the development of the fish traffic between Ireland and Holy-head since the recent construction of light railways in the West of Ireland, steps will be taken to provide light railway, or road tram communication, in the Island of Lewis for the purpose of opening out the fishing industry around the island, and placing the food supplies obtainable there within reach of the southern markets?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I will answer this question. A new fishing harbour is now being constructed on the West Coast of Lewis, and a road is being made from there across the island capable of carrying rails should they be required. At present it would be pre-
  70
  mature to lay a railway, or until it is seen what impetus is given to the trade by the new harbour and road.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS AND CONTRACTS.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been reported to the Local Government Board that the Vice Chairman of the Swinford Board of Guardians is interested in the contract for the supply of meat to the workhouse; and what steps has the Local Government Board taken in the matter?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: A complaint on this subject has been made to the Local Government Board, who have been informed by the Vice Chairman that he is neither directly nor indirectly concerned with the meat contract; that his mother is the contractor, and that he receives no profits out of her contracts. The propriety of making further inquiry into the facts is now under the consideration of the Local Government Board.

  THE RE-INSTATEMENT OF EVICTED TENANTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the undertaking given by Her Majesty's Government to support a Bill for the re-instatement of evicted tenants in Ireland, he will inform the House whether the Government propose to give facilities for the passage of the Bill of the hon. Member for North Leitrim during the present Session of Parliament?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I think it very desirable that an opportunity should be found for continuing the discussion upon this Bill; but I am not able to say when we can take it up again until we have further advanced with some of the more important Public Business.

  THE MASHONALAND DEVELOPMENT (WILLOUGHBY'S) COMPANY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to an advertisement in the public Press of the prospectus of the Mashonaland Development (Willoughby's) Company, in which it is stated that the promoter of the company has obtained

  71
  from the British South Africa Chartered Company a concession of 600,000 acres of land in any part of Mashonaland, outside a radius of three miles of any proclaimed goldfield or established township; whether the entire land of Mashonaland belongs to the Chartered South Africa Company; if so, from whom possession has been obtained; whether the vendor himself was the owner of the entire land of Mashonaland, and had a right to sell it irrespective of the assent of its inhabitants; whether this assent was obtained, and, if so, how and when; and whether such sale has been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether any investigation of the title of the vendor took place, and any stipulations were made with regard to the native population?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I have seen the advertisement referred to in the first paragraph of the question. The British South Africa Company are assignees for value during a term which has 98½ years to run, of the rights of Lo Bengula to grant and lease farms, grazing grounds, and town areas, in Mashonaland, and to hold for their own benefit the rents and other profits arising from such grants. The company acquired these rights from one Edward Amandus Lippert, to whom Lo Bengula had granted them. If by "vendor" in the third paragraph of the question Lo Bengula is meant, the answer is that Lo Bengula has control, as paramount Chief, though he probably has not the sole ownership, of the lands of Mashonaland. The assent of the Mashonas was not necessary to validate the concession, as it covered only that which Lo Bengula had a right to grant. The Lippert concession and its transfer to the British South Africa Company were approved by Her Majesty's late Government. No investigation of the title of the vendor (Lo Bengula) took place on that occasion, and no stipulations were then made with regard to the native population; but Her Majesty's Government had already considered the position and claims of Lo Bengula in the Mashona country, and the right of natives in the company's field of operations had been safeguarded by Article 14 of the Charter granted to the company in October, 1889.
  72
  The whole Lippert concession appears to be understood by the Chartered Company as referring to unoccupied lands. I may add that the Directors assure the Colonial Office that they have no intention of interfering with native occupation in this sparsely-populated country, and that their local administrator, Dr. Jamieson, will be careful not to sanction the selection by Sir John Willoughby's Company of any blocks of land, the acquisition of which would be inconsistent with native rights under the company's Charter.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is there no one connected with the Colonial Office on the spot to see that the Directors of the company keep their engagements?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: We have no administration in Mashonaland, and no right to exercise jurisdiction.

  INCOME TAX—" SCHEDULE B."
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum was collected under Schedule B of the Income Tax in the year 1892–3; and how much that Schedule is estimated to yield in 1893–4 at the proposed increased rate?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The amount for 1892–3 is £218,000. It is impossible to give the estimate for the coming year 1893–4, because it as yet uncertain how much of that amount will remain in Schedule B or he transferred to Schedule D.

  RAILWAY RATES IN THE NUNEATON DISTRICT.
  MR. NEWDIGATE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state whether, in spite of the Railway Companies' statement that they were revising their rates so that the increase should in no case exceed 5 per cent., the rates on bricks sent out from the Nuneaton district show an average increase of 12½ per cent?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Papers submitted to me show that increases of rates are complained of, but, on the other hand, they show decreases in some of the rates for bricks charged in the Nuneaton district. I understand that the Railway Companies' Association propose to receive a deputation of brickmakers in order to discuss these complaints, and I hope a satisfactory arrangement may be arrived at.

  SURGEON MAJOR GENERALS WADE AND PATERSON.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the relative amount of foreign service performed by Surgeon Major General Wade and Surgeon Major General Paterson up to that date respectively; and whether he will state if Surgeon Major General Paterson will be permitted to return to England when he shall have completed a total of five years abroad, or whether he is to be considered as now entering on a fresh tour of foreign service in his present rank?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): Surgeon Major General Wade has had 24 years and eight months foreign service, and Surgeon Major Paterson 23 years and three months. The last-named officer will be relieved at Malta on completing five years from the time he embarked for duty at Hong Kong.

  THE STAMP DUTY.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the proposed abolition of exemption from Stamp Duty, it is intended to include the printed stamp of banking houses which is invariably affixed to bills of exchange before presentation, for the sole purpose of indicating the channel through which they have passed?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The proposed Stamp Duties do not apply to the documents to which the right hon. Gentleman's question refers.

  COMPULSORY RETIREMENT FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the 10th Clause of the Order in Council of loth August, 1890, which makes retirement from the Public Service obligatory for every officer on attaining 65 years of age, but leaves power to the Treasury, at the instance of a Department, to extend an officer's employment for a further period in no case exceeding five years, whether the Comptroller and Auditor General has construed this Order as applying to all Departments of the Public
  74
  Service, and endeavoured to enforce its observance upon them; and whether the accounting officers of eight Departments —namely, the Diplomatic and Consular Service, the House of Lords, the House of Commons, the Supreme Court of Judicature (England), the Courts of Session and Justiciary (Scotland), the Crown Solicitor's and Sessional Crown Solicitors' (Ireland), the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland), and the Dublin Metropolitan Police Magistrates have one and all refused to send in any age Returns on the ground that the Order in Council does not apply to them?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. It is also the fact that age Returns have not been received from the Departments referred to in the second paragraph. The whole subject will very shortly be dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee.

  SMOKELESS POWDER.
  MR. CUST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any official of the War Office ever publicly and authoritatively stated the standard of velocity and pressure required in any smokeless powder; and whether he will inform the House what standard is required for the Government 303 magazine rifle?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware of any standard having been laid down as generally applicable; but, in 1890, in a programme for experiments with smokeless powders certain conditions as to muzzle velocity and pressure were fixed. The standard now required for the ·303 in. magazine rifle is a muzzle velocity of 2,000 foot-seconds, with a variation not exceeding 40, more or less, and a mean pressure of 15 tons on the square inch, not exceeding 16 tons in any one round.

  A NORWEGIAN ANALOGY TO IRISH HOME RULE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg leave to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if any Reports have been received from Her Majesty's Representatives in Sweden and Norway concerning the differences which are reported to have arisen between the two Parliaments and two Governments of that United Kingdom by reason of the efforts of Norway to

  75
  achieve a greater measure of independence; and, in such case, if they can be communicated to Parliament for consideration in connection with the Irish Government Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): Such Reports as those to which the hon. Member refers have been received. There are two objections to producing them. In the first place, they are of a confidential character; and, in the second place, they refer to actions which are only proceeding and have not yet reached any termination. If the matter were under our own control, the time would not have arrived for communicating the documents to Parliament.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that strenuous efforts have been made by Norway for the establishment of separate Consular representation for that country abroad; and whether a deadlock has not ensued in consequence with Sweden? As the right hon. Gentleman so frequently refers to the example of Sweden and Norway—
  MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order. Is this kind of political argument to be put by way of question?
  *MR. SPEAKER: As Notice has not been given of this supplementary question, perhaps it had better be put on the Paper.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I can say now in answer to the question everything which I could say if Notice were given. As to the argumentative part of the question, I decline to admit that there is any force or weight in it at all. It is not my direct duty to give an account of the state of affairs in Sweden and Norway; but it is the fact that there is a great controversy going on between Sweden and Norway; and the immediate subject of it is the appointment of Consuls on account of Norway and by Norwegian authority. We must all hope that the difficulties in which a friendly Power finds itself will reach a favourable solution; and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins in that fervent hope, notwithstanding any argument which he may think he will derive from those difficulties.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Will the Prime Minister postpone the Home Rule Bill until the controversy in Norway is settled?

  INDIAN FINANCE.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, considering the grave question of Indian finance, he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the expenditure in this country which is charged to the Revenues of India?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is no objection to the inquiry proposed, except that we are of opinion that the_ time has not yet come when the idea of such an inquiry could be properly entertained. We are still waiting for the Report of the Committee which is sitting upon the subject of Indian Currency, and until that Report is in our hands it would not be advisable to take any other steps.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I am afraid I did not make my question quite clear. I only intended to suggest an inquiry into the question of whether the home charges on India are excessive or not.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I perfectly understand my hon. Friend's question. It relates, not to Indian finance in general, but to the question of home charges. That is a subject referred to the Committee for examination: and until that Committee, which is now sitting, has been enabled to arrive at a conclusion, there would be no advantage in making other inquiries.

  THE EQUALISATION OF LONDON KATES.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government, having brought in a Bill to equalise London rates in order to carry out the unanimous Resolution passed by the House on 24th February, propose to adopt a similar course with reference to the almost unanimous Resolution passed on 21st March in favour of reducing the excessive length of the hours of labour in shops?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have nothing to add on this subject to the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He

  77
  acknowledged the force and weight of the Resolution unanimously passed by the House of Commons, to which, I think, the Government was a party. But he also stated that it was not in our power, at the present time, to make any addition to the engagements which we have already entered into for the purpose of bringing in a Bill on this subject of shop hours.
  MR. BARTLEY: Are we to understand that this social legislation, which so materially affects so large a number of people in the United Kingdom, is to be postponed until the Irish Home Rule Question is finally disposed of?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he still proposes to put down a Resolution to-morrow for the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule. I wish to ask him whether he does not think that there is considerable inconvenience in abolishing that Rule except for the purpose of finishing a great Debate or under very exceptional circumstances? I would further ask him whether he does not think it possible that all the advantage gained by the abolition of the Twelve o'Clock Rule cannot be gained equally by shortening the length of the speeches to be made? I would undertake on my own behalf—for I suppose I should have to say something on behalf of some of my hon. Friends near me—that, if the Twelve o'Clock Rule is not suspended to-morrow, I would compress such observations as I have to make into not more than 20 minutes. If that example were followed there would be time for nine speakers between 9 and 10, and that would be adequate.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I feel the force of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I likwise feel that there ought not to be a deviation from the usual course except as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman—that is, the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule should only be used for the purpose of bringing a great and extended Debate to a conclusion. Further, there should not be any deviation from the usual course when there is any serious inconvenience involved. Particularly am I encouraged
  78
  to act on that principle since the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to set a good example to-morrow night by keeping his speech within certain bounds; but in mentioning those bounds the right hon. Gentleman probably stated the maximum and not the minimum. Under those circumstances, as I made my original announcement contingent, I think it would be wiser that I should not make the Motion, in the hope, of course, that the House may be enabled to arrive at a definite conclusion on the subject under discussion.

  THE HULL DOCK STRIKE.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private Notice. Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the action of the police at Hull, and its effect on picketing; and will he instruct the police not to interfere with the pickets so long as they keep within the law?
  MR. ASQUITH: As I only had the Notice on coming into the House, I have had no opportunity of inquiring into the allegations of the hon. Member, but I will see that inquiry is made. It is well known, by the police as well as by all persons concerned, that picketing is perfectly legal as long as it is conducted in an orderly manner and without violence.

  THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, whether, in answer to a question, he stated, according to the report of his speech in The Times and The Daily News of the 3rd of May, that the Employers' Liability Bill would be taken on Thursday or Friday, and whether he did not, in answer to a further question, state that it would be taken as the first Order before Supply, and whether he is aware that many hon. Members who desired to take part in the Debate upon the question that the measure be referred to the Standing Committee on Law loft the House, under the belief that the subject was not to be taken until Thursday, and that, in spite of this understanding, the Home Secretary, at a few minutes before 12 o'clock at night

  79
  on Tuesday, obtained the decision of the House, and what steps he proposes to take under these circumstances in order to prevent what appeared to be a breach of faith with this House?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy in reference to this matter, and likewise for his assurance that the corpus of the matter in dispute was a very limited one, and that a renewed discussion upon this matter would only occupy a very few minutes. That being so, I should be very sorry to spend more than a very few minutes in making known my intentions with regard to this subject. My recollection of the matter is clear, and is in perfect conformity with that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. After I had answered a question as to Supply, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded me of the Employers' Liability Bill, and what I intended to convey to the House was that if that matter which was not likely to occupy any appreciable amount of time were not taken before it would be put down as the first Order on Thursday, I never intended to renounce the right to take it before if we could. As, however, there appears to have been some misunderstanding in reference to the subject, I am prepared, with the general concurrence of the House, to move to rescind the decision which the House arrived at on Tuesday evening, and to put the subject down again for discussion to-morrow.
  Ordered, That the Proceedings upon Tuesday, 2nd May, on the Motion for Committing the Employers' Liability Bill to the Standing Committee on Law, &c, be rescinded.
  Ordered, That the Adjourned Debate on the said Motion be resumed To-morrow, at Two of the Clock.—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)

  ULSTER AND HOME RULE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private Notice. The right hon. Gentleman, in a speech which he made yesterday, said—
  "It singularly happens that in 1886, in proposing the Irish Government Bill, we did face this very question, and we did state that if the
  80
  inhabitants of the North-East corner of Ireland, forming a very small and limited portion indeed of the general community, were resolutely desirous of being exempted from the operation of that Act, we should be prepared to entertain a proposal to that effect, and I believe we made that declaration with the general concurrence of those who are termed the Nationalist Party."
  I now desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman to refer me to any authority for that statement. In the second place, I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing that Mr. Parnell, who was then the Leader of the Irish Party, repeatedly said that Ireland could not spare the services of one single Irishman, upon what basis the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the proposal to which he referred met with the general concurrence of the Irish Party.
  MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order. I desire to ask whether this complicated argument of the hon. Member is a matter which can be dealt with in the form of a question?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not seen or heard the question before. I think that the hon. Member should have compressed his question into narrower limits, and should have confined it to asking the right hon. Gentleman upon what grounds he based his statement.
  MR. SEXTON: Then, Mr. Speaker, will you request the hon. Member to submit the question for your approval?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is prepared to answer the question now.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am quite prepared to answer the question. I will give the hon. Member two references. The first and main reference is Hansard, vol. 370, pp. 1,053 and 1,054, in which my statement of 1886 is contained; and, secondly, to vol. 372, pp. 1,219 and 1,220, where a passage is given in which I stated that we had never receded from that original statement. Then the hon. Member asked me what authority I had for saying that that proposal was received with general concurrence by the Irish Nationalists. I rather think that what I said was "concurrence or acquiescence," because I thought at the time that "concurrence" was a rather strong expression.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I quoted from the report of the right hon. Gentleman's statement in The Times.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am pretty certain that I used the words "concurrence or acquiescence." My impression was that the Irish Party did acquiesce in the adoption of even so extreme a proposal, provided by means of it they could open a road to peace in their country. What I understood Mr. Parnell's language to mean was an earnest deprecation of such a proposal, speaking in the same spirit by which O'Connell was always governed in his great desire to see that Ireland should move in unison. I most cordially concur in the statement that Mr. Parnell would not be opposed to such a proceeding, provided it were found that it offered concord to Ireland instead of the present painful disagreement.

MOTION.
  SHIPPING FEDERATION.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON, Member for Middlesbrough, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the contravention of certain Acts of Parliament by an organisation named the Shipping Federation, Limited, and the supplying of the Forces of the Crown on the occasion of Labour Disputes; "but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid, the Shipping Federation was founded some two or three years ago. He was not sure whether it was a legal Association. He was sure that since its foundation it had acted in a most illegal manner in its relations with trade organisations. They were told at the beginning by the Executive Committee of the Federation that it was not founded for the purpose of interfering with Trades Unionism; that it was to protect the shipowners generally throughout the country from aggressive action on the part of organisations of workmen; but that there was no intention to deny the right of existence to those organisations, or to interfere with the wages of the workmen. They said that their sole
    82
    object was to secure freedom of contract on the part of the workmen, and to protect the workmen from themselves. The first thing that the Federation did when it commenced active operations was to engage professional libellers—men whose business it was to travel from place to place libelling the leaders of Trades Unions. When those leaders took action to defend themselves, the funds of the Shipping Federation were placed at the disposal of these agents to meet the action brought against them. The second act of the Federation was to pay numbers of men to join workmen's organisations for the purpose of creating dissension in the ranks of those who belonged to them—in order to make the public believe that the workmen themselves were not all agreed on particular points. In his (Mr. Wilson's) evidence, before the Royal Commission on Labour, he placed ample proof before the Commission that the Shipping Federation— this body of capitalists who had no intention of interfering with workmen's Trades Unions—did employ men for the purpose he had indicated. More than that, in 1891, when they had the first great dispute with the Shipping Federation, the Federation employed men in Cardiff to concoct false evidence. Men were paid to go into the witness box at his (Mr. Wilson's) trial in Cardiff and swear falsely to get him convicted. The case which was brought before the Court at Cardiff was not a Shipping Federation case. He was charged by certain boarding masters in that town with taking men from their boarding houses and inciting those men to riot and unlawful assembly. Very strange it was that the Shipping Federation should place their funds at the disposal of the prosecution in order to get him convicted—though he did not know that he should be sorry, because he did not feel any ill effects of it. They did not succeed, however, in getting a conviction. Since then there had been many disputes, and he was convinced that if the Shipping Federation continued to act in the illegal manner in which they were acting now, the country had only seen the beginning of many disputes which would take place in every port throughout the Kingdom, and the trade of the country, they might be sure, would not be improved in consequence. On every

