Commons Sitting of 20 June 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  SHOTLEY BRIDGE AND CONSETT DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  DERBY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC., BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  JONES' DIVORCE BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  BEXHILL AND ROTBERFIELD RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, that Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, that Standing Orders 223 and 243 he suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners by Black Rod.
The House went, and, being returned,
MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills (see first item in House of Lords report this day: ante, page 1).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL. (By Order.)
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (&c.): I move that the Provisional Order Bill No. 14 be referred to the Police and Sanitary Committee of this House. I know that that Committee has been a Committee rather to deal with questions on Private Bills—municipal questions, where any powers which depart from the general law of the land are sought to be conferred upon municipalities. Such Private Bills are always referred to the Police and Sanitary Committee. But I think the time has arrived when some of these Provisional Orders ought also to be referred to this Committee. I cannot help thinking that the powers which are sought to be given to some of these local authorities, subject simply to the supervision of an official of the Local Government Board, must have escaped the attention of the House. The powers are exceedingly large, and what is still more extraordinary is that by means of Provisional Orders, which are supposed to be something inferior and are not scrutinised so carefully as are Private Bills, where there is no evidence taken before the House, and where Committees of the House of Commons do not examine into the details, powers are sought by municipalities which Committees of the House of Commons have consistently refused to confer by means of Private Bills. I do not make complaint that this Bill is any departure from precedent. I am sorry to

41
say that it seems to be the sort of Bill which has been passing for some time without any challenge at all. It seeks to confer on the local authorities power, subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board, to make bye-laws regulating the sands. That has always gone through the Police and Sanitary Committee without any question. But when we came to other powers which are sought to be given, there are powers which the House of Commons has invariably refused to give. The first is to make bye-laws for regulating trade on the sands. That is really a very sweeping power. You are not to be allowed to sell anything except subject to the bye-law. But what I object to more particularly is the power with regard to preaching or lecturing on the sands. No one is to be allowed to lecture on the sands except in accordance with certain regulations which are made by the local authority, subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board. That is a power which Committees of the House of Commons time after time have absolutely refused to confer upon any municipality at all, with the one single exception of Southend. That was conferred in 1894, but has never been put into force; and the Police and Sanitary Committee, whichever Party happened to be in power, has consistently refused to follow that example. I object to these powers being given by these Provisional Orders without their being investigated by some Committee of this House. The party seeking this power is a small town in North Wales. The powers are large, and if the circumstances were exceptional I could quite understand the Local Government Board and the House of Commons conferring these powers. But what are the circumstances? The town is small; the population is 7,000; the sands are the only free open space in the whole town where such meetings can be held or such lectures or preachings given. The sands are exceedingly extensive, being about two or three miles in front of the town; they are very wide, and there is plenty of room. There was a local inquiry before an officer of the Local Government Board, and there was no suggestion made on the part of the Town Council that there had been any real abuse in connection with the matter. A Protestant lecturer, a clergyman of the Church of England, came down to Rhyl and addressed meetings on the foreshore
42
on the question of Ritualism. There was some disturbance, but no actual breach of the peace. He was considerably interrupted by the Ritualistic supporters of the local clergy, and in the end those who sympathised with Ritualistic views appealed to the Town Council, who being fearful of offending sonic of the rich visitors to the town, came to the conclusion that the best Klan was to prohibit this gentleman from preaching on the sands at all. But they discovered that they had no power to do that, so they applied to the Local Government Board for the necessary authority. The reply was:
"We cannot give you power to prohibit the holding of these meetings on the sands, but we will give you powers to regulate them by bye-laws."
But what I want to point out to the House is that the powers it is proposed to confer are tantamount to a prohibition of the meetings altogether. It will be found at Rhyl that the crowd is generally to be found within an area of 500 yards on either side of the place where these meetings are held, and if the bye-laws are so framed as to prohibit meetings at that particular place that will be equal to prohibiting the meetings altogether. Surely unless a very strong case is made out this House should give no local authority power to make bye-laws which may have the effect of putting a stop to freedom of speech in the only open space in that part of the town. As the Secretary to the Local Government Board must know very well, since he has had an opportunity of reading the evidence given by his inspector, there was absolutely no case made out for any interference. There was only evidence of one slight disturbance, which was not attributable to anything done by the clergyman whose meetings were interfered with. The object of the Council is no doubt to suppress these meetings, and not merely to regulate them. That was, in fact, admitted by some of the councillors who gave evidence in the course of the inquiry. There was no attempt at concealment on that point. But there was an effort to make a compromise between the different sections—between those who were fighting for absolute freedom of speech and those who were for regulating or suppressing the meetings. An agreement was arrived at between the repre-

