Commons Sitting of 24 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

  SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAM-ROAD BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOUR BILL

    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords].
(Queen's Consent signified.)
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LEA BRIDGE DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords].
A verbal Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
ABERDEEN JOINT PASSENGER STATION BILL [Lords].
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].

    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    LEIGH-ON-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
    YEADON AND GUISELEY GAS BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time

GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION, AND GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILLS.
Ordered, That the Order [14th March] that Five be the quorum of the Select Committee be read, and discharged.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 294.]
PETITIONS.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from London, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
BYNOE, CHARLES AUGUSTUS.
Petition from Charles Augustus Bynoe, for inquiry into his case by a Select Committee; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Petition from Barking Town, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
OUGHTON, MATILDA.
Petition of Matilda Oughton, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1845.
Petition from Aberdeen, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Fifty-fourth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DEATHS FROM WINDOW CLEANING ACCIDENTS.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 2nd June; Mr. Provand]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 291].
  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
  Copy presented,—of Orders made by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, altering certain Polling Districts and Polling Places within the Parliamentary Divisions of Normanton, Otley, and Rotherham [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  Copy presented,—of Reports from University Colleges participating in the Grant of £25,000, made by Parliament for "University Colleges in Great Britain" (1899) [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2320 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented of Report No. 262 (Barbados, Annual Report for 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS).
  Copy presented of Report No. 12 (Anguilla, Report on Vital Statistics) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  JAMAICA.
  Copy presented of Report on the Finances of Jamaica, by Sir David Barbour, K.C.S.I. (in continuation of [C. 9177] February, 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  JAMAICA.
  Copy presented of Further Correspondence relating to the Finances and Government of the Island of Jamaica (in continuation of [C. 9177] February, 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented,—of Deposits in Naval Savings Banks, and the Payments thereof, and the Interest thereon, etc., during the financial year 1897–8 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF 65).
  Copy ordered "of Treasury Minute, dated the 19th day of July, 1899, stating the circumstances under which certain Civil Servants have been retained in the Service after they have attained the age of 65."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 292.]

  IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES FUND.
  Copy ordered, "of Treasury Memorandum, dated the 14th day of July, 1899, on the Financial Position and Prospects of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 293.]

QUESTIONS.

  NAVAL BARRACKS.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the approximate total number of officers and blue-jackets of the Royal Navy the naval barracks built, building, or proposed under Naval Works Bill to be built will accommodate; and what is the approximate total number of officers and men of the Royal Marine forces the Marine barracks built, building, or proposed under the Naval Works Bill to be built will accommodate.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The approximate total number of officers and men of the Royal Navy to be accommodated in the Naval Barracks, built, building, or proposed to be built, is 14,517. The corresponding number in the case of the Royal Marines is 7,433.

  KEYHAM DOCKYARD WORKS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he can say when the contract time for the completion of the works on Keyham Dockyard extension expires; and what amount of work in proportion to the whole work has up to this time been done.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The contract time expires 30th June, 1903. Up to the present time rather more than one-fourth of the permanent works under the contract have been completed, in addition to the temporary works, including the coffer dams, stagings, railways, and workshops, etc.

  MILITARY LABOUR IN IRISH BARRACKS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that civilian labour is being generally displaced in Irish military barracks, and particularly in Cork, in the building trades, and replaced by military labour; whether the average wage of the district is paid to the military men employed on permanent work in the Cork barracks, as is required by the fair wages resolution of the House

  65
  of Commons; and whether it is intended to continue the employment of military labour in place of the regular qualified tradesmen of Cork and other places.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Incidental repairs of barracks are, under the Queen's Regulations, entrusted as far as practicable to the artificers in regiments. The payments to them amount to from 2 to 3 per cent, of the whole sum expended on these services. They receive the rates of pay laid down in the Royal Warrant. But, since they also have board, lodging, clothes, and other privileges, it is not easy to compare their emoluments with the earnings of civil life. It is intended to continue the present practice.

  EXPANDING BULLETS—MARK IV. AMMUNITION.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the condemnation by the Committee of the Peace Conference of bullets constructed to expand on impact, and the failure of Mark No. IV. ammunition at Bisley, the War Office will issue instructions that Mark No. IV. shall not be used in South Africa, and will take immediate steps to supply the troops in South Africa with other ammunition.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member appears to be mixing up two distinct questions in respect of Mark IV. ammunition. As I have already stated to the House, no action will be taken in consequence of any discussion that may have taken place at the Peace Conference, until we have received the final report of our representative. But in consequence of the recent enquiry into Mark IV. ammunition, it is intended to use that ammunition at foreign stations for practice purposes only.

  SIERRA LEONE.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, as Sir David Chalmers' Report upon the disturbances in the hinterland of Sierra Leone has been for some time in the Colonial Office, he will consent to lay it upon the Table of the House before the Vote for that office comes on for discussion.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, ): As I stated the other day, the Papers were laid in the week before last, and the printers will be urged to use all possible expedition in order that the Papers may be in the hands of Members before the Colonial Office Vote comes on.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES DISPUTE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, inasmuch as the Governor stated at the closing of the Newfoundland Legislature on the 19th July that no legislation had been asked for or enacted regarding the modus vivendi which expires this year, he has considered the situation which will arise in the absence of any Act of the Newfoundland Legislative enforcing the modus vivendi, and whether Her Majesty's Government propose in the absence of any such Act to take themselves, and without the assent of the colony, any coercive measures to enforce it upon the colonists; whether Her Majesty's Government have communicated or propose to communicate to the Government of Newfoundland the Report of the Royal Commission; and, if not, on what grounds; and whether he proposes before Parliament separates to make any statement with reference to the questions pending between France and this country in regard to Newfoundland.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole question of the fishery on the so-called Treaty Shore of Newfoundland is under the consideration of the Government in connection with the Report of the Royal Commission. I may observe that there will be time to obtain the necessary colonial legislation before the commencement of the next fishing season. The Report has not yet been communicated to the Government of Newfoundland. I do not expect to be in a position to make any statement before the close of the session.

  SPIRIT TRADE IN NIGERIA.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the fact that the prohibition of the importation of spirits by the Niger Company into Northern Nigeria has been effective for the purpose, and has tended to the better government of the territory, he will continue the existing system of direct

  67
  prohibition of importation; and whether he will maintain and, if possible, extend the Company's regulations by which no one is permitted to sell spirits unless he has obtained a licence costing at least £100.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already stated in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Western Denbighshire that the exclusion of spirits from Northern Nigeria will be maintained. The best means of controlling the sale of spirits in those parts of the territories now under the administration of the Royal Niger Company into which their importation is allowed will be carefully considered.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is it not the case that, while the importation of spirits is now prohibited by legislation in Northern Nigeria, in future its regulation will depend on the Administration?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware whether it is prohibited by legislation, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the prohibition will be effective.

  BRITISH INDIAN TRADERS IN GERMAN AFRICAN POSSESSIONS.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that the Governor of German South-West Africa has issued a very stringent edict prohibiting the extension of credit to natives; whether this edict and the introduction of the German Gewerbsteuer, or tax upon commerce, are specially directed against British Indian traders in the Gorman African possessions; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the imposition of the Gewerbsteuer, two Hindu firms have been recently driven to withdraw their operations from German South-West Africa; and whether he intends to move Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to represent to the German Government the injury inflicted upon a large number of British subjects engaged in trade in German possessions.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): No information has reached Her Majesty's
  68
  Government on the subject. Inquiries will be made in Berlin as to whether anything is known of this edict.

  IMPRISONMENT OF A BRITISH SAILOR AT BILBAO.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the case of Daniel Scott, a British sailor, imprisoned for seven months without trial at Bilbao, Spain, concerning whom inquiry was made on 6th July; and if Her Majesty's Government have been able to obtain his release.
  MR. BRODRICK: The formalities in connection with the trial of Daniel Scott have not yet been completed, but he was released on bail on the 15th instant.

  THE IMPRISONED ARMENIAN PRELATES.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of proposing to the Signatory Powers joint action by the representatives of those Powers at the Sublime Porte, in accordance with Articles 61 and 62 of the Berlin Treaty, with the object of securing the release from incarceration in St. James's Monastery, Jerusalem, of the Armenian Archbishop and the bishops exiled from their sees in Asia Minor, all of whom are ecclesiastics of irreproachable character, and have committed no crimes under Turkish or other law.
  MR. BRODRICK: I explained the circumstances attending the detention at Jerusalem of these prelates in my answer to the hon. Member's question on the 15th ultimo. I can only add that Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the facts of the case call for the issue of any special instructions to Her Majesty's Ambassador.

  OUTRAGES ON BRITISH SUBJECTS IN TURKISH ARABIA.
  MR STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Porte has liquidated the claims of subjects of Austria-Hungary and the United States for damage done to their property in Turkey; and whether, in these circumstances, the Secretary of State will con-

  69
  sider the advisability of discontinuing verbal and written applications to the Porte, and will adopt other methods for securing payment, without further delay, of the claims of British merchants whose houses and shops were looted in 1896, and also of the pilgrims (British subjects) who were wounded and robbed by brigands in Turkish Arabia in the years 1892, 1893, 1895, 1896, and 1897.
  MR. BRODRICK: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. In reply to the second paragraph, I can assure the hon. Member that the claims mentioned have continued to occupy the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and are at the present moment the subject of negotiations with the Turkish Government.

  FOREIGN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
  MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Reports on the subject of University Education in foreign countries have been received; and, if so, when they will be distributed to Members.
  MR. BRODRICK: Some of the materials have been received, but the papers are not yet complete for presentation to Parliament.

  LIGHT FOR LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in the new lighthouse by the Fastnet, near Cape Clear, it is intended to provide oil gas; whether it is intended to use coal gas in the new lighthouse at Blackhead; whether it is admitted that the light of either oil or coal gas is superior to that of electric light in a fog; and whether, seeing that the largest lighthouse in the world is the gas lighthouse on Tory Island on the north-west coast of Ireland, it is intended that that type of light should in future be used in all lighthouses under the control of the Irish Lights Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): It is intended to provide a powerful biform oil light at Fastnet and a mineral oil light at Blackhead. I am not prepared to express an opinion on the relative merits of oil or coal gas and electric light. I
  70
  understand that the Commissioners of Irish Lights do not contemplate extending (at any rate, at present) the Tory Island type of light to all lighthouses under their control.

  CHAINE MONUMENT, LARNE HARBOUR.
  MR M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Irish Lights Commissioners has been called to the unhealthy and dangerous position of the lighthouse-keeper at the Chaine Monument, Larne Harbour; whether he is aware that the person in charge thereof for the time being cannot get any rest or sleep there; if he will state the height at which the keeper has to work this light and the length and breadth of space he has for his accommodation; and whether inspection and inquiry will be made in the interest of the health of the men in charge.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, (a) that they are satisfied that the accommodation for the light keeper at the Chaine Memorial Tower, Larne Harbour, is not in any way unhealthy or dangerous; (b) that the keeper is not permitted to sleep whilst on watch, but can sit down if he wishes to do so; (c) that the height of the tower is about ninety feet, while the light-room is twelve feet high, and has a diameter of six feet four inches. It does not appear to me that any further inquiry is necessary.

  STOCKBROKERS AND THE STAMP DUTY.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the effect of Clause 13 of the Finance Act, 1899, in the operations of provincial stockbrokers who do not belong to any stock exchange, compelling them when buying stock for a client through a stockbroker to pay for the stamp a secon time; and whether he can do anything to relieve them from this hardship.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): If the hon. Member will refer to the reply which I gave to a question asked by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness on the 14th instant, he will see that I have been considering whether it will be possible to devise a

  71
  plan by which payment of the double duty may be avoided. I hope to be able in a few days to arrive at a decision in the matter.

  CHILDREN WORKING UNDERGROUND.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would grant a Return showing the number of children working underground during the year ending 31st December last (or ending on any more convenient date) who were during that year between twelve and fourteen years of age; such Return to show also the educational standard passed by these children and the number of hours per week worked by them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The statutory Returns made by owners of mines do not show separately the number of children between the ages of twelve and fourteen employed below ground, or give the other particulars mentioned in the question, so that the information for which the hon. Member asks could only be obtained by applying separately to every owner. As experience shows that complete returns can never be obtained except in cases where they are required by law, I am afraid that I do not see my way to granting the Return. I may, however, point out that the hours of labour for the children in question are definitely limited by the Acts, and it may be said generally that no boy is employed underground until he has passed the local standard of total exemption from school attendance.

  OBSCENE EXHIBITIONS AT SEASIDE RESORTS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the display of obscene pictures by means of the penny-in-the-slot machines on the shores of Southport, Blackpool, and several of the other popular seaside resorts; whether he is aware that these machines have been suppressed at Rhyl; and whether he could see his way to urge upon the various local authorities the necessity for suppressing these indecent exhibitions.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: My attention had not been called to this matter, but I am aware that some of the pictures exhibited in mutoscopes on Rhyl sands were withdrawn, objection having been taken to them on the score of indecency. At Blackpool the police were instructed to visit and inspect the machines in question, but found nothing which would justify criminal proceedings. I have no reason to suppose that at other places the local authorities are backward in enforcing the law against obscene exhibitions.

  THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD AND THE RE-HOUSING QUESTION.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now communicated further with the London School Board and with the Education Department on the subject of making provision for displaced occupiers of houses acquired by the School Board in Bethnal Green; and whether he can inform the House of the result of such communications.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: May I at the same time ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in accordance with his promise given on the 30th June, he has inquired into the allegation that the London School Board, by acquiring what is known as the Wood Street site in Bethnal Green in two portions, each consisting of less than twenty houses, evaded the obligation to re-house the persons displaced; can he now state the result of his inquiries; is he aware that, by the Educational Department Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill now before Parliament, the London School Board is seeking powers to acquire nineteen more houses in Bethnal Green; and what steps does he propose to take to prevent what appears to be an evasion of the law.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I am in communication with the Education Department and the London School Board on the subject referred to in the first paragraph of the question, but I have at present no information to impart. As regards the point raised in the third paragraph, I appreciate its importance, and I am considering, in consultation with the authorities concerned, whether there should not be inserted in this Bill pro-

  73
  visions with special reference to the re-housing of persons displaced, or liable to be displaced, in Bethnal Green under the various powers taken by the School Board in recent years.

  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY REHOUSING SCHEME.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has approved a scheme submitted by the South-Eastern Railway Company for re-housing persons displaced under the powers of the company's Act of 1897, which scheme involves the demolition of some thirty-four or more houses inhabited by the labouring class near Abbey Street, Bermondsey; and, if so, will he say what steps he has taken, in view of the overcrowded condition of this district, to compel the South-Eastern Railway Company to provide accommodation elsewhere during rebuilding upon the site for the persons (some 300 in number) who will be thus turned out of their homes.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have approved a re-housing scheme under the South-Eastern Railway Company's Act of 1897, and in order to carry it out some houses occupied by the labouring class near Abbey Street have to be demolished. These houses were not acquired under the Act, and there is no statutory duty upon the company to re-house their inhabitants. But I may say that the displacement of these persons has been one of the circumstances which I have carefully considered in settling the scheme. I believe that the scheme is calculated to do the best that circumstances will permit for the labouring class in this particular neighbourhood. It is a complicated question which I cannot go into now, but if the hon. Member cares to call at the Home Office some officer of that Department will be happy to explain the whole matter to him.

  HOUSE ACCOMMODATION IN SOUTH-WARK.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a Report of St. Olave's District Board of Works, from which it appears that there were hundreds of applicants, including forty policemen, for a four-roomed house in the district which
  74
  recently became vacant; and whether he will very carefully consider the utter insufficiency of the existing house accommodation in Southwark when he is called upon to exercise his discretion in sanctioning schemes for the re-housing of persons displaced under statutory powers in that part of London.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The fact referred to by the hon. Member is but one instance of the sort of conditions which I have always to consider when any question of re-housing is before me. I need hardly say that, if a re-housing scheme in Southwark is submitted to me, I shall, as always in the past, take into consideration the state of house accommodation in the district affected.

  VIVISECTION.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what rules are laid down with regard to the granting or signing of certificates dispensing with the use of anæsthetics in vivisection experiments; whether there is any limit to the number of such certificates which one person may sign, or to the number of experiments upon different animals which may be performed by the person holding one such certificate; whether the Home Office authorises or allows certificates to be signed by the operator himself on his own behalf; whether Dr. Poore, whilst holding the office of inspector, has signed certificates in his capacity of professor of medical jurisprudence in University College, London; and whether there is any regulation requiring that the dates shall be specified for the performance of experiments under the various certificates dispensing with the use of anæsthetics, in order that the Home Office inspector may have knowledge of the time and place at which any experiment on living animals is to be performed.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: All the conditions which are attached to the signing of the certificates mentioned in the first paragraph of the question are laid down by law, viz., Sections 11 and 12 of the Act of 1876. There is no limit to the number of certificates which an authorised person may sign; and the law places no limit on the number of experiments which may be performed under one

  75
  certificate but it is the practice of the Home Office, in addition to the fact that all certificates expire on the 31st December of the year in which they are granted, to limit the number, and this is always done in the case of serious experiments in which the use of anæsthetics is wholly or partly dispensed with. The possibility indicated in the third paragraph would be directly contrary to the proviso in Section 11 of the Act. The answers to the last two paragraphs are in the negative.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Does Professor Poore sign the certificates?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I am informed that it is not the case that he does so.
  MR. PAULTON: Then how is it that the statement appears in the Report of the Inspector? Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire as to its accuracy?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Yes. I was only aware five minutes ago that the Report Seemed to indicate this, and, of course, I have not had time to inquire.

  PRISON LABOUR.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state in how many prisons, local and convict, the treadmill and crank are now used in the discipline of such respective prisons; and whether it is the intention of Prison Commissioners to supersede these methods of punishment in all prisons in England, in view of the fact that no such instruments are employed in Ireland, Scotland, or any other civilised country; and, if so, can he state when their use will finally be dispensed with in English prisons.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Tread-wheels are used in thirty-three, and cranks in eleven, local prisons, but solely for productive purposes. Cranks have never been used as a form of labour in the four convict prisons. Occasionally in the past they have been made use of as a means of punishment for prison offences, but are now very rarely resorted to. I cannot at present make any promise as to the discontinuance of these forms of hard labour in the prisons where they exist.

  MRS. MAYBRICK.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many years has the convict. Mrs. Maybrick now served in penal servitude; and whether, seeing that her conduct in prison has been uniformly good since conviction, and that no extra punishments have been incurred by her through insubordination, he will take this case into his consideration with the object of recommending the gracious exercise of the Royal clemency in her behalf.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Mrs. Maybrick will have served ten years on the 6th of next month. I am not able to hold out any hope of exceptional treatment in this case.
  MR. DAVITT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread and almost universal sympathy in America for Mrs. Maybrick?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have heard of no reasons for exceptional treatment or clemency being shown in this case.

  VACCINATION EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case brought before the Pontypridd Police Court, in which the magistrates refused to grant the application of the Reverend William Griffiths, Ph.D., for a certificate of exemption under the Conscience Clause of the Vaccination Act, although Dr. Griffiths had tendered such evidence as entitled him to the exemption provided by the Conscience Clause of the Vaccination Act; and whether he will call upon the magistrates of the Pontypridd Police Court to furnish Dr. Griffiths with a certificate of exemption under the Conscience Clause of the Vaccination Act.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I am informed that it is the practice of the court in question to require some reason to be given on oath in support of a statement of conscientious objection; and that the magistrates, after hearing Dr. Griffiths, were not satisfied that he had a conscientious belief within the meaning of the Act. The question whether or not the magistrates exceeded their jurisdiction in

  77
  requiring the applicant to give reasons is one of law which, I am advised, might be raised and determined in a superior court. I have no power to direct the magistrates to issue a certificate of exemption.

  MARGARINE FACTORIES.
  MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Return relating to margarine factories, ordered two months ago, is yet complete; and, if not, who is responsible for the delay in this matter.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): The English and Scotch portions of this Return have been received and I am only waiting for that which relates to Ireland. I have asked the Irish Government to furnish it as quickly as possible.

  WILBY TOWN ESTATE SCHEMES.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the Commissioners have definitely decided not to proceed further with the Wilby Town Estate Scheme dated 13th July, 1898, on the ground that it is opposed by the Wilby Parish Council. Whether he is aware that the intention of the Wilby Parish Council was not to oppose the proposed scheme but merely to criticise certain of its provisions; and whether, under those conditions and in view of the fact that the Wilby Parish Council, whilst maintaining its protest against the original scheme of 1869, is prepared to accept the new scheme as a compromise subject to certain alterations of detail, the Commissioners will reconsider the matter and allow the scheme to pass through its remaining stages.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): (1) The Commissioners have stated that they will not proceed with the scheme. (2) The Parish Council have opposed the scheme as proposed. (3) The Commissioners cannot consider the alterations desired by the Parish Council to be matters of detail, but if they will now accept the scheme as a
  78
  compromise without alteration the Commissioners will proceed with it.

  TELEPHONE AT MULLINGAR.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a local telephone exchange has just been established in Mullingar; and whether, in view of this fact, the postal authorities will meet the wishes of the people by erecting a trunk line to Dublin as soon as possible.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The Postmaster-General has not received any application for the extension of the trunk telephone system to Mullingar. In view of the distance between Dublin and Mullingar, the cost of the circuit would of course be very heavy; while the receipts would not be likely to justify the expenditure. It might, however, be possible to provide a circuit under a guarantee from the National Telephone Company, who have established the local exchange.

  MOYVORE LETTER CARRIER.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, will he explain why the departure of the letter carrier from Moyvore Post Office, in the County Westmeath, has been altered to 10 a.m. on Sundays, one hour after his arrival, although the inhabitants of the district petitioned against this alteration, by which they were unable to reply to their letters, unless by sending to one of the neighbouring post offices or letterboxes, thus involving further Sunday labour; whether he is aware that the petition was signed by the clergy of both denominations as it was impossible for the letter carrier to attend divine service anywhere, and that the neighbouring post offices and letter-boxes are not cleared till 2 p.m., or after; and whether, in the new arrangements the same privilege as to time of Sunday closing may be extended to Moyvore district as is enjoyed by those surrounding it.
  MR. HANBURY: No recent alteration has been made in the time of departure of the letter carrier from Moyvore Post Office on Sundays, and there is no trace of the receipt of any recent petition

  79
  on the subject. The present hour of departure (10 a.m.) has been in force for some years, and is in accordance with the general rule under which rural postmen are permitted to return from the end of their walks on Sundays in the forenoon, in order to release them and all concerned from duty at an early hour of the day. There is an afternoon collection on the walk of another postman at two or three letter-boxes in the neighbourhood of Moyvore, which is an exception to the rule above referred to, but this does not appear to the Postmaster-General to afford sufficient ground for disturbing the Sunday arrangements at Moyvore.