    83
    occasion on which a dispute took place the Shipping Federation immediately applied to the authorities for the services of the military and the navy. He did not object to the military being called in for the purpose of preserving order at any time. He believed that it was the duty of the authorities to preserve the peace, and that they would be lacking in that duty if they did not take every precaution. But he thought the responsibility for breaches of the peace should be placed on the right shoulders. At the present time it was all being placed on the shoulders of the workmen. They were told that the workmen in Hull had broken the peace, and that there had been riot and bloodshed. But there had only been three convictions in the town up to now. In spite of the fact that they had in Hull an unlimited number of policemen, there had, he repeated, only been three convictions. There could not, therefore, have been a large amount of riot and disorder. But he held that the Shipping Federation was responsible in the first place for the disturbance which had taken place. Had two or three Unionist officials representing the workmen been allowed to speak to the free labourers and put the case before them there would have been no riot and no disorder, though he was convinced there would have been few free labourers remaining in Hull at the present time. But it was part of the business of the Shipping Federation to create disorder, so as to get in the military and policemen to intimidate and overawe the workmen—that was their policy; but there was another direction in which these gentlemen acted illegally, and he was surprised that the Government did not put the law in force with regard to employers as well as workmen. If there was an Act of Parliament which made it illegal for any unlicensed person to ship seamen, the employers had no right to the liberty to break that law. The Shipping Federation—this innocent organisation which had no evil intention towards workmen's organisations—had, ever since its commencement, insisted upon sailors and firemen taking what was called the Federation ticket. They said that the ticket meant nothing; that it was simply a piece of parchment testifying that the holder, when he signed articles, would perform his contract and
    84
    go on his voyage. The men would, however, resist it as long as they had any money to fight with. The shipowners stated that their organisation was not for the purpose of interfering with wages. But what was the fact? Seamen in 1891 were paid something like 3s. 6d. a day and their food. That was at a time when all the men had the Union's ticket and not the Federation ticket. Since then, however, through the tyranny of the Shipping Federation and their officials, the men had been compelled to take the Federation ticket, with the result that their wages had been reduced to 1s. 9d. a day. What was this for a seaman or fireman to maintain his wife and family upon? He could give hundreds of cases in which respectable, reliable seamen bad got notice of a reduction of their wages from the captain when on the point of signing articles. On their refusal to do so the professional blackleg procurers of the Federation had got incompetent men—men who, when they got on board a ship, were sea-sick, and men who did not know the steering-wheel from a cart-wheel. Two years ago he brought a specimen of these land-sailors from Cardiff to the late President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks-Beach), and the man told the right hon. Gentleman that he had never smelt salt water in his life. These were the men on whom the Federation fell back when they could not get respectable men to accept their 1s. 9d. a day. The country paid large sums of money for the Board of Trade, and he failed to see what good that Department was so far as protecting the lives of the men was concerned. When a qualified seaman signed an agreement to go on board a ship with a certain number of other men he expected that, at least, he was going to get reliable shipmates. But when once he had signed and commenced his voyage, if he found that his shipmates were incompetent, and that, as a consequence, he had to do their work, he was practically powerless to refuse. If he did refuse the Merchant Shipping Act was put in force, and he might be brought before shipowning Magistrates who would sentence him to imprisonment of not more than six weeks, expressing regret, in some instances, that they could not go beyond that period. The Board of Trade was supposed to protect sea-

    85
    men from imposition, but it did nothing of the kind. Instead of preventing incompetent men being put on board ships by crimps, these officials of the Board in many ports had encouraged the crimps to get incompetent men, because these officials, when the men had gone on the voyage, were able to get a share of the advance note. It was a difficult matter for him to prove that these officials got a share of the advance note; but, nevertheless, it was very suspicious to see Board of Trade officials going down to houses of crimps and drinking with those crimps on a Saturday afternoon at the end of their week's work. He had called the attention of the Board of Trade repeatedly to this illegal supplying of men by the Shipping Federation and by the crimps in cases of labour disputes. The Board of Trade had refused to interfere, because they said it would not be right for the Department to interfere in a labour dispute. He quite admitted that the Board of Trade had nothing to do with a labour dispute; but if the law was broken by seaman, fireman, or shipowner, it was the duty of the Board of Trade to put that law in force. It was only a short time since he brought a case under the notice of the Board of Trade in connection with one of the Allan line of steamers, the Mongolia, when; they were trying to get a 10s. reduction on the men's wages. The men refused to accept the terms. The officials of the Federation at once applied to noted crimps, who employed runners to collect hands out of the casual wards of the workhouses, from tramping dens, and from men discharged from gaols. Out of some 20 men who signed as seamen in this vessel, 16 were unable to prove one day's service at sea, and out of 30 firemen not more than five had ever been at sea. The Board of Trade had had evidence of these facts, and yet had failed to put the law in force. The hon. Member went on to quote from the 147th section of the Merchant Shipping Act to show that if any person not licensed, other than the owner or master of a ship, or some other person directly authorised by them, engaged or supplied any seaman or apprentice for a ship, he should, for every seaman or apprentice so engaged or supplied, incur a penalty not exceeding £20. The Act also provided for
    86
    the imposition of a penalty on any person who employed an unlicensed person to engage seamen or apprentices. The law was perfectly clear, that no person should supply seamen for any ship, except those who were specially licensed by Act of Parliament. At one time the Board of Trade used to grant special licences to certain people; but that practice had been discontinued. Despite the law in this respect, the Board of Trade had allowed the shipowners to start an organisation which undertook not only to supply, but to engage seamen in the United Kingdom. The Board of Trade ought to have stepped in to prevent this, because it was inflicting great injury upon the resident seamen in many of our seaport towns. Under present circumstances, if a seaman wanted to be engaged, he must go to the Shipping Federation Office. There was one in each seaport town. A condition of getting employment was that the seaman must have a Federation ticket—preference being given to the men who had that tickets. Many cases had been brought under his notice in which respectable married men had arranged to go with a ship. When they had gone to the Federation Office the agent in charge had told the captain—"You cannot take those men; you must take these men." It was within his knowledge that certain boarding masters in Shields and Sunderland gave preference of employment to men who stayed in their houses. When the captain came to engage his crew the officers in the Federation Office pointed out the men that the captain had to take. Captains, and he should add engineers, had no choice in the matter. They said that they should be allowed the liberty to engage their own men, but the Shipping Federation said—"No, you shall not have that liberty. That must rest with the officials of the Shipping Federation." He thought that the President of the Board of Trade would admit that that was a serious hardship upon the resident seamen in our seaport towns. Why should they be elbowed out of employment in preference to men who might be supplied to the officials of the Federation by boarding masters? These boarding masters were, of course, not particular as to who should be engaged. They preferred that the Federation should take the men who came into their boarding houses at

    87
    5 o'clock in the evening and were ready to ship the next morning. The boarding masters supplied the outfit of clothes, which cost about 6s., and were charged about £2 or £2 5s. When the boarding master, to meet this debt and the other expenses, got the advance note, the officer of the Federation came to get a share of it. The Board of Trade could prevent this at once by giving notice to the Federation officials that if they supplied men the Act would be put in force. The Board of Trade had done this before. They did it in 1890, when the Federation first started. In Glasgow one of the officials was brought before the Sheriff and fined £20, and it was only after a deputation of shipowners had waited on the late President of the Board of Trade asking that the law should be altered to allow the Federation to supply men (as they had taken counsel's opinion, which was that it was illegal for them to do so) that the right hon. Gentleman said that so far as the Board of Trade was concerned they did not intend to take action in such cases, but to allow the shipowners to supply men by the use of the Federation. The late President of the Board of Trade had no right to give that privilege. No Minister had a right to suspend an Act of Parliament to accommodate shipowners or anyone else. They were ready to put the Act into force so far as workmen were concerned. They should be ready to put it into force as regards employers. As to the dispute in Hull, it was difficult to find anyone who could give an explanation as to what was in dispute. They were told by some that it was all about a simple piece of parchment. The Federation ticket people had said—"Would it not be wise to take the Federation ticket? If the Union men take the ticket they could elbow out the non-Union men, and thus keep their Unions intact." That was all very well. Some time ago, acting on the advice of friends, he allowed some of the men he was associated with to take the ticket. The result was to enable the shipowners to get men entirely at their own price. This was owing to the way in which the competition of inferior men was brought to bear. The agents of the Federation always had a number of worthless men at the Federation Offices ready to sign on at any terms. They had heard much about sweating in the House. When
    88
    shipowners compelled men to go to sea for 1s. 9d. a day, what was it but sweating? The sweating in the tailoring trade and other industries was not equal to the sweating in the shipping trade. It would not be so hard if it was constant employment which the men got; but when a man signed, say at Cardiff, for 1s. 9d. a day for a six weeks' voyage, and was discharged from his ship, say at Shields or Glasgow, and then had to pay his railway fare home to Cardiff, it would be seen that the terms were oppressive in the extreme. All this had been brought about by the Shipping Federation, and there was, therefore, every justification for resisting such tactics as they intended to do. The disturbance at Hull was a very remarkable matter, and was really due to the Federation of Shipowners. He had been watching the action of the Shipping Federation very closely, and they were informed that this Free Labour Exchange was a great combination of capitalists. It was composed not only of shipowners. They were told that it embraced a number of employers of labour; but for various reasons their names were kept quiet. They were told that shipbuilders and even coal miners—he was now quoting what had been said in employers' papers—had joined this Free Labour Exchange, and that it was their intention in every industrial centre to open a Free Labour Office, and thus compel men who wanted employment to register their name and address, and to undertake at all times to go from one town to another to take the place of men who might be out on strike either for an advance of wages, or to resist a reduction of wages, or to resist the hours of labour. He had with him one of the forms issued by this Free Labour Exchange, which was another name of the Shipping Federation, and the form they asked the men to sign was a form to be used when a labour dispute was pending or anticipated. As soon as an employer of labour connected with this Free Labour Exchange anticipated there was going to be a dispute in connection with his trade, he communicated with the Free Labour Office, who set their agents to work in every town throughout the country, and then they applied to the men who had signed on their list to go from one town

    89
    to another and take the place of the men who came out on strike. If ever the employers succeeded in getting organised regiments of free labour men, to that extent he was certain that there would he serious and grave cases of disorder in this country, because when workmen found that their only means of protection—namely, their organisations— were crippled and weakened to such an extent that the employers were in a position to crush them by the unlimited supply of free labour men that they would be able to put into the market at any given time—if that state of things were allowed to exist he was certain that riot and disorder would be rampant in every town throughout the country. And it would have to be faced. He was sorry to think that such a crisis was pending; that it could only be met in one way on the part of the workmen, and that was by making our strikes national instead of local. That would be the only means by which we should be able to prevent the employers of labour from crushing our Trade Unions entirely. Where there was a dispute in one port, and the employers could get such an unlimited supply of labour from that particular port, Unionists would have no other alternative but to extend the strike to every port in the United Kingdom. He said that the Government had no right to supply the employers with the Military and Naval Forces before there was reasonable ground for anticipating that there would be a riot. He ventured to say that at the early commencement of the dispute in Hull, had the military not been brought into that town and the numbers of policemen who arrived by train and marched down the streets in a body instead of coming in quietly in ones and twos to get to their hotels— that he believed they were treated very liberally—he believed that if they had come in in ones and twos there would have been very little disturbance at all. But here, in order to excite the strikers at the commencement of the strike, these men were marched down in a body, as much as to say to the workmen—" If you do not mind what you are we have all these policemen, and we will let you know what is the matter." As soon as the soldiers were brought into the town nothing would satisfy the Shipping Federation but that they should be
    90
    paraded with horses and swords drawn so as to make a great show. What was the meaning of that? It was intended to intimidate the men. Why were not the soldiers kept in the barracks until they wore needed? Why was there this useless parade? The first day he went to Hull the place was in a perfect state of excitement, not with strikers but with little boys and girls to see the soldiers; they thought it was some Manger's circus or something of that kind come into the town, and crowds were parading the streets and looking at the exhibition. There was what the newspapers described as "riotous scenes," and "great scenes of disorder." He said the authorities were at fault. Had they kept their policemen indoors, and their soldiers in the barracks, things would have gone on more smoothly than they did. It was quite right to have the force at their command ready if they should be required. He did not wish to take up the House's time, but this was a very serious matter. There were 10,000 men out on strike at Hull, and there were about 20,000 people depending on those 10,000 men; but he was not alarmed so much at what was going on at Hull as he was alarmed—and the House ought to take steps to prevent it—at the disturbance and fights they might have in the future. A Committee of the House had met one of the most prominent body of shipowners and the President of the Board of Trade. He recognised the interference of the President of the Board of Trade in this matter as of the greatest assistance and the greatest value, and it was very much appreciated by the workmen of the country. What took place was that they had a conference. The hon. Member for Central Hull was a party to that Conference, and, after having discussed this question, they arrived at a basis of settlement which to all parties present appeared to be very satisfactory. The workmen gave up one great point— one that he candidly confessed he thought much of, because he recognised that it was of the utmost importance that Trades Unions should try and have every man in the Union; as long as they had men outside the Union they wore a source of weakness to the cause—but the Union men wore prepared to concede the point that Union men should work with Non-

    91
    union men. They were told that was the beginning of the dispute in Hull— the question of the Union men and the Non-union men working together. Seeing that the workmen conceded that point, he thought that if the shipowners had not deliberately intended it matters would have been arranged. The shipowners were not agreed upon this point. He was certain that if the shipowners could get out of the Shipping Federation they would only he too pleased to do it; but the people who complained of tyranny on the part of the Union themselves caused shipowners to contribute to the Shipping Federation Fund. There were Members of the House who did not care for the policy of the Shipping Federation, but who were compelled to pay to this organisation, or otherwise their ships would not be insured. This agreement was prepared, and would have been accepted by the shipowners in Hull. He had been informed on reliable authority that the shipowners in Hull agreed to that basis of settlement, and it was only when they went to work with the shipowners, who had everything to gain by the continuation of the dispute, because the trade of Hull was being divided amongst others—it was only then that the shipowners refused to accept the outcome of this conference at Hull as the basis of the agreement which had been come to by the Committee of the House. He said that when the Shipping Federation had taken up that most unreasonable attitude it was the duty of the Government—he did not want favours from the Government—he should be the last man to ask for them—all he asked on behalf of the strikers was, in the first place, that the Board of Trade would put the law in force, and through their officials prevent the illegal supply of seamen. That was not a favour. He considered it the duty of the Board of Trade to do this without any Member of the House specially asking for them to do it. In the second place, he asked the Home Secretary to refuse to supply the Forces of the Crown until such time as was absolutely necessary in the interests of the pence of any particular district to supply them. he asked—he had a right to ask—that the Forces of the Crown should not be at the call of the Shipping Federation; that as soon as they appealed to the Crown an unlimited number of men should be sent down to parade about
    92
    the place. That was all he asked. It was a most reasonable request; and seeing the attitude the Shipping Federation had taken up, and having regard to the concessions which had been offered by the dockers and rejected by the other side, he said it was the duty of the Government not to afford them any assistance, but that, so far as the laws of the country were concerned, they should be enforced impartially between employer and worker. That was all he asked, and it was no special privilege. He trusted the Government would put the law in force, and not afford the Shipping Federation any facilities whatever. He moved that the House do adjourn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Havelock Wilson.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): My hon. Friend has said—and I agree with him— that this is a question of great interest and of general importance. So far as I am concerned, I will not enter into the merits of the existing dispute in Hull, or as to the general conduct of the Shipping Federation; but I am certain I am only giving expression to the universal feeling which prevails in this House when I say that we earnestly hope a means may be found for speedily putting an end to the dispute, and that a grave responsibility will rest on the shoulders of either party if they refuse to adopt reasonable means for that purpose. The only point I am concerned with—my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, no doubt, say a word on the other points—the only other point I am concerned with is the question the hon. Gentleman has raised as to the employment of the Forces of the Crown in this matter. Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman made the admission— which I was not surprised to hear him make—that the primary duty of the Local and Central Authority is to maintain order; and if for that purpose it is necessary to supplement the local police force by the Naval and Military Forces it is not only the right but the duty of the Government to accede to these demands. The hon. Gentleman seems to be under an impression that the Government have responded to some demand made

    93
    to them by the Shipping Federation. I assure him, and I assure the House, that he is entirely mistaken. The Shipping Federation and other employers have applied to the Government for forces to enable these apprehended disorders to be put down. My answer—and it has been the answer of all my Predecessors—the answer to such requests has invariably been the same—my answer was, if you have any complaint of this kind to make, make it to the Local Authorities— they are primarily responsible for the maintenance of order, and Her Majesty's Government will not listen to any demand for the extraordinary use of the Forces of the Crown, unless that demand proceeds from the authority on the spot responsible for the maintenance of peace. Neither the Military nor the Naval Force, so far as I am aware, has ever been sent, nor, so far as I am concerned, will ever be sent to take part in any dispute unless the Local Authority on the spot inform me that the force is presently and urgently necessary for the maintenance of the peace. That is the course followed in the present instance. And I may remind my hon. Friend with regard to the Local Authorities in Hull that the Magistrates, who are appointed by the Crown, have been supported by the recommendation of the Watch Committee of the Corporation of Hull. The Corporation of Hull is a popular elective Body, and the Watch Committee of that Body is the Committee which is primarily entrusted with the control of the police and the maintenance of order. I do not see how we can take upon us the responsibility of rejecting a demand declared by them to be urgently necessary. It is in that spirit, and that only, that Her Majesty's Government have acted in this matter, and I trust my hon. Friend will disabuse his mind of the impression that the Government have taken, or will take, either side in the dispute.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I did not complain of the presence of the military in Hull, but I complained of the soldiers parading round the town when there was no necessity for their so doing.
    MR. ASQUITH: If the Forces are sent to a place a large discretion must be entrusted to the Magistrates and officers of the town as to the use of them. I do not know that this parading has
    94
    been attended with serious consequences. My hon. Friend has said the children came out and amused themselves by watching them. But I can say this, after having made careful inquiry: that, so far as my information goes, there has not been one single case of collision between the Naval and Military Forces on the one side and the people on the other, and throughout the time they have spent in Hull they have discharged their duties—their difficult and delicate duties —with the utmost discretion. Any complaint to be made must be made to the proper quarter, and it will be most promptly attended to. I cannot forbear from expressing my admiration, and that of hon. Members on both sides of the House, of the extreme discipline and discretion shown by officers and by men during the whole of this time. I may remind the House that a very valuable service has been rendered by the bluejackets on Her Majesty's gunboats in connection with the fires at the docks. I say nothing whatever as to the cause—it is perfectly certain that the great body of strikers repudiate any connection with the fires—but the fact that these fires occurred, and there is reasonable ground for suspecting, at any rate in one instance, it is the result of incendiarism, shows that, with two hostile parties in it, state of industrial warfare, with forces drawn up one against the other, there are certain to be some lawless, ill-disposed men—unconnected with either party, repudiated by the leaders of both parties—who would take advantage, unless there was sufficient force to restrain them, of violating the law. It is to prevent that state of things from arising during a period which, in the opinion of the Local Authorities, was one of emergency, that troops were sent. I trust, after that explanation, my hon. Friend will agree with me that, so far as Her Majesty's Government is concerned, they have acted with strict impartiality, and that the only interest they have to serve in the matter is keeping and maintaining the peace.
    *MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid, it was well to call attention briefly to the origin of the dispute which underlay the discussion which had been raised. It was a fight on the part of the dockers to maintain their right to combine. That was borne out by the reports which