43
sentatives of the Town Council and of the Local Free Church Council to the effect that there should be absolute freedom of speech between certain points on the Rhyl sands. But the Town Council subsequently repudiated that agreement, thus showing quite clearly that their object was not so much to frame regulations which would prevent disturbance and smooth matters as to make it impossible for persons who were obnoxious to the majority of the Town Council to hold any meeting at all. I know that some teetotal lecturers occasionally go on to the sands, and there are gentlemen on the Town Council who are interested in the liquor trade, and who naturally object to the sands being used for the purpose of making appeals to their customers which may have the effect of reducing their profits. It has nevertheless not been shown that this lecturing and preaching has interfered with the amenities of the place, and I therefore appeal to the Government to send this Provisional Order to the Police and Sanitary Committee to be reported upon. The powers it proposes to confer are of an extensive and sweeping character, and ought to be thoroughly examined. I do not think the delay involved would prevent the Bill passing into law this session.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Order for the committal of the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill be read, and discharged, and that the Bill be committed to the Police and Sanitary Committee."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
MR. ERNEST GRAY: I venture to hope that the House will not adopt the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman opposite. After all, the power sought by the Rhyl Council is a very simple one, and one which the House should not hesitate to confer upon it. For many years the Rhyl District Council has been in the habit of allowing a large portion of the foreshore to be used by various religious and irreligious bodies, who have had assigned to them fixed spots for which they have paid a rental amounting in the aggregate to £400 or £500 annually. Everything went on satisfactorily until, unhappily, the miserable dispute arose between High and Low Churchmen, who had taken up positions on this magnificent foreshore and spent much of their time in wrangling on theological questions. I am
44
not surprised that the Rhyl Council, anxious to preserve peace and quietness in the interests of the inhabitants and the visitors, have asked power to make bye-laws, not to put down freedom of speech, but to keep a certain portion of the foreshore free from these disputants. It is my painful experience on many Sundays during the summer to see what is going on on the Embankment near to my house—where, morning, afternoon, and evening, Churchmen, Socialists, and atheists spend hours in what I can only characterise as more or less blasphemous proceedings. I cannot therefore feel surprised that the Rhyl Council strongly objects to a similar abuse of freedom on their sands. This, so far as the Rhyl Council is concerned, is not a Party question. The resolution to apply for these powers was carried with practical unanimity in a Council composed of twelve Nonconformists and six Churchmen, while an election which has since taken place has resulted in the return of four candidates who declined to pledge themselves to support the repeal of the Order, and the defeat of two who gave such a pledge The desire of the Council is to secure that the residents and visitors may enjoy Sunday in something like peace.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We do not propose to interfere with the esplanades. I am confining myself to the foreshore and sands.
MR. ERNEST GRAY: But the foreshore and sands can be seen from the esplanade, and surely the authorities have a right to prevent the peace being disturbed by disputes which only minister to the vanity of the disputants, and do nobody any good whatever. I strongly object to the Provisional Order being sent to a Committee. An inquiry has already been made by the Local Government Board inspector, and, after all, no bye-laws cyan become operative until the approval of the Local Government Board has been obtained, as well as of two other State Departments. Surely there is sufficient guarantee that freedom of speech will not be interfered with.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: As Rhyl happens to be part of my constituency, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words, especially as there is a considerable division of opinion on the