  DUBLIN TELEGRAPH STAFF.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether a revision of the Dublin telegraph staff took place last year in connection with the Tweed mouth Committee's Report, under which the clerks' class was increased by six with the authority of the Treasury given in May, and six sorting clerks were promoted to fill these positions on 15th September last, the appointments carrying the increased pay only from that date; whether, seeing that the usual practice in larger offices is that the increased pay is given to the promoted officers from the date of the Treasury sanction being given to make the appointments, he can say why the Dublin officers were not treated in the same way; and will he see that they are so paid.
  MR. HANBURY: In the circumstances, instructions have been given for these promotions to take effect from the date of the Treasury letter sanctioning the revision.

  TELEGRAPH OFFICE FOR BELLEWSTOWN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the inhabitants of Bellewstown asked for the establishment of a telegraph office about a year ago, and offered the usual guarantee asked for by the Post Office; and whether he can explain the cause of the delay, and say when the office will be opened.
  MR. HANBURY: The delay in establishing a telegraph office at Bellewstown
  80
  has arisen from the unwillingness of the sub-postmaster to undertake telegraph work. A new sub-postmaster has now been selected. It cannot be stated definitely when the office will be opened, but no time will be lost in completing the extension.

  GRANTS TO IRISH RAILWAYS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state when the Return granted on the motion relating to Treasury and local grants to Irish Railways will be in the hands of Members.
  MR. HANBURY: As soon as the county borough of Dublin have replied to a question addressed to them, the requisite information will be in the hands of the Treasury, and the Return will then be issued without delay.

  PRESS TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGES.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, at whose instance and for what reasons the Manchester Post Office recently gave sudden notice to the Lancashire evening papers limiting the despatch of telegrams relating to the test cricket match at Old Trafford to private messages; why the intimation was held back until almost the eleventh hour, thus subjecting the press to great inconvenience; and why the messages could not have been received at the nearest telegraph office instead of having to be sent three miles to the General Post Office in Manchester; and whether a similar intimation has been given with respect to the great golf match at Ganton, nine miles from Scarborough, where, contrary to previous usage, the Post Office refused to put up instruments on the ground.
  MR. HANBURY: The notice referred to was given in pursuance of instructions from headquarters. The reason for limiting the despatch of telegrams from the Old Trafford Cricket Ground last week to private messages was that the telegraphic facilities at the cricket ground office were inadequate to admit of the press work being telegraphed from the ground, there being only one wire. The Department does not itself provide

  81
  extensions of the wires to cricket grounds, etc., but requires those on whose behalf such extensions are made to defray the cost and provide suitable office accommodation. Intimation that press-work could not be dealt with at the cricket ground was given to the principal news agencies as soon as the final decision of the cricket ground committee not to increase the number of wires was known, and at once to any reporters who gave notice of their intention to report the match. The press-work could not be dealt with at any telegraph office nearer to the cricket ground than the head office, as no office nearer to I the ground had sufficient facilities for the purpose. In the case of Ganton, to which the hon. Member also refers, no offer has been made to the Department to provide office accommodation on the golf ground, or to defray the cost of extending the telegraph wires. There has been no such refusal as that referred to.

  POSTMEN AND BANK HOLIDAYS
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in the event of a Bank Holiday occurring during an assistant postman's annual leave (such Bank Holiday being paid for as overtime), the officer is entitled to an extra day in lieu thereof.
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir.

  MOUNTED RURAL POSTMEN'S ALLOWANCES.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will grant a Return of the total number of rural postmen who have an allowance made to them for horse-keep in the form shown on the Paper this day.
  MR. HANBURY: The Return could be given, though the labour involved in preparing it will be considerable; and the information if given in the proposed form would be almost useless. The mere number of allowances at the different rates tells nothing unless the details of the work to be done are added.

  A MISSING IRISH TELEGRAM
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, is he aware that an important telegram in reference to the
  82
  trial of Sergeant Sullivan, of Mulranny, for alleged forgery, was despatched by Mr. William O'Brien from Westport Post Office to Mr. Valentine Kilbride, Dublin, the solicitor for the plaintiff, and was never delivered; what is the meaning of the explanation of the disappearance of the telegram offered by the Post Office in the letter of the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, that the telegram in question failed in transmission upon the wires between Westport and Dublin; has there been any similar failure in transmission upon the wires in other cases; and, if such failure occurred, why was not notice sent at the time to the sender; and, have the Post Office authorities inquired whether Sergeant Sullivan, the defendant in the action, was in Westport at the time the message was handed in, and whether he or any other member of the police force had access to the telegraph office on that day, or had any opportunity of ascertaining the contents of the telegram.
  MR. HANBURY: The telegram form shows that this message was apparently despatched from Westport to Dublin, but there is no trace of the receipt of the telegram in the Dublin office. It is a case in which it is difficult to decide where the blame for the failure rests, and the non-delivery is much to be regretted. There have been similar failures in transmission, but they are of rare occurrence. It is the practice, whenever a telegram fails to be delivered immediately, to advise the sender; but in this case it was not known before the attention of the Department was called to the matter by letter that failure had occurred. The Postmaster of Westport believes Sergeant Sullivan was not in Westport at the time the message was handed in. Neither he nor any of the police force could have access to the telegraph office, or in any way ascertain the contents of the telegram.
  MR. DAVITT: Is it not the fact that another telegram, sent by Mr. O'Brien on the same day, was delivered?
  MR. HANBURY: I believe so.
  MR. DAVITT: Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire into this very disagreeable matter?
  MR. HANBURY: We have made all the inquiry the Post Office can possibly make. The only other inquiry that could be made, perhaps, is one that might be addressed to the constabulary authorities, as to the whereabouts of Sergeant Sullivan on that particular day.

  SPECIAL TELEGRAPHIC DUTIES.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether it has been the practice to send telegraph clerks from the Southampton office to perform special duties at Epsom, Salisbury, Ascot, and Henley when public events require additional telegraphic facilities, and will he explain why they are now excluded from participation in these duties, the telegraph staff being recruited from offices much more distant; and whether the Postmaster-General could restore the privilege to the Southampton clerks, seeing that, as compared with former years, they will suffer pecuniary loss.
  MR. HANBURY: It is the practice to send telegraphists from the Southampton office for duty in connection with special events. Four telegraphists were so sent to Salisbury for the race mooting held there on the 4th, 5th, and 6th instant, and two to Sandown Park on the 14th and 15th instant. The Southampton telegraphists are in no way excluded from participation in these duties when they can be spared from their own office. At certain times, however, it is found that they cannot be spared.

  TELEPHONE WAY LEAVES.
  MR. CALDWELL: On behalf of the Member for North-East Lanark I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the way-leave powers delegated by the Postmaster-General to a licensee under the Telegraph Act of 1892 can be exercised without the consent of the local authorities in such case.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster-General, by the agreement with the National Telephone Company of 1896, is required, at the request of the company, to authorise the company, within the areas already assigned to them, to exercise certain way-leave powers which are conferred upon him by the Telegraph Acts. These powers were, by
  84
  Deed Poll dated March 23rd, 1899, delegated in a great number of places; and a, copy of the Deed Poll has been sent to each such place. In some places, notably Bedford, the local authority appears to have been advised that the way-leaves could be exercised without the consent of the local authority. That, of course, is not the case; and, under the Act of 1892 and the Agreement of 1896, the special consent of the local authority is required in each case.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: May I ask whether the way-leave powers granted to the National Telephone Company by local authorities terminate with the licence of the company?
  MR. HANBURY: Certainly.

  EXTRA POLICE IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Clare, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of extra police in Clare, and what is their cost; and whether, in view of the peaceable state of the country, they can be dispensed with.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The number of extra police in the County Clare is forty men, and their cost to local rates amounts to about £1,350 per annum. These forty men are employed exclusively in affording special protection to certain individuals, a duty which cannot be performed by the normal or free force of police in the county; and so long as the necessity for such special measures continues to exist, the extra force cannot be dispensed with. I may add that there has been a reduction of 103 men in the extra force of Clare since the present Government entered office, and that this large reduction is equivalent to a saving to local rates of about £3,550 per annum.

  BALTIMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have, at a large cost, constructed the railway to Baltimore, and whether the want of connection to deep water, as originally and subsequently intended, has interfered

  85
  with the utilities of the line for the benefit of the fisheries; and whether he can influence the Congested Districts Board and the Cork and Bandon Railway to financially co-operate in having this railway perfected.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The plans for this railway, which was built by the Government at a cost of £56,700, did not include the provision of a pier as suggested. As regards the second paragraph, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous question of the 10th inst. on the same subject.

  CORK UNION DISPENSARY DOCTOR.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, that the Local Government Board authorise a charge on the rates of Cork Union of £346 a year in payment for substitutes for dispensary doctors when on leave other than sick leave, the doctors having hitherto always paid their own substitutes. I beg also, on my own behalf, to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution recently adopted by the Cork Board of Guardians, protesting against the action of the Local Government Board in seeking to compel the payment of substitutes for dispensary doctors when on ordinary leave out of the rates; and whether, in view of the fact that this rule, if insisted upon, will place a new burden upon the ratepayers, he will suggest to the Local Government Board the desirability of re-considering their decision.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: In reply to these questions, I have to say that the order for the payment of substitutes for dispensary doctors when on ordinary leave out of the rates was made, not under the Local Government Act of last year, but under the 8th and 12th Sections of the Medical Charities Act, 14 and 15 Vict., c. 68. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the practice of requiring the doctors to pay their own substitutes, which appears to exist in the Cork Union, is not the general practice in Ireland. If, however, it can be shown that it is the established practice in the Cork Union, and understood as such by the gentlemen
  86
  appointed dispensary doctors in that Union, the Local Government Board are quite ready to consider whether, consistently with the terms of the new Dispensary Order, to which they attach great importance, some arrangement cannot be made to meet the case, whether by rearrangement of duties or otherwise.
  CAPT. DONELAN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the Local Government Board have issued no such orders as are mentioned in the question?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No; only general orders.

  CASTLEREA SANITARY CHARGES
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from the Castlerea Rural District Council on the subject of the sanitary charges of the towns of Castlerea and Ballaghadereen; whether he is aware that the spreading of these charges over the entire rural district, instead of as heretofore only on the places concerned and receiving benefit, has created a very strong feeling amongst the members of the council and the ratepayers generally; and whether he will comply with the desire of the council and the ratepayers in favour of making the sanitary expenses excluded charges, and leviable only upon the places receiving advantages from the works in connection with which they were incurred.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The memorial referred to in the first paragraph has been received. A Supplementary Order was issued on the 17th instant, restoring the former areas of charge for special expenses in certain cases, which include the Castlerea and Ballaghadereen Water Supply and Sewerage schemes.

  IRISH LAND ACT RETURNS
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain how it is that now, three years after the passing of the Land Act of 1896, complete Returns of the land rental and encumbrances to which the fortieth section applies have not been presented to the House as required by that Act; whether he could see his way to at once present to the

  87
  House a portion of the Return, which has been in course of preparation during the past year, in order to expedite the work of solicitors and tenants entitled to purchase; and whether he would order an inquiry into the causes which have delayed Returns for three years which, according to the Act, ought to have been presented to the House at least two years ago.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Neither the Land Law Act of 1896, nor the Rules made in pursuance of Section 40 of the Act, require that the Returns in question shall be presented to Parliament. As regards the second and third paragraphs, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous question of Monday last on the subject.

  THE CENSUS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed, in the next Census Act for England, to take a census of the people and their occupations every five years; and whether a similar Act will extend to Ireland.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have no knowledge as to the matter referred to in the question.

  IRISH FISHERY CONSERVATORS' BOARD.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what representation the Lord Lieutenant will give county district councils on the Fishery Conservators' Board if they become contributory to the amount of £25 and £50 respectively per year.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Section 37 of the Local Government Act enables a district council, at the request of a Board of Conservators, to contribute to the expenses of the Board, and it is further provided by the same section that the number of representatives of the contributory district council upon the Board of Conservators shall be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant. Obviously, the question of representation of a particular district council upon the Board cannot be determined until the council has become con
  88
  tributory under the section, and every case of the kind must be considered on its merits.

  SALMON IN IRISH RIVERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there has been a decrease of salmon in the rivers Barrow and Nore for the past fifteen years, which has been estimated to be £30,000 a year; whether he is aware that this is mainly due to the destruction of spawning fish in the fresh water, and of fry by trawlers and drum nets at the river mouth; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held before the end of the close season, 15th April, at New Ross and Inistiogue to investigate the question and suggest a remedy.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries have no statistics as to the capture of salmon in the rivers mentioned. It appears to be a fact, however, comparing the quantities of salmon exported from Ireland to the principal English markets, that there has been a general falling off in the capture of salmon in recent years in Ireland. My information does not bear out the allegation in the second paragraph. I see no reason for directing an inquiry to be held in this particular case as suggested in the third paragraph; but I may remind the hon. Member that the subject of the inland fisheries and fishery laws in Ireland is about to be investigated by a Viceregal Commission.

  CLONES SUB-LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state at what date the Sub-Land Commission may be expected to sit for the hearing of cases in the Clones Union; and can he also say when the Chief Commission will sit to hear appeals for County Monaghan.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The dates for the sittings referred to in the question have not yet been fixed. Sittings will, however, be arranged on as early dates as possible having due regard to the claims of other districts.

  FAIR RENT VALUATIONS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Cavan, I beg

  89
  to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the great delay in fixing fair rents caused by the inability of farmers to supply the Sub Commissioners with certificates of valuation for standard years, in cases where holdings have been divided or consolidated holdings, with landlord's consent, have been separated since fixing last judicial rent; whether he is aware that the Irish Land Laws do not require the production of any such certificates; and if inquiry will be made with the view of providing some way of preventing the block at present existing in fixing fair rents in such cases.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Having regard to the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1898, and particularly of Section 55, a fair rent cannot be fixed unless the court is furnished with a certificate of the rateable valuation of the holding for the standard financial year, setting forth separately the valuation of the agricultural land and other hereditaments respectively comprised therein. In cases where holdings have been sub-divided or consolidated, even with the consent of the landlord, as indicated in the question, and when the provisions of the Valuation Acts have not been complied with, and the valuations of sub-divided or consolidated holdings have not been revised, the certificate referred to cannot be issued until steps have been taken under Statute 17 Vic, cap. 8, as altered by the Local Government (Adaptation of Irish Enactments) Order, 1899, to have the valuation revised at the next annual revision. When the Act of last year came into force the Land Commissioners issued a Memorandum to applicants to have fair rents fixed, in which they were informed that when circumstances such as those with which the question deals existed the Commissioners would be unable to fix a rent until steps had been taken by the applicant to have the tenement valuation revised.

  POOR LAW ANALYSTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. MACALEESE: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Armagh I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the appointment of analytical chemists in Ireland to the poor law unions for the
  90
  analysing of drugs, if he could state what qualification does the Irish Local Government Board require that they should possess, how many appointments have they sanctioned so far, and what is the full qualification of each chemist that has been appointed.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: In view of the importance of the duties the Local Government Board require in the case of persons who are not already public analysts under the Food and Drugs Act, educational attainments equal to those possessed by such of the Fellows or Associates of the Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland as have obtained the certificate granted by the Institute after examination in therapeutics, pharmacology and microscopy. The Board have sanctioned the appointment of one gentleman who possesses the foregoing qualifications but who has not hitherto acted as public analyst.

  IRISH NATIONAL LIBRARY.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Report of the Trustees of the National Library of Ireland (Kildare Street) for 1898 will be laid before Parliament; and whether the provisions for the library, which have long been asked for, will shortly be carried out.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Report will be presented to Parliament by the Science and Art Department, and will not pass through my hands. Perhaps my hon. friend would address his question to my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Council.

  PEACE PRESERVATION ACT—PROSECUTIONS IN COUNTY DUBLIN.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of a captain in Her Majesty's service, who was prosecuted and fined at the Coolock Petty Sessions, County Dublin, on the 10th instant, under the Peace Preservation Act, for having arms on his own land, on the ground that his holding was situated in a proclaimed district, namely the County of Dublin; and will he explain

  91
  why the County Dublin, which is, and has for years, been absolutely free from all serious crime, is still proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act, and whether the proclamation of the County of Dublin will be revoked.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. With regard to the second paragraph, it is a fact that the County of Dublin is subject to a proclamation issued under the Peace Preservation Act of 1881, which makes the possession of firearms without a licence to keep the same, illegal. That proclamation was issued in December, 1881, immediately after the passing of the Act, and successive Irish Governments since that date have not seen their way to withdraw the proclamation. It is not the intention of the Government, as at present advised, to revoke it.

  BELFAST TROUBLES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on last Saturday a stone was flung through the window of the house of Rev. Wm. Peoples, of Templemore Avenue, Belfast, and that the persecution of this clergyman is still kept up in spite of the closing of his church; and why the police are not instructed to put a stop to such proceedings.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: On the night of the 15th instant, the Rev. Mr. Peoples reported to the police that a small pane of glass in the window of his house had been broken. Mr. Peoples has been living in his house for the past four months, and has not during that period been subjected to annoyance. The stone was probably thrown by boys in rough play without any intention of breaking Mr. Peoples window. That gentleman has not, I am informed, suffered any annoyance since St. Clement's Church was closed four months ago. He moves freely through the district, and no particular notice is taken of him. The police have instructions to pay close attention to his house.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in
  92
  view of the opposition to the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill, he intends to proceed with that measure this session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): This Bill is one of those which I stated a few days ago would not be proceeded with if there is any serious opposition. I will make it my business to find out whether that is the case.
  MR. CALDWELL: There will be considerable opposition. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill confers no public money on Scotland, whereas a similar Bill for Ireland gives £21,000?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not a similar Bill.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS BILL, formerly SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
    LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
    GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL.
    GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
    SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES) BILL.
    STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL.
    With Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
Other Amendments made.
Schedule added as follows:—

ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

38 and 39 Vic., c. 63

The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875

In section two the definition of the term "food."
In section fourteen the words "offer to," and the words "proceed accordingly and shall."

Section fifteen.

42 and 43 Vic., c. 30

The Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879

Section ten.

50 and 51 Vic., c. 29

The Margarine Act, 1887

In section six the words "or with," and the words "not less than a quarter of an inch square."

54 and 55 Vic., c 46

The Post Office Act, 1891

Section eleven.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): I hope the House will allow this Bill to be now read a third time. It has, I think, been fully discussed both in Committee and on Report stage.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Bill be now read the third time." (Mr. Long.)
SIR JOHN LENG: The right hon. Gentleman will, I think, admit that those who have taken an interest in this measure have shown by their action this afternoon in not pressing the Amendments which they have on the Paper that they have no desire to unduly protract the discussion on it. But I must say there is a feeling that we should have some opportunity of saying a few words on the Third Reading, and, therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this motion of Third Reading.
MR. STRACHEY: While we have no desire to prevent the
94
Bill being read a third time, I do think we are entitled to enter a protest against that part of it which provides that an invoice is no longer to serve as a warranty. I make that protest on behalf of a large number of small retailers throughout the length and breadth of the country, who feel that they have a right to complain of the action of the Government in assenting the other day to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Sussex. That Amendment altered what had been done by the Grand Committee by the, no doubt, small majority of four, and against the desire of the Government. An invoice was then made to be an equivalent to a warranty. Unfortunately the Government thought fit not to resist this Amendment moved in the small hours of the morning, which undid that portion of the Grand Committee's work. The House was nearly empty, and hon. Members were tired, and, in consequence, the question was not fully or properly debated. I cannot help thinking that, had there been more Members present, many would have protested against the action of the Government in this matter. It is quite true the Government did not put on the Party whips to tell in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex——
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Are we to understand that the Third Reading is to be taken to day?
MR. CHANNING: I rise to a point of order. Am I not right in saying that, according to the Rules of the House, a motion of this nature must be adjourned if objection is taken to its being proceeded with? Personally, I feel that I must take that objection.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no such Rule, but in each case it is a matter for the House to decide. If there is a strong feeling against proceeding with a Bill it is not usual to persist with the motion. At the same time there are many cases where the Third Reading has been taken in spite of there being some objection.
MR. STRACHEY: I must say, with regard to the invoice question, it is most unfortunate that the Government gave way upon it. I would be the last to suggest that there might be any lack of

95
impartiality on the part of a county bench of magistrates who might be called upon to deal with cases under this Act, but on such a bench are found gentlemen interested in agricultural matters and in seeing that agricultural produce was properly protected, and some people might fear that, in such a case, the magistrates might not prove absolutely impartial. I repeat that I repudiate any such idea personally, but still I cannot help thinking that it would be far better for the Government if it had, in order to avert suspicion, given defendants a right in those cases to appeal to a jury, a course which is very much more necessary now in view of the fact that an invoice is no longer to be treated as a warranty. Again, I think there is cause of complaint as to the action of the Government in insisting on imposing the penalty of three months 'imprisonment for a third conviction. Here again the invoice question renders the decision come to more open to objection. It should be borne in mind that small shopkeepers in country districts naturally rely upon an invoice as a warranty. If they receive goods from firms supposed to be of good repute, they naturally feel safe in selling them; and it is unfair to these retailers that they should be rendered liable to imprisonment, not for their own carelessness, but for the misconduct of others, on whose word they ought to be able to rely.
MR. CALDWELL: I am sorry that the Government are pressing this motion for a Third Reading. There certainly has been some misunderstanding on this side of the House. Many hon. Members interested certainly did not expect the Third Reading to be taken to-day. Under these circumstances I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to second that.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
MR. LONG: I have no desire to press this matter unfairly, but it will, I think, be admitted that the Bill on Second Reading, before the Grand Committee, and again on the Report stage, has
96
received the most exhaustive and detailed consideration, and therefore nothing remains but to repeat over again the arguments already used against certain details of the measure. In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the opposition, as far as I am able to judge, comes from only a few hon. Gentlemen opposite, I hope the House will resist the Amendment.
MR. BRYCE: I regret to hear the words which have just fallen from the President of the Board of Agriculture. I think he ought to feel that in the long run it is much better he should give way. This is a step which can only be taken by the general consent of the House, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is very desirable the House should not lose its power in these matters. I therefore hope he will not persist in asking for the Third Reading of this Bill to-day. He must feel that the concessions which the Government made on Thursday night have been amply rewarded by the action of hon. Members in not to-day pressing the Amendments which they had on the Paper. The Bill is really an important one, exciting a large amount of interest throughout the country—an interest disproportionate to that which was borne testimony to by the attendance in the House on the Report stage. Some important alterations have been made in the measure, and one important provision introduced by the Grand Committee has been struck out. Under these circumstances, I think the House should have an opportunity of debating the Third Reading.
MR. LONG: After that expression of view by the right hon. Gentleman from the front Opposition Bench, and speaking therefore, I presume, in the name of the Opposition, I ask leave to withdraw my motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
As Amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
MR. DILLON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the