    95
    had appeared from time to time in the public Press. The Daily Chronicle of the 10th April stated distinctly that the cause of the dispute was a deliberate and systematic attempt on the part of the employers of Hull to break up Trades Unionism. The Westminster Gazette of the same date made practically the same statement. He quoted these two papers because they were supporters of the Government in power, and could not be expected to be biased in their statement against a supporter of the Government. The Shipping Federation had refused all terms of settlement and compromise; they had insisted that before a docker should be employed in the Port of Hull he should first join the Free Labour Exchange, which had been explained to be another name for the Shipping Federation. He submitted that it was an illegal conspiracy for a body of shipowners or employers to lay down a law that before a workman could find employment he must first join an organisation of which they were the head, and which had been formed for the purpose of promoting their interests as opposed to his own. It had been decided that one shipowner might not join with another to prevent a third making profits in connection with a certain department of trade. If that were so in regard to a shipowner, it ought to be equally true in the case of a docker. The fact that these men had combined to prevent the dockers following their calling made the conspiracy an illegal one. The policemen at Hull, it had been said, were not competent to maintain order there; and, like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, he would agree in saying that there might be cases and occasions in which it was necessary to employ the Military Forces of the Crown; but he respectfully submitted that until the powers of the Civil Force had been exhausted, the Naval and Military Forces should not be called into action. And there was no proof whatever—and, in fact, the Homo Secretary, in the speech he had made, had admitted that there was no evidence to show that there was any danger of serious outbreaks on the part of the great body of the strikers at Hull. The Home Secretary had said that a few irresponsible persons hanging about the edge of the crowd might commit crime; but
    96
    surely the police would have been amply sufficient to keep in order all these misguided persons; and when he admitted that the body of strikers was well-conducted, he took away any case there might have been for the employment of the Military Forces at Hull. The local police had been supplemented by an addition of 324 policemen from other towns and boroughs, including 26 mounted police from the Metropolis. He believed that this was the first occasion on which the mounted police of the Metropolis had been called to do duty outside of the metropolis, save on occasions of Royal pageants. And if the Forces of the Metropolis, which, like the soldiers and the Navy, were under the control of the Government, were to be used in this way in cases of trade dispute it became a serious matter indeed for the working classes of the country. The soldiers had been called in, and it had been denied that they had taken part in the dispute. But he had in his possession letters and telegrams from responsible leaders of the dockers at Hull which went to show that the services of the military were used to aid the blacklegs in loading and unloading vessels at the Port of Hull. And they had collateral evidence in support of that statement. The Commander of the troops at Hull, Major General Wilkinson, wrote to the Watch Committee of the Borough of Hull demanding that extra police should be employed, in order that the troops might be relieved of certain duties which were imposed upon them. He wanted to know from the Home Secretary what were the special duties which were imposed on the troops at Hull, from which Major General Wilkinson sought to have his men relieved? It was only when the Major General, who had some respect for the men and the honour of the Army, refused to allow them to perform the degrading work in which they were employed in connection with the strike that extra police were engaged. The complaint he (Mr. Keir Hardie) made against the employment of the soldiery was that, no matter how petty a trade dispute might be, immediately a demand was made for the presence of the military, that demand was never refused. On whose authority was it that the demand was made for the Port of Hull? They were told that the Shipping

    97
    Federation applied on this or other occasions, and were refused. But the Magistrates of the Port of Hull were the Shipping Federation under another name. The Bench of Magistrates there Was made Up almost exclusively of shipowners. The Watch Committee was much divided in opinion concerning the advisability of having the troops at Hull, and the Chairman of the Watch Committee (Alderman Stuart) was personally opposed to—and had given expression to his opposition—to the troops being longer Maintained there. No matter how petty a trade dispute might be the military were at once applied for. If it was a case of turning a miner out of his cottage, as was the case at Durham, the military were immediately sent for to parade their power and force. If it was the case of evicting a Highland crofter from his shieling or an Irish tenant from his cabin the military were immediately brought forward, ostensibly for the purpose of preserving law and order, but really for the purpose of taming and breaking the spirit of men who, to paraphrase a well-known sentence, were rightly struggling to maintain their freedom, and to make it easier for the capitalists of the country, in their capacity as employers of labour, to break down the only strength which stood between them and the oppression of the workers—namely, the Trades Unions of the country. He supported the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in order to enter a strong and emphatic protest against this continued employment of the Military Forces in connection with trade disputes. If the Magistrates in the Port of Hull had been made up of dockers instead of Dock Directors, more consideration would have been given to the request before it was complied with; and the fact that the Government, through the mouth of the Home Secretary, had refused an independent inquiry into the case for the continued presence of the military at Hull showed they were afraid to face an independent investigation. They wanted to shield the man who sat behind them, and who was responsible for this dispute being continued. Fair terms had been offered for the settlement of this dispute. The dockers had yielded every point which in the first instance was claimed at their hands; but now the shipowners, growing
    98
    bold by the backing which they had received, and by an apparent weakness on the part of the dockers, had enlarged their demands, and declared that unless the dockers submitted unconditionally no return to work would be possible. The military having been prohibited the other day from aiding the blacklegs, the police had started on a new tack, and he desired to ask the Home Secretary whether he had given any instructions to the Chief Constable at Hull to interfere with the pickets whilst in the performance of their duty? He would read to the House two telegrams which he had received that day, one of which formed the basis of a question which he put to the Home Secretary at question time. One of the telegrams read—
    "Mounted and foot police last night stopped pickets proceeding lawfully, two by two, at long intervals apart … and turned men back."
    He wanted to know why that was done, and would the Home Secretary instruct the police that picketing was legal? That day he had received a telegram from the gentleman who was in charge of the strike at present, in which he said—
    "Interviewed Chief Constable. He admitted that the police had instructions to intefere with pickets whilst walking in twos. Declines to say who issued such instructions."
    Now, he considered that was a serious matter. Picketing was admittedly legal. It had been legalised by the House of Commons. Pickets going along two by two could not be said to be an intimidating force; and if instructions were to be given to the police to interfere with pickets legally going about their business, then it practically meant that the Government of the day had declared that striking should he made illegal, because if the Military Forces of the Crown were to be called in to overawe the dockers, and if the Shipping Federation was to violate a law passed by that House, and if the police were to have special instructions to hamper and to hinder pickets in the performance of their duy, it meant that the last weapon left to workmen—namely, striking—their most powerful weapon— was being taken from them insidiously in this way by the powers that be. He trusted his hon. Friend would press his Motion to a Division, in order to test the feeling of the House in regard to the continued employment of the troops at

    99
    Hull, and the policy of the Government generally in allowing the Shipping Federation to escape scot free. A more serious battle for labour was never entered upon than that now going on. If the employers succeeded, it meant that the workmen, for a time at least, would be absolutely at the mercy of the employers. That might please the Members of that House who were employers. It might please the Home Secretary, who had never failed to elicit the warmest cheers from the Party of law and order in that House; but the workers in this country wanted to know why it was that, no matter what Government was in power, the side of the employer was taken in opposition to that of the workman? They could understand the Party of law and order cheering the employment of the police and military. It was consistent for them to do so, but in the case of the Liberal Party, who had come into power as the friends of labour, it was dishonest, and it was being untrue to all the professions on the faith on which they had been returned to power. He trusted the House would give no uncertain vote in regard to their opinion concerning the further employment of the Military Forces of the Crown in connection with the dispute going on at Hull.
    *MR. CREMERsaid, at last the House had heard from the real leader of this movement a statement of the case so far as the difficulties connected with the Hull strike were concerned. He was surprised—he did not use the term offensively—at the ignorance which the Home Secretary had just now displayed. [Cries of "Oh!"]' Well, he would use the expression want of information—perhaps that would be better —in regard to what had taken place at Hull. He happened to receive from Hull—and had he known that this Debate was to take place he certainly should have brought the communication with him —a letter from a bonâ fide leader of the working classes, who was known to the President of the Board of Trade and to many hon. Members of that House, a man who was not in the habit of bolstering up his position by daily advertising himself by puffing paragraphs in the newspapers. The real leader of the working classes he referred to was Mr. Frederick Maddison, than whom no more high-minded or honourable man
    100
    could be found in the Kingdom. He wrote him (Mr. Cremer), only a few days ago, statements which he thought the Home Secretary ought to have made himself acquainted with. He described the irritating effect which was produced on the starving men and women of Hull by the presence of the military in that town. He (Mr. Cremer) quite agreed with the contention urged just now so forcibly by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, that if it was necessary that the military should be sent to Hull, they ought to have been carefully confined to barracks until occasion required that they should be brought out. Instead of that, if Mr. Maddison's statement was true, and he believed it was true—and the information was at the disposal of the Home Secretary — the military were being daily marched up and down the streets of Hull, and Mr. Maddison described the irritating effect produced on the starving men and women, and as being calculated to bring about the very result which the Home Secretary and the Local Authorities appeared anxious to avoid. He therefore thought that a strong case had been made out for the strict confinement of the military within the barracks at Hull, if their presence there was absolutely necessary, and he hoped the Home Secretary would take steps to obtain for himself definite information on that very important matter. He had not the slightest desire to waste the time of the House in further discussing this question. He believed the introduction of the Motion of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough must have a good effect upon the Government, and a soothing effect—at least he hoped so—upon the men in Hull who were contending for what they considered and believed to be their just demands. They only asked—and he thought they were entitled to ask— that the Government should preserve absolute neutrality in the dispute. They only asked that they should have fair play accorded to them; they wanted no privilege, but strict neutrality, and that fair play which always ought to be accorded by every Government whenever a struggle took place between employer and employed. In spite of the advice tendered by the hon. Member for West Ham—who never lost an opportunity of trying to inflict a stab

    101
    upon Her Majesty's Government, and in his attempt to do so was always cheered by his friends on the other side of the House—he hoped the hon. Member for Middlesbrough would not consider it necessary to press for a Division on his Motion, hut would consider his ends had been served, at least for the present, by having raised this very important Debate in the House of Commons.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, as one who had taken some interest in the Hull dispute, as one whom that House would cheerfully and willingly accord had had some experience in strikes and industrial disputes, he wished to say a few words in favour of the Adjournment of the House. He trusted the hon. Member for Middlesbrough would not follow the bad example of some hon. Mem-who moved Resolutions, but did not intend to sustain them by going to a Division. He ventured to say that the condition of things at Hull was only the precursor of a worse; condition of things, that would inevitably follow throughout every port and industrial district of Great Britain, unless the illegal conduct of the Shipping Federation was resisted by Her Majesty's Government, of whatever political complexion that might happen to be in power, whenever those disputes occurred. With regard to the dispute at Hull and the introduction of the police and military, he wished to call the attention of the Home Secretary, and above all of the First Lord of the Treasury, to the memorable strike that took place in London nearly four years ago. They had in connection with that great dock strike in London at different periods from 50,000 to 100,000 unskilled labourers on strike for a period of six weeks. During the whole of that period there was not a single Police Court case arising out of the strike. There was no criminal outrage, and no physical intimidation of any character. If there had been any physical intimidation on the part of the strikers, he was positively convinced that the late Home Secretary would have put it down with that firmness and with that discretion which characterised the Party of law and order to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged. But what happened? In that London strike the police were kept in reserve. There the Homo Secretary had some thousands of policemen in and around the Docks,
    102
    but they were not allowed to go out, and by their presence to morally and physically intimidate the men on strike, who had no desire to intimidate, and who would have been kept from intimidation if the leaders could have had their way. They found that one of the biggest industrial conflicts of all time, owing to the authorities not sending the police and military to be used as they were being used at Hull, that big conflict ended satisfactorily to the men, the public approved of it, and the Forces of the Crown were not unnecessarily obtruded. The men were on their honour to behave. They were anxious not to abuse the law of picketing, and the leaders, to the best of their ability, kept the men within proper bounds; but that would have been almost impossible if the police and military had been used on behalf of the London Dock and Shipowners, as the police and military had been illegally used at the instigation of the Watch Committee of Hull, who, in this case, had been suborned by the Shipping Federation. The Home Secretary was now, unfortunately, placed in this position—that an ingenious American capitalistic creature named Mr. Laws, whose intention it was, if possible, to establish a Pinkerton police in England similar to that which existed in America —owing to the ingenuity of this American the Home Secretary had been saved the trouble of controlling and organising a Pinkerton police force. He was enabled to suborn the Watch Committee and the Bench of Magistrates, and through them the Military Forces of the Crown, to take the side of the shipowners at Hull to an extent that they ought not to have done. That was only part of the general system of intimidation that prevailed. To-day he had the pleasure of introducing to the Lord Chancellor a deputation of Bristol working men, who came to him with a Petition signed by 12,000 of the citizens of Bristol. That Petition pointed out that, in consequence of the Bench of Magistrates at Bristol being mainly composed of shipowners and men pecuniarily interested in labour disputes, law was being travestied in Bristol; and if a dock labourer got into trouble there, and if a policeman swore evidence against him, the condition of things was such through the Magistrates being industrial—Dr. Jekylls, and magisterial Mr. Hydes—that the docker

    103
    would probably say "Never mind the evidence. I am only a docker. Sentence me without hearing my counsel." Not only at Hull, but at Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Swansea they found that the local police, and the Metropolitan police, as at Hull, and the military were invoked at times of labour disputes, less with the object of preserving law and order, but they anticipated a breach of the peace by bringing in foreign police and bringing in the military was to intimidate the men, and prove to them that they had better submit before the forces of the Crown were used against them. He was prepared to prove that in Hull out of 38 Magistrates four were directly shipowners, and that 19 were pecuniarily interested in the ships or in the docks. That was to say, that 23 out of 38, or a majority of four, were interested in shipping. It seemed to him that if these industrial disputes were to continue, the Home Secretary would have to adopt some means by which Magistrates, other than those pecuniarily interested in these disputes, should assume the ordinary functions of a Magistrate; and if the military and police were to be invoked, it should be done at the instance of a tribunal independent both of the employers and the men. What did they find now in connection with the agents and members of the Shipping Federation—professional agitators like himself, actually attending a meeting of Magistrates where it was decided to invoke the aid of the military forces. Let them just fancy John Burns standing in the guardroom in Wellington Barracks and taking part in a discussion as to whether the Grenadier Guards should not be sent down to the docks of London in order to chase free labour out of the docks! It was as pertinent for him to give that illustration as it was for persons connected with the Shipping Federation, men pecuniarily interested in carrying out their policy, to be present at a meeting of a Bench of Magistrates when they decided to invoke the aid of the military. They were told that that was peculiar to Hull. That was not so. At Cardiff, at Southampton, at Swansea, and on the occasion of a recent dispute at Durham, the police and military were unnecessarily invoked, and in Lancashire during the street collections the masters were not sufficiently decent to
    104
    stay from the meetings when questions of street collections for the strikers were being discussed. He wished to point out that if a man made a violent speech he was responsible to the Magistrates and to the law for the consequences of that speech. If a man struck a free labourer, he must put up with the consequences of his illegal physical act; but if the masters did an illegal act, as they had done at Hull and elsewhere, in suspending the right of procession, of public meeting, and the right of picketing, then the Magisterial Bench would be brought into contempt and disrepute, and they would have English law administered, as he trusted it might never be administered, as it had been administered in the western mining towns, where the man who owned the coal mines of the district, and who held the freehold of the town, had practically the whole charge of ordering the police and military to fire on a mob simply because it was his pecuniary interest so to do. He read in The Times that morning a statement which showed the close relation which existed between the Shipping Federation and the Magistrates. The Times stated that a compromise had been reached, and the present idea was that there should be an informal conference between the sub - committees of the Shipping Federation and the Watch Committee to consider whether the work was to be carried on, and that the amount of protection necessary might be discussed. He would assume, for the sake of argument, that protection for free labourers was necessary at Hull, and that it was necessary to invoke the aid of the military. That was a matter for the Watch Committee and the Bench of Magistrates alone as Magistrates, and they had no more right to hold a conference with the sub-committees of the Shipping Federation—a party in this industrial dispute —than they would have to ask the leader of the strike at Hull, Mr. Ben Tillett, to consult with them as to whether or not free labourers should be sent out of the town under the protection of the police and military. He would go further, and would call the attention of the Home Secretary to a statement made by the Chairman of the Watch Committee. Addressing the Town Council on April 9 Mr. Stuart,

    105
    the gentleman to whom he referred, used this significant remark—
    "The members of the Council were chiefly employers. Might he remind them that the display of force unhappily deprived the men of almost their only weapon, if he might say so. for protecting their interests? While it was true that they were only performing a duty in bringing the military there, he could not forget that, in the performance of that duty at Hull, they had prevented the men from using that moral persuasion which was both legal and just."
    He, no doubt, meant by that statement that the right to picket was interfered with, as was also the right of Unionist workmen to persuade and try to convert non-Unionist workmen, which was recognised by the law. In a Hull paper of April 10 he found that the arrival of the gunboats was due to the instigation of the Shipping Federation writing to the Admiralty, and not to the Watch Committee or the Bench of Magistrates writing to the Admiralty. They had heard a great deal of the intimidation of free labourers by the Unionists, most of which had been grossly exaggerated, and any of which, if it had happened, he should entirely disagree with, because he believed that the man who said that honesty was the best policy was a scoundrel, though he was right. But what prevailed in the ordinary moral sphere applied to strikes, and intimidation, in the long run, did not pay in strikes. No labour leader, as a matter of tactics, could commend it. But even in the event of intimidation occurring, it was not for the Admiralty to obey the whip of Mr. Laws or the Shipping Federation. It was the duty of the Magistrates, the Watch Committee, and the Town Council, in communication with the Home Secretary, to invoke the aid of the Naval Forces after the Riot Act had been read and there had been some preliminary disturbances which the local police were unable to deal with.
    MR. ASQUITH: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to correct a misapprehension of fact into which he has fallen? It is not the case that the gunboats were sent at the instance of the Shipping Federation. They were sent on the demand of the Local Authority, which was approved of by me and communicated by me to the Admiralty.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, he had further to point out that 23 out of
    106
    38 Magistrates in Hull were themselves pecuniarily interested in the matter, and that of the 15 members of the Watch Committee five were shipowners. That, he contended, was an abuse of the administration of the law, and the sooner the Home Secretary and his Colleagues began to alter it the better for the industrial, social, and political peace of the country. Some time since the Home Secretary, with that ability which characterised him, made an exceedingly eloquent speech, in which he maintained the right of public meeting, the right of procession, and the right of assembly in connection with political, industrial, and social questions. His (Mr. Burns's) contention was, that the position at Hull had been unnecessarily embittered by the arbitrary intervention of an outside police and military, deliberately brought there in accordance with the plan of campaign undertaken by the Magistrates at the instance of the Shipping Federation. He had held at different times of his life various opinions with regard to the law. He started with the opinion that there was one law for the rich and one law for the poor, but every time he was sentenced by English Judges he came to the conclusion that they were almost as impartial as incorruptible, and as just as it was possible for human beings to be. But if they saw in future what was taking place at Hull to-day, what took place at Bristol a month ago, what took place at Southampton 12 months ago, and what took place at Cardiff two years ago—namely, the Watch Committee, the Bench of Magistrates, and the Town Council deliberately using their position as parties in an industrial dispute to invoke the forces of law and order for the purpose of playing their game against the weaker side, against unskilled and hitherto unorganised labour — if that was to continue, there was only one thing for the unskilled labourer of England to do, and that was, to walk about as the unskilled labourer did in America, with either a knife or a revolver in his pocket—his own law and his own authority. They had the fact that free labourers, deliberately armed by the Shipping Federation, were sent from post to post with the deliberate object of provoking strikes and bringing about disturbances, with a view to breaking