45
subject among my constituents. I have been appealed to by citizens of Rhyl to bring the matter before the House with a view to securing guarantees for freedom of speech. Undoubtedly at Rhyl there is a grand stretch of sands, which constitute a most convenient place for carrying on religious and temperance services. I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite that these services consist of nothing but wrangling. A great many most valuable religious services are carried on, especially among children, and I do not think that because these disputants to which the hon. Gentleman has referred have appeared on the scene, therefore the right of free speech should be taken from all. I think the House should always be most jealous of any interference with the right of free speech. The liberties of this country have been won and preserved by free speech. I am not opposed to reasonable regulation, and I think such powers should exist, and that the Police and Sanitary Committee might well take care that proper rules were framed. This subject was fully discussed a few years ago in connection with the case of Eastbourne, and we know that this House upset the very stringent rule which the Eastbourne authorities had adopted. I support sending this Order to the Police and Sanitary Committee, because I think care should be taken to prevent any future Council at Rhyl using their powers for the suppressing of free speech.
MR. McKENNA: As a member of the Police and Sanitary Committee, before whom questions of this sort are usually considered, may I say that there seems to be some misapprehension as to the recent practice of the Committee on this matter. The Local Government Board appear to rely on the precedent of Southend, in 1895, the Bill affecting which was very much in the form of this Order. But during the last three years the Committee have had before them a great many Bills dealing with seaside places in which this very question has been raised, and which have also been reported upon by the Home Secretary. The Home Office, it will be seen from the Report, are against the Local Government Board in this matter. The most recent precedents are those of St. Anne's-on-Sea, Yarmouth, and Paignton, and in the last named the clause passed by the Committee and
46
approved by the Home Secretary read: "Provide for the preservation of order and good conduct among the persons frequenting the sea-shore." Thus the local authority are given powers to make bye-laws for this specific purpose. But if you go beyond that, and give the Rhyl Council power to suppress public speaking, you interfere with the liberty of private citizens in a way which in recent years the Police and Sanitary Committee has not been willing to sanction. I think we shall be making a great mistake if we go outside the usual practice in this matter.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W RUSSELL,): There are two things I will not enter upon in this discussion. I do not propose to discuss the Provisional Order procedure of the House, for that has nothing to do with the point we are now discussing, and most assuredly I will not discuss the religious question. The people of Rhyl have their rights, independent of preachers on the foreshore, and surely these rights are of some consequence. The Bill before the House contains three Provisional Orders—one affecting the Isle of Thanet, another affecting Reading, and the third affecting Rhyl; and I think there will be a serious objection on the part of those concerned with the first two Orders to the proposal to commit the Bill to the Police and Sanitary Committee.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I could not divide the Bill. I was obliged to take it as a whole.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What is the case in regard to this Order? The ordinary course has been followed in regard to it. Application was made to the Local Government Board by the Urban Council; an experienced Inspector was sent down to hold a local inquiry, and the evidence shows that there has been trouble in connection with these proceedings on the foreshore as far back as 1878. The Inspector reports that the Commissioners purchased from the Crown the greater portion of the foreshore, hoping they would get greater control, but in reality they did not improve their position. After all, they are now only asking for powers which other local authorities possess.