97
Amendments I have put down on the Paper do not show any desire on my part to prevent this Bill passing. It was carefully considered in Committee upstairs, and in some particulars, no doubt, substantially improved. But I regret to say that some of the chief faults in its machinery, to which I drew attention on the Second Reading, are still untouched. The first Amendment I have to propose is one which was fully considered in Committee, and therefore I shall only say a few sentences in regard to it. Its object is exceedingly simple. The Bill, as it at present stands, proposes to make the Chief Secretary for Ireland President of the new Department, and to associate with him a vice-president, to be appointed and removable by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State. I propose that the Department should have as President one who is not Chief Secretary. I do not wish the Chief Secretary to be directly associated with the new Department, and this will give it two characteristics which I judge to be very valuable—first, it will leave the Department more independence and initiative; and, in the second place, it will separate the Department from the ordinary political administration of Ireland, and thereby give it a better chance of getting into touch and sympathy with the body of the people. When I made this proposal in Committee, with, I venture to say, the universal support of Irishmen, the only argument advanced against it was that it was too far-reaching, as it amounted in effect to the cutting into two of the whole administration of Ireland, and destroying its centralised character. I accept that description of my proposal, and I certainly should like to see this new Department cut off from that portion of the administration which is responsible for police and justice, because it would thereby
be relieved from that odium and friction which a political Department of the Irish Government so often incurs. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word 'with,' to the word 'appointed,' in line 11, and insert the words, 'a president'"—(Mr. Dillon)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): I fully recognise that the hon. Member has no desire to obstruct this Bill. I am afraid, however, that, as in Committee, so now I am obliged to resist this Amendment. I do so on the ground, mainly, that the change is not a desirable one in itself, having regard to the interests of the Department it is proposed to set up. It would weaken the Department both in the House and in Ireland if the Chief Secretary were not included as its President. It is perfectly true that, at one time, there seemed to be a consensus of opinion that it would be desirable to have a Minister who should be independent of the Chief Secretary as head of the Department, but I believe I satisfied a deputation representing the Chambers of Commerce and others that waited on me that such was not the case, and that the presence of the Chief Secretary on the Department was, in fact, necessary to the successful working of the measure, and that our proposal would in fact give effect to their desire.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 78. (Division List, No. 292.)

AYES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M

Coddington, Sir William

Arnold, Alfred

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Arrol, Sir William

Boulnois, Edmund

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brassey, Albert

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Baily, James (Walworth)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Baird, John George Alexander

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Curzon, Viscount

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Banbury, Frederick George

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Denny, Colonel

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Chamberlain. J. Austen (wore'r

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Chelsea, Viscount

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Bethell, Commander

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

Laurie, Lieut. -General

Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.

Finch, George H.

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning (Corn

Purvis, Robert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Pym, C. Guy

Fisher, William Hayes

Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.)

Rothschild, Hon. L. Walter

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lockwood, Lt. -Colonel A. R.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Flower, Ernest

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

Gedge, Sydney

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Goschen, Rt Hn G. J. (St George's

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Graham, Henry Robert

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Malcolm, Ian

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Heaton, John Henniker

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

Helder, Augustus

Milton, Viscount

Tollemache, Henry James

Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.)

Monk, Charles James

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Valentia, Viscount

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Welby, Lieut. -Col. A. C. E.

Howell, William Tudor

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Whiteley, H. (Aston-under-L.)

Hozier, Hon. James Hy. Cecil

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wyndham, George

Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Wyvill, Marmaduke d'Arcy

Kenyon, James

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Kimber, Henry

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

King Sir Henry Seymour

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Knowles, Lees

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

NOES.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

Balfour, Rt Hn J Blair (Clackm.

Harwood, George

Pease, Joseph A. (Northum b.)

Billson, Alfred

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hazell, Walter

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Burt, Thomas

Horniman, Frederick John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Caldwell, James

Jones, David Brynmor (Swan.

Souttar, Robinson

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

Spicer, Albert

Carew, James Laurence

Labouchere, Henry

Steadman, William Charles

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd

Stevenson, Francis S.

Channing, Francis Allston

Leng, Sir John

Strachey, Edward

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crombie, John William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Tennant, Harold John

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Crae, George

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Davitt, Michael

M'Ewan, William

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Dewar, Arthur

M'Ghee, Richard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Maddison, Fred.

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Doogan, P. C.

Maden, John Henry

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Duckworth, James

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Moulton, John Fletcher

Woodall, William

Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Hudd'rsf'd

Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Yoxall, James Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Mr. Dillon and Captain Donelan.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

SIR CHARLES DILKE: I have to apologise to the House for moving an Amendment which is not on the Paper. But the circumstances are such that I think I am justified in doing so, as I had understood it would have been among the Amendments put down for Irish Members, while those Gentlemen thought I intended to
100
put it down. It was defeated on the Grand Committee by a small majority, and I believe it had the support of all Nationalists, with only one exception. The object of the Amendment is to make it necessary that the new Minister to be appointed under the Bill shall seek reelection on appointment. This matter of re-election has not been very frequently

101
argued in the House in recent years, but in 1869, when the late Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for west Monmouth, made his maiden speech, Lord Bury had asked leave to introduce a Bill to provide that Ministers should not have to seek re-election on accepting office. Mr. Gladstone, and many other leading Members of the House, made most interesting speeches, and the language used was most uncompromising, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth "vehemently dissenting" to the proposal. He declared that the choice of Ministers should be ratified by their constituencies. He and other Members who took part in that Debate pointed out how this matter especially affected Ireland, where cabals and Parliamentary in-intrigues were especially marked. The case of Judge Keogh and other cases were alluded to, and the opinion of Mr. Hallam was quoted as to the necessity of jealously maintaining the rights of the constituents. Not only did everyone who spoke on the Liberal side uphold the principle of maintaining the rights of constituents, but Mr. Henley strongly supported the same view from the other side of the House. He said he did not like "cutting the connection between the House of Commons and the constituencies. "That opinion prevailed, and the motion for leave to introduce the Bill was unanimously negatived by the House. The result has been that the fixed system has continued, and while leading Ministers have to seek re-election, under-secretaries and some secretaries of boards do not. It has been necessary when a new Minister is created, to consider on abstract merits whether the new Minister shall be sent for re-election or not. However strong the arguments may be on general principles in favour of sending a Minister for reelection, they seem to me to be vastly stronger in the case of Ireland. In the past, Irish constituencies have been liable to treachery on the part of their political representatives, and consequently the political condition of Ireland renders it necessary to maintain this principle in their case. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 1, line 20, to leave out from the word 'elected,' to the word 'Parliament,' in line 23, inclusive, and insert the words 'and shall be deemed to be an office included in Schedule H of The Representation of the People Act, 1867, in Schedule H of The Repre-
102
sentation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and in Schedule E of The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868,'—(Sir Charles Dilke)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The right hon. Baronet has argued this question on general principles, and referred to a Bill brought in by Lord Bury, which was not read a first time. That Bill, the House will remember, related, not to the case of subordinate ministers, but to the case of all Ministers holding office under the Crown. If the argument of the right hon. Baronet is one to which the House should attach weight at the present time, I think he will admit that we have been going wrong for a generation. For at least a generation there is not a single case of a subordinate Minister requiring to seek re-election on taking office. That seems to me to be a sufficient reply to the right hon. Baronet, so far as the general grounds adduced by him are concerned. But the right hon. Baronet is of opinion that Ireland is a special case, and that whatever may be the law in England, a new Minister should not be appointed in Ireland without an appeal to his constituents on his appointment. I cannot agree with the right hon. Baronet that there is a special case for Ireland of any real weight. On the contrary, I would argue that Ireland is a place where the rule should not apply, even if we had not for thirty years abandoned it in the case of all subordinate Ministers. Let the House remember this, that the Minister will not necessarily be a Minister representing an Irish constituency, and if you limit the choice open to the Government by laying down the rule that appointment to this post involves re-election, it may very well be that it would be impossible for the Government to select an hon. Member representing an Irish Constituency, because the Member might, under existing conditions, hold an unsafe seat. Everybody knows that the question of the safety of a seat is an element that must be taken into consideration in making appointments of such Ministers. If that be so, and if the right hon. Baronet's Amendment is accepted, the Government could not appoint an Irish Member, and would have to go outside Ireland or to the House of Lords

103
for the selection of the Minister. I have no doubt that so far from Ireland presenting a special case on account of which we ought to depart from the rule which has obtained for thirty years, we ought to make it an exception so that it would be unnecessary for the Minister to seek re-election on appointment of office.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to accept this Amendment. It is one which has the all but unanimous support of the Irish Members. The right hon. Baronet quoted historical precedents in favour of it, but the right hon. Gentleman met them by saying that these historical precedents had been abolished for the last thirty years. The present Chief Secretary for Ireland has to seek re-election. We attach considerable importance to the post of Vice-President of the new board, and we think that he, also, should be bound to seek re-election on his appointment. If we had a Parliament of our own he would, of course, have to seek re-election in the Irish Parliament, for the President of the Board of Agriculture would be one of the most important Ministers that we would have. I think it would be extremely wise from our point of view that we should establish a precedent for that now, so that when we do have the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture of our own we may arrange that he should be required to seek re-election. We desire to place our views on record by supporting the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, and I hope he will go to a Division.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment. I think I can speak with perfect impartiality, for the appointment is not one which is ever likely to be asked for by me or offered to me. Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to put this penalty of re-election on Irish Members of Parliament? I have yet to learn that the admiration of these hon. Members for the House of Lords is so strong that they would like to penalise the representatives of Irish constituencies in order that a noble Lord should be the occupant of this post. Of course, if that be so, then nothing more is to be said. I would take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the care, patience, courtesy and
104
conciliation he has shown in bringing this Bill to its present position. I can assure him that all Ireland will be grateful to him in the days to come; and I trust that he will not have his opinion set at defiance by the House on an occasion when he is desirous of giving to Ireland a great boon.
MR. STEVENSON: I noticed that the Chief Secretary stated that for the past generation all subordinate Ministers were exempted from seeking re-election. There is, at all events, the occupant of one subordinate office—the Civil Lord of the Admiralty who, I think, has to seek re-election.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: That is not a post which has been created during the last century.
MR. STEVENSON: Reference was made to Lord Bury's Bill of 1869; but a Bill was afterwards brought in by the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool to abolish, in the case of all Ministers, the necessity of appealing to their constituents on their appointment to office. I believe if a Bill of that kind were brought in now, it would receive a largo amount of support in this House and in the country. It seems to me, however, that as this particular post is one of very great importance, it would be a pity to set the example with it. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, it is of the greatest possible importance that the holder of this office should be in very close touch with Irish feeling and Irish conditions of life, and it seems to me that that is a reason why the Amendment ought to be supported.
MR. DILLON: I trust the right hon. Baronet will go to a Division and enable us to put our opinion on record. It is a fact that every single Minister drawing a salary in connection with the Irish Government in this House has to seek re-election, and therefore as regards Irish administration the proposal in the Bill is a totally new departure. I ask the Chief Secretary whether it would not be better for him to follow the unbroken tradition and practice of the Irish Government rather than to follow the new tradition and practice of the English Government, and which the

105
Irish Members do not desire to apply to their country. A great majority of the Irish representatives are solid on this question. I heartily agree with the right hon. Baronet in what he has said as regards the greater strength of the objection to this now departure, because of the special case of Ireland. We consider that the peculiar situation which has existed and is likely to exist for some time in Irish politics, renders it particularly undesirable that a Member of Parliament, after he has been elected, should have his status altered without his constituents having the right to state their views upon it. The right hon. gentleman the Chief Secretary strengthened our case when he said that to compel this Minister to seek re-election on appointment would limit the choice of the Government—or in
other words that he would appoint a man as Minister who, if he sought re-election, would be defeated by the constituency which returned him as an independent Member. That is the strongest argument for the Amendment, because it would give the constituencies a right to say whether they are to be represented by an independent and unsalaried Member, or by a salaried Minister of the Crown. For that reason I certainly shall vote for the Amendment, and I do think it would be more consistent with the position of the Irish Government to accept it.
Question put—
The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 91. (Division List, No. 293.)

AYES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Denny, Colonel

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Arnold, Alfred

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Leighton, Stanley

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Arrol, Sir William

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel A. R.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Baird, J. George Alexander

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Mane'r

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Finch, George H.

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Banbury, Frederick George

Fisher, William Hayes

Lubbock, Rt. Rt. Hn. Sir John

Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H.S.-(Hunts.)

FitzGerald, Sir Rbt. Penrose-

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Macdona, John Cumming

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir. M. H.(Br'st'l)

Flower, Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Beckett, Ernest William

Garfit, William

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gedge, Sydney

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Bethell, Commander

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Milton, Viscount

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Milward, Colonel Victor

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goschen, Rt. Hn G J (St George's

Monk, Charles James

Boulnois, Edmund

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Brassey, Albert

Graham, Henry Robert

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf d.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Nicholson, William Graham

Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Helder, Augustus

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Percy, Earl

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Howard, Joseph

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chelsea, Viscount

Howell, William Tudor

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Purvis, Robert

Coddington, Sir William

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pym, C. Guy

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Rankin, Sir James

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ridley. Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Kemp, George

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Colston, C. E. H. Athole

Kenyon, James

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kimber, Henry

Round, James

Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

Knowles Lees

Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Laurie, Lieut. -General

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Curzon, Viscount

Lawrence, Sir E Durning -(Corn)

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

Sharpe, William Edward T

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Tollemache, Henry James

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

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wyndham, George

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Valentia, Viscount

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-u.-Lyne)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Ox.Univ.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Sir William Walrond and

Thornton, Percy M.

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Bainbridge, Emerson

Harwood, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Balfour, Rt. Hon. J.B.(Clackm.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Power, Patrick Joseph

Billson, Alfred

Hazell, Walter

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Robson, William Snowdon

Burt, Thomas

Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

Caldwell, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Souttar, Robinson

Carew, James Laurence

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'land

Spicer, Albert

Carmichael, Sir T. D Gibson-

Leng, Sir John

Steadman, William Charles

Causton, Richard Knight

Lloyd-George, David

Stevenson, Francis S.

Channing, Francis Allston

Macaleese, Daniel

Strachey, Edward

Crilly, Daniel

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crombie, John William

M'Crae, George

Tennant, Harold John

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Ewan, William

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Ghee, Richard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Maddison, Fred

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Davitt, Michael

Maden, John Henry

Williams, John Carvell(Notts.

Donelan, Captain A.

Mellor, Rt. Hon. J.W. (Yorks.)

Wills, Sir William Henry

Doogan, P. C.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Duckworth. James

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, John (Govan)

Dunn, Sir William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'sfield

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Woods, Samuel

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Yoxall, James Henry

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Dillon.

Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Palmer, Sir CharlesM.(Durh'm

Bill read the third time, and passed.

MR. DILLON: This Amendment deals with the composition of the Agricultural Board which, under this Act, is constituted as follows: Two Members elected by each of the provincial committees, which makes, in all, eight elected members, and four nominated by the Crown, making in all 12. That gives the Crown one-third of the entire number, but that does not represent the actual position of the board, because the provincial committees have a large element of nominated members. My Amendment would have the effect of doubling the number of elected representatives, bringing the total number of the board up to sixteen. Consequently the Department would still have the nomination of one-fourth of the entire board. When I moved this Amendment in Grand Committee the Chief Secretary said it would make the board too large, and that the proportion of nominated members to the total number was settled by the Government
108
on lines similar to those adopted in foreign countries. I ask the Chief Secretary to explain to the House what is the reason for the extraordinary disparity that exists from the point of view of the influence of the popularly elected member between the composition of the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Technical Instruction under this Bill. The Board of Technical Instruction consists of twenty-four members, six from Dublin and Belfast (three each); one to be appointed by the joint committee from the rural districts of the County of Dublin; four by the borough councils of Ireland; three by the Chambers of Commerce; four by the provincial committees of each province; one by the Commissioners of National Education; one by the Intermediate Education Board, and four by the Department, which is one-sixth of the whole number. On the Agricultural Board you have one-third of the whole

109
number nominated by the Department. That is a very extraordinary anomaly and one which I think needs explanation. The functions of the two boards are precisely similar, and I cannot see why it is necessary or on what ground the Board of Agriculture should be constituted on a more official basis than the Board of Technical Instruction. I have another strong argument. Under the Bill as it stands only two representatives are allowed in each province, which number I hold is totally inadequate to represent them properly, and it is sure to lead to a great deal of difficulty. I would draw the special attention of the House to this point. Why is it necessary to give to compact units like the City of Dublin and Belfast three representatives each, and only give two to a whole province? Surely everybody will admit that even if the population of Munster, Connaught, or Ulster were as small as the population of Belfast or Dublin, being scattered over a wide area they require a larger representation than those city communities. As a matter of fact the populations of the provinces are much larger than these cities, and yet you only give them two representatives while the cities have three. I can see no solid ground upon which this differentiation can be based. When the Chief Secretary falls back upon his contention that by increasing the numbers the Board of Agriculture would be made too large and unwieldy, I answer that it would be smaller than the number of the Technical Instruction Board is as arranged under the Bill. If a board of twenty-four can do the work of the Technical Instruction Board I cannot understand why a board of sixteen is too large for the Board of Agriculture. I do not think it will be possible to get anything like a full attendance of the board at any meeting, because, often through sickness or urgent business, a man may be prevented from attending, because the work is purely voluntary, and it is possible that from these causes alone some of the provinces may not be represented at all at some of the meetings. These are views which I strongly hold, and I appeal to the Chief Secretary to meet us in this matter.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 29, to leave out the word 'two,' and insert the word 'four,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for East Mayo has drawn a comparison between the Board of Technical Instruction and the Board of Agriculture, and he has asked why the former has twenty-four members, while we are unwilling to allow more than twelve for the Board of Agriculture. I should have been quite content to cut down the Technical Instruction Board to twelve, because I am convinced that a board of twelve members is decidedly more efficient than a board of twenty-four. After a great deal of careful consideration of all the various interests which have to be represented on the Board of Technical Instruction, I could not see how I could very well cut the numbers down, unless it was by giving to Belfast, Dublin, and Cork the same representation as the county boroughs. I am afraid that if I had made that proposal Belfast and Dublin would have objected, and I am not anxious to incur the hostility of these two cities. Therefore, I thought I would give this extra representation to these two cities, and I do not see how it is possible, consistently with something like equality, to give Dublin and Belfast less than three representatives. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no sinister arrière pensée behind the proposal contained in the Bill. I still think that a board of twelve in the case of the Technical Instruction Board would have been a more efficient body than it is now, and I certainly think that twelve is a better number for the Agricultural Board.
MR. DAVITT: The right hon. Gentleman looked with alarm at having to face the opposition of Belfast and Dublin, but he is evidently not afraid of a possible rising in the provinces by limiting their representation on a most important board to so small a number. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept my hon. friend's Amendment. I am sure that he is anxious to make this Bill popular in Ireland, and he would undoubtedly make it more workable if he rendered it more popular, and I am sure he would do that if he increased the number of representatives for the provinces. I can assure him that we are not ani-

111
mated by any desire to render any of these councils or boards unwieldy, and if he is satisfied that twenty-four members on the Technical Instruction Board will enable that part of the work to be well done, surely a smaller number on the Agricultural Board will enable the work of that Department to be carried out just as well. I am sorry that the Chief Secretary has not seen his way to accept this Amendment, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will yet be able to reconsider his decision.
MR. POWER: I do hope the Government will agree to this proposal, for even if my hon. friend's Amendment is carried it will still give the Government one-fifth of the Board to nominate, which I think would be quite enough for all purposes. I think it must be admitted that two for each province is a very limited representation of the popular voice. It is very desirable that men elected on this Argricultural Board should be thoroughly competent and able to speak for the various interests they represent, and I think it is desirable, having regard to the importance of the agricultural industry, that each province should have one representative for ordinary farming, another for the dairy interest, and another to represent the labouring community. I quite agree with the views put forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo, that while you have only two representatives for each large province you will experience great difficulty of selection so as to get all interests fairly represented, and it will be very much better if the number is increased. Although the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to look with favour upon this proposal, I hope he has not said the last word on it.
MR. T. M. HEALY: This is not a very large matter, and I hope the Government will give way. Surely this Bill is getting through the House upon very easy terms, and when an Amendment is proposed which does not raise any question of principle, I think the Government might accept it.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I think the right hon. Gentleman might make the number three in each province, for this would not make any practical difference in the working of the Board. At
112
present you have twelve, and if you accept this, it will only make the number 16. Three members from each province would allow all classes to be represented, whereas the present number will really interfere with its working. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to allow three members from, each province.
MR. FLYNN: I may point out that the four members to be appointed by the Department will be gentlemen who can give constant and regular attendance, but, from the necessity of the case, the representatives of the provinces will scarcely be able to attend so regularly. Then I think the labouring community ought to have some representation on this body, and if you have only two representatives the chances of the labour element being directly represented will be very remote indeed. I think for that reason alone the Government ought to accept the Amendment in favour of three representatives, and thus give all classes in Ireland who are interested in agriculture a fair opportunity of being represented on this Board, which is going to perform such important functions.
MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I do not quite understand the position of the Chief Secretary. If the agricultural population is 70 per cent. of the entire population, the Agricultural Board becomes the more important of the two. If the Technical Instruction Board has twenty-four members under this Bill, the agricultural element, according to the ratio of population, as contrasted with the industrial element, ought to have a representation on the Agricultural Board of over fifty members. I also wish to say a few words in support of the view of my hon. friend the Member for North Cork. Throughout the entire progress of this Bill there has been evidenced by the Chief Secretary a desire to avoid the representation of the labour element. In the Grand Committee that was evidenced most strongly, and we have it again in the Agricultural Board, that no representation whatever will be given to the interest most affected. The representation, as proposed, will lead to the undue representation of the large landed interest, but why should those who work and toil, and are the bone and sinew of the country not be fairly represented? I contend