    107
    down the organisation of unskilled labour. This he could say, that, much as he respected English law, if it was the intention of Mr. Laws to introduce into this country what was known as the free labour police, similar to Pinkerton's police that State after State in America had to put down, he would be opening the flood-gates of anarchy and social and political disorder. Were they going to allow mine-owners, shipowners, or dock-owners to usurp the functions of the law simply because they happened to have wealth, social prestige, and power at their backs? It was because he believed the House of Commons would not allow such a thing as this to happen; it was because he believed the Home Secretary would take time by the forelock and nip this Shipping Federation conspiracy in the bud, that he had interposed in the Debate. It was because he did not desire the strikers to intimidate the free labourers that, on the other hand, he asked the Home Secretary and the First Lord of the Treasury to see that the law was enforced by impartial and honest functionaries, and not to allow either the Town Council or the Watch Committee to play the game of the Federation through the military and the police. It was the duty of an impartial tribunal to see that the law was obeyed, and, if necessary in order to enforce that object, to call in the assistance of military and outside police; but, under the circumstances detailed, he hoped the hon. Member would press his Motion to a Division, so that they could see who were the friends in that House of labour and lawful combination.
    MR. CLARENCE SMITHsaid, that, as representing one of the divisions of Hull in that House, he should like to say a word or two, but he would confine his observations to one point. Though his sympathies were entirely with the men in their struggle, particularly since the Federation decided to hold no communication with them or offer any method of solution, he thought it only fair to say that, in his opinion, the hon. Member for Battersea had entirely misunderstood the position of the Watch Committee, who, as the Home Secretary had told them, were the popularly elected representatives of the people. He should like to say that the Mayor of Hull had been for
    108
    many years a friend of labour. He was a prominent member of the Liberal Party, and labour at Hull had hardly a more trusted friend. He should like to tell the hon. Member that the Chairman of the Watch Committee, Mr. Alderman Stuart, was for many years a prominent member of the Liberal Party, and one of the most powerful advocates of the interests and the rights of labour. Further, he did not think he was exaggerating in saying that the Deputy Chairman of the Watch Committee was one of the keenest friends of labour in all Yorkshire. Under these circumstances, the hon. Member should, he thought, exempt the popularly elected representatives at Hull from the censure which he had passed upon the other Local Authorities. He had received from Alderman Stuart a communication in which he said—and he thought the House would believe every word—that it would be absolutely impossible to preserve the peace of the town with the force under the control of the Local Authorities. He thought he should not have done his duty if he had not made that statement, which he hoped would induce his hon. Friend to withdraw the words of censure he had passed upon the popularly elected representatives of the people.
    MR. FENWICKhoped he would not be accused of any want of sympathy if he ventured to submit to the House totally different advice to that which had been advocated by the hon. Member for Batter-sea (Mr. Burns) and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Keir Hardie) —namely, that a Division should be pressed. He had very great sympathy with the workmen on strike at Hull; for whatever might have been the origin of that strike, whether the men or those who provoked the strike were right or wrong in the course they took, he thought no one would deny that at the present time the shipowners, or, speaking more fairly, the Shipping Federation, had admittedly been—
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON (interrupting)said, he should like to make his position clear on this matter. ["Order, older!"] He was not going to make a speech, but only to explain. He was not going to divide the House on the question of the presence of the military and police at

    109
    Hull, because there were two opinions on that matter; but there could be no two opinions as to the breaking of the law by the Shipping Federation in contravention of the Merchant Shipping Act, and, unless satisfied on that point, he did intend to go to a Division.
    MR. FENWICKsaid, he was glad to have that explanation from his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Havelock Wilson), because that considerably altered the situation. He had no doubt they would presently hear from the President of the Board of Trade some observations which might possibly lead his hon. Friend to re-consider his decision with regard to the advisability of dividing the House. If there had been a deliberate violation of any Statute Law with regard to the employment of seamen at Hull, he was confident that the President of the Board of Trade would be the very first of all men to take immediate steps to remedy the evil, and to do it to the satisfaction of all concerned. But he was observing that, whatever might have been the origin of the dispute, there was, in his opinion at least, at this moment, not the slightest doubt that the object of the Shipping Federation was to break down the workmen's Union by insisting upon registration in the Labour Bureau and the acceptation of the Federation ticket. He had never been one of those who had maintained that it was the function of a Trade Union to compel or to coerce any man, with or against his will, to become a member of that Union. The peculiarity of the situation at Hull, so far as the military were concerned, seemed to arise out of the fact that the Local Authority, who were responsible for the calling out of the military, were themselves the men who were directly mixed up in this dispute. The situation was an extremely complicated and difficult one. He could not see how the Home Secretary, when applied to by the Local Authority for additional military and police assistance, could have avoided the responsibility of acceding to the application. Had he not done so, he would undoubtedly have incurred a very grave and serious responsibility, which that House would not have been slow to carry home to him had a conflict taken place, and had he refused to strengthen the hands of the Local Authorities, who were responsible
    110
    for the preservation of peace and order in Hull. On the other hand, he could not conceal from himself the peculiarity of the situation, which was this: those who were responsible for making application to the Home Secretary for additional forces were themselves the men who were in conflict with the workers. It seemed to him that the first thing the House ought to insist upon was that the military who were at present located in Hull should not be paraded before the gaze of the people. No one, he thought, would venture to submit that there was such excitement at Hull that at any moment there might be an outbreak of rioting and disturbance. No one had ventured to submit that. Then, why this necessity for display—why these parades of the forces of the Crown in the streets? Those parades were in themselves calculated to provoke a breach of the peace and bring about a disturbance. At any rate, he thought they had a right to demand from the Home Secretary, or some Member of the Government, an assurance that proper steps would be taken to ensure that the military should not be called upon to parade the streets unless there was imminent danger of a disturbance of the peace. He hoped, further, they would have an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the alleged broaches of the Merchant Shipping Act; an assurance which would satisfy his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, and which would remove the necessity for putting the House to the trouble of dividing upon this subject. Even, however, if that assurance was not satisfactory, what would his hon. Friend gain by putting the House to a Division? If they did divide, and the majority of the House and the majority of hon. Members were in favour of taking an evening off, what advantage would be gained? No practical advantage, it seemed to him, would be gained. But if the House did go to a Division, he should vote with his hon. Friend, though he trusted he would remain satisfied with having brought the matter before the notice of the House and of the country.
    MR. LOCKWOODwas glad to hear from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that he did not intend to press to a Division that part of his Motion which related to the presence of

    111
    the troops in Hull, because he was sure no one who had heard the statement of the Home Secretary could help feeling that, so far as he was concerned, he was determined to do all he could to see that the troops were strictly impartial. He did not suggest that there was any desire on the part of those in command of the forces to be other than impartial; but in the course of this very interesting Debate there had been three points made—points included in that part of the Motion upon which they were called upon to divide— which, as it seemed to him, required answering from some hon. Member on the Front Government Bench. First of all, they were told by the hon. Member for West Ham that members of the Shipping Federation had been present at the deliberations of the Watch Committee when the committee were forming a conclusion as to whether or not application should be made for forces to be sent to Hull. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) drew an illustration of the kind of effect which was likely to be produced if he presented himself at the guardroom at Wellington Barracks and made a similar application. Well, it would probably result in the detention of his hon. Friend; but, at any rate, he did not think he would gain much so far as his application was concerned. Surely, if this statement by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Keir Hardie) were true, if it was a fact that members of the Shipping Federation were present in the Watch Committee at the time of those deliberations, all he could say was that they were very ill-advised in going there. He hoped some further information would be forthcoming on that matter. The second point he wished to call the attention of the House to was this: It was stated by the hon. Member for West Ham that he had received a challenge—which had never been challenged—to the effect that perfectly legal pickets had been interfered with by the police. The hon. Member was perfectly right in his statement of the law that pickets were perfectly legal pickets if they were as he had described them, and when they were not in such numbers as to constitute a force of intimidation. They were about their lawful business; and if it were true that they had been interfered with,
    112
    the matter should be inquired into. The Government, which he believed was a Government favourable to labour, would be failing in its pledges if it did not do so. The third point was with regard to the practices of the military; and with regard to that matter he should like to ask the Home Secretary whether it was not a fact that the military taken to Newcastle during the Durham strike there were confined to barracks during the whole of the time? He had received this information from one of the officers of the Royal Dragoons—the same regiment, he believed, as was now in Hull. The advice as to the unnecessary parade was good advice, and he, for one, hoped that steps would be taken to prevent any unnecessary parade of the forces in the present instance. But there still remained the point upon which the House would have to divide, which was a very serious matter, and well worthy the attention of the Board of Trade. The point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough was a good one. For the benefit of hon. Members who were not in the House at the time, he would quote the section again. The Act was 17 & 18 Vict., c. 104, and the particular sections to which attention was directed were Sections 146 and 147, as to the engagement of seamen—
    "The Board of Trade may grant to such persons as it thinks fit licences to engage or supply seamen or apprentices for merchant ships in the United Kingdom, to continue for such periods, to be upon such terms, and to be revocable upon such conditions as such Board thinks proper."
    "Section 147.—The following offences shall be punishable as hereinafter mentioned' (Sub-sections 1, 2, and 3):—'If any person not licensed as aforesaid, other than the owner or master or a mate of the ship, or some person who is bonâ fide the servant and in the constant employ of the owner, or a shipping master duly appointed (Section 145), as aforesaid, engages or supplies any seaman or apprentice;' or 'if any person employs any unlicensed person other than persons so excepted as aforesaid, for the purpose of engaging or supplying any seaman or apprentice to be entered on board any ship in the United Kingdom,' or 'if any person knowingly receives or accepts to be entered on board any ship any seaman or apprentice who has been engaged or supplied contrary to the provisions of this Act … he shall for every seaman or apprentice so engaged or supplied incur a penalty as therein stated."
    That covered the whole ground. Who were these men? They were not shipowners, nor were they in the constant employ of shipowners. They were the

    113
    servants, for the time being, of the Shipping Federation. The Shipping Federation were not in law agents of the owners of ships for this purpose. Those persons were not within any of the exceptions named in the sub-sections to Section 147. If that were so, there had been a breach of the law, and he trusted that the present Government would have the courage to enforce the law against those who had broken it. Perhaps this would be more properly a question for the Solicitor General; but as he was not in his place, he trusted that the Board of Trade would be able to give them some assurance upon the point.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I shall be glad to explain, so far as I am able without notice—
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I gave notice to the right hon. Gentleman three weeks ago.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I received no notice that the matter was to be brought forward this afternoon. If it can be shown that the Shipping Federation or anyone else has committed a breach of the Merchant Shipping Act I will undertake their prosecution. I cannot say more than that. I have received during the last few days indignant remonstrances from members of the Shipping Federation for prosecutions which I have already undertaken under Section 148 of the Act—
    "If any person demands or receives, either directly or indirectly, from any seaman or apprentice, or from any person seeking employment as a seaman or apprentice, or from any person on his behalf, any remuneration whatever, other than the fees hereby authorised, for providing him with employment, he shall, for every such offence, incur a penalty not exceeding £5."
    These clauses were framed against crimping.
    MR. LOCKWOOD: Look at the preceding sections. I did not allude to Section 148.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I am only stating the course which I have taken with respect to persons connected with the Shipping Federation. With respect to Section 146, the Board has not granted for years past licences to persons to supply seamen, but has allowed the supplies to come in the regular course. I find that my Predecessor was advised by
    114
    persons administering the Act that the Shipping Federation, being formed by shipowners, are bonâ fide in the employ of the shipowners and could supply seamen.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Oh!
    MR. MUNDELLA: Well, the question is one of law, and, if the hon. Gentleman disputes it, he had better test it.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: It is not for a private individual to put the law in force.
    MR. MUNDELLA: It is constantly done by private individuals. I have no desire whatever to shirk any duty that belongs to the Board of Trade, or to throw on the Association represented by my hon. Friend any duty which properly belongs to that Department. Only let it be made clear that there has been a breach committed by the Shipping Federation, and the Board of Trade will commence a prosecution. I cannot, however, do this in violation of the advice, not only of those who preceded me, but of those who now advise me on matters of law. To make assurance doubly sure I will, however, bring the particular portion of the Act again under the notice of the Law Officers, and obtain the very best advice as to what the state of the law really is. More than this I cannot do in face of the advice already given, that the law does not apply either to the Shipping Federation or to a combination of masters or workmen. I do not think that the hon. Member serves his cause by the statements he has made. He spoke of incompetent men being employed, and he gave an instance; but as there is, I believe, a case pending in regard to that, I prefer to say nothing about it at present further than this — that an inquiry was made into the case of the 16 men on the Mongolia, and that the Report is expected every day. I have done all I can to get at the truth of the matter, and have prepared myself to answer questions on the subject, but none were asked by the hon. Member.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I was out of town.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Very well, the hon. Member cannot blame me for any delay. The hon. Member said that the Board of Trade officials encouraged crimps and shared the proceeds of advance notes with them. That is an allegation which ought not to have been

    115
    made against any men in the service of the Board of Trade unless there is abundant proof of its truth. I do not believe that statement; and it is my duty to disbelieve it, because I believe that they are honourable men, and I did not either in 1886, nor do I find during my present term of Office, that any man in that employ is capable of being bribed into neglecting his duty.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: It can be proved.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Let the hon. Member give proof of what has been alleged, and not only will the offending official be dismissed from his employment, but he will also be subjected to prosecution for corruption in the discharge of his duty. With regard to all these matters, whilst on the one hand it is said that I am not impartial in dealing with the Shipping Federation, on the other hand complaint is made that I treat it with undue severity. That is some proof that I have the balance with tolerable equality. I much regret the present dispute at Hull; I have done my utmost to bring about a settlement. It is much to be regretted that the suggestions made have not been acted upon; but if the parties to the dispute had been left alone—if third parties had held aloof—I believe the matter would have been amicably settled. It is only fair I should make acknowledgment of what has been done by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. John Burns), who, much to his honour, took a most prominent part in trying to bring about an amicable settlement. He did everything a man could do in endeavouring to narrow the area of the strife and to prevent its extension to other ports of the country. Personally, I recognise as fully as anyone can that if any Organisation sets itself the impossible task of attempting to differentiate between the members of a great Union and non-Unionists in an attempt to breakup a workman's Union not only will it ignominiously fail, but it will in the attempt produce disastrous results. I hope the hon. Member will not divide the House, and ask Members, by way of expressing their sympathy, to waste the rest of the evening by a premature adjournment. He will be taunted with such a result if he should be successful, and that would not be in the interest of the cause he desires to
    116
    serve. If the hon. Member will bring before me any specific case of illegal employment or illegal supply I will submit it to my Legal Advisers.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I only wish to deal with one observation of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He said this matter was brought forward without notice. One result of that is that the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) is not in his place, and the President of the Board of Trade appears to throw responsibility for the action he has taken on him as his Predecessor.
    MR. MUNDELLA: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, to which I was replying. I took all the responsibility for what I had done upon myself, and I referred to my Predecessor only because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough complained that his action was wrong three years ago.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I must have misunderstood the tenour of that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the advice on which he had been acting, and prefers to take other advice.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I have acted upon the advice of the Legal Department of the Board of Trade, but, if the interpretation of a clause is called in question, it is open to me to take other advice.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If that be so, the right hon. Gentleman's confidence in the advice on which he has been acting is somewhat shaken. ["No, no!"] Well, I will not go into a question with which I am incompetent to deal, but I will confine myself to what I regard as most important—the action not of the President of the Board of Trade, but of the Home Secretary, who, so far as I understood, has behaved as a man holding a responsible position ought to behave in the somewhat difficult circumstances in which he was placed. Observations have been made to this effect: "We do not expect this kind of conduct from a Government pledged to labour interests." I do not believe that this Government or any Government would deserve the name of a Government if it were pledged to either labour interests or to capital interests. Every man in the House, to whatever Party he

    117
    belongs, will sympathise with the efforts the right hon. Gentleman has made. In this matter there is no question between labour and capital dividing the two sides of the House. The business of the Government is perfectly clear. They ought to maintain the most rigid impartiality in all these labour questions as between the capitalist and the labourer, and use all such forces as are at their disposal, when they may be required, for the preservation of public order and the maintenance of individual liberty. I understood from the Home Secretary that those principles guided his action in this matter. I have every confidence in the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made on the subject, and, therefore, if this matter goes to a Division, I shall be found in the same Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. LABOUCHEREwanted to know whether they were to understand that the President of the Board of Trade would submit Clause 146 to the Legal Advisers of the Crown, and, if their view supported that of the hon. and learned Member for York, that he would take action upon it?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): The speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I trust, we may consider as one of approval rather than animadversion, and, that being so, I think there can be no hesitation on our part in commending the doctrine he has laid down with respect to the obligation of absolute impartiality in dealing with matters of this kind. With respect to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, it is the clear and manifest duty of my right hon. Friend, in the circumstances, to refer the matter of law which has been raised to-day by a competent authority in the House to the Law Officers of the Crown. It is perfectly plain that in doing so my right hon. Friend is not at all open to the observation that he has been shaken in regard to the advice he has already received. If is the established practice of a Department of the Government in a question in which law is raised to take the advice, not at once necessarily of the Law Officers of the Crown, but of its own Legal Advisers. If their advice be
    118
    brought in question and impugned by persons of serious and considerable authority, such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lockwood), it is most natural, usual, proper, and politic that the bead of the Department should fortify himself with the highest authority to which he has ordinarily access—namely, that of the Law Officers of the Crown— and it imparts no imputation or suspicion on his part with regard to his ordinary Advisers that he should find it his duty to endeavour to fortify them by reference to a weightier authority. There are only two observations I have to make with regard to the matters in this Debate. I think it impossible not to sympathise, with the principle involved in the remarks made with respect to anything like an unnecessary parade of military forces. It is most impolitic, unwise, and calculated to defeat the very purpose in view, assuming that the forces have been brought upon the ground for sufficient cause. I do not at all intend to say—I have no knowledge of the facts which would justify me in saying—that there has been any such parade. I am not prepared to pronounce any condemnation upon what has been done; but to the principle and the rule to which utterance has been given I entirely adhere; and in the spirit of that rule my right hon. Friend will regulate all his proceedings bearing upon this case. There is another point mentioned which is new to the Government. It is stated that the police in Hull have interfered with what is known as the practice of picketing. Now, picketing is a matter which, in certain conceivable circumstances, may degenerate into abuse. But, apart from abuse, it is legal and has received full sanction, and the interference of the police with it would be entirely discountenanced, and so far as we have the power would be prevented and put an end to by the authority of the Government. I hope that explanation will be regarded as perfectly clear. I am almost tempted to offer a suggestion on my own part, which is this—that if you were to go to a Division the issue would probably be a false one. If the House found it necessary to go to a Division, and there was a large number against the Adjournment and a small number voting in its favour, I am afraid it might be miscon-