MR. McKENNA: None have been granted since 1895.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I feel bound to point out that any bye-laws for the regulation of the foreshore which the Urban Council may pass under the Bill must satisfy three State Departments before they can come into operation—the Board of Trade, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and the Local Government Board; and does anyone imagine that these central Departments will sanction a bye-law interfering with free speech? The object of the Urban Council is not to regulate the speech of the preachers, because that is perfectly free, but to regulate the places where the speech may be delivered. Similar powers have been given to the Harrogate Corporation to regulate meetings on the Stray, and to the Southend authorities in respect of the beach at that place. Those authorities are empowered to set apart from time to time portions of the beach on which persons may deliver lectures and sermons, and to prohibit the use of any other part for such purpose. I submit that what has been done in those Private Bills is exactly what is asked for by the Rhyl Urban I Council. The Order does not raise the I question of free speech at all; it simply proposes to give the Council the right to regulate certain things, and if they abuse that power the central authorities will certainly correct them. I hope the House will allow the Bill to proceed in the ordinary way.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman has expressed his surprise that my hon. friend proposes to refer to the Police and Sanitary Committee a Bill which deals with three Provisional Orders, whereas his objection only applies to one. But I assume he could not have referred a section of the Bill to that Committee, and consequently the objection only proves the inconvenience of grouping together Provisional Orders relating to different places in one and the same Bill. The second objection he raises is that there is no precedent for such a step. But, surely, if the course proposed is reasonable and rational it is right to suggest it. Thirdly, the suggestion is that bye-laws cannot be framed by the Rhyl Council without the sanction of certain public bodies, and we are asked, Is it likely that any State
48
Department would seek to restrict the right of free speech? I am old enough to remember the time when public bodies did seek to restrain the right of free speech, and I do not wish to put it in the power of any such bodies to do it again. This House, when it gives powers to public bodies, is bound to have some guarantee that such power shall be exercised with discretion and with strict, regard to the requirements of justice. I am not acquainted with the composition of the Urban Council of Rhyl, but I am entitled to form an opinion from the public utterances of certain members at the inquiry which took place before the inspector. I will quote a couple of sentences from the evidence of official witnesses. The Chairman of the Council, after saying that the Council wished to have discretionary powers, added, "If I had my way I would, prohibit all meetings absolutely." And the Town Clerk frankly admitted that the, Council wanted the powers to control the, preachers and teetotal lecturers; for "sometimes they are men of very extreme views, stiff-necked and strong-headed." Now, the hon. Member for South Tyrone is a warm advocate of temperance; does he recognise his portrait in that description? I am quite sure he would not allow himself to be muzzled when seeking to advocate the principles of temperance on Rhyl sands or anywhere else. I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact-that it is not called upon to do anything more than refer the matter to a competent tribunal. I hold that my hon. friend has made out a prima facie case for the further consideration of the matter before it receives the final sanction of this, House. May I remind the House of what occurred at Eastbourne, where there was a conflict between the local authorities and the Salvation Army? Surely that is sufficient to warn the House of the dangers involved in granting powers under such an Order as this.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Representing as I do one of the three towns interested in this Bill, I wish to say that so far as Ramsgate is concerned, happily none of these religious disputes have occurred; but I would remind the House that almost identical words are embodied in the Ramsgate Provisional Order as those to