113
that the Agricultural Board should be double the number at present proposed. Surely it is not too much to ask the Chief Secretary, at this stage of the proceedings, to reconsider his decision with regard to the matter.
MR. DILLON: Before we proceed to a Division, may I be permitted to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would even go so far as to say that he will consider this matter with an open mind between now and the Committee stage in another place? If he will, I will not take a Division.
MR. COURTNEY: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the advantage of increasing the representation of the provincial committee of each province from two to three. If ho increased the representation from two to three, he might provide that in the election of three members from each province no elector should vote for more than two, and thus introduce the element of proportional representation.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to accept the offer which has been made by my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo. I had the honour of presiding over the Committee upstairs, and that is my only reason for interposing at this stage. The only objection that has been stated is that there might be some risks in making the board too large, and therefore to a certain extent, unworkable. It seems to me that the numbers would not be very great if this Amendment were accepted. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might see his way, after the offer of my hon. friend, to reconsider the subject.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am prepared to consider the point between now and the time when this Bill reaches another place. With regard to the pet subject of my right hon. friend, I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that I shall be able to satisfy him.
MR. DILLON: Then I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be read the third time."—(Mr. G.W. Balfour.)
MR. T. M. HEALY: I congratulate the Government on getting the Bill through so easily. I only rose to take exception to one point. I had intended to say on the Second Reading that I thought it was open to some doubts whether the £12,000 provided for in Clause 15, out of the saving raised by the abolition of the judgeships, was a sufficient sum. We have had no statement whatever from the Treasury, nor any figures given us to show how this sum is arrived at. In my opinion the amount required will be not £12,000, but a much larger sum. I think the time has arrived when Irish Members of all sections—Conservative or Liberal—should be prepared to attack the Treasury upon their figures at every hand's turn, and to insist upon some kind of Select Committee in regard to it. We have had to take upon trust the statement that £12,000 is a sufficient sum. In dealing with public accounts, we should have some body in this House which would be able to cross-examine these Treasury experts, for the purpose of finding out on what basis their figures are arrived at. I also desire to take some exception to the expenditure for the Inland and Sea Fisheries Fund. In my opinion you will find that it really did not arise for State purposes at all, and therefore the State has no claim to dispose of this fund in the manner proposed. What we should like really to investigate is whether the large salvages of public money, which are annually transmitted as unexpended money, should go back, not to the British Treasury, but to some board such as this on all future occasions. You have at the present moment in Ireland a Public Votes Office, where Scotch and English gentlemen are simply agents for the Treasury, and do not spend the money which this House votes. This House is led to believe that large sums voted for public purposes have been spent; but in point of fact these gentlemen, by a secret process, intercept the money in transit, and prevent it reaching the Departments upon which the money ought so be expended, pouring the money back again into the lap of the Treasury. I therefore say that the time has arrived when some serious

115
step will have to be taken by Irish Members to overlook the system of expenditure by the British Treasury. At one time we had the promise of some safeguard with regard to the expenditure of the money. Now we have no protection whatever. We depend upon a knot of English officials, whose one idea is to bleed Ireland white, and to get as much money as they can out of us, and to give us as little back as possible. Under these circumstances, while congratulating the Government upon the passage of the Bill, it must not be supposed for a moment that I accept the figures given by the Treasury under Section 15.
MR. POWER: By this Bill the Government take over the looking after of the fisheries of Ireland, and I hope sincerely they may be able to do some good in that direction, because we all recognize that those fisheries are capable of great development. I rose particularly to call the attention of the Irish Secretary to what occurred in Supply on Friday night, when I raised the question of the way in which the Admiralty treat us with regard to the protection of our fisheries. All the trawlers which are driven from the English, Welsh, and Scotch coasts come over to our coast, and the result is they are doing a great deal of damage to the lines and trammels and nets of the fishermen. The Bill which was passed some years ago is absolutely useless. The proposition and suggestion I made was that, seeing it is absolutely impossible that the working staff under this present Bill could be ready in a very short time, pending the completion of arrangements, the Admiralty might lend a gunboat or two to enforce these bye-laws. The First Lord of the Treasury most considerately said he would confer with the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chief Secretary on the subject, and he hoped something would be done satisfactorily for the Irish fisheries. What I ask now is that the Irish Secretary should not allow the House to separate before he meets the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Leader of the House, so that something may be done to stop the system which it has been found necessary to stop on your own coasts, and which is working great harm to our already rather poor fisheries.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I should like to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to an institution almost on a par with the Munster Institution. There has been recently established the Ulster Agricultural and Dairy School and Henry Trust, on a farm of fifty acres, with a sum of £12,000 in the funds, an accumulation of money left by the late Mr. Thomas Henry, to found a school in the parish of Down. The Lord Chancellor has recently sanctioned the scheme to carry out the trust, which embraces the admission of girls as well as boys. While not in the least grudging the Munster Institution and the Albert Institution the well-deserved grants which are given by this Bill, I should like to claim for this Ulster School some consideration. I trust that the Government will consider the claims of the Ulster Agricultural School, which proposes to benefit the whole of the province, to share in the benefits which are conferred on the Munster School by the Bill. I have now only to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, the Government, and Ireland generally, upon the achievement we shall witness to-day in the passing of this Bill, which all parts of the country are unanimous in approving.
SIR.THOMAS ESMONDE: I also desire to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the passage of this Bill. It is an extremely useful measure, and one which will confer benefits on Ireland which will become greater and greater as years go on. The hon. Member for North Louth has raised a very important question in the few remarks he addressed to the House, a question which I hope we shall be able to follow up in another session, but which I do not intend to deal with now. I should like to say a few words about the matter mentioned by my hon. friend the Member for East Water-ford. Like him, I am very much interested in the sea-fishing industry, and have to complain of the enormous amount of damage which is done by steam trawlers which come to the waters in the Irish bays and harbours, and carry on their trawling depredations absolutely unhindered. We simply want the Fishery Board to have the use of a couple of gunboats to hunt these gentry away. I think, in consideration of the contribution

117
we make to the naval defence of the Empire, we might have that protection. As to this present Bill, the whole success or non-success of the measure will depend on its administration, and inasmuch as it has been supported as a non-political measure, I hope, in the appointments which the right hon. Gentleman is going to make in connection with the various boards and institutions under the Bill, he will make those also non-political. The right hon. Gentleman will be deluged with applications for appointments under the Bill, and I am certain he will do what we want him to do; that is, give the appointments to the best men he can possibly get. A number of these appointments will probably have to be given to foreigners, as, even in Ireland, we cannot produce experts in certain departments. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will act with a wise discretion, and appoint the men who, in his opinion, will work this measure so as to produce the greatest amount of benefit to the people of Ireland.
MR. DAVITT: I trust the Chief Secretary will respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member for South Belfast in favour of organising in Ulster an institution similar to that in Munster, because I think Connaught would then have a very good chance of obtaining one also. I fully agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for North Louth, with regard to the finance of the Bill. It is absurd to propose to improve the great agricultural and allied industries of Ireland by the niggardly allowance of what will amount to about 3d. per head of the population per annum. At the same time, our people are overtaxed in proportion to their capacity to the extent of 15s. per head per annum for the benefit of the voracious English Treasury. There is another marked contrast in the finance of this measure. At the present time, in one of the most crimeless countries in the world, a constabulary force has to be maintained at a cost of about 17s. per head per annum. Upstairs, I ventured to give, in sporting language, a "straight tip "to the Chief Secretary as to how he could raise enough money to enable the machinery of this Bill to confer great benefits upon Irish industries, viz., that the Royal Irish Constabulary should be reduced by one-third, by which means an annual sum of £400,000 would be saved, which would
118
be available for subsidising the various industries under this Bill, and for the furtherance of the interests of Irish agriculture and technical instruction. I sincerely hope the Chief Secretary will take this suggestion of mine into consideration, and that at a not very distant date it may be carried into effect.
MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I desire to associate myself with the congratulations to the Chief Secretary on the passage of this Bill. Now that he has got his Bill, and the House has given him a practically free hand, I think we are entitled to ask the Chief Secretary to give us the very best men to work the Bill, no matter what part of the world they happen to come from. I supported the right hon. Gentleman through thick and thin, and perhaps I could not exactly defend all I voted for, but I took the measure as a whole. I believe it will be a useful Bill, because with a decaying population such as that of Ireland, the only possible remedy is education and industry. I would have wished that this Bill were the crowning stone of a great educational policy. Instead of having it this year, I would prefer to have had a great educational Bill from which we could work steadily up. This Bill ought to have followed a large educational measure, which would have rendered it more fruitful. I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentleman will proceed with this industrial policy, which began with the Congested Districts Board, was renewed again with that Board, was exemplified in the extension of light railways, especially in the north-west of Ireland, and is crowned to-day with this industrial measure.
MR. DILLON: I have no objection to the Third Reading of the Bill being taken at this period, and I venture to express the hope that the measure may be of benefit to Ireland. I thank the Chief Secretary for the manner in which he has met those of us who engaged in the discussion of this Bill. On many important matters he remained obdurate, but on other important, though minor, matters he met us fairly, and the Bill is now a better Bill. I have been, of course, made the object of much criticism, because I insisted from the beginning that a Bill dealing with such vital and impor-

119
tant matters should not be passed through the House of Commons sub silentio. I think what has occurred has fully justified my action. I admit I was not satisfied, and am not yet satisfied that this Bill was not discussed in a full Committee of the House. It was represented to us truly, no doubt, that that was impossible at the present stage of the session. But that is no answer to us. We were entitled to have the Bill introduced earlier. But be that as it may, we have obtained very considerable and under the circumstances a fair amount of discussion. It has been said by two hon. Members that the great and vital question as to whether this Bill is to be beneficial or not now largely depends on the spirit of its administration. The hon. Baronet the Member for West Kerry gave the Chief Secretary some excellent advice, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will obtain advice on the same lines from many other quarters. I will, however, remain sceptical until I see some concrete proof of a determination on the part of the Irish Government to break its record. I do not question the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he honestly means to do what the hon. Baronet urged him to do, namely, in making appointments under this Act to turn his back on the traditions of the Irish Government, and to look only on the merits of the men. As the hon. Baronet correctly stated, the Chief Secretary is the miserable recipient of innumerable applications for positions. An official stated within my hearing, when 5,000 was mentioned as the probable number of applications already received, that that was infinitely beneath the proper number. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to appoint the best men. I hope he may succeed, but if he does appoint men who have no political pull, and whose only qualifications are their merits, the very clothes will be torn off his back and he will be driven out of Ireland before very long. The right hon. Gentleman provided the machinery of this measure on his own lines. He attached very great importance to the proposal that he should have control of, and full responsibility for the working of this Act, and our proposal to the contrary was defeated. He is the Department, and nobody can say that he has not full
120
control, and he said because he had experience he was the proper man to bring the Act into operation. I greatly fear, however, that the traditions which cluster round Dublin Castle, and which are very largely the cause of the hatred we bear to that institution, will prove too strong for him, and that men will receive appointments whose only claims are based on political services.
MR. FLYNN: I desire to congratulate the Chief Secretary on the ability and perseverance he has shown in piloting this Bill through all its stages, but I cannot congratulate the Government on the manner in which this Bill is to receive Third Reading this evening. It was brought in under the Ten minutes' rule, and the Government sought by one means or another to evade all discussion on it, and they thought we ought to accept the principle of take it or leave it. I congratulate my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo, and his friends, who believed that the Bill should be subjected to discussion and criticism, and I join with him in believing that the Bill has emerged from the Committee stage better in some respects, and certainly modified in others. We had hoped we might have been able to stamp the Bill with more democratic characteristics, but on that we were not successful, though I, as one who took a small part in that direction, am pleased that I took that part. I join with all my colleagues in asking the right hon. Gentleman, in the appointments he is going to make, to rise superior to the considerations which officially surround him and to the traditions of Dublin Castle, and expressing the hope that he will appoint men not because of their connection with politics, but because they are men thoroughly conversant with the great questions of industry and agriculture with which the Department will have to deal.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Before the Bill is read a third time I would wish to make a few remarks on the speeches to which we have just listened. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth criticises the sufficiency of the sum of £12,000 provided by the Treasury I think if the hon. and learned Member examines this question further he will feel that on this occasion the Treasury have not been ungenerous. The sum of £5,500

121
a year represents the saving made by the abolition of judgeships and the consolidation of courts, but as a matter of fact up to the present there has been no saving, and there cannot be any saving for a considerable number of years. Of course, any estimate must be to some extent speculative, but I believe that, in getting the sum of £12,000, Ireland is getting more than she would get if the exact sum had been carefully calculated by the Treasury year by year. As to the Sea and Coast Fisheries Fund, the hon. and learned Member is quite correct in stating that in its origin, some fifty years ago, that sum was derived from private contributions, but it has been administered for a considerable time past by some department connected with the Irish Government. The hon. Member for East Waterford appealed to me to use my influence with the Admiralty to secure the services of a couple of gunboats to protect the Irish fisheries, and the hon. Member attributed the injury inflicted in the Irish fisheries by trawlers, to the fact that there are no regulations with regard to the trawling in Ireland similar to the Scotch law. I think this is a question not so much of law as of administration. Ever since I came to the Irish Office, I have felt very strongly that the administration of the Irish fisheries was not what I should like to see it, and that trawlers committed depredations to a large extent unchecked. I have done what I could in the matter. I have constantly pressed the Admiralty for the services of a vessel, but the Admiralty have come to the conclusion that it is not a part of their duty to police the sea for fishery purposes. Every now and again I have succeeded in obtaining the services of a gunboat where some flagrant case of illegality was committed, but, of course, long before the gunboat arrived on the scene, the trawler had disappeared. I have come to the conclusion that nothing short of placing at the disposal of this Department a swift vessel will at all meet the case. As the hon. Member for East Waterford is aware, I have inserted in this Bill an express provision enabling the Department to expend money for the supervision and protection of fishing grounds, and the enforcement of local bye-laws. I am quite willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member, but the position taken up by the Admiralty does not leave much room for hope of a large
122
measure of success. However, I will make every effort to secure gunboats. I think that the remaining observations that have been made are merely of a general character. The hon. Baronet the Member for West Kerry exhorted me to exercise care in making the appointments under the Act, and not to make them political rewards. Sir, the Irish Government have had the policy embodied in this Bill in their serious consideration for years. For four years the subject has been dwelling in my mind. I actually prepared a Bill the first year I was in office. In the following year a Bill was introduced, but had to be withdrawn, to make way for the Local Government Bill, and now we have had this Bill which is now being passed. I can say from my heart that it shall be my endeavour to make it a success. I recognise most thoroughly that the success of this measure depends to a very large extent on the way in which it is administered, and it will be my strenuous endeavour to get the very best men to carry it out. In conclusion, I beg to thank hon. Members from Ireland for the kind way in which they have spoken of this Bill, and the intentions of the Government in introducing it, and for their co-operation in passing it through the House.

TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, &c.) BILL.
Order for Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I rise to move that this Bill be considered on this day three months. I hope I need make no apology to the House in taking this step in place of the hon. Member who has devoted a great deal of time to the question. We are at a considerable disadvantage in discussing a Bill of such magnitude at this late period of the session. It is obvious that when a proposal coming from the Government is accepted as advantageous by London and a great number of municipalities, a good deal of opposition to the Bill is obviated. It is quite true that those interested seem

123
to accept this Bill as a solution of a very difficult question, but it is also the case that behind the attitude and opinion of London and the large municipalities, there exists an alternative policy. There is no doubt that if London and the municipalities are willing to accept the proposals of the Bill, they would have been equally willing to accept in some form or other a national system of telephones. But the alternative has been rigidly excluded, unfortunately, from consideration. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury discussed that alternative, and gave reasons which were admitted by the right hon. Member for London University as conclusive against any national system, but as a whole the right hon. Gentleman has been obliged to work within limits. In my humble opinion this is very unfortunate, but I hope it will not be argued by the right hon. Gentleman that this question has been decided, and that therefore we have no business to re-open it. I do not want to import into this discussion anything extraneous, but the magnitude and importance of the issue lay upon us the responsibility of not excluding anything which, on its merits, ought to be considered in connection with this important subject. Now, in the first place, this is an entirely new Bill. The Government proposal now laid before us is not the Bill which went upstairs; it is not even the Bill which left the Committee. The changes made are so radical, and so essential, that it seems to me that the proper course the House should take is to recommit the Bill for full and careful consideration. Besides being an entirely new Bill, the present proposals are an absolutely new departure in the attitude of the Government towards telephone enterprise. The alteration of the date when the licence of the National Telephone Company was to expire, from 1911 to 1925, under certain conditions, is in direct antagonism, not only to the attitude of former Governments, but also to the attitude of the Select Committees, and in direct contradiction to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman some time ago. I could quote the right hon. Gentleman's words to show that he has been definite and strenuous in his opinion that this question was closed, not to be reopened, and that everyone was agreed that beyond 1911 the licence of the National Telephone Company should not
124
be prolonged. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will say that he has got concessions from the National Telephone Company which will make the new concession to the company not, on the whole, disadvantageous; but I think the objections I have stated should be fatal to the present proposals. I do not speak as an advocate of any one interest concerned, but I do say that, under the conditions foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, it will make things worse than before. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that we shall have vigorous competition from the Post Office. In the second place, we have given fresh powers to the National Company, and vigorous competition is certain to follow from these fresh powers. I do not blame the company; they are a trading concern, and must look after the interests of their shareholders. Well, then, we shall also have the competition of the municipalities. Under certain conditions, when a municipality receives a licence, the National Company will have their licence prolonged. I say that is an infringement of the attitude hitherto entertained by all in this House, and by all the experts. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to allow urban and sanitary authorities to give licences to fresh companies in their districts. We shall have a sacrifice of public convenience by the muddle sure to be brought on by these proposals. I think it is very unjustifiable to go entirely against all experience. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that hitherto the outlook of all critics of our telephone system has been that in 1911 that system would become a national one. The right hon. Gentleman himself said, Why should we do this or that, when the business will fall into our lap in 1911? It is alleged against a national telephone system that it would vastly increase the number of employees, and their wages in the Post Office; but I fail to see why that should be any ground for the proposals in the present Bill. With the Government owning the telegraphs, it seems to me to be perfectly absurd to stick at theoretical considerations in regard to the State ownership of telephones. The telegraphs and the telephones are intimately connected, and must work together, and if the Government were to take the telephones over, it would not involve anything like the increase of

125
staff or wages which would have to be made if they were taken over by any other body. Then what is to become of the rural districts under this Bill? The Post-office propose to expend £2,000,000 in extending the system in London, and the rural districts would be left out in the cold. It is only the Post-Office, only a national concern, which you can rely on to develop the poorer parts of the country as well as the richer; to apply the profits of the undertaking in the richer areas to extending the benefits to the poorer areas of the country. I have great admiration for the perseverance and tenacity which the right hon. Gentleman has shown in great difficulties; but I must hold that in making these proposals there has been a surrender of the whole position. It is impossible to ask the House to assent to the Bill in its present form at so late a period of the session, and I therefore beg to move that it be considered this day three months.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to second the motion made by my hon. and gallant friend. I will only criticise, in a very few sentences, the considerations that have already been laid before the House. It is a fact that this is a new Bill compared with what it was when it was sent upstairs. And it is a new Bill in a direction of which the majority of the House and the country would not approve, if they were fully alive to the changes made in it. If any one examines the Bill, he would be able to see that, as an adequate settlement of the telephone system on a real national basis, such as the Secretary to the Treasury promised us in the earlier stages of the Debate, we are further away from it than at the beginning of the session. I am not opposed to municipal enterprise in any degree, and there is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has been enabled to satisfy and conciliate very large and powerful communities in the country, and in the House. He has been able to shake the opposition of London itself, and to get over the opposition from large municipalities like Glasgow; but what has he done for the smaller centres of population, and the rural districts? He says that the rural districts are to be able to establish telephones. In my part of the country an urban district has been interpreted to include a police burgh, and the majority of these have a population below five
126
thousand. Is it within practical politics to say that these are going to establish a telephone system in their district? We are merely playing with words in a clause of that sort. Instead of a great national system, we are shutting out from the benefits to be obtained from a national system all the small towns and villages. With regard to the treatment of the small municipalities where the National Telephone Company have already obtained a footing, it must be well-known to the right hon. Gentleman, from the correspondence he has had, the way in which towns like Fraserburgh have been treated by that company. I say that at this period of the session, and with a new Bill before us, it is impossible to have a settlement of this question, which is to last for the next twenty-five years, or which is likely to be satisfactory to public opinion, or to keep pace with telephone communication in other countries of Europe. The Secretary to the Treasury has taken power to extend the licence of the National Telephone Company to 1925.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): Only in places where there is competition.
MR. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman insisted in this House, when he introduced the Bill, and on the Second Reading, that in 1911 the licence of the National Company came to an end; but now it can be extended to 1925. I am not saying this in hostility to the right hon. Gentleman, because we have looked upon him as our champion, and the champion of the public interest against this monopolist company, which lurks in all the lobbies, and sits on the benches of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has stood up for national interests, but I am sorry to say that in the last round of the contest he has apparently been defeated. I am certain that if he were to postpone this Bill to next session he would obtain popular sympathy. We should next year get a much better measure than the one now before the House, and one based on national grounds. I urge that we ought not to extend the licence of the National Telephone Company, and put a large part of the country for twenty-five years under the domination of the company which has done so much to stifle telephone interest