    119
    stured as showing an indisposition to listen to the claims put forward by my hon. Friend on behalf of the strikers in Hull. I hope, if this question is brought to an issue, it will be brought to an issue in some form less equivocal than a Motion for the Adjournment. I hope my hon. Friend will be disposed to be content, in the interest of those whose cause he has so ably advocated, with the result of this discussion. If he should go to a Division the result may be open to misapprehension.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid, he had no desire to put the House to unnecessary inconvenience. He thought that the discussion had greatly benefited the cause he advocated. It had cleared the atmosphere upon the question—a question that was causing much consideration outside the House. He was not quite satisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. [Cries of "Order!"]
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has the right of reply—he is quite in Order.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid, he only wanted to reply to one or two remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He (Mr. Wilson) had endeavoured as far as he could to work in perfect harmony with the officials of the Board of Trade, but he had found some disinclination on the part of those officials to work in harmony with him. The action of the officials of the Board of Trade had been most hostile to the men of the Union. As to the statement that the Board of Trade had not put the act in force, he should like to call attention to the fact that two and a half years ago a responsible official of the Board of Trade wrote to the secretaries of the Union to which he belonged threatening them with proceedings for supplying men. As, however, they had the promise that the matter would be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and not the officials of the Board of Trade, he was willing to accept that assurance and withdraw his Motion.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn. [Cries of "No!"]
    Question put, and negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [2nd May], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—SITTING ACCOMMODATION.
  *SIR J. GOLDSMIDsaid, he proposed to say only a very few words in bringing before the House a matter which affected the convenience of private Members. He had intended to propose a Resolution, and had put the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "On Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the inconvenience caused to Members wishing to find sitting accommodation in the House of Commons, owing to the present arrangements of the House; and to move, That it is desirable that this House should be so re-arranged as to afford every Member a permanent seat."
  He was, however, now precluded by the Forms of the House from submitting this Motion. He know that his proposal was unpopular with, and unacceptable to, the occupants of the two Front Benches, but he quite understood how that was. There was a tendency in all men to be selfish; and as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the two Front Benches were always sure of their seats, they were unable to sympathise in any way with private Members, who experienced great difficulty in the discharge of their duties owing to insufficiency of accommodation in the House. The principle of Parliamentary representation was this: that every Member should have a seat in the House. Every Member was returned to sit there. He was not returned to fight for his seat in the House after his return by the vote of his constituents. He was not returned to take part in a rowdy scrimmage at the door with the result that one Member might be knocked down and others injured in order that he might have a place to listen to a great speech from the First Lord of the Treasury—and this was what had happened on the occasion of the right hon. Gentleman's introduction of the Home Rule Bill. As they were a new Par-

  121
  liament, as this was a matter affecting all private Members, and as they were approaching another great occasion—namely, the Committee stage on the Home Rule Bill, it was desirable that something should be said on this question. He found that in all Foreign and Colonial Parliaments every Member had a place assigned to him as of right. In 1867 a Select Committee was appointed to consider this question, and re-appointed in 1868. The Resolution of the House, in 1867, was—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether there should be any alterations in the arrangements of the House of Commons, so as to enable a greater number of Members to hear and take part in its proceedings."
  In 1868 the Committee reported that there were substantial grounds for the complaint that the House was defective in extent of accommodation. If that was the case in 1868, before the number of Members had been increased by the Reform Bill, and when the attendance in the House was neither so largo nor so regular as it was now, he thought there was abundant reason now to declare the accommodation insufficient. The Committee had further stated that the increased accommodation necessary could be best afforded by the construction of a new Chamber. On the floor of the House only 306 Members could be accommodated with seats, the total number of Members being 670; so that less than half the Members could be accommodated with seats. In the Gallery 124 could be seated, but could take no part in the proceedings. Besides that, 263 strangers could be accommodated. Compare this with the condition of things in Foreign Parliaments. In Italy, for instance, there were 492 Members of the Chamber, and on the floor there were 492 seats, and, besides that, there were seats also for 452 strangers. Strangers in this House included the Press, and they all knew that there had been frequent and most justifiable complaints from the Press with regard to insufficient accommodation. He had been asked by one or two hon. Members how he would allot seats, and his reply was that that was a small question, which it would be perfectly easy to deal with when the proper time came. It was not necessary to settle it, now the only question they had to consider being—"Has a. Member
  122
  a right to a seat, and is it desirable that he should take part in a scrimmage to secure one whenever a great event happens in the House?" Some Members—like himself—were busy men, and could not afford to waste hours hanging about the House in order to secure their seats. He thought that now they had popular representation the House of Commons ought to adopt the modern practice that was in force in the Parliaments of all civilised nations—namely, to allocate to each Member a seat, which he should retain as a right in the name of his constituency. There was an impression amongst the occupants of the Front Benches that to give each Member a seat would necessitate a very considerable enlargement of the House, and compel them to adopt the system of speaking from a tribune; but he did not hold that view. Neither could he accept the argument that the question should not be dealt with this year, for the reason that the number of Members from Ireland might be reduced from 103 to 80. He did not think that a reduction of 23 Members would make any material difference in the appropriation of seats, nor did he think there was much prospect of the reduction taking place at all. Two or three good plans had been prepared, showing how accommodation could be given to the whole of the Members on the floor of the House. It would not be necessary, as he had said, to adopt the tribune, which would be contrary to the practice, the experience, and the tastes of Englishmen. If they adopted, say, an oval shape for the House, it would not be necessary to have a tribune. At any rate, something should be done to relieve Members of the necessity to struggle for seats. If there was one thing he detested more than another it was a scrimmage, and at any time he would rather forego the pleasure of being present in the House on an important occasion than go through the indignity of rushing and pushing and fighting for a seat, especially as he had a legitimate title to a seat without it. He had never been able to understand on what principle hon. Members bad to obtain a fresh seat every night, and struggle to obtain it, and he thought that over 600 Members ought not to be put to the necessity of trying to obtain accommodation in a House built to accommodate 300.
  *MR. CREMERregretted that the hon. Baronet who had introduced this subject was not able to take a Division on his Resolution, though there was reason to believe, from what had happened on previous occasions, that it would not have been adopted owing to the opposition of hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches. The Front Bench Members obtained their seats no matter how late they were in putting in an appearance, and they were also privileged in having the Table in front of them on which to place their notes and rest their elbows when making speeches. And, forsooth, because these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen suffered no inconvenience, they were not disposed to listen to the legitimate complaints of hon. Members who were not so favourably placed as themselves. The only persona satisfied with the existing state of things in the House were the occupants of the two Front Benches and the hatters—the latter not only because of the damage done to hats in the struggle to got into the House, but because, having no other place to put them, Members about to speak placed their hats on the seat behind them, and very often, when they had finished speaking, sat down upon them. Apart from the Front Bench Gentlemen and the hatters, he did not believe anyone was satisfied with the present arrangement. Visitors to the House invariably exclaimed—"What a small place it is! How do you all manage to get seats?" A Member who was anxious to secure a seat had to come down to the House sometimes as early as 6 o'clock in the morning and deposit a hat upon the Bench. He was told on good authority that in some portion of the building there was a stock of hats kept for such occasions by some hon. Members. Two or three hours before the sitting of the House one of these hats was taken out of a locker and put on the Bench, while the hon. Member, wearing his ordinary hat, marched out of the building. This, he believed, was contrary to the rule or understanding which had prevailed in previous Parliaments. In the endeavour to secure seats other hon. Members sometimes placed a card or a scrap of paper with their names written upon it on the Bench, and some used a glove, or adopted the
  124
  meaner device of getting a person about the building to deposit a card on the seat. Members who attended at Committees were privileged to put a pink card in the slot to enable them to occupy the seat in front of it during the Sitting; but it frequently happened that, coming down at 11 or half-past 11 o'clock, they found cards placed on the seats, not by the Members themselves, but by other persons, the Members coming down leisurely to take their seats 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour before the opening of the proceedings. That was taking a mean advantage of Members who had been serving on Committees, and he hoped that some steps would be taken by the Authorities of the House to prevent the practice being continued. He had visited the Chambers of France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United States, and everyone who contrasted the advantages accorded to Members in the Legislative Chambers of those countries with the House of Commons must give their verdict for the proposal of the hon. Baronet. In the French Chamber every Member had a seat allotted to him, and the acoustic properties of the place were excellent. If the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works wanted a model for a Chamber, let him go to the Senate House in the Luxembourg at Paris. The difficulty of allotting the seats if the House were enlarged would not be a great one. In the United States the process did not occupy more than three-quarters of an hour at the opening of a new Congress. He thought it had been a mistake to construct the House of Commons in this longitudinal shape, and he would suggest that in any reconstruction which took place one of the walls should be carried back 30 feet, which would render it possible to construct a Chamber of a horse-shoe shape which would provide the requisite amount of accommodation. If that suggestion were adopted, the First Commissioner of Works should be assisted in carrying it out by a number of practical men especially selected for that purpose —he did not mean a Committee like that appointed in the last Parliament to consider certain alterations, which alterations had been made at considerable expense, but which, in the estimation of many hon. Members, were by no means improvements. If a Committee were

  125
  appointed without a contingent of practical men upon it he (Mr. Cremer) should oppose it.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: This matter was discussed at some length on the Vote on Account before Easter, and at the close of that Debate I stated that I would consult the Government on the question. I have done so, and I have now to say that the Government consider that this is a matter for the House, and that if there appears to be a general desire that a Committee should be appointed they will not oppose it. At the same time, their advice is that the Motion for the Committee should not be brought on till next Session. And the reason for that is this: If you look back to the last six or seven Parliaments, you will see that at the beginning of every first Session there have always been many complaints of inconvenience to Members and want of accommodation, and that pressure has been put upon the Government to consent to an alteration of the House. There have been Motions made for Committees and frequent Debates; but hon. Members have always been met by successive Governments with the recommendation that the appointment of a Committee should be postponed until the next Session, and when the next Session has arrived the pressure has disappeared. I am bound to admit that in the early part of the present Session more inconvenience was felt by Members than at any time in the past; but there was an unusual number of new Members in the House who exercised their privilege of coming into the House to take part in its proceedings. That state of things will probably not continue, and, indeed, a considerable change has taken place since Easter. I have made it my business to take careful note of the attendance from time to time; and since Easter I have observed that, although there has been a number of first-rate Debates, on such subjects as Home Rule, the Budget, Egypt, and the Eight Hours Question, at no time has the House been inconveniently filled. On Wednesday there were 500 Members in the precincts of the House; but at the time when the House was fullest I counted the Members present, and there were not more than 200.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: There were over 300 at one time.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: That might have been just before the Division.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: No, it was not.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The floor of the House can accommodate 346 Members; so that, even if the hon. Baronet is right, there were 46 empty seats.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: There are only 306 seats where Members are permitted to take part in the Debates.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: There is sitting room on the floor of the House for 346 Members, and seats in the Galleries for 100. On the last night of the Home Rule Debate, just before the Division, although the two Leaders spoke, there were, excepting the last few minutes before the Division, several empty seats to be found in all parts of the House. I drew from that the conclusion that already other attractions had induced hon. Members not to crowd into the House. We shall have ample experience during the remainder of the Session, and it will be interesting to observe whether the House will be in a normal condition during the prolonged Home Rule contest. If, after that experience, there should be a general desire next Session to appoint a Committee, the Government will assent to it. As to the proposal that the House should be so enlarged as to afford accommodation to the whole of the 670 Members on the floor, I am strongly opposed to it. It may be wise to so enlarge the House as to do away with the existing inconvenience, but to enlarge it so as to provide a seat for every Member is, I think, a proposition which would not be entertained by the majority of Members in the House. I may remind hon. Members that there are very few occasions in the House when there are so many as 550 present. The House will doubtless be surprised to hear that during the present Session there have only been two occasions on which more than 550 Members have voted, and only nine where there were 500. The average number of occasions on which there have been more than 550 Members present, even for the purpose of voting, is not more than two in each Session. It is obvious, therefore, that as a rule a large number of Members are always

  127
  absent from the precincts of the House. Under the circumstances it would not be wise to follow the example of Foreign Legislatures referred to by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, and provide seats for all our Members. The hon. Member asked me if I had visited Foreign Chambers. I have; and I must say I deprecate following their example. If we have to find a seat for every Member we shall have to enlarge the House to such an extent that it will be necessary to have resort to the tribune. ["No, no!"] Yes; that is my opinion. We should have to so enlarge the House that it would be impossible for hon. Members to speak in the ordinary way from their seats. We should have to resort to the practice of foreign countries. That would entirely alter the character of the House, and I should be most strongly opposed to it.
  *MR. CREMER: If the right hon. Gentleman has been present at Debates in the Chamber at Washington he will have noticed that none of the Members speak from the tribune. In Continental Chambers it is optional.
  *SIR J. GOLDSMID: I have frequently seen Members speak from their places in the French Chamber.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: They can speak from their places, but in important Debates they generally speak from the tribune. The difference between those Houses and ours is that in them a large proportion of the work is done in Committee and only a small proportion in the House, whilst here the bulk of the work is done in the House. It is, therefore, desirable that the Chamber in which we sit should not be very large. On the whole, I think this House fairly meets the necessities of the case. It may be too small to meet requirements in extraordinary Debates; but the question is whether, for the purpose of providing for extraordinary occasions which occur only two or three times in a Session, it is desirable to put the House to inconvenience in its ordinary and normal condition? If the experience of the remainder of the Session should show that the present arrangements are inconvenient to Members, the Government will consent to a Committee meeting this year; but, for my part, I should desire that that Committee should confine itself to the question whether there may be
  128
  some enlargement of the House, with the view of meeting the special cases I have referred to, and that it should not go into the wider question that has been suggested—namely, that of providing a place for every single Member. That, in my opinion, would be altogether unnecessary, and would inevitably lead to the adoption of the tribune.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should want to delay the appointment of the Committee till next Session. A Committee went very fully in the matter in 1867–8, and reported that increased accommodation could be obtained in a most satisfactory manner and without interrupting the Business of the House. The Committee were of opinion that the alterations could be easily accomplished in the space of the Recess at a cost of some £120,000. The right hon. Gentleman said that since Easter the accommodation of the House had been ample. Since Easter, however, the proceedings with one exception, had not been of the interesting character that they were sometimes. Next week a very different state of affairs would be witnessed. Even that evening the House had been inconveniently crowded. There was no doubt that a large number of hon. Members absented themselves from the House, because of the difficulty they found in obtaining accommodation. That might be the "Mother of Parliaments;" but there was no Parliament House in any part of the world which was so inconvenient to Members, and also to strangers, as that at Westminster. It was perfectly disgraceful that hon. Members, the greater number of whom had other avocations to pursue, should, in order to obtain a seat on any important occasion, have to be at the House at 11 or 12 o'clock in the day and, according to the Rule, not leave the House subsequently. There were 669 Members of the House, excluding the Speaker, and there were only 240 seats from which any part could be taken in the proceedings. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see whether he could not suggest some means of improving the accommodation, and thus distinguish his tenure of Office as First Commissioner of Works.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that might be the Mother of Parliaments, but it was a most unjust stepmother to its own children, because it did not provide room for them in its lap. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner had started a most extraordinary theory. He seemed to be under the impression that when anybody got into the House of Commons his duty was to keep out of it as much as possible. It would be interesting to know whether the Government Whip shared the right hon. Gentleman's opinion on this point. The right hon. Gentleman said he himself was opposed to any change in the House; and, therefore, on the sic volo sir jubeo principle, he would not allow the matter to be discussed. If his hand was forced on the subject, he thought that the obnoxious addition to the accommodation of the House should be limited as much as possible, and that the House should not, in any event, be enlarged sufficiently to provide accommodation for all its Members. What would be said of any County Council in the country which, being in want of a proper meeting place, calmly built up a hall in which only half its Members could find places? The Government had come into power with a great Newcastle Programme, and were always complaining of delays; and yet, when a Committee was proposed on an important subject of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner said, "Let us put it off for a year." What would the Government say if he (Mr. Labouchere) said—" Let us put off Home Rule for a year." In view of the strong opinion which had been expressed in favour of some alteration, it was only fair and reasonable that a Committee should be appointed during the present Session. He knew his hon. Friend could not divide on the present proposal, and he had put down a little Amendment of his own in favour of reducing the First Commissioner's salary by £50. There would be two advantages in voting on that Amendment—they would get the Committee, and at the same time would save the country £50.
  DR. FARQUHARSONwas of opinion that better accommodation ought to be provided for the House. He remembered, on one occasion, Mr. Mitchell Henry making a Motion from a very effective standpoint—
  130
  he was obliged to address the House from the Galleny, and he said he did so because he could not get a seat down below. It seemed to him (Dr. Farquharson) that a Committee would be extremely valuable, because they must have regard to the future, when hon. Members would be called on to attend in their places much more than they did now. It was probable that ere long they would have payment of Members, and hon. Members would then have to attend to their duties with much greater assiduity than they did now. They would have to be almost constant in their attendance, therefore they would expect to have proper accommodation. But there were only two points worthy of consideration. When the Home Rule Bill passed, whether the Irish Members were retained at Westminster or not, it was evident that they would not come here in such numbers as they did now, nor be so assiduous in their attendance. That, to a certain extent, would relieve the House. Then—and this was his second point—if they had Home Rule for Ireland it was probable that they would have Homo Rule all round—Scotch and Welsh as well as Irish Home Rule. The House would then, in all likelihood, be solely devoted to Imperial questions, and the strain on it would be less even if the number of Members were not reduced. There was a good deal to be said on both sides of the question, therefore he was anxious to see a Committee appointed.
  *MR. ANSTRUTHERthought that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was insufficient for the needs and requirements of the present day. It had been decided by a Committee of the House, as long ago as 1868, that greater accommodation for Members was required, and it seemed to him that what they had to do now was to set to work and see how that additional accommodation could best be provided. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had used what appeared to him to be a very curious and, perhaps, unfortunate expression when he said that hon. Members came into the House in large numbers at the beginning of the Session because, forsooth, of the privilege they enjoyed of listening to important speeches. He had been brought up to believe that it was part of the duty of an hon. Member returned to the House to come and listen

  131
  to the speeches of leading Members in order that they might form a reasonable judgment on the matters debated. It was no argument to him to say that the House was not always full, or was only sometimes full, and that, therefore, there was no necessity for additional accommodation. He knew very well from his own experience that Members were very often reluctant to come into the House on crowded evenings, because they knew they would suffer so much discomfort. It was said that if the House were enlarged it would be more difficult to hear Members' speeches. Well, he was prepared to assert the exact contrary. Members below the Gangway at present were unable to hear a great deal of the conversation which took place between the occupants of the two Front Benches across the Table; and if the House were enlarged it would be necessary that those Gentlemen should speak louder, so that everyone could hear them. There was a Committee now sitting to inquire into the subject of reporting the proceedings of Parliament, and all the evidence which had been received from the gentlemen who were good enough to sit in the House night after night reporting its proceedings went to show the difficulty experienced in hearing what was said on the floor. It would, therefore, be wise for the First Commissioner of Works to reconsider his decision, and appoint a Committee to consider the questions of the accommodation in the House and the accommodation in the Reporters' Gallery together. They might then be able to arrive at the ideal of the Secretary of State for War—solvitur ambulando.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

  AFFAIRS IN SWAZILAND.
  MR. WEBSTERrose to call attention to affairs in Swaziland. He said the principal reason why he called attention to this important matter was that since 1890 the House had received no Reports on the country, and no information as to its affairs of a definite or adequate character from the Government. He thought the House should know whether it was true that a Conference had recently assembled in South Africa in regard to Swaziland; also what were the terms of the Reference
  132
  to that Conference; and whether it was true, as stated in some newspapers, that the result of that Conference would be in the no distant future the handing over of this important territory—so far as it was in our power to hand it over— to the Boer Republic. Swaziland was not a very large country, being about 10,000 square miles in extent. At one time it was a portion of the Zulu nation, but now it was practically a separate and independent country. On the West it was bounded by the Drakenberg range of mountains, some 5,000 feet high, and supposed to be possessed of great potentialities in the way of gold mines; and on the East it was bounded by the Lebombo range. Its Southern limit was a line drawn by the Pingolo, and its Northern limit was determined by another artificial line which started from the Lebombo range to a spot opposite Delagoa Bay. The surface of the country was diversified by swelling grass-covered hills and valleys abounding with timber. Some people had said the country could be approached only by a balloon; but he was credibly informed that £120,000 of machinery had been taken to a mine which had been opened in the country with the greatest ease. The kernel of the country was the central plateau, about 2,000 feet high, where the Boens wintered their cattle. Indeed, the Boers, who brought nothing into the country, took a great deal from it, and the wintering of their cattle in that fashion had caused a great number of disputes with the natives. Turning to the historical aspect of the question, he would explain how it came to pass that we gave assurances to this small nationality, of about 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants, that we would, to some extent, defend their independence. No one could deny that in 1876 the Transvaal Boers were in a hopeless state of bankruptcy, and were in great danger of being swamped by the Zulus. At that time the British Government was induced—he would not say whether rightly or wrongly—to enter into a contest with the Zulus, and he could not help regretting that we should have been forced to treat as a foe Cetewayo, who was willing, at that particular time, to be our friend. The intention then was, according to Sir Theophilus Shepstone, to protect the Swazis from being overcome by the Zulus. That had been always recalled by the Swazis.