49
which exception is taken in the case of Rhyl; and, representing as I do the inhabitants of Ramsgate, I say that they strongly object to the elimination of these words, or to this Bill being in any way delayed. Remember that if this Bill goes to the Police and Sanitary Committee they must act on general principles, and if they omit the words in the case of Rhyl they must do so also in regard to Ramsgate. I may mention that in the case of the London Parks Regulation Act, nearly thirty years since, I myself carried in the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred a proviso that "no person shall deliver or invite any person to deliver any public address in a park accept in accordance with the rules of the park." That proviso, although in the first instance it led to the dropping of the Bill for the session, was adopted by Mr. Gladstone's Government the following year, and unanimously accepted by both Houses of Parliament. A similar power is exercised ruthlessly by the London County Council in all open spaces under their control, with general approval. What I wish to point out is that what it is proposed to give to the Rhyl Council is simply the power exercised by the authorities of the Royal parks, by the Loudon County Council, and I believe by almost all the chief local authorities in the country. I only hope the House will follow that precedent.
MR. LEWIS: There is an important difference between regulating the right of free speech in the Royal parks and the case with which this Order deals, because regulations regulations relating to the Royal parks can he discussed in this House every year, whereas this Bill will be passed once for all. I say that here the right of free speech is in question. What did the hon. Member for East Ham say? He said, "We want to get these people—the preachers and the teetotal lecturers—out of the way of visitors on the esplanade." What does that mean? It means that the right of free speech is to be altogether suppressed on the foreshore.
MR. ERNEST GRAY: There are large portions of the foreshore at either end of the town where these disputes may rage without injury to anybody.
MR. LEWIS: And you expect the, teetotal lecturers to go into the country and waste their eloquence on the sand-hills. I want to point out what will be the inevitable result of such regulation, and that is the suppression of the right of free speech on the foreshore at Rhyl. I have read very carefully the report of the inquiry held by the Inspector of the Local Government Board, and the evidence is simply overwhelming against any suppression of the right of free speech on the Rhyl foreshore. The House has to consider an extremely important question, and I do hope that at this initial stage it will take the course recommended by my hon. friend, and send this Bill to a Committee, where a compromise can be arrived at which will be satisfactory to both supporters and opponents of this particular part of the Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Member who has just sat down has shown the real character of this opposition. They not only want the right, of free speech preserved, but they also, want the town of Rhyl to keep an audience for them. They will not go out into the wilderness like St. John, but they want to go into the centre of the town, where they can send round the hat. Now, is it reasonable that such a power should be given under a Provisional Order? After all, what is it that is being given to the local authority? It is not the power to prohibit services or ordinary utterances, but simply to define the places where those services and utterances shall be delivered, and where such meetings shall be held. It seems to me a most excellent provision. Take a few antagonists, like, for instance, on the one side the hon. Gentleman the, Secretary to the Local Government Board, and on the other side my right hon. friend the Member for Thanet—are those two antagonists to be allowed the whole of the foreshore, and is the local authority-not to be allowed to mark out a square. or a 40 ft. ring for them in such a manner as will enable the spectators around them to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to the value of their arguments? The right of free speech is riot involved, and all that is sought for by the opponents of this. Provisional Order is the right to send round the hat.
MR. PERKS: I have not the slightest doubt that if my hon. friend who has just addressed the House had to speak upon the sands at Rhyl or any other sands and spoke with the humour which distinguishes him he would secure a very large audience. I happen to have in my hand a letter from the chairman of the Rhyl Local Board in which he states some of the reasons of these good people at Rhyl, who are ratepayers, lodging-house keepers, and hotel proprietors. Their object, I fear, is to keep away people whose nervous system is likely to be upset by a speech such as that delivered by my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn. It seems perfectly clear that what these local authorities desire is to send out these preachers and speakers into what my hon. friend calls the wilderness, where they can indulge in what a previous speaker has described very ignorantly as an interminable wrangle. The right of preaching in the open spaces of this country is not only claimed by preachers of the Gospel throughout this land, but by being surreptitiously slipped through this House in these Provisional Orders. It was only a session or two ago that a most objectionable series of bye-laws were authorised in a Provisional Order of the County of Kent. Under those bye-laws people who have stood up in the public thoroughfares in the villages of Kent, and preached the Gospel where their forefathers had done for ages past, have been fined by the magistrates, and in default these good men have been thrown into the gaols of the county. Appeals were made against that infamous procedure, but while the Home Secretary—with a speed which generally marks a Government Department—was inquiring into the position of these poor men they fulfilled their sentences before any remedy could be applied. I do trust that we shall not allow this Provisional to pass in this form. There may be cases
52
which distinguish Ramsgate from Rhyl. I do not agree that you must apply the same order to different towns and different circumstances. What is this Police and Sanitary Committee for if it is not to be allowed to exercise a reasonable judgment? I do hope that the House will not be led away by the flood of eloquence which proceeded from preceding speakers, but that they will agree to this Provisional Order being dealt with in such a way that regulations may be adopted in conformity with the law of this country in Rhyl. We should not do anything in this House which will lead the religious classes of this country, who cherish the right to free speech, to suppose that this House is trying to put into the hands of local authorities the power to suppress one of the most cherished privileges which we now enjoy.
MR. H. J. WILSON: There is one matter which I think ought to be put right in this Debate. It is perfectly true that in the two cases to which reference has been made the Police and Sanitary Committee have already sanctioned clauses of this kind. I have not, however, heard it stated that there are four or five other cases where the Police and Sanitary Committee have rejected a clause of this kind. As I was not present during the earlier part of this discussion, I shall not venture to speak on the question of procedure or the local circumstances in the case of Rhyl. Next, I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet say that the Police and Sanitary Committee would be obliged to act the same in one case as in the other, but that is precisely what they have not done. That Committee judges according to the evidence in each case, and, as I have just said, it has granted the clause in two or three cases and rejected it in four or five cases.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes 107; Noes, 200. (Division List No. 200.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hayne, Rt Hn. Charles Seale-