127
in the past. The only true and sensible solution of the problem is to nationalise the telephones and put them in the hands of the Post Office. I warmly support the motion of my hon. and gallant friend.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Captain Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That the word now' stand part of the Question."
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I trust that the House will not allow itself to be influenced by the arguments of my hon. friends. I have for many years been interested in obtaining a better system of telephones. Glasgow has led the movement, and is anxious to obtain powers to establish municipal telephones, and I am certain that this Bill has been made more acceptable to those who favour that principle. The Bill, moreover, has been enormously improved in Committee. How many municipalities would care to establish telephonic exchanges under conditions that bring them to a close in eleven years? There can be no real competition in such conditions. And I am certain you would not get six municipalities throughout the kingdom to embark in such an expensive business for such a short period. If towns like Glasgow choose to accept licences terminating in 1911, with the risk of a renewal, they can do so, and the licence of the National Telephone Company will not, in such cases, I believe, be extended. In proposing to extend the licence the right hon. Gentleman has taken the best step to ensure municipal competition. Personally, I want all the competition we can get, and if we had competition between. the municipalities and the telephone company we should have a better service for the public than if either was granted a monopoly. There is only one other point to which I wish to allude. The question of intercommunication is a most important subject, and the right hon. Gentleman has, after negotiations, arrived at what appears to me to be an equitable arrangement. Glasgow is willing to go on without any right of intercommunication, and the authorities are confident that the company will in time come to them and ask for intercommunication to be made. I heartily congratulate the
128
hon. Gentlemen who have secured the arrangement for intercommunication, and though this Bill does not go the length which I should desire to see, it is, in my opinion, a great improvement to the Bill as originally introduced into the House. If my hon. friend goes to a Division, I can only say I shall have to vote against him.
MR. PROVAND: I hope that my hon. friend will withdraw the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman who supported this Bill supported it on the ground that it would not nationalise the telephones of this country. Many people do not know what nationalisation means; it does not mean that we shall get the telephones for nothing, but that they shall be handed over to the country as a matter of purchase. Nationalisation of telephones is not a feasible project. The only method by which the country can acquire the telephone service is to pay five or six millions; that is the only method of nationalisation. It has been suggested by members of various Stock Exchanges that the country should buy the telephones at a cost of £6,850,000. If that were acceded to, it would mean that the country would pay 1¼millions more than the shares of the company are worth; and what should we buy for that? Plant, the bulk of which is worthless. In Glasgow there are about 6,000 wires, and to buy the telephone system on the Stock Exchange principle would cost £56 or £57 per wire, or more than £300,000. The plant of the company in Glasgow could not be sold at any such high price. Except in a few places the plant of the company is obsolete, and the agitation to substitute modern plant must compel the company to reconstruct all the present telephone plant in the country. There are only two ways in which the plant of the company could be bought—by private agreement, or under the arbitration clause in the licence. But no Government or Chancellor of the Exchequer could permit this arbitration clause to be used. I wish to satisfy those on this side of the House who support nationalisation that it is an absolutely impossible scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly well aware of that when he said he would rather spend the taxpayers' money in buying new plant than obsolete plant. One hon. Gentleman said he thought the telephones could be

129
worked more cheaply by the Government than by anyone else, but had he been cognisant of the expense of the working of the Post Office telephones he would not have made that remark. In no case where they are now conducting the service have the Post Office been able to compete with the National Telephone Company. The Bill no doubt will have much greater effect in the rural parts of the country than in the towns, and I believe that under it many rural places will be able to get a telephone service for a subscription of £1 a year. I therefore hope my hon. friend will withdraw his Amendment for the rejection of the Bill; if he does not, I shall have no option but to vote against him.
MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman in the remarks which he has made on a matter which has been discussed at such length. Every business man knows that it is neither fair nor reasonable to take as the basis of purchase of a going concern, built up as the National Telephone Company has been, how much money it will take to replace it. That is not the basis on which to discuss it. My main reason for rising is that I have an Amendment, which I need not now move, and so save the time of the House. I might, however, say that the Bill has been changed in two important particulars since Second Reading—namely, the extension of licences beyond 1911, and the permission to form new companies, the first of which the Secretary to the Treasury formerly declared to be contrary to common-sense and the second to be practically impossible. The new provisions make it necessary that the Bill should be seriously considered at this stage. In my opinion the new provisions are bad, because the country is thus brought face to face with the contingency of having four different authorities carrying on telephonic business—namely, the Post Office, the existing company, the corporations, and new companies. Yet if there is one thing which they were led to understand would be vital to a, good telephonic system it was that the whole of the subscribers should be on one circuit and be able to intercommunicate with each other. I do not know whether my hon. friend intends to take a Division on this motion or not, but if I may offer him advice, I would
130
say that I do not think it is an advisable thing to do, because I am sure that it is the general feeling of the House that this measure should go forward. For myself, the idea under which I always opposed this proposal was that nationalisation was the right thing, but now nationalisation has absolutely gone, and that having been decided, I am content to devote myself to one or two small Amendments which I shall move later on, and which I think will be improvements.
MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: I do not agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that nationalisation has gone. I will not deal with that point further than to say that I entirely repudiate the view put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Those who advocate nationalisation do not propose for a moment that if the State took over the telephone we should pay an exorbitant price for it, and our proposal is only to pay its real value. If, as the hon. Member opposite has suggested, the system of the National Telephone Company is obsolete, then the real value can be ascertained, and all we have advocated is nationalisation at a fair valuation. Those whom I represent are not satisfied by the Amendments which have been made in the Standing Committee on Trade, which have rendered the measure more complex than it was at first. As the Bill came before the House in the first, instance, it proposed that municipal authorities containing a population of 50,000 or over should be allowed to establish systems of their own. That has now been enlarged so as to include all local authorities and local companies, and therefore the system now proposed is much more complex. My hon. friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow has pointed out that the Bill would create four distinct sources of telephone supply, that is, the Post Office, the local authorities, the local companies, and the National Telephone Company. I would ask the House, is it reasonable to suppose that all these various authorities will work together in angelic harmony, and is it not much more likely that there will be local difficulties and jealousies which will prevent anything like that harmony which is so essential for the success of telephonic communication? I want the House to consider what will be the result

131
of this Bill if it passes. My own opinion is that it will not lead to municipal authorities setting up telephone systems of their own to any large extent. Take, for instance, the 114 boroughs in England, the 13 boroughs in Scotland, and the 103 urban districts in England who have concluded agreements with the National Telephone Company. Is it likely that they will depart from those agreements? The conditions which are laid down for these authorities are of such a nature that they will not depart from their present arrangement, and they are likely to increase their indisposition to enter into such an enterprise. The Post Office is to have complete control over all their proceedings; they have to see what is the character and construction of the plant, and arrange the system of charges. They have to fix the maximum rate of charges, and, in short, these municipal authorities may make a loss but not a profit. If they make a loss they are still to contribute a royalty of ten per cent, upon their gross receipts. But after all, the most serious aspect of this scheme, in my judgment, is that it sanctions the prolongation of the National Telephone Company's licence beyond 1911. We have all along gone on the assumption that 1911 was to be the end of it, and from that time there was to be a new system introduced which would satisfy all the demands of the public, and do away with the monopoly. The Commission of 1892 recommended the non-renewal of this licence, and my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury was of the same opinion a very short time ago when he addressed a deputation which I had the honour of introducing to him, for he said:
"If the municipal system is found not to work satisfactorily it will be perfectly within our power in 1911 to terminate that service and nationalise the service everywhere."
And we find only a few weeks after these words are uttered steps are taken and proposals are made, which have the effect of continuing this monopoly of the National Telephone Company for, perheps, an additional twelve or thirteen years. The hon. Member for Bridgeton pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman only proposes to increase the licence at points where there is competition. I cannot understand how that can be done in the case of the National Telephone Com-
132
pany. It seems to me quite impracticable that you can say to the National Telephone Company: "We continue your licence here and there at perhaps a dozen different points where competition is set up, but we withdraw your licence as a whole." I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is still impossible for him to reconsider this Bill. The measure has been opposed by the business men of the country if we take the chambers of commerce to represent them. This measure has been opposed by every chamber of commerce which has considered the subject, with the exception of the chamber of commerce at Tunbridge Wells. There were thirty-six chambers of commerce represented by the deputation which I had the honour to introduce, including many important centres, and all were strongly opposed to this measure. It has also been objected to by the Stock Exchanges, and surely they are entitled to an opinion on the subject. It has been opposed by many of the leading corporations, the Society of Arts and Manufactures, and by the Society of Electrical Engineers. Therefore, I venture to say with great respect that it would be a great mistake to insist upon forcing upon the country a system which has been so generally condemned.
MR. MOULTON: I think the best way of dealing with this Bill is by the motion which has been made that it shall be dealt with this day three months, because this is practically a new Bill. You might as well attach these new provisions on a Highways Act as to attach them to the simple Bill brought in by the Secretary to the Treasury, and which received the completest support on this side of the House, and I believe also of a very large portion on the other side. I oppose this measure because I think it is a most discreditable surrender to a rich company, which is ahead of all other companies in the art of manipulating this House. I say this with the deepest regret, because no one heard with greater delight and sympathy than I did the manly, honourable, and public-spirited statement of the Secretary to the Treasury when he first introduced this Bill. That was a Bill to enable the public to use the powers which it had reserved, and which it had a right, with

133
out dictation from any company, to use in the best interests of the public. The Bill as it stands at present is a surrender of those powers, and a consent to tie the hands of the public in working this system. In the few remarks which I intend to offer to this House, I want to ascertain what right the National Telephone Company has to come and dictate terms to this House, when the English nation desires to use telephonic communication more largely. When the original licence was granted, it was granted with a most foolish liberality to terms. The company was allowed to carry on its business just as it pleased, and there was no provision that the company should be so regulated that the best interests of the public would be furthered. Only two things were reserved, and otherwise they were absolutely at liberty to do what they liked. Those two things were—an absolute right to introduce competion, and the termination of the licence in 1911. With those exceptions everything was granted to the company. Of course the company availed itself of its limitless powers to the full. I remember in 1895 an attempt was made to secure that a reasonable service should be provided everywhere at a reasonable price, and the Government were asked to grant municipalities a licence if the National Telephone Company failed to provide a reasonable service. That suggestion was ignored because we were told that the National Telephone Company were bound to provide a reasonable service at a reasonable price. The nation had reserved the right to allow competition, and what is proposed now is that there should be competition introduced. Somehow or other there seems to be an idea that if you are dealing with rich companies every concession that has been made to them is sacred, and must be observed to the full, but everything which you have reserved in defence of the public must only be timidly or half used. I know of no such principle. The National Telephone Company made no bad bargain when they got this licence, for the enormous profits they have made are known throughout the world. I want to know, when we are thinking of increasing telephonic communication, and when we think it will be to the interests of the public that municipalities should have a right to set up these systems, what law or equity in the interests of the
134
National Telephone Company should stay the hands of the House of Commons when it seeks to exercise that power which was specifically reserved when the licence was granted. Supposing Glasgow wanted to have a licence, and it is given one up to 1925, what possible right can the National Telephone Company have to set up a claim that its licence, which it has enjoyed during all these profitable years when it had no competition, should also be extended? Why should we give away that portion of the property of the public? There is no reason which can be put even into moderately logical words why they should enjoy a lengthening of their licence just because we exercise that power which was specifically reserved, of granting as much competition as the nation thought proper to grant. But what is the reason which has been suggested why this ought to be done? This is a specimen of the sort of argument which, in the case of the National Telephone Company, is sufficient to sway the House of Commons. One of the concessions which the company has to make in order that its licence may be extended for all these years is that it has to treat people alike, and that it has not to make any special condition. I have known the National Telephone Company threaten to take the telephone away from a business man unless he allowed the company to put up a pole sixty feet high in his yard with 120 wires upon it. The company threatened to withdraw this man's telephone service if he did not grant them permission to put up that pole, although he was paying the same as other people for the use of the telephone. Why not bring in a Bill saying that there shall be no undue preference on the part of the company, and that there shall be no unfair treatment?
MR. HANBURY: That is what we are doing now.
MR. MOULTON; Yes, this Bill mentions that, but it buys that concession at the expense of privileges which are double the value of the concession, and the effect of which I will deal with presently. I think the House has a perfect right to pass a regulating Act in this

135
matter, for we do not ask the consent of the railway companies when we pass a railway traffic regulation Act. We pass such Acts because they are in the interests of the public, and in the true interests of the companies themselves. What is the other concession that we are to get? It is this—that the National Telephone Company is, where there is competition, to keep its charges within the limits of the prices charged by the competing company. That is a most wonderful concession, for it is a thing which it would have to do under the influence of competition. Those are the two miserable concessions we have got, one of which ought to have been granted without any return whatever, and the other of which would have come as a matter of course without any concession whatever. Those are the only miserable concessions asked for from the National Telephone Company in return for what? Why for this privilege—that wherever a town is driven to desperation by the bad management of their business by the National Telephone Company, and it resolves to take the telephonic communication into its own hands, it cannot get a period of years for its licence without also increasing the licence of the competing company. If Glasgow wants a twenty years' licence to set up a telephone exchange, this company, which has had the benefit of all those past rich years, is also to have an extension of its licence in Glasgow. I want to know what justification the Government have for that proposal, which seems to me to surrender practically for ever our right to come into possession of the telephonic communication. If there is to be any safety in Parliament dealing with a Bill of this kind, involving such great consequences, such a measure ought to have been brought in earlier in the session, and ought to have been passed through every one of its stages in the ordinary way. Practically, this Bill comes in once, and then becomes the law of the land. This is a disgraceful surrender of public rights, and it is a matter which ought not to be forced through in this way. Let me point out what the real effect of this Bill is. I am not at all sure that the licence of the National Telephone Company will not be extended by licences which may be granted after 1911. Supposing Glasgow asks for a licence up to 1925. In this case the National Telephone Company also
136
gets its licence extended to 1925; and if the Glasgow Corporation gets a continuance of its licence to 1950, the telephone company also gets its licence extended to 1950, and therefore the company's licence, will be extended perpetually.
MR. HANBURY: No, no.
MR. MOULTON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, but that is the fact as the Act now stands; and the consequence is, that at every place where a municipality is strong enough to form and keep alive a telephone exchange, there the company's licence is a perpetual one. Of course, the National Telephone Company just now are very quiet, for they know perfectly well the enormous victory they have gained. It will now be to their interest to get municipalities to start telephone companies and telephone exchanges, and to keep them as weak as possible; the only thing they must not do is to kill them outright. As long as they exist, the National Telephone Company will be far more free, as a company, than these municipalities will be as long as they choose to keep up their licence, because the telephone company will keep up its licence as well. Therefore, the municipalities, instead of being free in 1911 to provide a centralised system, and to work their telephone service like they now do their gas and water, will have committed themselves for ever to competition with a private company that has rights of that kind, and which is purchasing these rights by no substantial concessions. I may point out that a Bill like this is not treating either the English nation or this House fairly when such proposals are made on the Report stage, because when they are once passed they are irrevocable. We know what power the House has got to recall anything which it has granted to a private company, and we know that such concessions will be absolutely irrevocable. I ask whether we have have had sufficient time to consider this enormous change in the House, and whether the trading community of this country have had time to consider it. This measure is proposing to make a perpetual burden upon the people, and I most heartily support the motion that the Report stage of this measure be taken three months hence.

137
I can assure those Gentlemen who thought there was a possibility of us not going into the Lobby upon this question that they are very much mistaken, for all hon. Members who vote against this proposal will clear themselves from having had anything to do with this most disgraceful surrender of public rights.
MR. HANBURY: The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down made some remarks at the end of his speech with which I entirely agree. He laid great stress upon the extravagant privileges which previous Governments have conferred upon the National Telephone Company. With those remarks I am entirely in accord, because I have always said from the first that it was past my comprehension how such powers could have been put into the hands of an unregulated monopoly. I do not, however, think that the hon. Gentleman opposite has quite fairly stated the case when he alleges that great concessions have been made to the company and nothing substantial has been given in return. In the first place, I must utterly deny that there is anything whatever in the Bill which gives him the slightest authority for supposing that, under any circumstances, the licence of the National Telephone Company can be perpetuated. I defy him to point out a single clause or word in the Bill which even encourages such a supposition; and when he speaks of the extension of the licence, I have always myself contended that the general licence of the company should, under no circumstances, be extended beyond 1911. I think it was a monstrous thing, in the first instance, that a general licence extending over the whole country should ever have been given to the company at all. Therefore, I still maintain my opinion that, except in certain cases, for special local reasons, there is no justification whatever for extending the general licence of the company beyond 1911. Where are we proposing to extend the licence of the National Telephone Company? Only in those areas where we are introducing new competition. And why are we proposing to extend it? In the interest not of the National Telephone Company, but of the municipalities and the companies who will be in competition, Our Committee and all those who looked into the matter strongly recommended that wherever we introduced competition
138
we should do our best to deal equally between the company and its new competitors; and therefore it is necessary that if we extend the licence to the municipalities we should also extend it to the National Telephone Company itself. No doubt the feeling throughout all the municipalities was that if this competition with the National Telephone Company, on the part of the municipalities or new companies, was to be genuine and strong, as we hope it is to be, we must grant to these municipalities and new companies a period extending beyond 1911. We are therefore bound by the Report of the Committee, and we want to deal fairly with the National Telephone Company and its new competitors, and to give the latter a chance of life. The National Telephone Company having been placed in the position it occupies by previous Governments, makes it very difficult to deal with this matter. I am sure the hon. and learned Member opposite would not wish us to confiscate any of the rights of the National Telephone Company.
MR. MOULTON: Leave them alone.
MR. HANBURY: I am very unwilling to leave them alone, and I do not think it would be right to leave them alone. If we are going to extend the company's licence in any single locality it is absolutely necessary that we should not leave them alone. What has been the complaint with regard to this company all through? In the first place, that it is a monopoly, and, in the second place, that the monopoly was unregulated. By this Bill it ceases to be a monopoly.
MR. MOULTON: It never was a monopoly after a given date.
MR. HANBURY: Under the Bill the company, which could have extended its operations over the whole of the United Kingdom, and could by that mere fact have prevented competition arising anywhere but in the larger boroughs, cannot enter any areas in which they are not now working. All the poorer and weaker boroughs have, therefore, an opportunity of starting a valid and strong system of their own. The hon. and learned Member says we have got no concessions. If we had got no concessions but that alone we should have got some

139
thing well worth having. But we have got two more concessions of equal importance. One is that the company should come under control, and the other is that under certain conditions there should be inter-communication. I admit it is a great disadvantage that in one area we should have two competing systems, but we cannot always help it. It happens in Stockholm, where the greatest use is made of the telephone, and it exists to a great extent in Norway and Sweden and Denmark. Here, again, the difficulty has been overcome, and wherever a bona fide extension of the licence to the company takes place, and wherever there is a bona fide competition—that is to say, where a new company has 500 subscribers to the National Telephone Company's 1,000 subscribers—there must be inter-communication. Then the hon. and learned Member says there have been very great changes introduced since the Second Reading of the Bill. All those matters were dealt with before the Grand Committee. All the new clauses, with the exception of the one dealing with inter-communication, were before the Grand Committee, and it is a singular fact that the Committee were practically unanimous as to the alterations. One portion only was not dealt with by the Grand Committee, and that is the question of intercommunication, but although it was not formally dealt with by the Committee, it was thoroughly well understood that clauses such as have now been introduced would be brought up on the Report stage. The mover of the motion now under consideration spoke as if the National Telephone Company had appropriated to itself all the rich and populous portions of the United Kingdom, and the hon. Gentleman asked how we were going to serve the rural districts. The hon. Member implied that the rural districts and the smaller urban districts were by no means likely to be profitable either to the company or to the Post Office. If the company is not working already in the smaller urban districts, those districts need not fear any competition; they will be absolutely free to start a system of their own without fear of competition from the National Telephone Company. As to the smaller districts, is it the fact that they are not paying districts? The experience of Norway and Sweden shows that they are paying districts to work, and when asked before the Select Com
140
mittee of last year where, if he had his choice, he would prefer to start an exchange, Mr. Preece said he would choose the smaller rural districts, and he instanced portions of Anglesey. Only within the last year the municipal system has been started in Guernsey, and there they are beating the record against foreign countries. In the neighbouring Island of Jersey, where the National Telephone Company has been in operation for several, years, the number of telephones to the population is about one in 300. Already in Guernsey, after one year's operation, the telephones are as one to eighty of the population, and it is expected that soon they will be as one in fifty. I hope I have shown the House that the very grave charges of undue concession to the National Telephone Company made by the hon. and learned Member for Launceston are not justified by the facts, and I hope I have also proved to the satisfaction of the House that we have got from the National Telephone Company concessions which we could not have got except by negotiation. It would have been sheer confiscation to force them down the throats of the company, and it would have been distinctly contrary to the recommendations of the Committee that we should have tried to do so. I have done my best throughout the negotiations to protect the interests both of the taxpayers and of the company. I cannot forget that the National Telephone Company, with all its faults, has done good work in starting the telephone service. It had had privileges given to it—privileges which, had I been Postmaster-General, I would never have given to it. I felt all through that the Government's hands, were tied by the enormous privileges given to the company, but I have refused to be a party to anything in the nature of confiscation. On the whole a Bill has been obtained which is fair to the company and fair to the taxpayer, and a Bill which will give the country a good service, national in the best sense of the word, and not lagging behind the telephone services on the Continent.
MR. J. A. PEASE: I do not think there is a single hon. Member in this House who has advocated any notion of confiscation of the National Telephone Company's interests, but what a great many of us do complain about is the system which