  133
  They had always recalled the fact that their nationality was about to be taken away from them by the Zulus when they, to some extent, received the protection of Great Britain. When, in 1877, we lavished British blood and money in fighting the Zulus, and destroying the danger which threatened the broken-down Boer Republic on its borders, and were compelled, not without reluctance, to take upon ourselves the burden of reorganising and administering the broken down commonweal as a Crown Colony, the Boers showed their gratitude by plotting to get rid of us; and they plotted against us, he admitted, with some success. They sent a deputation to this country, who were received by the right hon. Gentleman the present Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and the right hon. Gentleman gave, on that occasion, the only straightforward statement the House had received from either Party on this subject. But soon after that a Liberal Government, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, came into Office in 1880. We had to reflect, with some humiliation, on the disastrous campaign in the Transvaal, ending with Majuba Hill, after which we, without duo reason or due cause, give up that valuable country to the Boers. In the Treaty we then made there was a clause that we were determined to maintain the independence of Swaziland. Did the Swazis long to be annexed to the Transvaal? He had no doubt that if the Europeans in Swaziland were polled they would be found in favour of annexation, for the majority of them were Boers; but he ventured to say that the Swazis themselves were very hostile to annexation. And why should they wish to be annexed to the Boer Republic? They were, it was true, surrounded on all sides by powerful nationalities, but that was no reason why they should give up their independence. In Europe, the Swiss, a small nationality, and, like the Swazis, surrounded by powerful States, had been able to maintain their independence. He did not think it right for any Member of the House to say hard words of people belonging to another nationality, but he could not help saying that the action of the Boers towards the Swazis was not altogether of a kindly character. In fact, the Boers had treated the Swazis in the way the negroes had been treated in
  134
  South America, and, furthermore, they had done their best to degrade and debase the Swazis by importing a large amount of alcoholic liquors into the country. We protected the Swazis from the Zulu power, and the Swazis did their best for us on another occasion. Their King sent 8,000 of his picked warriors—which practically meant every man in the country who could bear arms—to aid Sir Garnet Wolseley in his campaign against Sekukuni. Writing of the Swazis Sir Garnet Wolseley said—
  "They went home happy and contented, having done us remarkably good service during the campaign. They responded to ray call with great alacrity when I sent for them, and from the kindness with which they were treated by us, and the signal success that attended the campaign, I have no doubt we shall always be able to count upon their invaluable assistance whenever we require it to quell any native troubles in this part of Africa."
  There was evidence in the Blue Books that Sir Garnet Wolseley, Sir Evelyn Wood, and Sir Theophilus Shepstone had guaranteed the integrity of their country to the Swazis. We had not a large Army in comparison with the territory we possessed, and our supremacy rested on the fact that British honour and British promises could be relied on; that whatever was said by the British Government or by a British official was always acted on, and he thought that, in South Africa it would be a grave disaster if our promises to the Swazis were gone behind. English capitalists had expended large sums of money in an effort to develop the country, and were the fruits of that enterprise to be handed over to the Boer Republic? An Englishman had no political rights at all in the Transvaal. He had about as much political right as a helot had in Sparta, and if he changed his nationality and became a subject of the Transvaal Republic he had to wait for 16 years before. he had the right to vote; no foreign could be naturalised until he had resided in the country for 16 years, and that despite the fact that the country was being opened out by British skill and enterprise. No progress had taken place in any public Department. The Boers were paramount. In 1880 we allowed the Republic, on the flimsiest pretext, to extend its borders along the Southern border of Swaziland. By an Article of the Treaty of Pretoria, 1881, the independence of Swaziland was

  135
  fully recognised. In 1884 that Treaty was ratified by the present Prime Minister, and in 1890 the independence of Swaziland was confirmed by Treaty. He thought this country should be very careful to consider whether she would not be going behind those Treaty arrangements if Swaziland was allowed to drift from the practical sovereignty of the Queen to the domination of the Boer Republic. Last year the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies said he felt very strongly the duty of protecting the natives in this matter, and that he was fully awake to the duty incumbent on the Government to encourage and protect British enterprise. The Swazis wished to prolong their autonomy as a nation. He did not say Great Britain could cede Swaziland to the Transvaal. We might as well talk of ceding Afghanistan to Russia, or Morocco to France. The only part we could play in such a transaction was that of accomplices in a flagrant and perfidious act of robbery. No possible guarantee could be given that we should receive even the pitiful price for which we might bargain in return for our share in the betrayal of allies and the violation of all principles of humanity. The annexation of Swaziland by the Boers would place at their mercy the large amount of capital already invested in the country by British subjects, and would set the latter in the same humiliating and disadvantageous position as was occupied by the Uitlanders in the Transvaal. The native population would be doomed under Boer rule, their hatred of which had been plainly expressed, to slavery, oppression, and final extinction. He would like to know from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what the Government intended to do in this matter?
  DR. CLARKsaid, the hon. Member was in ignorance of the geography of the country and its history. He was utterly mistaken as regarded the geography. Swaziland was entirely surrounded by the Transvaal except on the East. It was not bounded by Natal. As to the assertion made in reference to the treatment of the natives in the Transvaal, he had never heard a more rash or untrue statement. A despatch sent to this country by the British Agent, appointed under the provisions of the Treaty of 1884, showed that lie had never seen people so comfortable
  136
  as the protected tribes in the Transvaal. He himself had never seen a people more comfortable, or in such a high state of civilisation, as the protected tribes. It was also amusing to him to hear that an Englishman in the Transvaal could not obtain civil or political rights, must forswear his nationality, and must have been 16 years in the country before he had a right to vote. There were two Chambers in the country, and any man after two years' residence could vote for one, and after five years' residence could vote for both Chambers. All the statements made by the hon. Member, without exception, were absolutely untrue. He wanted to know, as well as the hon. Member, what the Government were going to do with regard to Swaziland, because we had done a great deal of damage to the country by the course we pursued in 1881. The Swazis were the only race in South Africa that the Boers had never fought. The Swazis had always been the allies and friends of the Boers, and there was a great deal of sympathy between them. The condition of Swaziland had now become something terrible, and it was getting demoralised and degraded beyond conception. As we could only get to Swaziland by going through the Transvaal territory, or through Portuguese territory, he did not think there was any course open to them but to come to terms with the Boers, and to hand that country back to the Transvaal. He did not say there was no other course; but if that course should be taken he hoped they would not play the game that was always played of making this concession to the Boers in return for something else, and without regard to the interests of the natives. No settlement of Swaziland that did not give the Swazi people their own soil would be satisfactory.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. BUXTON,)said, it was not necessary for him to enter into the historical part of the question, the "ancient history" raised by the hon. Member. They had to take things as they were. Unfortunately, in this matter, they were not dealing with a clean slate, but had to bear in mind what had happened in the past. He wished to say at once that Her Majesty's Government had in no sense raised this question of Swaziland of their own

  137
  accord. They had not wanted to raise the question, but they believed that they were bound in good faith to the South African Republic, if it were raised, to discuss it on friendly and amicable terms. The hon. Member opposite said he did not agree with the policy of his Party with regard to the Swaziland Convention of 1890. That might be so, but the Government, coming into Office as they did, found themselves obliged to deal with the Convention as it stood, and with the pledges given by the late Government in regard to the Transvaal. Upon that point he thought he ought to say a word or two, because he wished that House to understand that, as far as the Government were concerned, they were not wantonly raising this Swaziland question. The Convention of 1890, which was about to expire, was admittedly a temporary Convention. It was only intended to last for three years, and the South African Republic had contended that when certain matters were settled, when Swaziland was in a satisfactory state, and when the concession question was settled, they were entitled to raise the question at an earlier period than three years. When the late Government negotiated that Convention through Sir Henry Loch with the Representative of the South African Republic it was stated specifically to the Transvaal Government that when the joint Government (British and South African) was established and the Concession Clauses were settled, it would consider such questions as the Government of the South African Republic might bring before it, with a desire to meet the wishes of the South African Republic as far as possible. When this Convention was ratified by the Volksraad similar words were used by them as a condition of ratification. Further, when the great trek northwards was anticipated in 1891, Her Majesty's Government undertook that if President Krüger would prevent the trek, which would have been very dangerous to our Mashonaland possessions, they would be prepared to consider this question before the expiration of the three years mentioned in the Convention. As regarded the question of throe years, he might say at once that in a sense it was immaterial, as the three years had nearly expired. But it was material in the sense that it showed throughout all the discussions that the South African Republic ex-
  138
  pected from the very beginning that when certain circumstances occurred they would be entitled to come to the British Government and say—"We have done our part; do yours. Meet us and discuss these questions on friendly terms." Under these circumstances, so long ago as 1890, the late Government agreed that Sir Henry Loch should confer with President Krüger in order to discuss the matter with a view of meeting the South African Republic as far as possible. For certain reasons not connected with Swaziland the meeting fell through; but, last February, the late Government agreed that Sir Henry Loch should meet President Krüger and discuss the question; and Lord Knutsford, in a despatch to Sir Henry dated February 2nd, 1892, said—
  "Her Majesty's Government, however, have every desire to meet as far as is possible the wishes of the South African Republic, and I have now to authorise you to inform President Krüger that you are prepared to receive, as representing Her Majesty's Government in South Africa, proposals from him respecting the government of Swaziland."
  He quoted that to show what was the opinion of the late Government in regard to this matter. When the present Government came into Office they found that this meeting had been arranged; and, so far as they were concerned, they had no option in the matter but to allow Sir Henry Loch to meet President Krüger and to discuss this question, with a view as far as possible of meeting the wishes of the South African Republic. He was quite sure his hon. Friend opposite would not expect him at the present moment to state what exactly were the instructions to Sir Henry Loch, or the exact conclusion come to at that Conference. But he might say that Sir Henry Loch and President Krüger met and amicably discussed the matter, and Sir Henry Loch had stated that he was well satisfied with the discussion and its results. But it was in the nature of a discussion and not of a decision, and for this reason—President Krüger, as they understood by telegraph, had no absolute powers to conclude the Convention then and there under his Constitution without reference to the Volksraad. There was, however, a very considerable exchange of views, certain bases were arrived at on both sides, which he believed would be found to be satisfactory to both parties; and later on there would probably

  139
  be a further interview between Sir Henry Loch and President Krüger in order to draw up and to arrive at a filial decision in regard to the matter. Of course, before any final agreement was come to, all the points would be referred homo for decision before Sir Henry Loch would be entitled to sign on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. But he would say at once that, as to the rights of the whites, all their personal proprietary and political rights must be and ought to be preserved; and, so far as legitimate British interests existed, they also would be carefully and properly preserved. Further, in regard to the question of the natives, he could assure hon. Members that their interests would in no sense be neglected, and in any negotiations as to the future of Swaziland they would take care that the natives should not be coerced into coming to any agreement with the Transvaal Government if they objected to do so; and that in any arrangement between the Transvaal and England the consent of the natives should be intelligently and effectually given, and that they should not be harried, hurried, or deceived into accepting any Convention to which they might afterwards object. He would say, further, that any arrangement as between the Boers and the natives would necessarily be subject to terms to which the assent of the Government must be given, and that assent would not be given unless they had full guarantees that such native rights as did exist were properly preserved. He ought, perhaps, to say this in reference to what his hon. Friend had said as to what he had called the independence of the natives. It was perfectly true that independence was recognised, though it was not guaranteed, under the Conventions of 1880 and 1890. But it was recognised in the sense that neither party to the Convention might negotiate with the natives without the assent of the other. If it was now considered advisable that the Transvaal Government should be allowed to enter into negotiations with the natives, it would only be allowed under strict guarantees as to the rights of the natives. The hon. Member opposite said that if they allowed the Transvaal to extend to Swaziland they would extend further, take over Tongaland, and obtain possession of and accession to Delagoa Bay. In any agreement the Govern-
  140
  ment would take care that the absolute independence of Tongaland as regarded the South African Republic should be assured, and that the position of Delagoa Bay would be in no way affected by any concession to the Transvaal in connection with these negotiations, and should remain in the same position as at present.
  MR. CONYBEAREthought the House should be satisfied with the assurances given by the Under Secretary for the Colonies. The hon. Gentleman said the interests of the natives would be safeguarded, and their wishes duly ascertained, and that they should not be coerced or harried into acceptance of Boer Government. What he wished to draw attention to was that when the Conference took place in Swaziland two years ago the wishes of the people in one particular direction, and that was, as to the encouragement of intoxication and the demoralisation of the people by drink. On that occasion he brought the matter before the House, and he read from the Blue Book the verbatim Report of the Conference that took place between the Representative of the Transvaal Republic, our own Representative, and the Representatives of the Swazi people, and he had read nothing more pathetic than the appeals made by the head men of the Swazis that we should stop the importation of drink, because restrictions were perfectly delusive. What was the result? He appealed to the hon. Member the late Under Secretary for the Colonies, and all the answer he got from the Tory Government was that the whole matter was closed, and it was impossible to reopen it. The matter was not closed so far as they were concerned. He would appeal to his hon. Friend who had charge of this matter, now that he was talking of safeguarding the rights of the natives, that he would see that the protection of these helpless individuals against demoralisation by drink was properly carried out. With reference to the arguments which had been placed before the House by the hon. Member who raised this discussion, he wondered what particular motive an hon. Gentleman on that side of the House had in raising the question. He believed he was right in saying that there were a certain clique of persons in this country interested in some of those concessions which had been

  141
  referred to. He mentioned this because he had personal knowledge of what he was saying, and because he wished to ask the House not to attribute too much importance to the views they had heard put forward by the Mover of the Resolution. So far as he was aware, however much they might hear about patriotism and loss of prestige that might be incurred by handing over this portion of South Africa to the Transvaal Republic, these views were mainly put forward on behalf of gentlemen who were interested in concessions in Swaziland, and who were afraid that their concessions would lose in value under Boer rule. As the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) had pointed out, all the concessions worth anything were in the hands of the Transvaal Government, who had paid large sums of money for them. The hon. Member who introduced the subject talked about handing over independent States without ascertaining the wishes of the inhabitants. That, he would submit, was rather a strange argument coming from a supporter of the late Government who went in for a wholesale partition of the Continent of Africa amongst the Great Powers of Europe without ever troubling themselves as to whether the people inhabiting these enormous tracts were in favour of the partition or not. He believed, from personal knowledge, that it would be for the interest of these portions of the country with which they were dealing that the arrangement for the administration of Swaziland should be placed in the hands of the Transvaal Government. He said that having considerable acquaintance with the manner in which the Transvaal Government treated the very considerable number of natives who inhabited the country of the Transvaal. He had associated with great numbers of them, and had, he might say, had dealings with them; and, although there might be instances of harsh treatment between the individual Boer farmer and the individual native—and he had seen such cases himself—he would maintain that, taking the Government of the Transvaal as a whole, its treatment of the natives was as humane and as satisfactory as was the treatment by England of the natives in her own territories in South Africa. It was quite true that there native attained to a very high degree of comfort and prosperity. He
  142
  might mention a single instance whore a certain native chief in one portion of the South-Western Transvaal had recently been in a position to offer a very large sum of money to an English company for the farm land upon which the tribe was living, the surface rights merely, leaving all question of minerals out of the agreement. When that was the case, and when they knew the wealth which the natives accumulated working in the mines, and which they could carry away with them in hard cash without being harried or annoyed by the Government officials, it was nonsense for hon. Members who had never been within a thousand miles of the Transvaal to get up and talk of the ill-treatment by the Boer Government of the native population. It was one of those mythical statements always trotted out when there was any question of dealing with the Transvaal Government, against which so many people in that House seemed to have so ill-grounded a prejudice. He wished to say, on the broad general question of their relations with the Transvaal Government, that after what had happened during the last three years, and after what had been admitted there that night by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, it would be something like a gross breach of faith on their part if they were now to go back from the understanding they had entered into with the Transvaal Government and refuse to hand over to them the administration of Swaziland. It was all very well for people to get up and talk about the policy of letting the Boers down to the sea. Why should they not have access to the sea? If they chose to have a railway to the sea, and a harbour on the coast, he, for one, should be delighted to see them getting such an outlet for their industry and commerce as would be convenient to them. But that was not the question at the present time, and he would say it was worth their while to keep on friendly terms with the governing population of the Transvaal. This country had got enormous interests there. He did not say that the Transvaal Government would make itself particulary unpleasant to them; there was no reason to think that. He did not say either that the Transvaal Government could ever greatly interfere with all the millions of British capital which were now invested in the development of the Transvaal Republic; but he would say this: that, with

  143
  friendly relations existing, as they now happily did, between this country and the Boers of the Transvaal, it was worth while to maintain those friendly relations, because every sensible man, every far-seeing statesman, whether in the Transvaal or in the Cape Colony, looked forward to the day when there would be some kind of federation of the States of South Africa, whether it was under the British or South African flag, when they would all be in harmony, and when there would be no fear of such dismal scenes as took place in the war of a few years go. He hoped, whatever decision they took in connection with this question, that good would result from it to the States of South Africa.