141
the National Telephone Company have put into operation in this country. They have treated the users of telephones with very little courtesy in regard to the terms which they have extorted, and they have made very large profits out of the trading community, and now, owing to the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman has made with the National Telephone Company, they are to have their licence extended from 1911 to 1925. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the concessions, which, he thinks, he has secured to the advantage of the country from the National Telephone Company, and has placed them against the privilege which he has given them of extending their licence. I submit that the system as at present in operation is very unsatisfactory, and even if it is not to be perpetuated, as the hon. Member for Launceston indicated it would be, but is merely to be extended to 1925, we had far better allow things to remain as they are than even to have the National Telephone Company controlled and regulated in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes. On that ground, and on that ground alone, I shall go into the lobby in support of the proposal which has been made by the hon. Member for Forfar. I should like to point out one or two of the inconveniences which exist in connection with the present system, and those inconveniences seem to me to be increased under the operation of this Bill. If a wool merchant, we will say, wants to speak from his office at Bradford to his office in Leicester, it is necessary for him first of all to ring up the exchange and then ascertain whether, through the exchange to the post office, the trunk line is free, and if the trunk line is free very probably he will find that he cannot get into communication with his office in Leicester because they are already in conversation with somebody else on some other trunk line. Under the present complicated system communication between town and town is most difficult for business purposes, and over and over again I have been obliged, in carrying on business in one part of the country with another, to send long telegrams because of the inconveniences arising from the present system. We want some uniform system of communication throughout the whole country, under the control of the central Government. The existing system
142
is doing an enormous amount of harm to the trading interests of this country, and I shall, therefore, regard it as a national disaster if the Bill passes. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that he has done away with monopoly; but there has not been altogether a monopoly, because there are some places where the Post Office has entered into keen competition with the National Telephone Company. In the City of Newcastle, which I, to a large extent represent, the Post Office system has been in operation almost from the very commencement, but the National Telephone Company has been gradually undermining the system there. And why? The main reason is that the great business houses in the City of Newcastle find it necessary to have telephonic communication with the various other industrial centres, and in these centres the Post Office system does not exist. I am told on very good authority that if the present system goes on, instead of the Post Office having a monopoly in the City of Newcastle, the National Telephone Company will have a practical monopoly. If this can happen in the City of Newcastle, I am quite sure that in many other large towns the National Telephone Company under the provisions of this Bill will prevent any serious competition from municipal bodies, though I believe that many municipalities will carry on the telephonic system in their districts effectively and economically. The right hon. Gentleman has claimed that he has not introduced a new Bill. I admit that a portion of the Bill is somewhat the same, but two pages have been added to it. I submit that it is a shame that the people who are interested in telephones in this country should be represented by Members who are prepared to vote for a Bill which those who are dependent on the telephones in the country do not thoroughly understand. Over and over again, during the last few days, I have spoken to people with regard to the proposal of the Government, and they have been simply amazed that there is a proposal that the telephone licence should be extended from 1911to 1925. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to drop this Bill, he would be able to satisfy the country another year with a better measure, and one which would not perpetuate the many evils which I believe will be perpetuated by extending the

143
licence of the National Telephone Company.
MR. KIMBER: I wish to join in the appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury to postpone the further consideration of this Bill. I believe that if we pass the measure in the manner he proposes to do now—and it is not the way in which he proposed to pass it when he first brought in the Bill—we shall add another great loss to the telegraphic deficit of this country. Let us consider for a moment the position when the Bill was brought in and the position now. When the Bill was brought in we were told that it was necessary, for two reasons—first, because the National Telephone Company had claimed virtual monopoly; and, secondly, because it was necessary to start an effective competition and to terminate the licence of the National Telephone Company. The right hon. Gentleman asked for two millions of money, which he was to spend on behalf of the State in starting this effective competition. In the Report of the Committee of1898, it was distinctly stated that if the Government did not deal with the company in this way, they might be in a position in 1911 in which they might be forced to buy the plant of the National Telephone Company at an exaggerated value, because the Government could not, on the spur of the moment, lay down a new plant to start its own system. It was given in evidence, quoted by the Secretary to the Treasury in his Report, that it would take five years to lay down an alternative plant for the purpose of taking up the work in 1911 which the Telephone Company are now doing. The Committee reported as follows:
"Your Committee in thus recommending a Post office service, assume it will constitute a real and active competition, and that concessions to the company not required by the agreement will cease."
The real reason why the Government have brought in a Bill which does not support a Post Office service is alleged to be, that many important members of the Government consider it would be increasing the Civil Service to such a large extent as to make it really impossible for the system to be taken over a Government Department, or as a separate Depart-
144
ment of the Post Office. Therefore the Bill does not carry out the Report of the Committee. The Bill is based on the Treasury Minute, but, curiously enough, the Treasury Minute itself says that there must be effective competition, and that in any case all licences should terminate in 1911. All licences. Why? Because the system must be a national one, uniform throughout the country. When you consider that the telephone is really a "speaking telegraph," it is obvious that it must be carried on with the same universality of system as the Post Office telegraphs, that is to say, under one hand, in one possession, and by one management. There is no other way of carrying on the telephone system to the advantage of the trading interests of the country but that. The right hon. Gentleman contradicts himself on his plan. Although he says he must not increase the Civil Service, he asks you to give him £2,000,000, which is to be spent by somebody. Is he going to spend that without appointing fresh men? By what Department is that going to be done? Through the Post Office, I imagine. But £2,000,000 cannot be judiciously expended without having some trained hands to look after it. There is at once an extension of the Civil Service. I agree it is a grave objection to these things when they involve a large extension of the Civil Service, but it is inevitable. There are worse evils than that, and one of them is to put back the country by thirty years, as the plan of the Bill as now framed will do. What was the system at the time of the Report? It was worked, not by the Post Office, but by a number of companies. The Post Office had obtained, on its own application and insistence, a declaration of law that the "telephone" was a "telegraph," and that the Government had a monopoly of the telephone as well as of the telegraph, and it was on that footing they afterwards proceeded. What did they do? They brought into existence a number of companies. It is the Government that fixed the powers and the limits of the jurisdiction of the working of those companies. Inevitably, as all those licences were granted on precisely the same terms, the system and the country demanded that they should amalgamate. They did amalgamate, and without the permission of the Government at all. By amalgamating they succeeded to a certain extent in accommodating the public.

145
What are the things of which the right hon. Gentleman accuses the company? Over and over again he said that their charges are not limited by any maxima or any minima. Why the public should be limited as regards the minima I do not know, except it be that the Post Office managed their telephonic business so badly that the company—who had to make a bigger profit than the Government—beat them at the price, the public obviously getting the benefit. Another thing the company are charged with is that it is entitled to refuse service to a customer, that it is not bound to supply telephones at all except as it chooses, and then only on its own conditions as to the facilities being given. Many of us, no doubt, have suffered from that fact. Then, again, it is urged that the company has no way-leaves, that it has no powers to lay its lines underground from customers' houses to the Exchange. But all these; faults and deficiencies are congenital in the licence, and created by the Government which granted the licence. The Government had the power to rectify these matters, but did not. It brought into existence a bantling—it ought rather to be called a monster—and, under this Bill, as introduced, the House was asked to give £2,000,000 for the purpose of harrying the company down to a lower price than the Government thought they might have to pay if they bought it now. That was an intelligible policy; I do not say anything about its fairness.
MR. HANBURY: That was never suggested for a single moment.
MR. KIMBER: What was not?
MR. HANBURY: It was never suggested that we should beat down the shares of the company in order to buy them up—never for one moment.
MR. KIMBER: I did not say anything about shares. I will read the Report of the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee:—
"Competition appears to be both expedient and necessary, in order, firstly, to extend and popularise the service, and, next, to avoid a danger which is by no means, remote if no alternative system is in operation, that a purchase of the company's undertaking at an inflated price may be forced upon the Government of the day."
146
What does he mean by "inflated price"? Turn to a previous paragraph, in which he says, in relation to the amalgamation of these companies, that when they bought up one another, one—that is, of course, the last survivor, the eater up of the rest—had to pay the capital of the other company, and in the course of so doing they paid no less a sum than £1,800,000. The amalgamation value and the purchase value was £3,105,000, and the difference between the one and the other is what some people are pleased to call the "water" value, because it was given to buy up another company, and to enable the buying company to do the service of the public in the only way in which it can be done. Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to state that it would take five years to replace the plant, and therefore, if they left the company uninterrupted until 1911, they might have to buy them at their own price, and buy up this large and inflated capital, which was a great deal more than the amount for which, with the experience obtained by the advance of time, another system could be laid down. So that it was to prevent the company asking the repayment of this capital, other than the cost price of a new plant, that it was suggested we ought to have competition.
MR. HANBURY: I must deny that. Anybody who was on the Committee knows that that is not what was meant. The hon. Member himself must have seen, when he quoted that passage, that it was impossible to replace the company's plant under five years; that the danger the Committee had before them was, that as it was impossible to replace the company's plant under a period of five years, it might be possible for the company, either by giving a very bad service or by charging very high rates, to disgust the public with the service, and to make them appeal to the Government, saying, "We can no longer go on with the National Telephone Company, you must buy up this service yourselves. "As it would be impossible to replace the plant within five years, it would be quite possible for the company then to demand an exaggerated price from us, and that was the sole meaning of the Report.
MR. KIMBER: I will read the exact words of the Report again:—
"Unless the Government had a leady an alternative plant available, supplied wholly

147
by the Post Office or partly by municipal licensees, the purchase of the company's undertaking at an inflated price might thus be imposed upon the Government. The inducements to the company to produce such a result are obvious; and your Committee cannot too strongly recommend that no delay should occur in taking adequate precautions to prevent it. Mr. Preece informed your Committee that it would probably take five years to provide such an alternative plant for the whole country."
Very well, then; the reason given for the competition is, that if no alternative system is in operation, the purchase of the company's undertaking at an inflated price may be forced upon the Government. I think I have made that proposition clear. Whatever the faults of the company were, it was quite intelligible, and, under the circumstances, I am not going to say it was unreasonable, to try and prevent the company getting the whip hand of the Government to enforce an inflated price, if it was an inflated price; and, therefore, it was important to put the public in a position of independence. What was the position as between the Government and the company? The company alleged, and the Government have not denied it, that they paid to the Government £900,000 for the Government share of the profits of the undertaking, and that at the present time they are paying £114,000 a year, a sum which is increasing. The profits of the company amount to 6 per cent. on their capital, which, by a curious coincidence, is equivalent to about £228,000. The Post Office, therefore, derive one-third of all the profits which the company get out of the public. The principle of competition is to be introduced. What is the natural effect of competition? To knock down profits. Are the Government or are they not in their system going to charge the same rate of pront as the company? Prima facie, the £114,000 of royalties will be diminished. But whether or not it was possible for the Government at that time to have unified the whole system, to have put the hand of the State upon the company, with an impress which should have made it a State Department, as recommended by the Report, it would not necessarily have made all the employees Civil servants. We have, in India, companies controlled by the Government, but the employees are not Civil servants. But it was possible for the Government to come into the business of the company
148
and its plant by the simple process of converting the company's certificates into guarantee certificates with a limited interest of 3 per cent. That would have amply compensated the company. No question would have arisen as to the value, as the shareholders, if they did not like it, could have got their money by selling their certificates, and the Government could have come into the whole of the profits of £228,000 a year, besides the £114,000 they are now receiving. Inasmuch as they would have had to pay 3 per cent, on the certificates, one-half only of the annual profit would be net, but even then they would get half the present dividend of the company, besides the royalties of £114,000 a year, without having paid a single sovereign for it. It is true they would have given a guarantee, but the fact that there would be, no liability against the guarantee is shown by the way in which the business has been taken up, and by the fact that the Government has sufficient confidence to come and ask you to sanction another £2,000,000 being put into the business. If that course had been adopted, the Government would have had all the power in their own hands; they could have charged any rates they liked so as to be sure of a profit; whereas now they are going into what they call "real and effective" competition. Will they make a profit? Will they tell the House that on this £2,000,000 they will make a profit? Will they not reduce the £114,000 they are now getting? Financially for the State this is a most disastrous transaction; it is one by which we are almost bound to lose—at all events as compared with what the Government might have done, and what it might now do. From the point of view of the country at large, let me ask—and this is even more important than the question of the loss to the Government—where are the public in this competition? What sort of competition is that between two persons or two bodies, one of which has the power of putting a rope around the neck of the other? Where the Government will have the power to fix the rates and charges and make the company conform to those rates, I should like to know who will win? If the rates are to be cut down so as to suit the public, the company must lose profits, and the Government must lose royalties. Then look at the inconvenience. We will have one

149
system in London, competitive, which is to terminate in 1911; another system in the provinces, competitive between this company and new companies or municipal corporations. Instead of "uniformity," "diversity" is the best term by which to describe such a system as that How are we to get that which the trade and commerce of this country demands—viz., universal communication between one part and every other part? There must be portions of the country which will not pay by themselves, and it is an advantage of having a national system that those poor places can be served, and if they do not yield a profit the other parts will
make up for them. I venture to say that this scheme is financially disastrous to the nation, and to the interests of the country as a whole as regards its trade and commerce it will also be detrimental, and will put us back by whatever is the term of the new licence which it is proposed to grant, thus hampering and hindering the trade and commerce of the nation in its competition with the rest of the commercial countries of Europe.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 174; Noes, 41. (Division List, No. 294.)

AYES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Lowe, Francis William

Arnold, Alfred

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Arrol, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macdona, John Cumming

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Maddison, Fred.

Balcarres, Lord

Flower, Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

Garfit, William

Milton, Viscount

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S-(Hunts.)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.(City of Lon.

Monk, Charles James

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Giles, Charles Tyrell

Morrell, George Herbert

Beach, Rt Hn Sir M.H.-(Bristol)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Bigwood, James

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

Mount, William George

Billson, Alfred

Goldsworthy, Major General

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Nicholson, William Graham

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goschen, Rt. Hn G. J. (S. G'rge's

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Brookfield, A. Motagu

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Oldroyd, Mark

Bullard, Sir Harry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Burns, John

Graham, Henry Robert

Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington)

Burt, Thomas

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Percy, Earl

Butcher, John George

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pierpoint, Robert

Caldwell, James

Hamond, Sir Chas.(Newcastle)

Pilkington, R.(Lanes, Newton)

Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cawley, Frederick

Hatch, Ernest Fred. Geo.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Priestley, Sir W. Overend(Edin

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Hazell, Walter

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)

Helder, Augustus

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Henderson, Alexander

Purvis, Robert

Charrington, Spencer

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Pym, C. Guy

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Rankin, Sir James

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Holden, Sir Angus

Rickett, J. Compton

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Colston, Charles E. H. Athole

Howell, William Tudor

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Russell, Gen. F S (Chelt'nh'm)

Curzon, Viscount

Kemp, George

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. J. H.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Denny, Colonel

Kenyon, James

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

Donkin, Richard Sim

Keswick, William

Schwann, Charles E.

Doughty, George

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning(Corn.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Doxford, William Theodore

Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

Skewes Cox, Thomas

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

Leng, Sir John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Steadman, William Charles

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manch

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Thornton, Percy M.

Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath

Yoxall, James Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wyndham, George

Sir William Walrond and

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ambrose, Robert

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Price, Robert John

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Joicey, Sir James

Spicer, Albert

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Channing, Francis Allston

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crilly, Daniel

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Wallace, Robert

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Macaleese, Daniel

Wedderburn, Sir William

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Crae, George

Williams, John Carvell (Notts

Donelan, Captain A.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.

Doogan, P. C.

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Woods, Samuel

Duckworth, James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Dunn, Sir William

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Captain Sinclair and Mr.
Charles M'Arthur.

Flynn, James Christopher

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered:—
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, to leave out Clause 1. When the House was in Committee the other day I pointed out that we shall add under this clause a sum of not less than two millions to the national debt. We are doing this day after day, and week after week. We added nearly two millions for the Niger Company, four millions for the naval works, and three millions for military works. Now we are adding two millions for the extension of the telephone system, or in all eleven millions added to the permanent debt of the country in one session by the present Government.
MR. HANBURY: National debt !
MR. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to correct me. It is not technically national debt, but it is to be paid off with terminable annuities of twenty or thirty years' duration. That is to safeguard this amount of debt from the temptation of future Chancellors of the Exchequer. But I am perfectly certain the Secretary to the Treasury is the last man to deny that what we are doing under this Bill is to add two millions to the national indebtedness of the country. The Government during the present session has added eleven millions to the national indebtedness; and during the
152
four years the Government have been in office it has already added twelve to fourteen millions of money to the national indebtedness under this peculiar method of procedure, which not only complicates our national finances, but prevents us from seeing what the national indebtedness really is, and whether it is increasing or decreasing. I am sorry the hon. Member for King's Lynn is not in his place, for he and the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury, in his days of more freedom and less responsibility, were earnest critics of this particular style of finance. The system is a bad one. It is one of comparatively modern introduction, and was only begun on a large scale in 1888 or 1889. It has grown with gigantic strides during the last few years, but in no session equal to the present. Is the taxpayer going to get value for his money under Clause 1? What is the purpose for which this two millions is asked? There is nothing stated in the clause as to the purpose for which the money is wanted. Of course, the title of the Bill says that it is to improve the telephonic communication, but there is nothing to show that this money is to be spent in improving the telephonic communication. As I read this clause, the money asked for may be spent for any of the purposes of the Telegraph Acts, and I think that even at this late period it would be wise to introduce limiting words. In order to arrive at the purpose for which the money is to be spent, we have to look to the speeches of the Secretary of the Treasury. He

153
told us when the Bill was first introduced that he proposed to ask for two millions to develop telephonic communication on the part of the Post Office, and he went on to state that the first place where the operations were to be extended was to be London itself, and the small municipalities. I would like to ask why London, this great Metropolis, the richest city in the world, and the one best able, if you are going to introduce a municipal telephonic system, to put it in operation—why is London to have a first charge on this money? That question even seems to have suggested itself to the right hon. Gentleman; for he said that in this large area of London the Post Office is determined to compete at once with the National Telephone Company. That is to say that the first charge upon this money, contributed by the taxpayers of the whole country, is to enable the Post Office to enter into active competition in the area of London—which is much the richest community in the world, the best able to take care of itself, and the best able to institute a system of municipal telephones—with the National Telephone Company. We know that the views of the right hon. Gentleman have altered somewhat during the progress of the Bill. If London is to have the first charge on these two millions I do not think there would be much left for the rest of the community. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the balance over would be given for the development of the system in the smaller municipalities. "There are hills beyond Pentland, and lands beyond Forth," and where do the country districts and the small towns come in? Where is to be the benefit to them when the rich metropolis of the country has the first charge on the money to be borrowed from the Exchequer? The little towns in England and Scotland of two or three thousand inhabitants are to be told that they are to establish municipal telephones out of their municipal rates. I say that is a grossly unfair way in which to deal with public money. More than that, it is contrary to the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman in March, and in the beginning of June, when the one point he laid stress upon was that the object of the Government was that they wanted to establish a real national telephonic system throughout the length and breadth of the country. Now, when we come to
154
examine the modus operandi, we find that they are going to spend the whole of the money in establishing effective competition with the National Company in the district of London. That is exceedingly unfair to the general taxpayer. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman himself says that the two millions will not be enough for that purpose, and he looks forward to the time when he must come down to the House for further money. What will be the result of the expenditure of this money in the future? First of all, we are going to spend two millions in good hard cash on a scheme of improvement of the telephonic communication, which, at best, will be temporary. It cannot be a final settlement. Then the hon. Gentleman or his successor will find that two millions is not enough, and will have to come to the House for more money for the same purpose. What will be the effect when he or his successor has to face the question which is being shirked now—that is of buying up the National Company and the other companies which are to be licensed under this Bill? If you establish effective competition in London, that will stimulate the National Company to compete with the Post Office, and by so doing the value of the National Company's property, for buying up purposes, will naturally and necessarily be increased. You are not only wasting money in taking the whole telephone system under the control of the Post Office, but actually increasing the value of the property which we shall have eventually to buy up. On all these grounds I oppose this clause, and I beg to move that it be deleted.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'The Treasury may' stand part of the Bill."
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I want from the Secretary to the Treasury a little further information as to what he is going to do with these two millions. The right hon. Gentleman is directly infringing all the canons he has previously laid down. In the first place, there is to be a municipal system, but it is not to be a municipal system for London. In the next place the system is not to add to the wages

155
or staff of the Post Office; but the system under this clause must inevitably add to the wages and the number of the employees of the Post Office. Then, again, whatever may be the result of this proposal to set up effective competition in London, I contend that, on the face of it, it is a waste of somebody's money. My conviction is, that any private enterprise in an active competition with a Government Department will inevitably get the best of it. It has the stimulus or motive of responsibility to its shareholders, to embark in an energetic and vigorous policy, which is wanting in the Post Office. But that only emphasises what I have said before, that there will be a ruinous waste of money. Then, how is this to affect the rural districts? What proportion of this money is the right hon. Gentleman going to devote to the development of the rural districts, which have not yet been reached by the telephones? It is greatly to be deplored that the Government have adopted a policy which cannot but increase the centralising tendencies of the great towns.
SIR J. T WOODHOUSE: I protest against the attitude displayed by certain hon. Members in regard to this Bill. If there were any men who came before the Select Committee of the House of Commons last session, and pleaded for that competition which this Bill proposes to set up, it was the representatives from Glasgow and Edinburgh. The hon. Baronet who represents Bridgeton, who has taken the greatest interest in the development of the telephonic system, and who knows more about it than almost anybody else, cordially supports the Bill which the Government has introduced. I do venture to say that the obstruction towards the Bill—["No, no!"]—yes; this obstruction is not becoming towards those who are endeavouring to do their duty, and to those who came from Scotland and demanded that this competition should be set up, and themselves have promoted a private Bill to obtain the facilities which this Bill proposes to give them. I cannot understand the opposition which my hon. friends have displayed towards this Bill. I fail to see that there is any rational principle in the speech of my hon. and gallant friend who has just sat down. He says
156
that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is to spend £2,000,000 primarily on the City of London. He is not strictly correct. In the first place, the telephonic area of London comprises much more than the City of London. It includes a population of six millions of people, and extends very much beyond the bounds of the City of London; and the Government are giving effect to what was practically the recommendation of the Select Committee—that the telephonic area of London should be taken up by the Government. Well, I think that it is a fair and rational demand that the Government should ask for two millions, a great part of which I have no doubt will be spent in setting up that effective competition which we all desire. That is the pivot on which the Bill turns, and it was the basis of the recommendations of the Select Committee. A proposal to reject the unanimous recommendation of the Grand Committee upstairs is trifling with the time of the House, and not yielding to the demands of the witnesses who presented themselves from Scotland.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: This Bill contains two main proposals—the first, that in the Metropolitan area, the most important of all, the State should supply a telephone service; and the second, that elsewhere the local authorities should be encouraged to do so. The first proposal is in direct opposition to the opinion of our greatest thinkers. For instance, John Stuart Mill said:
"There is a fundamental distinction between controlling the business of Government and actually doing it. The same person or body may be able to control everything, but cannot possibly do everything; and in many cases its control over everything will be more perfect the less it personally attempts to do."
I may also quote the high authority of Cobden, who observed that:
"I find that you can never make the conductors of these establishments understand that the capital they have to deal with is really money. It costs them nothing, and, whether they make a profit or a loss, they never find their way into the Gazette. Therefore, to them it is a myth—it is a reality only to the taxpayers."
Bismarck, in 1893, said:
"My fear and anxiety for the future is, that the national consciousness may be stifled in the coils of the boa constrictor bureaucracy, which

157
has made rapid progress during the last few years."
Herbert Spencer, we know, is strongly of the same opinion. I do not know whether my right hon. friend the Member for the University of Dublin proposes to speak on this Bill, but I might refer also to his interesting works. It may be said that these are merely theoretical opinions. They are, however, fully borne out by experience. Take the results of the system of State railways in Australia. In 1896, the last year for which I have seen the figures, South Australia lost £65,000; New South Wales, £109,000; Queensland, £252,000: and Victoria, £583,000. The total amount lost by Victoria mounts up to no less than £7,000,000. Take, again, a case still more similar to the present—that of the telegraphs. The general impression seems to be that the State is making a large profit by the telegraphs. On the contrary, we have lost £8,000,000, and are losing more and more every year. It is sometimes said that this is because the State gave too much for the telegraphs. But that is not so. If the whole system had been presented to the State for nothing, there would still be a loss of £300,000 a year on the working. My right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury has himself spoken most strongly against his own Bill. He has told us that there are "no practical or technical advantages in State management." In reply to a deputation a short time ago he said:
"He hardly thought the deputation had given full weight to the serious difficulties in the way of nationalisation. He doubted whether it was expedient, unless it were essentially a national service, to increase the amount of work done by the State generally. The Post Office was being overburdened with works in every direction, and he did not think that it was capable of taking this enormous additional burden. If the telephone service was cast upon the Post Office, it would be to the detriment of both the postal and telegraph services. Then, again, it would increase enormously the Government staff. He need only appeal to the Members of Parliament present to say whether they would like to have the weekly appeals for increase of wages from those State servants still further extended."
And yet he proposes, as regards the Metropolitan area, to take the very course which he has himself strongly denounced. I now come to the second part of the Bill—that which proposes to invite municipalities to undertake the work. The
158
Chambers of Commerce have surely strong ground of complaint. The Government promised them at the beginning of the session an inquiry into the whole subject. They thought it so important that they proposed, not merely a Committee of this House, but a joint Committee of the two Houses. We do not complain of them for not having kept their promise, but because, while they have not spared an hour to nominate the Committee, that they have devoted hours to this Bill, which prejudges the whole question. So strongly do the Chambers of Commerce feel on the subject, that resolutions condemning the Bill have been passed by the Chambers of Commerce of London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Belfast, Dublin, and more than twenty others—in fact, by practically all the great Chambers of Commerce. I may quote, for instance, the unanimous resolution of the London Chamber:
"That it is undesirable that the Postmaster-General should licence the councils or county boroughs to provide systems of public telephonic communication, and that, pending the Report of the Joint Committee about to be appointed by the two Houses on municipal trading, the Telegraphs (Telephonic Communication, &c.) Bill should be postponed."
Nor is it only the Chambers of Commerce. The Society of Arts have urged the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of municipal trading, and added:
"They venture to submit that, until such Royal Commission has investigated the subject and reported thereon, no further powers for trading purposes ought to be granted to such bodies."
Lastly, the Committee of the Society of Electrical Engineers have resolved:
"That in the opinion of this Committee it is undesirable, from the point of view of the progress of electrical engineering, for the purely local telephone industry throughout the country to be held as a monopoly; or that legislation on the future of telephony in the United Kingdom should discourage the undertaking of exchange systems within telephone areas by independent enterprise."
It is astonishing to me that the Government should force on this Bill against the protests of the Chambers of Commerce, the Society of Arts, and the Society of Electrical Engineers. No doubt, the

159
Municipal Corporations Association is in favour of it. They wish to establish a new monopoly, and have resolved:
"That this Association affirms the principle that where local authorities have, with the sanction of Parliament, established, or are in course of establishing, undertakings for public benefit, and have not failed in their duties, it is not right or expedient that powers should be granted to companies to compete with them."
A monopoly by a municipality is still a monopoly. The debts of our municipalities are rapidly increasing. They are now some £250,000,000, and, at the present rate, will in twenty years be as large as the National Debt. The rate itself is increasing. This year, in one year alone, you have added two new fields for municipal enterprise. The building societies have amongst them a capital of £50,000,000. The Government, not satisfied with this, wish municipalities to enter into this business. If they do so seriously, it means another £100,000,000. In America £50,000,000 is already invested in electricity. If our municipalities are to absorb this field of enterprise, it will mean in a few years another speculation of £100,000,000. Our municipalities will become gigantic speculations, run by amateurs, at the expense of the ratepayers. This is really a struggle between those who wish the municipalities to have gigantic monopolies and those who are fighting for free trade and free competition. Moreover, since this Bill was introduced, the policy of the Government has altered. At first, they proposed to do away with companies after 1911. Now they wisely propose to continue them. That seems to me the true policy. It is the only way to secure competition. But do you suppose that investors will be so foolish as to compete with municipalities? Lastly, I must say one word as regards the effect this Bill will have on the progress of applied science. Already the action of municipalities has seriously checked the development of electrical science in this country. Mr. Sellon has recently told us, at the Society of Arts, that
"He had had exceptional opportunities of seeing and hearing what was going on in America and Germany, and in Switzerland, and he believed it was beyond dispute that in those countries electrical science was far more highly developed in the interests of the public than in this country; and, secondly, that in those countries it had not been handled chiefly by municipalities"
160
Sir, I support this Amendment, because I believe this Bill will inflict serious injury on the manufacturing interests of the country, because it will check the progress of applied science, increase the burden of rates, add enormously to local debts, and last, not least, impair and weaken our municipal institutions.
MR. HANBURY: said his right hon. friend had only to look at the work of the postal service of this country to find at once a reply to his argument that the State could not undertake work of this kind at a profit.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Where there is no competition it is easy to make a, profit.
MR. HANBURYsaid he would take the case where there was competition. The Post Office had telephone exchanges in Cardiff and Newcastle, and, badly as the system had been worked, they yielded a considerable profit. He anticipated that when the present restrictions were removed, the profits which the Department would make would be considerably greater. In London there was no alternative to the State taking over the telephones. The telephone area extended far beyond that of the London County Council, and therefore the only body that could grant underground way-leaves, which were necessary to an efficient service, was the Post Office itself. It was intended that one-half of the sum of two millions provided by the Bill should be spent in providing a thoroughly efficient service in the metropolis, and that the remainder of the money should be used to extend the telephone service in those districts where the population was not sufficient to maintain a service of its own. In those areas where the Post Office entered into competition with the National Telephone Company there would be no extension of the company's licence, and therefore in these districts this must be regarded as a final settlement.
SIR J. JOICEY, said the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Post Office in Newcastle, considering the disabilities under which it laboured, had done remarkably well. The only disability that he (Sir J. Joicey) knew it laboured under was that it was not, according to the Treasury Minute,

161
given sufficient money in order to compete with a company like the National Company. But, so far as he had been able to learn, he did not think the Newcastle Post Office suffered particularly under that disability, because he was under the impression that it had always had sufficient money to compete with the National Telephone Company, so far as it was desirable to do so. He was bound to say that he thought the National Telephone Company gave as good a service as the Post Office, and he believed that, with equal facilities, the National Telephone Company would beat the Post Office on its own ground. He was one of those who believed that the rich part of the country, even so far as telephone districts were concerned, should be made to assist the poor parts of the country, as in the case of the postal service. The right hon. Gentleman admitted, if he understood his speech aright, that he was going to spend the bulk of the two millions in London. He thought that was monstrous, and he could not see why the local authorities of London should be deprived of a power which was to be possessed by every municipality throughout the country; but, instead of £2,000,000, he should not object to ten, twelve, or even fifteen millions being spent for the purchase of all the telephone systems in the country. He was certain that when the country came to understand the Bill, the electors would recognise that there ought to be some scheme which would have brought the whole country into telephonic communication. Could the right hon. Gentleman give a single instance, where there had been competition with the Post Office by the National Telephone Company, where the Post Office had not been beaten? He (the speaker) did not know a single case. From what he knew of the telephone company, he was certain they would not give up the battle without a good struggle. The Post Office ran away from competition wherever there had been competition. The policy of the Post Office hitherto had been to prevent competition, and to induce the National Telephone Company to buy up other companies. He was surprised at this sudden change of policy on the part of the Post Office. He could not think that the policy now put forward by the Government was the policy of those who understood the question best. In
162
spending this money in London, the Government were doing a very great injustice to other parts of the country.
MR. PARKER SMITH: said he could not assent to the proposal that two millions of money should be given to London; it would have been better if the telephone system throughout the country had been taken over by the Government. There were a great many places in Scotland which, while not boroughs, were not thinly populated, and where the use of the telephone was very much wanted. He understood the right hon. Gentleman himself believed that in those places it would be very lucrative to start the telephone; but this Bill did not give any facilities to places which were not of an urban character. The County Council of Lanark, for instance, was greatly interested in this point, and had raised it in a memorial which no doubt many hon. Members had received. Was it the fact that any district that wanted to have facilities for introducing telephones was obliged to form itself into an urban district, and that county councils were not to be allowed to use their credit for introducing telephones into the parts of the country where they were needed?
MR. CAWLEY: We know that Glasgow were prepared to give a service for five guineas to each subscriber, and that that sum included the Government royalty and the sinking fund. If Glasgow could do that, why not London? The question is, Why should London pay £15 for the telephone, when it could be obtained for five or six guineas? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University has spoken several times about the London Chamber of Commerce. I have no doubt that most members of the London Chamber of Commerce have a very cheap telephone, because they are in a large way of business, and are telephoning every day and all day. They get an enormous benefit. But we want to see the smaller people have the advantage of the telephone if they want it, and it is not fair for these people who can afford to pay £15 to say that these other people who cannot afford to pay so much shall not have it. In Guernsey they have a telephone service for thirty shillings, with one penny per call. Why should not the

163
smaller people of London have a similar benefit to that? There is no sort of reason, except that the big people in London get a very cheap telephone, and do not want their poorer neighbours to have it. This Bill is going to give the smaller people the opportunity, and I cannot see that any arguments have been urged against these £2,000,000 being granted for the purpose of establishing this system. I feel certain it would pay extremely well, and that the Government will not only be able to get the same royalty as they get from the National Telephone Company, but provide the interest on the sinking fund as well.
MR. LABOUCHERE: There may be a good deal of argument against this Bill, but I, for my part, am in favour of it as it stands. Supposing the Bill passes, I cannot see any reason for cutting out this clause. One hon. Member suggested that the clause was bad, because it was limited to London. He said he should be glad to support a clause which gave £15,000,000 in order to have a general service all over the country. That may be good; I should be glad to see a general system; but we know perfectly well that if an Amendment were moved to substitute £15,000,000 for the £2,000,000 in the Bill, it would
not pass the House. We therefore have to take the Bill as it stands. The system is to be first applied to London. As a general rule, I think that moneys ought to be applied to the constituencies of those who are not London members just as much as to London constituencies; but, after all, London is the commercial centre of the whole country. We have got an exceptionally bad telephone system in London, and it is only reasonable that we should test this arrangement of the Government by trying it in London. I believe the thing will pay the Government exceedingly well, and at a lower price than Londoners have at present to pay. The reason is, that the Telephone Company have not underground way leaves. The Government will have those underground way-leaves, so that the service will be better, and, we may fairly anticipate, cheaper. The Financial Secretary is going strongly in the matter; let him fairly test it in London, and, as an eminent South African statesman is said recently to have telegraphed to President Kruger, festina lente.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes, 32. (Division List, No. 295).

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Duckworth, James

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Arnold, Alfred

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

Elliot, Hon. H. Ralph Douglas

Arrol, Sir William

Cawley, Frederick

Ellis, John Edward

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. (Birm.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Balcarres, Lord

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r)

Charrington, Spencer

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Finch, George H.

Banbury, Frederick George

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fisher, William Hayes

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Billson, Alfred

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Birrell, Augustine

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Flower, Ernest

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Bond, Edward

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Garfit, William

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Curzon, Viscount

Gedge, Sydney

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon.

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Denny, Colonel

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Burns, John

Dillon, John

Gilliat, John Saunders

Burt, Thomas

Donelan, Captain A.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Butcher, John George

Donkin, Richard Sim

Gordon, Hon John Edward

Caldwell, James

Doogan, P. C.

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

Doughty, George

Goschen, Rt Hn G. J. (St. George's

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Carlile, William Walter

Doxford, William Theodore

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Graham, Henry Robert

M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Crae, George

Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Maddison, Fred.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

Hazell, Walter

Milton, Viscount

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Monk, Charles James

Steadman, William Charles

Helder, Augustus

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Henderson, Alexander

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Morrell, George Herbert

Strauss, Arthur

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Holden, Sir Angus

Mount, William George

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUni.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Murray, Rt. Hon. A.G. (Bute)

Thornton, Percy M.

Howell, William Tudor

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Nicholson, William Graham

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Valentia, Viscount

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Oldroyd, Mark

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Kemp, George

Percy, Earl

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kennaway, Rt Hon Sir John H

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Keswick, William

Pierpoint, Robert

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Labouchere, Henry

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

Williams, J. Powell- (Birmg.)

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Wilson, John (Govan)

Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Priestley, Sir W.O.(Edinburgh

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

Leng, Sir John

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Purvis, Robert

Wylie, Alexander

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

Pym, C. Guy

Wyndham, George

Lloyd-George, David

Rankin, Sir James

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Lorne, Marquess of

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Sir William Walrond and

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Mr. Anstruther.

Macdona, John Cumming

Schwann, Charles E.

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks)

Channing, Francis Allston

Macaleese, Daniel

Stevenson, Francis S.

Crilly, Daniel

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dunn, Sir William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)

Evans, Sir Francis H.(South'ton

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Yoxall, James Henry

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Pirie, Duncan V.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Power, Patrick Joseph

Mr. Buchanan and Sir James Joicey.

Kimber, Henry

Price, Robert John

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

Another Amendment made.
MR. KIMBER: I rise to move the rejection of Clause 2, which brings into competition the local municipalities throughout the country. I move the rejection of the clause on several grounds. In the first place, because of the increasing tendency to give trading powers to municipalities; in the next place, because it prevents that uniformity of system which is essential in order that the country may get the full benefit, commercially and
166
industrially, of the telephone; and lastly, because it prevents universal intercommunication between all users of the telephone. In some towns we shall have municipalities competing with a licence to which the local authority in question has assented, and on condition that the rates to be charged by both are the same. It is a misnomer to call that "real and effective" competition. It is not a competition, at all events, for the benefit of the user or the public, because the user does not get the benefit of the

167
universality or uniformity of the system; he only gets it over an area which must be restricted by the fact that there is another competitor in the field. The question of municipal trading is a very much larger one. It is the testimony of public bodies, scientific societies, and private employers of labour, that the same amount of work is not got out of the employees of municipalities as is obtained from the employees of private traders and manufacturers. But the chief objection is, that the scheme prevents intercommunication. We have scarcely got used to the idea that it is possible to telephone out of London. Why are we not allowed the same facilities for communicating telephonically with our friends at a distance as we have by telegraph? We are to be subscribers either of the company or of the Post Office—theone or the other; we are not to have inter-communication, although the Post Office admit that they have the power of putting these way leaves underground, the want of which power they say is an hindrance to the company. As a matter of fact, between one exchange and another in London and between the exchanges and the Post Office the Post Office does provide the underground communication. I want to know why the same facility has not been afforded this company——
MR. SPEAKER: I do not quite see what the question of Post Office way leaves and the telephone company has to do with Clause 2, which only relates to the fund out of which public authorities have to pay the expenses of carrying out the Act.
MR. KIMBER: It has this to do: that this relates to the provinces; it establishes a system of so-called competition there; and the question of wayleaves which has been so important in London is also quite as important in the provinces, and I wish to point out that while they have been in London by their own willful——
MR. SPEAKER: That is quite too remote from this clause. If the hon. Member desires that the Government should make some arrangement as to wayleaves between themselves and the telephone company that possibly may be raised on the third clause; it certainly cannot be on the second.
MR. KIMBER: As regards the provincial towns, I imagine I can argue what is being done or about to be done. Many provincial towns have applied to the Postmaster-General in these terms. They wish to have a company in their locality to whom they should give wayleaves. In that matter the municipalities have the same power in their respective areas as the Post Office have in London. The Government have the power over the whole of the country, and could give these facilities to any company they chose to license. It cannot, therefore, be said that they must employ the local authorities for the purpose of having the provincial towns telephoned. Consequently you are not obliged to give these trading rights to municipal corporations on that ground. The want of uniformity, the want of inter-communication between provincial towns, and the want of facilities for immediate intercommunication make the system one, not of uniformity, but of heterogeneous diversity, and that is my ground for moving the rejection of the clause.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 13, to leave out Clause 2."—(Mr. Kimber.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'where' stand part of the Bill."
SIR J. JOICEY: I am bound to say that I have a great objection to any facilities being given to municipalities to take over the National Telephone Company's, or to develop any other system. Hitherto our municipalities have been able to borrow money very cheaply indeed, the reason being that they have simply used the money for carrying out the ordinary sanitary and other necessities of their own areas. Doubtless some have gone beyond that—they have taken over gas and water companies; but there is, as a general rule, very great reluctance to take over anything which has not been properly tested or tried. Municipalities want to be assured that they are going to make a certain profit before they will take over anything, but who can tell whether they will be able to make a profit out of a telephone system in their own area? I defy any estimate to be made which can be relied upon, and I look forward with some degree of anxiety if this House

169
sanctions a Bill which will enable municipalities and urban district authorities to use public money to carry out schemes of this kind, which are only required for a small section of people within each particular area. If this House gives power to municipalities to go into wild cat schemes—because many of these telephone developments have proved to be wild cat schemes—then, of course, the public will be rather chary in advancing money even on the rates, and the result will be that the whole community will be penalised by having to pay a larger interest for money required to carry out necessary improvement. That is one objection. Another objection is the disadvantage of having two or more systems in one area, because if a person wishes to have general telephone communication he must subscribe to all of them. I am speaking from experience in this matter in Newcastle. I do not know whether the Post Office has made any arrangements with the Telephone Company to meet such cases, and I should be glad if the right, hon. Gentleman would inform us on the matter. Again, the large number of municipal employees in small areas will have far more influence in using their votes for their own advantage than Government employees. On these grounds I will support my hon. friend who moved the rejection of the clause, which I think is most undesirable.
MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to move to insert after "where" the words "county council or," with a view to giving the same power to county councils as to borough councils. The reason I move this Amendment is because I have had strong representations on the matter from Lanarkshire, where there are considerable districts not included in borough areas. In many of these districts the telephone is wanted, and it could be introduced if the county councils were given the same power as the urban authorities. There are many districts in England in the neighbourhood of cities which cannot be covered by a mere extension of the licence granted to the borough authorities, and where it would be more convenient if they had a telephone extension of their own. The county councils would not exercise that power unreasonably. I would like to ask the right hon. Gen-
170
tleman whether he contemplates the establishment by the Government of telephones in populous districts, and, if not, what authority is to have that power. Is it to be left to a company, and is there to be local or municipal competition?
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 13, after the word 'Where, to insert the words 'a county council or.' "—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HANBURY: For many reasons it would be impossible to give licences to county councils. It is admitted that, generally speaking, if they had the power they would not exercise it. Only one county council has made an application of the sort, and it simply applied to be included in the Bill. The objection to giving licenses to populous districts not police boroughs is that they have not got the way leaves in their hands. There are, however, populous places in Scotland which are in the peculiar position of owning their own way leaves, and I think they would have some prior claim on the Post Office.
SIR J. JOICEY: There are also very many populous districts in the county I represent, and it would be a great advantage to them to have a telephone service; and they would be very glad indeed if the Post Office would take the matter into its hands.
MR. PARKER SMITH: After the expression of opinion which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. FAITHFULLBEGG: The Amendment which I now move is one which I hope will receive the favourable consideration of my right hon. friend. It is to leave out from "granted" to the end of the clause, and to insert "Provided always that no part of the area be outside the borough or urban district." My reason for moving is in the interests of the local authorities themselves. When the House is asked to grant power to local authorities to undertake services such as gas,