  SCOTTISH PALACES AND CASTLES.
  *MR. A. C. MORTONhad the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "To call attention to the neglected condition of the Hollywood and Linlithgow Palaces, and Edinburgh, Stirling, Dumbarton, and Blackness Castles, and to move, 'That these Scottish Palaces and Castles should be put and kept in a decent state of repair, as agreed upon at the time of the Union."
  He said he did not propose to take up more than a few minutes in dealing with this matter. He wanted the Government to understand that those buildings were national property, and should be protected and kept in decent repair by the Government, as was agreed upon at the time of the Treaty with Scotland. The First Commissioner of Works was good enough, early in the Session, to promise, with regard to the Palaces of Holyrood and Linlithgow and Edinburgh Castle, to go and see these places later in the year. He was satisfied with that promise, and did not, therefore, propose to trouble the House with any remarks as to these places. With regard to Stirling Castle, he wanted to get some undertaking from the Minister for War. Part of the building, containing a chapel, palace, and hall, with which the Secretary for War should have nothing to do with, had been taken by the War Authorities; and he wanted to have an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he would put that portion in repair and give it back to the Civil Authorities of the country. He understood that the hall and palace and chapel had been made into a barracks, a canteen, and all sorts of strange things. The Scottish Society of Antiquarians
  144
  had communicated with the right hon. Gentleman, and he (Mr. Morton) would be quite satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would say that he would give consideration to the representation that had been made by that Society and to any other representations that might yet be made by other Societies.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, his hon. Friend took him between wind and water, because he was not only Minister for War, but also Member for Stirling, and a Scotsman as well, so that he had three reasons for being very sedulous in his care of the Castle of Stirling. He did not know that the hon. Member had displayed any intimate knowledge of the subject which he had discussed.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I could have done so, but I did not want to take up the time of the House.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANacknowledged the desire of his hon. Friend to spare the time of the House, and would follow him in the example he had set. He would only say that, in the observations the hon. Member had made as to what had occurred, he had mixed up one or two things which were not connected with each other. Undoubtedly Stirling Castle, which contained within the fortress—if it could be called a fortress— the old Parliament House and a chapel and other buildings of interest, had been very badly treated in past years. He had paid very close attention to it himself. He had gone over every part of it, and the general conclusion he had come to was that they had better endeavour to prevent the process of destruction and degradation going any further. As to attempting to restore what there was in times past, he was afraid they would merely let in the imaginative architect, and that possibly the so-called restorations might be even worse than the present condition of things. That was the general impression on his mind. As the hon. Member had said, he had received a communication from the Society that had been referred to, and he had answered them. He would keep a very close watch on the matter, and with all his heart he would be delighted to do anything to save the old buildings and the associations connected with them.
  MR. PARKER SMITHthought that there was one thing worse than the imaginative architect, and that was the unimaginative soldier, who had had possession of Stirling and Edinburgh Castles, and had worked great mischief on both. Edinburgh Castle had been happily rescued from him. He (Mr. Smith) trusted that a certain amount of money might be found to set free the most interesting parts of Stirling Castle from the present use to which they had been turned; and that they might have buildings containing objects of the greatest historical interest in Scotland kept in a better way than they had been. If any spur were needed to induce the right hon. Gentleman to be unselfish enough to devote a certain amount of public money to this end, he might rest assured that none of them would grudge it to him, or suspect him of unworthy motives in doing that which would be to the advantage of his constituency and the country at large.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Supply—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 327.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Import Duty on tea).
  *MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had given Notice to move the rejection of this clause, but he was well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not afford to do away with the Tea Duty. Personally, he should have preferred that he had done that and increased the Income Tax. But the expenditure might have been reduced by £3,500,000 if the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to do it. He trusted during the present Session to give the right hon. Gentleman many opportunities of voting with him for the reduction of Expenditure. It might be said that the Chancellor would not have money if the duty were abolished on tea; but that was not his (Mr. Morton's) business. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
  146
  could get money some other way. This was his business: the Liberal Party were pledged to do away with this tax, and, for himself, he was resolved to carry out the Newcastle Programme as far as he could. He hoped that early next Session the right hon. Gentleman would be able to announce that he intended to do away with the Tea Duty altogether.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): Like the great Don Ferdinando, we can "do no more than man can do." I cannot repeal the Tea Duty in the face of a deficit of £1,500,000. I am extremely anxious to reduce the duty, but my hon. Friend must feel that in the circumstances of the time it is impossible to take the course he suggests.
  MR. PICTONsaid, the Government had pledged themselves to give the foremost place to the Government of Ireland Bill, and when that pledge was given they knew what they were going to do. The words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to this and other reforms in the Budget were as satisfactory as they could expect from any Minister in his responsible position. The right hon. Gentleman was in favour of imposing further burdens on the rich and of relieving the burdens on the poor; and with these pledges he thought the Committee, in present circumstances, ought to be entirely satisfied. Next year, however, they would expect from the Chancellor of the Exchequer one of the greatest Budgets brought forward for many years.
  DR. CLARKdid not agree with his hon. Friend. The difficulty would not be in carrying Home Rule through the House, but in carrying it before the country. If the Liberal Party sacrificed everything for Home Rule, and appealed to the country afterwards, he was afraid the appeal would not be favourably responded to. The Government would be told that the old story was being repeated—a Liberal Government came into power and did nothing to give effect to its opinions. He wished to point out the inequality of taxation in the Death Duties, and how the differentiation was in favour of realty and against personalty—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. Member is wandering from the point before the Committee.
  DR. CLARKsaid, if he was ruled out of Order he would resume his seat at once.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2, 3, and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Repeal of certain exemptions from the Stamp Duty on receipts).
  MR. E. B. HOAREsaid, he would like to have information as to the meaning of this clause. It was an innocent-looking clause, but, somehow, it appeared to him to be somewhat revolutionary in practice.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Anew practice has arisen within the last year or two of cheques having attached to them a receipt in regular form, acknowledging the receipt of the money. Under cover of the Act of 1891 those receipts are headed, "No stamp is required with this receipt," and the consequence is that the receipts escape the stamp. I have consulted several bankers on the subject, and they agree that this evasion of the stamp ought to be stopped. In old days these exemptions arose when the charges were very much higher. When the exemption from a receipt stamp for a cheque was first allowed in 1804 on bills of exchange, cheques were subject to an ad valorem stamp beginning at 8d. and rising to 7s., but cheques now only pay 1d. Receipts were subject to an ad valorem stamp rising from 2d. to 5s., and now they are at Id. The hon. Member, I am sure, would not desire to see any system established that would evade the very moderate receipt stamp of Id. The endorsement upon a cheque payable to order is a necessary part of the cheque, and is not a receipt which would require a stamp.
  MR. E. B. HOAREsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with the explanation. He had not the least desire to countenance any evasion of the law; but he wished for an actual legal interpretation of the words, which appeared to him to be very wide. Railway dividend warrants, which were drawn with a place for the signature of the proprietor at the bottom, up to the present time bore an ordinary Id. stamp, and were paid at once. He imagined that the Railway Companies considered they had got a receipt, but the matter, which was one of very great importance, required perfectly clear legislation.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope the hon. Member will take it from me that the endorsement on a cheque payable to the order of the payee is not a receipt. It is a part of the order to pay which appeared upon the face of the cheque.
  MR. E. B. HOAREsaid, he held in his hand an ordinary stamp which was put upon cheques and other documents passing through the Clearing House by the banker who presented them. He asked whether that was a receipt?
  MR. COHEN, said, he thought the House would be entirely in sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in desiring to contribute in no way to the evasion of the modest Id. receipt stamp, but he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated that a banker's name across a cheque that he had received money in a Clearing House ought to be hereafter subject to a duty which had never before been chargeable upon cheques. If he was right in that, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the words in the Bill would not require alteration so as to make the point clearer?
  MR. A. G. H. GIBBSsaid, he thought it ought to be made clear that receipts written upon bills of exchange and promissory notes did not require a stamp, for if they did it would be very inconvenient.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be aware that cheques drawn to order and endorsed were constantly used in the Law Courts to prove payment. He considered that the clause under discussion might be so interpreted that they could not be hereafter used in that way without an additional 1d. stamp.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar): It is quite true that endorsed cheques are used as primâ facie evidence that they come into the hands of the payee, but they are not receipts, although they may continue to be used as heretofore. It is only receipts properly so-called that are met by this clause.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the clause ought to contain a statement to that effect?
  MR. FORW00D: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether transfers and conveyances can be properly receipted without a 1d., stamp?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Ordinary conveyances in the body of the deed acknowledge the receipt. For some reason or other there is also endorsed upon the deed a receipt for money. Upon the acknowledgment in the body of the deed no additional stamp is required; but if people choose to write upon the deed a separate acknowledgment, then, no doubt, a 1d. stamp is required. The intention of the Government is to meet the case of evasion.
  MR. COHENsaid, that in the City there was not the slightest desire to countenance, in any way, an evasion of a legitimate duty —of which alleged evasion he heard for the first time to-night; but, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, it was not easy to compute the millions affected by the stamp put across a cheque by the bankers. He accepted the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor General that the receipt did not require a stamp, but, inasmuch as there was a doubt on the subject in City circles, and, inasmuch as apparent evasion had been, to a slight extent, resorted to, he thought the City would welcome the concession of the right hon. Gentleman, who was well advised in undertaking not to press the clause.
  MR. A. G. H. GIBBSthought that, as the clause would be open to misconstruction, it would be well to withdraw it.
  MR. E. B. HOAREsaid, he should make no objection if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to reconsider the matter so as to introduce a fresh clause in the Bill on Report. He gratefully recognised the right hon. Gentleman's offer to withdraw it; but if it could be so modified as to make its meaning clear, not only to the House, but to Her Majesty's Judges, be should be grateful.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The question as to the Clearing House raises up a doubt. I do not know whether the stamp means a receipt for a balance of money, or that the cheque has been received. If it is a receipt for a cheque it is clear that it would require a stamp, but if for a balance due the case would be different.
  MR. E. B. HOAREsaid, that every banker put the stamp "received" on the cheque when he sent it to the Clearing House. But he did not consider it a receipt for the money. The paying
  150
  banker was at liberty to return the cheque.
  MR. S. EVANShoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would postpone the clause, because it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman had carried the matter further than had been intended by those who had drafted the Bill. The only cases in which it appeared to him necessary 1o have a receipt were these:—formally in the body of a deed it might have been recited that the whole of the purchase money had been paid, but, as a matter of fact, only an instalment might have been paid. But the ad valorem duty was paid on the amount of the purchase money, and it could not be intended that besides that there should be an additional receipt stamp. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not informed them whether there had been any decision in a Court of Law as to this question. If there had been there would be no object to serve in following the course provided in the Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: As it is desirable that the Bill should pass this week, I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should allow the clause to pass through Committee. I will have the matter investigated tomorrow; and if I am not able to satisfy the Committee on the subject, I will undertake on the Third Reading to recommit the Bill in order to leave out this clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Income Tax).
  DR. CLARKsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the Income Tax from 7d. to 4d. on incomes under £500 a year, and to impose a graduated Income Tax on incomes above that amount, rising to 2s. in the £1 on incomes above £10,000. He proposed only to move the first part of the Amendment. Last year the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) took a Division in favour of a differential Income Tax by which unearned incomes would pay more than earned incomes, and small incomes would pay more than larger ones. This year he (Dr. Clark) found it difficult to draft an Amendment to differentiate because A, B, C, D, and E were so mixed up; but the question of graduation was clear, and he hoped to take a Division on it.

  151
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer would require to do something in this matter if he wished to be Chancellor of the Exchequer again. He must carry out the wishes of the people to whom Parliamentary powers had been given, and who were desirous of doing what their predecessors in power had done to lighten their own burdens. Formerly, we were ruled by an oligarchy which used to look after its own interests; but we had now become a democracy, and the problem was how to distribute taxation fairly amongst all classes. We were unable to have ad valorem; and so far as the indirect taxes were concerned, the poor paid far too much. Everyone admitted that. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted it. He had attempted to put an ad valorem, duty on higher class wines, and he had to take it off. It was difficult, as he had said, to do this, the law being evaded and the Revenue losing a great deal of money. They ought to try and make the burden lighter on the lower middle classes. He desired to see the Liberal Party become democratised on these matters. He would suggest that those people who derived their incomes from Stocks and Debentures should make their own returns in future, and should not have the Income Tax deducted by their bankers as at present. This would enable the Income Tax Commissioners to comply with the terms of his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 38, after the word "Act," to insert the words "on incomes under five hundred pounds the duty of four pence, on incomes from five hundred pounds per annum to one thousand pounds per annum the duty of sixpence, and on larger incomes."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I rise to Order. I submit that a proposal to increase taxation cannot be moved by a private Member. The latter part of the Amendment seems to me to be out of Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is so in regard to the latter part of the Motion. I have only put that part which is in Order. The Amendment stops short at the duty of 7d., so that in no part of the Amendment before the Committee does the hon. Member propose to increase taxation.
  MR. BARTLEY: Would that cut out the Amendment down in my name?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think so.
  *MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that what he wished to insist on was that the Liberal Party were pledged to a graduated Income Tax. It was all very well to tell them that the particular way they proposed to raise the question was out of Order. He did not care so much about that. All he wished to do was to impress on the Government that they were pledged to institute a graduated Income Tax; and although they might be out of Order in the way in which they sought to do that, it did not matter much. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen were cheering too soon. He said it did not matter much, because it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to object to the way in which the Amendment was put down, but to put it down the right way himself. If he understood the matter rightly, that was what they paid a Chancellor of the Exchequer for. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavoured to do that they would not question the order of his Motion, but would endeavour to carry it in accordance with the principles and pledges of the Liberal Party. It was admitted by everybody that wealth ought to pay a larger share of the taxation of the country than it did at present; that larger incomes ought to pay more; and that, consequently, there ought to be a graduated Income Tax. He had listened with pleasure to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night as to another part of the matter, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman had made a very useful suggestion. No doubt there were difficulties in the way of imposing a graduated Income Tax, but those difficulties ought not to be beyond the intelligence of a Liberal, especially of a Radical, Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman might say that he had Jingo Colleagues to deal with in the Cabinet, and that they would not allow him a free hand; but he (Mr. Morton) wanted to assure the right hon. Gentleman that however it might be with the Cabinet, at any rate he would have the full support of the Radical Party. The people of the country were strongly of opinion that now that the Government was in the hands of the Democratic Party

  153
  something should be done for them. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but when they were facing their constituents they did not laugh. He did not wish to drive the Tory Party altogether out of existence; but if they desired to exist they must give way to these demands, and assist the Radical Members to obtain a graduated Income Tax and other reforms. The Tory Party might rest assured that they would never get back to power without yielding to these demands. he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the figures before him which would show what would be the result of a graduated Income Tax upon the Revenue; but if he had, he (Mr. Morton) should like to see them. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had no time to deal with these matters. No doubt they had got to go on with the Homo Rule Bill and finish it, and there was no one in the world more anxious to finish it than he was.
  An hon. MEMBER: When?
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, an hou. Member asked "When?" Well, next week. That would give full time for an honest discussion of the Bill. But the people of this country, although willing to do justice to the Irish people, required something for themselves. They required, among other things, that the taxation should be placed upon a fair basis. Up to the present time it had never been fair. The working and industrial classes had always been compelled to pay a larger share of the taxation than the wealthy classes, and they wanted that remedied as soon as possible. They now had a Chancellor of the Exchequer about as Radical as any Member of the Cabinet—
  An hon. MEMBER: That is not saying much.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, an hon. Member remarked "That is not saying much," but he (Mr. Morton) thought it meant a good deal. He hoped that when Radical measures were pressed forward the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to support them. They were entitled to expect from a Radical Chancellor of the Exchequer who adhered to the Newcastle Programme that the incidence of taxation would be altered so as to make it fair to all parties. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman was
  154
  quite right in saying he had not yet had time to carry out his pledges; but if he could assure the House that he had all these matters before him, and would give his best attention to them, and would endeavour to discover a plan to carry out the object of the Amendment, it would be a source of satisfaction to the whole Radical Party.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member is a little hard in imposing upon me the task of discovering a plan for carrying out a satisfactory policy which the hon. Member is unable to discover for himself.
  *MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that he proposed a plan, but the right hon. Gentleman objected to on the ground that it was out of Order.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am afraid it is out of Order; but as to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, and his advice and that of his friends, I must take them in good part, because we know that they only chastise those whom they love. I am sorry the hon. Member's Amendment is out of Order, because the magnificent sum he would make a present of to the Exchequer would about equal a 2s. Income Tax on incomes above £10,000, and a larger sum on those above £50,000. But, unfortunately, the only part of the Amendment which would benefit the Treasury is out of Order, and that the only part of his proposal that is in Order is that which will tell against it. I think that is quite enough answer to the invitation to agree to this Amendment. I have no objection to the principle of graduation; I think it is just. I agree that the Death Duties ought to be altered, but the reason why I draw a distinction between them and the Income Tax is the different way in which they are collected. Under the Death Duties, you can ascertain the whole value of a man's property; but when you collect the Income Tax, you do not ask a man the value of his whole fortune. If a man has so much to receive in the form of dividends from the London and North-Western Railway, say, you deduct the Income Tax; yon deduct it also in the case of Consols, and, in the case of professional men, four-fifths is collected at its source. I would, therefore, ask hon. Gentlemen to consider how, if they graduate the tax, they are going to collect it at the source? You must assess it at the highest rate from every-

  155
  body. You must assume that a man has got a higher income, and you must collect the tax at the higher rate. That is impossible, for it would cause great vexation and inconvenience. You would make a man pay at the higher rate, and then apply for a return of the overcharge. I have no hesitation in saying that if you attempt to collect the Income Tax by calling upon each man to disclose the whole of his fortune, you will lose a very large proportion of the tax. That is the reason that has prevented the graduation of the Income Tax, and I hope I have made that plain to the House. That is the practical reason, quite apart from any heroic objection to the proposal of the hon. Member.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid, the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were directed not so much against what the hon. Gentleman proposed as against the general principle of a graduated Income Tax. He had given excellent reasons against a graduated Income Tax, but his observations did not apply to the proposition to extend the deduction from incomes of £400 to incomes of £500. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side indulged in conventional sneers against the Tory Party on this question, and, therefore, it might not be out of place to remind them that it was due to the Tory Party that the Income Tax was levied at a reduced rate on incomes of under £400. It was Sir S. Northcote who raised the incomes charged at the reduced rate from £300 to £400. That ought to relieve the Tory Party from the charge of indisposition to relieve the poorer part of the community from this impost. Nobody liked to be taxed, and perhaps the Income Tax affected us more sharply than any other tax, and those who felt it most were people with small fixed incomes. Unless Parliament were prepared to depart from the principle of raising a larger proportion of Revenue from direct taxation, he was afraid we must always suffer the annoyance of this direct impost, and those who bore it would grieve under it and be desirous for economy, so that the Income Tax might fall to a lower figure. He ventured to think that if they extended the abatement from incomes under £400 to incomes under £500 a year, in a year or two a strong case would be made out for extending it still further to incomes of
  156
  £600 a year, and so forth. He thought that the relief given some years ago had been very considerable; and seeing that they were unhappily liable to Income Tax, they should be prepared to see it increased from time to time—certainly when a Liberal Government came into power—and be prepared to bear it a little longer.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he could not withdraw the Amendment, because, although he could not increase a tax, it would be open for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so if the first part of the Amendment were agreed to. As to the practical difficulty of how this proposal was to be carried out, the bankers could easily send a notice to the Income Tax officials that a certain amount was due instead of sending the money itself. That was done in many cases at the present time. In the case of the Directors of Public Companies, the secretaries of those companies made a return of their incomes as Directors, and the Commissioners of Income Tax asked to be paid upon that sum.
  *MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he would ask his hon. Friend not to press his Motion after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was no good dividing for the mere sake of dividing. One matter, however, to which he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was as to whether he would consent to increase the amount on which abatement would be allowed. He should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was in favour of allowing some abatement on higher incomes than £400 per annum?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: In speaking on the Motion of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) the other night, I said I thought that the only way in which you could reform the Income Tax was by raising the figure to which abatement should be applicable and possibly raising the figure of exemption. It is quite true that Sir Stafford Northcote raised the figure of abatement from £300 to £400, and whenever the finances of the country allow of it. I think it may be taken for granted that it will be raised still higher. At the present moment, without extending the abatement at all, all I can do is to make the two ends meet, and therefore it is idle to propose that I should this year consent to a proposal to cut down the receipts from the