171
water, or electricity, it is always most careful to insert various restrictions. For instance, power is rarely given to any local authority to extend beyond its own area, and in cases where a local authority desires to supply in any area it has to acquire existing undertakings. We are, however, now asked to sanction an entirely new experiment. We are called upon to grant local authorities power to institute a service in competition with an existing service and in areas outside their own areas. It seems to me that may be an exceedingly dangerous power to grant, especially as we do not know very much about the conditions of the competition. There is no limit as far as I understand the clause to the distance over which a licence may extend. I have no doubt my right hon. friend has thought out this matter carefully, and I hope he will be able to remove the difficulty.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 24, to leave out from the word 'granted,' to the end of Clause 2, and to insert the words 'Provided always that no part of that area be outside the borough or urban district.' "—(Mr. Faithfull Begg.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'be,' in line 25, stand part of the Bill."
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: This Amendment, coming from a representative of Glasgow, is certainly one of the most absurd that can be conceived. What about the Glasgow waterworks, and the Glasgow tramways, and the Glasgow sewerage works? All these are not confined to the city, and the idea of restricting the telephone service to a city area would, in very many cases, so far from being an improvement, render the Bill absolutely unworkable.
MR. PROVAND: The object of this Amendment is to destroy the Bill, because if it is carried the Bill will be almost worthless. The telephone area is always larger than the municipal area. The municipal area of Glasgow contains 720,000 inhabitants, but the telephone area has nearly a million inhabitants, and all the outlying districts have joined Glasgow in its application to the Post Office for a licence in order to have the advantage of a Glasgow telephone exchange. If this Amendment were carried there would have to be six or seven dif-
172
ferent telephone exchanges in and around Glasgow. I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM-MURRAY,): The object of this Amendment is to provide a Scotch rate instead of the English rate in Clause 1. The hon. Member for Edinburgh has kindly called my attention to the fact that "police or borough general assessment rate" would not exactly fit the case of Edinburgh. So far as rating is concerned the great majority of the Scotch boroughs are under the general Act of 1892, and are covered by the Burgh General Assessment. Then, so far as the police rate is concerned, that covers Glasgow and also practically Dundee, because Dundee, although it has a local Act, has incorporated several sections of the Act of 1862. There remain Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Edinburgh has a peculiar phraseology of its own, and both it and Aberdeen differ from the other boroughs, because, instead of having separate rates, they have a composite rate with various branches, some paid by the occupier, some by the owner, and others jointly by the occupier and owner. This Amendment will bring in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and now we have done with the boroughs of Scotland.
Amendment proposed—
"Clause 2, page 2, line 6, after 'rate,' to insert the words 'or the district fund and general district rate.' "—(The Lord Advocate.)
Other Amendments made.
MR. MOULTON: The Amendment which I wish to move, is to compel the telephone company to deal fairly with the public, and not to deal with one person upon a different basis to another. They should not be allowed to enjoy any benefit under this Bill unless they agree to treat everyone alike. It is manifestly unfair that they should give one person a service over their lines for a subscription, and refuse it to another unless they are allowed to put up a pole on his house. At a time that the company is going to obtain a prolongation of its licence, I submit we are entitled to say that it shall not have it unless it agrees to give no

173
undue preference. If the clause is passed in its present form, it will amount to a statutory authority to the company to give such undue preference, except in those portions of an area in which they had renounced it, and I submit that the company should only have the advantage of this Bill if they agree once and for all to abandon this obnoxious system, which places the public at the mercy of the company, and obliges them to accept just what terms the company chooses to impose.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 23, to leave out the words 'within the area, or part thereof, specified in the new licence.' "—(Mr. Moulton.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'within the area' stand part of the Bill.' "
MR. HANBURY: The power to which exception is taken is one which the National Telephone Company possess under their original licence, and, though it is not one which I wish to defend, it is a privilege which the House has no right to take away, except for good reason shown. Now, in this case, we are not extending the licence to the company generally, we are only extending it in particular areas, and this Bill simply provides that in those particular areas this right of undue preference shall be taken away from the company as a condition of getting their licence extended. The fair thing to the company is to say that in those places where their licence is extended they shall renounce this privilege.
SIR J. JOICEYthought something in the nature of the Amendment was necessary for the prevention of undue preference.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move that the further consideration of this Bill be postponed.
MR. PROVAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be put down on the Paper?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To-morrow.
MR. PROVAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be the first Order?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
Further considered, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th July], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Question again proposed.
MR. J. E. ELLIS, said it was admitted that the Bill touched wider issues than those relating to Scotland, for it dealt with matters connected with the root of the whole Private Bill system of the three kingdoms—a system which was not only most interesting, but one of the most admirable parts of the Parliamentary Constitution; a system which had grown up through generations, and, under some of the most distinguished Members of Parliament, had been brought to a state in which it was superior to any machinery for the purpose in any other Parliament in the world. As to local inquiries, except for the smallest and simplest matters, they were very unsatisfactory methods. For important matters they must have the machinery of a Private Bill Committee. As to this Bill, it was an attenuated shadow, and there never was a time when Parliament ought to keep a firmer grasp on Private Bill Legislation than the present. He firmly believed that many of the ideas and hopes of those who had supported this Bill would turn out to be fallacious, but he hoped that the Bill would fulfil at any rate some of the expectations of those who brought it forward.
MR. PARKER SMITH: I think this Bill is a very interesting example of the methods and character of this House. The main argument which used to be advanced in favour of this Bill was the great amount of pressure upon the time of this House. This argument, however, cannot be used in favour of the present Bill. The House of Commons has shown itself extremely jealous of parting with a shred of its power, and the main effect of this Bill will be to put fresh duties upon the officers of this House, and also upon its Members. We have shown, in dealing with this question, a profound distrust of

175
everybody outside except ourselves. My hon. friend is still jealous of the action of the Secretary for Scotland, but his position is changed very much indeed, for he has now no voice in choosing the Commissioners of the Parliamentary Panel, for the choice rests with the Chairmen of the two Houses, in conjunction with the Secretary for Scotland. I do not know how this measure will please the gentlemen in the country who have been most urgent in their demand for this Bill, for they have always demanded a purely Scotch tribunal under the control of the Scotch Secretary. I think we shall all watch the working of this Bill with very great interest, and we shall see whether its effect is more beneficial than the alternative plan of proceeding through the ordinary channel by a Provisional Order. I think those who wish to improve the process of Private Bill legislation will have to proceed in other directions, for one thing stands out clearly in the course of the discussion of this Bill, and that is that there is no real desire or willingness on the part of this House to give up its control over Private Bill legislation. By extending and facilitating the Provisional Order system, by reducing the fees of the two Houses and also the formalities and notices; by cutting down the expenses in every direction, and in other ways making the position of opponents with small interests easier to defend; and by considering whether a single hearing before a Joint Committee of the two Houses cannot be so surrounded with precautions as to do justice to all interests without the necessity of rehearing before a second Committee—if this is done, these matters will be more beneficial than local inquiries. I have regretted very much in these Debates to notice how few English Members have taken part, for this is not merely a Scotch question, because it concerns all the throe kingdoms. I think English Members will find in this measure a useful object lesson, which will show that the best way of dealing with this question is by reducing the expenditure and retaining the whole power in the hands of Parliament. By simplifying procedure and reducing the expenses you will be conferring the greatest benefit upon the country at large.
MR. LEWIS: There is one argument in favour of this
176
Bill with which I find myself in most cordial agreement. The hon. Gentleman opposite stated that it was desirable to reduce the fees of both Houses. The fees at present are unnecessarily large, and they act unquestionably as a deterrent to small corporations and individuals coming to this House to promote Bills. I hope the outcome of this discussion will be that the fees will be reduced. There can be no doubt that there is need for a drastic change in our Private Bill procedure, and that has been felt to such an extent in Wales that when this Bill was introduced I felt that a measure of this kind should also apply to Wales, because Wales applies for a larger number of Private Bills than Scotland. The Government having refused to grant a Return of the Private Bills for Scotland and Wales, I went through the records myself, and I find that in 1897 there were twenty-three Private Bills from Wales and only nine from Scotland. I do not quote these figures for the purpose of grudging this Bill to Scotland, whatever good there may be in it, with its fearful and wonderful machinery. I am glad that Scotland in this matter is the country upon which the experiment will be performed, and I trust that Wales will derive the advantage of whatever experience may be gained in this case. In the populous and industrial districts of South Wales, owing to the development of trade and commerce, those districts which are rapidly growing in population and trade are obliged to come to this House from time to time for powers which can only be conferred upon them by Parliament. In one case, I was informed that the expenditure on one side alone amounted to no less than £180,000. What the expenditure on the other side was is not exactly known, but it is said to have been much larger. Now, I think there is a real grievance in all that money being spent in London, instead of in the locality from which the money has been taken. I venture to think that a local inquiry would have considerably lessened the expense in this particular case. I trust that, in the course of time, a Bill will be passed for Wales, not perhaps on exactly the same lines as the Bill which is now being carried for Scotland, but I hope when experience will have discovered what are the weak points and the excellent points of this Bill, that it will be applied to other parts of the United

177
Kingdom as well. I am sure everybody must have regarded with great dissatisfaction the enormous expenditure to which certain Irish railway companies were put during the last few weeks within the walls of the House. Surely a better system can be devised than that which drags over from different parts of the United Kingdom a host of witnesses who could be examined on the spot. I am sure all hon. Members deeply regret this great waste of public money.
MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: I confess that I am unable to remain silent after hearing the remarks which have fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Many of us hoped by this Bill to have accomplished a reform in Private Bill legislation on behalf of poor people who have schemes on hand, but who find their projects thwarted by the gross and wasteful expenditure involved in bringing witnesses unnecessarily from the locality to London. This Bill comes forward, and on the Third Reading it is supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the ground that it can do little harm, and because it is not the same Bill which the Government laid before us in the first instance. Hon. Members opposite have said that if this proves an effectual reform they hope it will be deemed advisable to extend it to England and Ireland. Now, I do ask hon. Members if they seriously think this Bill is a suitable one to extend if Ireland. I do not think the Government are at all likely to bring forward a Bill framed on these lines for Ireland. I will not say anything more upon this question, because I have already discussed the matter upon a previous occasion, but I cannot conceive the wisdom of sending down two peers and two Members of this House to hold an inquiry in Scotland while there are men of affairs in the locality who are quite as competent to hold such inquiries, especially when after that trouble and expense the question has actually to be brought back to the House in order that it may all be gone over again. I must say that I greatly regret that the Government have not stuck more firmly to their guns, and that they have not adhered to the Bill which was at first introduced, for it was a much better Bill than the one which we are now asked I to pass.
MR. DALZIELsaid there were so many objections to the Bill that it was questionable whether it would not be better to wait a little longer for one that was more perfect. However, he supported the Third Reading of the Bill as a step in the direction of local control of local affairs, though he would have had Scottish Members and Scottish men of affairs to deal with Scottish Bills. One great objection was the fact that after a local inquiry had been held, if there was an appeal, the appeal was made to practically the same tribunal, sitting at Westminster, as held the local inquiry in Scotland. It was a step, however, that other Governments would have to follow in the future, and he hoped the experiment would have the success the Lord Advocate anticipated.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
Clause 1:—
Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [21ST JULY].
Resolutions reported.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
1. Sec. 3. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,601,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900.
2. Sec. 2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,799,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Material for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31stday of March, 1900.
3. Sec. 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,417,000, be granted to Her Majesty,

179
to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c, including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900."
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £261,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900."

CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CALDWELL: This appears to be a Bill which takes an amount of money not exceeding £1,200, and hands it over to the police. Now the police has a very large subsidy from the Imperial funds, and also a large payment out of the local funds, and we have always protested against these special claims on behalf of the Metropolitan Police. This Bill introduces a new charge of £1,200, which we shall certainly object to.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): It is true that the language of the Bill is very wide, but the object of the Bill is to do away with the mischievous system of bounties which now exists, and to substitute a payment out of the Vote. It does not in any way create a new charge, but merely gets rid of the mischievous system of allowances.
  DR. CLARK: We object to this Bill because we think that London is rich enough and big enough to manage her own police, and she ought to be made to pay for her police, as any of the provincial towns and boroughs. The police ought to be handed over to the County Council, who ought also to have the management of the magistrates, and that she ought to bear the extra burden.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: There is no extra burden arising under this Bill.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It is a matter for regret that the Home Secretary did not tell us what the allowances were. I sincerely trust that on the next occasion he will give this information, so as to show the necessity for this Bill.

GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE, AT KHARTOUM BILL [Lords].

  SECOND READING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. DILLON: This is a Bill to which I have the greatest objection. I have considerable objection to the Gordon Memorial Fund, and I think it wrong to start a scheme of this kind so soon after the appalling slaughter at Omdurman. By such a policy the House identifies itself with the whole policy of these proposals. There is another aspect of the case, and that is, is this college to be a Christian college or a Mahomedan one, or what religion are you going to teach, or are you going to teach any at all? This, I think, we are entitled to know before we give this Vote.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is altogether irrelevant to discuss the internal management of this college, or the religion which shall be taught there. The only question is, whether the money should be invested in certain securities.
  MR. DILLON: In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I cannot proceed.
  MR. DAVITT: Should I be in order in proposing to change the title from "The Gordon Memorial College" to "The College for Teaching British Pharisaism"?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to use a few arguments in favour of the Bill. The majority of the inhabitants of the Soudan are Mahomedans, and the Government are most anxious to suit the education of that country to the native prejudices of those people. We know that in Ireland we are debarred from doing that, because the majority of the Irish people happen to be Catholics.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must use arguments which are relevant to the subject under discussion.
  MR. CALDWELL: I think this Bill is wrong, because it proposes to invest money in Egyptian securities. In a matter of this kind, in which you are perpetuating the name of a British subject, I think you ought to have Imperial securities, and not invest this money where it may eventually be depreciated.
  MR. DALZIEL: I think the Government ought to give us their opinion in regard to the security of this stock. Surely we are entitled to ask whether this is the best security we can obtain for the money. I do hope we shall have some opinion from the Government in regard to this investment.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, Egyptian Stocks are a perfectly safe investment for the money of this trust.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN OVERTIME IN WASHING BOTTLES, ETC.
SIR JAMES RANKIN: With regard to this question, I think opinion can be divided into two schools of thought. The first school believe that women should be perfectly free to make their own contracts with their employers; and the second believe that with regard to a certain class of workers and work a certain amount of interference by law is allowable. In 1878, 1891, and 1895 various laws regulating overtime, and the employment of children and young persons were enacted, and I think it is generally acknowledged that those regulations have been beneficial to health in our factories. The fruit preserving trade, however, has been exempted from this rule. No one wishes to unduly interfere with the fruit preserving trade, which undoubtedly requires certain exemption during the season when the fruit has to be prepared and preserved, for if it is not done quickly the fruit would spoil. It has been the custom for jam manufacturers to work outside the Factory Act, but recently the Home Secretary has made an edict that a good many of these operations, which have hitherto been considered to be outside the Factory Acts, are not really so, and be has made an exemption with regard to the washing of bottles. I am prepared to admit that the washing of bottles is a very important part of the fruit-preserving industry, but I hold that they are much more likely to be properly cleaned by women who work twelve hours a day rather than fourteen. Therefore, I think the House would do well not to allow the exemption in regard to that particular work. In one of the inspector's reports for the year 1898, it is stated that very often the work of preserving fruit, and the washing of bottles, has been put off until after other work has been done, so as to enable these manufacturers to put in extra time. I think this is going beyond the spirit of the law, and these exemptions should be strictly adhered to. I am not going to detain the House at this late hour of the night upon those matters, because they are within the cognisance of hon. Members already, and many Members of this House take a deep interest in the working of the Factory Acts. In my opinion, this particular business of washing bottles might very well be carried on within the limits of the

183
twelve hours' rule. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
Motion made, and Question proposed:—
"That the Order of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending to factories and workshops in which the washing of bottles for use in the preserving of fruit is carried on, the special exception (Employment of Women Overtime) ought to be annulled."—(Sir James Rankin.)
MR. J. G. TALBOT: I rise to second the motion of my hon. friend, although I think it is impossible for this matter to receive adequate consideration at this late hour of the night. I would first remind my right hon. friend the Home Secretary that, in answer to a question from myself in May last, he admitted that the condition of young persons and women in the jam factories was unsatisfactory, and he said there was a case for legislation. Further, it will he seen from the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1897, that there is already great pressure upon a class of persons peculiarly deserving the consideration of this House, I mean girls of the delicate age of fourteen and upwards, and at a time of year when, as in weather we have been lately experiencing, the conditions of labour are exhausting. But instead of improving their condition, this Order to which we object would seem to make it worse. It legalises, as I understand it, the illegal stretching of the law to bottle washing and other processes, which are connected with the fruit industry, but do not require the immediate action which is needed for dealing with fresh fruit on its arrival. I am sure that the kind sympathy of the Home Secretary would not favour such treatment as this Order seems to sanction, and I do not understand what influence has prevailed with him. I hope he may consent to least to modify this Order.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I think there must be some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Baronet who moved this motion, and my right hon. friend who seconded it, as to the intention and effect of this order. They have both spoken as if there had been a breaking of the law with reference to the exemption enjoyed in the fruit preserving industry
184
under the Factory Acts, and that pressure has now been brought to bear to legalise it. This Order has nothing whatever to do with the industries of fruit preserving, but it is—as was described by the hon. Baronet who brought this motion before the House—the result of my having found it desirable to apply the Factory Acts to the industry of bottle washing, to which they have not been previously applied. For many years the trade of bottle washing, and of getting the bottles ready for the purpose of preserving fruit—which must be done immediately—has not been held to be within the Factory Acts, and the result has been that unlimited overtime has been imposed upon the women in that industry, and there has been no restrictions whatever.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Yes, illegally.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: It is extremely doubtful whether at present the process of bottle washing really does come within the section of the Act which talks of the adaptation of an article for sale. On the advice of my inspectors, I have been anxious to secure some limitation of the hours of work of the women employed in this industry, and I have accordingly consented to hold that this cleaning of the bottles should be held to come within the Factory Acts. That obviously meant that there would be a restriction imposed upon the labour of the women which had not previously been imposed. It has nothing whatever to do with the section of the Act of 1891, which exempts the operations of cleaning and preparing fruit during the months of June, July, August and September. It has nothing to do with section 56 of the Act of 1878, which gives an exemption of sixty days in a year to those employed in the process of making preserve from fruit. The position is this—that having imposed upon the bottle washing industry the necessity of coming under the Factory Acts it was represented to me by the manufacturers and others employed in the trade that it would be a desirable thing to give the comparatively small exemption which this Order gives, and this view was supported by the inspectors.
MR. ASQUITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what section the Order is made?
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: It is made under Section 53 of the Act of 1878. Therefore the House will see that the effect of the action of the Home Office in this particular has been to bring this industry within the Factory Acts, and therefore to restrict the labour of women. Exemptions are recognised by the Factory Acts in industries subject to seasonal pressure provided the Home Secretary is satisfied of their propriety. I have been satisfied upon the reports I have received that it would not be injurious to the women employed in this industry for this amount of overtime. I am satisfied that this industry comes under the words of the section as a trade liable to a certain press of orders, and it has been proved to me that it is a process which must be done immediately before the bottles are used. I cannot help thinking that is a perfectly reasonable exemption, and when my right hon. friend says it is totally contrary to the spirit of an answer which I gave to a question I venture again to say that I agree with him so far as to think that it will be necessary to do something to remove the state of things which prevails in the jam trade—properly so-called. But the question before us is a very different one, for it is bringing in for the first time a new industry—not jam-making, and it is desirable and almost necessary, in the interests of the trade and in accordance with this section, that there should be this exemption, which, I am satisfied, is not likely to cause any injury to the women employed.
MR. TENNANT: I should like to know if this Order is going to be applied in those factories in which only bottle-washing is being done, or is it going to apply to bottle-washing departments in fruit preserving factories. If it is, I am very much afraid that it will have a contrary effect to that which he anticipates and desires. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain this point. I do not think any good can accrue from this Order: I am very much afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will apply it to these departments in jam factories.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The Order has nothing to do with the preserving of fruit, and it will only apply to persons engaged in bottle-washing.
MR. TENNANT: In that case I
186
think that any further discussion is unnecessary.
MR. HAZELLand SIR CHARLES DILKEsupported the restriction of overtime in fruit-preserving factories, and
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEYagain assured the House that the Order did not apply to jam factories.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: If that is so, the Debate need not be continued.
MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Baronet has obtained a useful result by raising this discussion, because it has cleared up the apprehensions in the minds of some of us of the scope and intention of the Order. I merely wish to guard against the idea that it is possible for the Home Office to determine whether any particular trade does or does not come within the scope of the Act. So far as I am able to judge, I agree with the gentlemen who advised the Home Secretary upon this matter.
MR. JOHN BURNSwas of opinion that the result might be that the women engaged in jam-making for long hours would then engage in bottle-washing for a sub-contractor. He regretted extremely that these exemptions should exist at all. The Home Office had yielded to pressure from without. Girls were to be worked fifteen and sixteen hours a day in the most in sanitary conditions, in order that their employers might build yachts to race for the America Cup. Humanity did not demand it; science did not require it, and he thought that greater protection should be given to the girls who did this work.
MR. MADDISONfailed to understand how it was the Home Secretary had not come to the conclusion that overtime was a wrong thing to allow, after girls had worked so many hours. He trusted the hon. Baronet would go to a Division upon the question, as it would be the means of saving the girls of the bottle-washing establishments from a grievous wrong.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid it appeared to him that the Order

187
was a departure from the general line of factory legislation, though it did not go so far as the House was led to suppose He failed to see how it was going to be applied to jam manufacturers, who had heavy demands made upon them when the fresh fruit arrived.
MR. TENNANTasked the Home Secretary to make it clear, in accordance with his assurance across the floor of the House, in the Order itself that it should have no application to any department of jam factories.

POST OFFICE MAIL CONTRACT (HARWICH TO THE HOOK OF HOLLAND).
Resolved—"That the contract, dated the 3rd day of April, 1899, between the Postmaster-General and the Great Eastern Railway Company, for the daily conveyance of mails from Harwich to
SIR M. WHITE-RIDLEYsaid it was never intended so to be applied, and he would certainly see that this was done if necessary.
SIR JAMES RANKINsaid that, after that intimation, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. [Opposition cries of "No."]
The House divided:—Ayes, 25; Noes, 83. (Division List, No. 296.)

AYES.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hazell, Walter

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Horniman, Frederick John

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'land

Wedderburn, Sir William

Clough, Walter Owen

Macaleese, Daniel

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

Doogan, P. C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Duckworth, James

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Mr. John Burns and Mr. Maddison.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Steadman, William Charles

NOES

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fisher, William Hayes

Purvis, Robert

Arnold, Alfred

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gedge, Sydney

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chs. Thomson

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Robinson, Brooke

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Graham, Henry Robert

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Banbury, Frederick George

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Howell, William Tudor

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bethell, Commander

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning (Corn)

Thornton, Percy M.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Carlile, William Walter

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Valentia, Viscount

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Long, Rt Hn. Walter(Liverpool

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Milton, Viscount

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

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wylie, Alexander

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Wyndham, George

Curzon, Viscount

Morrell, George Herbert

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Doughty, George

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Nicholson, William Graham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Sir William Walrond and

Finch, George H.

Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton).

Mr. Anstruther.

the Hook of Holland, be approved."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Two o'clock.