  157
  tax for the next 12 months. However much I may desire to do so I have not the means this year, and therefore any hon. Member who votes for a proposal of the kind must understand that he is voting for a deficit. I have already stated the objections to the present Amendment. Under the present system of abatement you levy at the same rate upon all incomes. If yon were to adopt a different rate for different incomes, you would entirely disorganise the whole system on which the Income Tax is levied, and I would strongly advise the House not to adopt any proposals of the kind.
  MR. A. G. H. GIBBSsaid, he was sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not spoken more strongly on general grounds against a graduated Income Tax; but as the right hon. Gentleman had conclusively shown that it was outside practical politics, it was hardly necessary to discuss it. He had not known until now that hon. Gentlemen opposite considered that people who had an income of £500 a year were poor people, and he would point out that it was nearly double the amount which in the Millennium a Member of Parliament was to receive. The proposal of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) was more far-reaching than the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to suppose, and he hoped the Committee would not agree to it.
  MR. WARNERexpressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the House some hope that in the near future means would be found of taxing the larger in-comes on a higher scale. There were a great number of Radical Members who felt that it was important that something should be done on the subject.
  MR. S. EVANSsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed himself in favour of a graduated Income Tax.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I said I was in favour of graduated taxation, but I said that the Income Tax could not be graduated, and I gave the reason.
  MR. S.EVANSsaid, he was tempted to fall back on the old saying, that "Where there was a will there was a way." He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman had the will in this matter he would be able to find the way. It seemed to him (Mr. Evans) that there ought to be no
  158
  difficulty at all in having a graduated Income Tax, and that it would be very much better to have such a tax than to resort to the clumsy expedient of having abatements on small incomes. There appeared to be no difficulty in having the tax collected at its source. If the tax were collected at the higher rate on all incomes, those who had lower incomes could claim an abatement and get a deduction made. The pious opinion expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not of much value, and the only way of forcing the right hon. Gentleman to find a way of carrying his wishes into effect was to divide against him.
  MR. COURTNEY (said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had suggested a plan of collecting a higher tax upon the larger incomes which would add enormously to the inconvenience and trouble of making Income Tax Returns. His own Return for Income Tax for many years had been extremely simple, because he had made no return at all, all his income being taxed at the sources, of which there were some 50 or 60 altogether. Under the plan suggested by the hon. Member, it would be necessary to enumerate every petty investment, which was now taxed at the source. This would be a misery for anyone who made out the return. It would involve much trouble, and there would be no means of checking it. The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) had a method of meeting the difficulty; but if the increased tax were collected through the secretaries of the company paying the dividends, it would be collected in the first instance at the higher rate. The result would be that a very poor man might be taxed in the first place at 2s. in the £1, and would have to apply for a rebate. Surely it was a sufficient answer to the proposition which had been taken up by the hon. Member for Caithness to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised, as every Chancellor of the Exchequer for many years past had recognised, that the burden of direct taxation required adjustment in some way or other, especially with regard to those classes of persons who were at the end of the scale, and who were undoubtedly exposed to indirect taxation also, but that the only means of making the adjust-

  159
  ment was through the abatement. Sir Robert Peel had fixed the limit of abatement at £150, whilst the present Prime Minister had raised it rather higher, and Sir Stafford Northcote had brought it up to its present point. The plan proposed by the hon. Member in support of this Amendment was one which would not bear examination. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was ready to extend the system of abatement when he was able to do so; but he had pointed out that at present he found difficulty in making both ends meet. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman had not made both ends meet, because the surplus was entirely dependent upon a windfall which ought really to be appropriated to capital. This being the situation this year, it would be in the highest degree imprudent to accept the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 243.—(Division List, No. 64.)
  *MR. BARTLEYsaid he did not propose to move the Amendment in his name exactly as it stood on the Paper. Having heard the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he proposed to move the Amendment in the following form:—
  "Clause 6, page 2, line 38, after 'seven-pence,' to insert 'but allow an abatement of one hundred and twenty pounds on annual incomes from whatever source between one hundred and fifty pounds and five hundred pounds."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer had acknowledged that the people of the lower middle class were about the hardest taxed of any class, and it was to grant them some relief that he now proposed that the abatement at present existing should be extended. Every person now in receipt of an income of between £150 and £400 received an abatement of £120, and the Amendment he proposed was to raise that limit from £400 to £500. The financial effect of adopting the proposal would be very small, and would certainly not exceed £90,000 or £100,000. He hoped, in the interests of a class who were most severely taxed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had admitted the principle of the Amendment, would agree to accept it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 38, after the words "seven pence," to insert the words "but to allow an abatement of one hundred and twenty pounds on annual incomes from whatever source between one hundred and fifty pounds and five hundred pounds."—(Mr. Hartley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HARCOURTwas sorry to say his poverty and not his will compelled him to decline to accede to the Amendment. The he. Member was good enough to say it would only cost between £90,000 and £100,000. He should have been glad to have acceded to the proposal if he could have done so. But he was sorry to say he had had occasion to consider this very matter, and that, from the calculations that had been made, he had ascertained that it would cost a great deal more than the hon. Member had stated. In fact, it would cost two or three times as much. Although he should have been disposed to accept such a proposal, it was impossible on the present Budget to do so.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the Amendment suggested nothing novel in the way of a differential tax or a graduated tax. What it did was simply to extend an already recognised and existing system, and further than that it extended it to a limit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself admitted would, in ordinary times, be a proper limit to which to extend it. The adoption of the Amendment would not seriously trench on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's balance.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Oh, yes it would.
  MR. HANBURY: The balance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about £100,000, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would assert it would take up the whole of that.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It will take a great deal more.
  MR. HANBURY: Those who had framed this Amendment had gone into figures just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done, and they maintained that it would be very little over £100,000, if any. He hoped his hon. Friend would press the Amendment to a Division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 211.—(Division List, No. 65.)
  *MR. J. G. LAWSON*MR. J. G. LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk) moved to amend the clause relating to the annual value of the occupation of lauds, with the object of reducing the duty thereon under Schedule B from 3½d. to 3d. He said this was such a small matter that it need not frighten the most impoverished Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was, indeed, so small that he ought almost to apologise to the agricultural interest for bringing it forward at all; but they had so often been challenged to produce some definite proposal for the benefit of agriculture that they suggested this little measure of relief, which would enable the Government to mark their sympathy with the agricultural community in their present difficulty by giving the farmers some practical assistance. That assistance was very much needed indeed; for it was generally admitted that the agricultural industry was in a very great state of impecuniosity. While the profits of trade bad increased by millions, the profits of agriculture had reached the vanishing point. He estimated that the loss to the Revenue involved in his proposal was only £4,400. That was a very trifling sum—less than the salary of one Cabinet Minister. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would no doubt reply— "Why do not the fanners put themselves under (Schedule D, and pay Income Tax on the profits instead of on the annual value of the land?" The answer was that while fanners were careful in large matters, such as the price of a horse, they were apt in small matters to be negligent about details, and they did not keep accounts as a rule, while those who did keep accounts were not anxious to expose the nakedness of their position. Then, if the farmer wished to go under Schedule D, he would have to give notice before the 5th of June: but at that time he was unable to know whether his profit would be more than half his rent, and which Schedule would be more beneficent to himself. At any rate, the time should be extended to the 5th of August. He hoped the vigorous effort of the President of the Board of Agriculture to get the farmers to go under Schedule D would be successful, for it would induce them to keep accounts. He did not wish to shock the Chancellor of the Excheqner by any wild proposal. He wished to be
  162
  mild and moderate, and, therefore, he only asked the right hon. Gentleman to relieve the farmers from paying this extra 1d. The Amendment, if carried, might lead to the discomfiture of one Chancellor of the Exchequer: but it would bring joy and pleasure to thousands of the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and for that reason he hoped it would be accepted.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "halfpenny."—(Mr. J. G. Lawson.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I think no class of the community deserves more sympathy and more indulgence than the farming class which the hon. Gentleman so ably represents; but I believe that, under Schedule D, the farmers would receive much more relief than under the Amendment of the hon. Member. The hon. Member stated that Schedule B was founded on the assumption that a farmer's profits were equal to half his rent, and that a farmer would find it difficult in June to make up his mind whether his profit would be more than half his rent. That is the most optimist view of the position of the farmer I ever hoard. I should have said that a farmer would say he made no profit at all. The farmers had a way out of the difficulty by placing themselves under Schedule I). No farmer whose profit is less than £150 a year need pay a farthing of Income Tax if he chooses under Schedule D. If a farmer makes a profit, why should he not pay like anyone else in the community? The argument that a farmer keeps no accounts would not be considered in the case of other tradesmen, and I do not see why the hon. Member should ask that the agriculturist should be treated in a different manner from other Income Taxpayers. The hon. Member has a right to ask that the farmers should be placed in the same position as other traders. If they make no profits they pay no Income Tax; if they make a small profit they pay a small tax; and if they make reasonably large profits they pay a reasonably large tax. It is a dangerous thing to treat any class of the community on a different footing from

  163
  the others, and it is a dangerous thing to establish a differential rate of Income Tax. If the hon. Member will only exert himself to induce the farmers to see the advantages they will derive by coming under Schedule D, he will do them a much greater service than the proposal in the Amendment, which I hope he will not press.
  *MR BOUNDregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not acceded to the proposal of his hon. Friend, for the amount in question, as pointed out, was but small. In fact, it would have been a reasonable Motion to make to relieve fanners from all payment under Schedule B, and that would have been a great boon to them. The exceptional treatment asked for was owing to the position of agriculture, and the process, almost of extermination, which was going on in his county among farmers due to depression. He asked why the English farmer paid more under Schedule B than the Scottish or Irish farmer? for he had never received a satisfactory explanation on this point.
  MR. GOSCHEN: As the author of the transfer of the farmers from Schedule B to Schedule D, I put it to my hon. Friend whether he will serve the farmer by encouraging him to make this declaration under Schedule B instead of Schedule D? I sympathise deeply with the position of the farmers. The general anticipation is that this year they will make no profits at all. That being so, the best plan for those who have influence over the farmers is to encourage them 1o make their declarations under Schedule D, for under that Schedule, if there is no profit at all, they will not be asked to pay any Income Tax at all. I do not think that the Amendment is so favourable to the farmers as my hon. Friend believe. It would encourage to refrain from doing what it is their interest to do—namely, to keep accounts, in order to be able to show whether or not there is any profit, and I do not think it would be of such advantage to them as making their declarations under Schedule D.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked the Minister of Agriculture whether steps had been taken as to
  164
  the circulation of a paper among the farmers, showing the advantages of making their declarations under Schedule D?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOAED OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The Board have circulated copies of the leaflet in great numbers to farmers and to the provincial papers. There has been a great demand from all parts of the country for the leaflet, so much so that 5,000 additional copies have been ordered, which will be circulated at once.
  MR. ROUNDsaid, he quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for the St. George's Division as to the necessity of encouraging the farmer to go under Schedule D; but they had to deal with the existing state of things, under which the farmers preferred to go under Schedule B.
  MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDasked if the time had not arrived when the three countries should pay equally? Farms in England were supposed to represent half the annual value, and in Scotland and Ireland about a third of the annual value. At the present moment he took it that both the Scotch and the Irish farmers were in a better position than the English fanner. In the Scotch Lowlands it was not contended by anyone that the depression in agriculture had been felt as it bad been in the wheat-growing districts in England, and the Irishmen had got the benefit of judicial rents; therefore, at any rate, in their case they had an advantage over our farmers. He thought, therefore, the time had arrived when the English farmer might legitimately ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put matters upon an equality with regard to the three countries.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am ashamed to say I am unable to answer the question us to the origin of the difference between the three countries; it is lost in antiquity. Whether it was the Treasury or whet her it originated in the Articles of the Union I do not know; but I should imagine it was founded upon some notion of difference in relation to prices in the various countries. But, with reference to the remarks of my hon. Friend, I would say they can bring them all 1o an equality if they all go under Schedule D; that is the way in which you would

  165
  get rid of these differences; these differential fractions would disappear if everyone would come under Schedule D, as everyone would then be taxed upon the profits they made.
  MR. JEFFREYSsaid, there was another reason for the difference. In respect to Scotland, allowance was made for the repair of houses, and an abatement was made in consequence, which was not the case in England.
  Question put.
  House cleared for a Division.
  MR. J. G. LAWSON,seated, and with his hat on, asked, on a point of Order, if he was now entitled to withdraw the Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; the hon. Member is not entitled to withdraw the Amendment, but it may be negatived without a Division.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR A. HICKMAN*SIR A. HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.) moved the omission of this clause. With regard to small house or cottage property, he submitted the tax was an unfair one; that an abatement should be allowed in respect of commission; it was allowed to the tithe-owner and ought to be allowed to the cottage-owner. He also submitted that abatement should be allowed for fire insurance. It was allowed upon stock-in-trade and ought to be allowed on property, because if the house was burned down and not rebuilt the tax would be altogether lost to the Revenue. An abatement should also be allowed in case of defaulting tenants; bad debts were allowed to traders, and he wished to know why they should not adopt the same principle with regard to small properties? He did not wish to detain the House, but he would urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider these small matters between now and the time he had to produce the Budget next year.
  Amendment proposed, to omit the Clause.—(Sir A. Hickman.)
  SIR W. HARCOURT: In introducing the Budget I stated I was very desirous of removing this anomaly, but that it could not be dealt with alone, and I think that the House generally was perfectly
  166
  satisfied with the declaration I then made.
  MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBYsaid, that the farmers were told they should come under Schedule D; but for those who had not kept accounts it was impossible for them to apply under Schedule D for 12 months or two years, and they did not know how many of them would be ruined by that time. He merely wished to point out to the Committee that to tell the farmer to apply under Schedule D was of no use whatever— what was wanted was present relief.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member is mistaken as to the amount of elaborate accounts that is required from the farmers. The farmers would necessarily have some means of satisfying the Commissioners as to what their real profits have been without keeping a ledger by double entry.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis) moved the following new clause:—
  (Amendment of 5 and 6 Vic. c. 35.)
  "The first rule of the first ease under Schedule of Section one hundred of the fifth and sixth Victoria, chapter thirty-five, shall be read as if the words 'average of three years' were omitted therefrom, and the words 'account of the profits or gains of the year,' were inserted in their place, and the words 'Provided always,' to end of rule, were also omitted."
  The object of this was to levy the tax on the income, and not, as now, on an average. In other words, the Income Tax was the charge made, not upon the income of any year, but on the total for three years divided by three. No doubt this rule of charging upon an average was conceived and carried out with the intention of being fair to the trader, to enable the losses of one year to be met by the increased income of another, and thus a fair average might be arrived at. That sounded very plausible before they looked carefully into it; but when they looked into it, it would be seen at once that it did not work as it was intended. But even if it did, he should still say the principle was wrong. The object was, not to get a fixed and invariable tax, or a tax that varied very little; the true principle of an Income Tax was that it should vary according to the income; that it should

  167
  follow the fortunes of the income; that the man who was increasing in prosperity should pay, if anything, more, and the man who was decreasing in prosperity should, if there was to be a difference, pay less; but exactly the contrary principle was carried out through this system of average. Take the instance of a man who in the first year made £1,000, in the next year £2,000, and in the third year £3,000; at the end of the third year he was taxed, not upon the £3,000, but upon the £1,000, plus £2,000, plus £3,000, which was £6,000, divided by three, and he was taxed upon £2,000. Take the converse case, the man whose income, by unfortunate circumstances, went the other way. This man was treated in the same way as the prosperous man, and accordingly he was taxed upon £2,000, the result being that the prosperous man was taxed upon £1,000 less than he ought to pay, and the unfortunate man, who was gradually approaching ruin, was taxed upon £1,000 more than he ought to pay. It might be said that three years was not a sufficient period to take; therefore he had worked out two cases of 10 years. "A," beginning with £1,000 and ending with £10,000, would pay upon £8,500, less than he ought to pay, while "B," beginning with £10,000 and ending with £1,000, would pay upon £8,500, more than he ought to pay. The tax was thus not a fair tax, for either the Chancellor of the Exchequer was having withdrawn from him something to which he was entitled, or the taxpayer was having taken from him something that should not be taken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the income of the country was steadily increasing; that the wealth of the country was increasing and had been increasing. The result was that under Schedule D there was a constant addition to income in the majority of cases; and it followed from that that, in the majority of cases under Schedule D, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was getting much less than he was entitled to. His proposal was to do away with that, to charge on the concrete income as it stood in the last year, and in that manner the prosperous man would pay what he should pay, and the man who was going down hill, who "was approaching ruin, would not be called upon to pay upon an income which he had not realised.
  New Clause (Amendment of five and six Vic. c. 35,)—(Mr. Gibson Bowles,) —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is rather late in the evening to go in these transcendental theories of taxation. The common sense of mankind has adopted the principle of averages in taxation, and no one would more condemn this Amendment than the trading classes in whose interest it is said to be proposed.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDwas very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not going to assent to this new clause. It was perfectly true that one man would pay too much in one year, but on the law of average he paid what was right on the whole. The hon. Member for Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) had spoken of a man who made a profit on all the three years. Under the present system, if that man made a loss he had a right to deduct his loss, so that in reality he got back part of his loss; whereas, if this new clause were passed, he would have to pay on the profit and get nothing back for the loss; therefore, it was distinctly against the commercial classes that this clause should be passed, and, on that account, he was very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not agree to it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law respecting the transfer and exercise of Church Patronage, and the avoidance of Benefices." [Church Patronage Bill [Lords]; Police Acts Amendment Bill; Post Office (Acquisition of Sites) Bill.
  That they have come to the following Resolution, viz.—
  "That it is desirable that the Copyhold (Consolidation) Bill be referred to the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on Statute Law Revision Bills."
  It being One of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.