Pilkington, Sir G. A.(L'ncs. SW)

Allen, Wee (Newt.-u.-Lyme)

Hazell, Walter

Power, Patrick Joseph

Allison, Robert Andrew

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Austin, M.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

Bainbridge, Emerson

Hogan, James Francis

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Baker, Sir John

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Barlow, John Emmott

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Schwann, Charles E.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Billson, Alfred

Jacoby, James Alfred

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Joicey, Sir James

Souttar, Robinson

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jordan, Jeremiah

Stevenson, Francis S.

Caldwell, James

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Strachey, Edward

Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Langley, Batty

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Cawley, Frederick

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb.)

Tennant, Harold John

Channing Francis Allston

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

Clough, Walter Owen

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Colville, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Commins, Andrew

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Wallace, Robert

Crombie, John William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Davitt, Michael

M'Ghee, Richard

Warner, Thomas C. T.

Dillon, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wedderburn, Sir William

Doogan, P. C.

Maddison, Fred.

Weir, James Galloway

Duckworth, James

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dunn, Sir William

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Evershed, Sydney

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Fenwick, Charles

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Woodall, William

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

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

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Moulton, John Fletcher

Woods, Samuel

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Yoxall, James Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Oldroyd, Mark

Gold, Charles

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Carvell Williams.

Harwood, George

Perks, Robert William

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

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

Finch, George H.

Aird, John

Cecil, Ld. Hugh (Greenwich)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Anstruther, H. T.

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Arnold, Alfred

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Fishier, William Hayes

Arrol, Sir William

Chamberlain, J. Austin (Worc'r

Fison, Frederick William

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

FitzGerald, Sir Robert P.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chelsea, Viscount

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

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

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Baird, John George Alexander

Coddington, Sir William

Flower, Ernest

Balcarres, Lord

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Folkestone, Viscount.

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

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Fry, Lewis

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Galloway, William Johnson

Barry, Rt Hon A H S (Hunts)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Garfit, William

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Curzon, Viscount

Gedge, Sydney

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Gibney, James

Beach, Ht. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Denny, Colonel

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

Bethell, Commander

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Biddulph, Michael

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Gunter, Colonel

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Donelan, Captain A.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord George

Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hammond, John (Carlow)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Doxford, William Theodore

Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Drage, Geoffrey

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Brown, Alexander H.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V

Heath, James

Bullard, Sir Harry

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Heaton, John Henniker

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Gl'sg'w)

Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Carlile, William Walter

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Fergusson, Ht. Hn. Sir J.(M'nc'r

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

54

55

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

Marks, Henry Hananel

Spencer, Ernest

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. H.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Howard, Joseph

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Stanley, E. Jas. (Somerset)

Howell, William Tudor

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hozier, hon. J. Henry Cecil

Milton, Viscount

Stephens, Henry Charles

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R)

Monk, Charles James

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

Stock, James Henry

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Kimber, Henry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lafone, Alfred

Myers, William Henry

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Lawrence, Sir E. D.-(Corn.)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

Thorburn, Walter

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Lecky, Ht. Hon. W. Edw. H.

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

Usborne, Thomas

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Valentia, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swan.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Penn, John

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Webster, It. G. (St. Pancras)

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Pinkerton, John

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

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Lowles, John

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lowther, Ht. Hon. Jag. (Kent)

Purvis, Robert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset),

Lowther, Rt Hn J W(Cumb'land

Pym, C. Guy

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rankin, Sir James

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

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Ridley, Rt Hon. Sir M. W.

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

Macaleese, Daniel

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

Wyndham, George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Macdona, John C

Round, James

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q. C.

Hopis, Clement Molyneux

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

M'Iver, Sir L.(Edinburgh, W.)

Samuel, Hairy S. (Limehonse)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

M'Killop, James

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Mr. Ernest Gray and Colonel Milward.

Malcolm, Ian

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
Ordered, that in the case of the Walker and Wallsend Union Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill, Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL. [Lords.]
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
IONIAN BANK BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
  TOTLAND WATER BILL. [Lords.]
    FURNESS RAILWAY BILL. [Lords.]
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment;
Cardiff Railway Bill;
Rhondda Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Heywood, Longton, Ludlow, Mirfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Rawtenstall." [Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bethnal Green, Blackheath, and Greenwich District (Extension), Lewisham District, and Plumstead." [Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Caledonian Railway Company in relation to their
58
undertaking; to authorise them to deviate certain railways of the North British Railway Company and the Forth and Clyde Junction Railway Company at Stirling; to empower the Callander and Oban and Lochearnhead, St. Fillans, and Comrie Railway Companies to widen and deviate portions of their railways; to enable the Caledonian Railway Company to subscribe to the undertaking, of the last-named Company; and for other purposes." [Caledonian Railway (General Powers) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Caledonian Railway Company and the Great North of Scotland Railway Company to alter and enlarge their Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station, and to construct certain railways and works in connection therewith; and for other purposes." [Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the South Staffordshire Tramways Company, with respect to the leasing of Tramways; and for other purposes." [South Staffordshire Tramways Bill [Lords].

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].
  ABERDEEN JOINT PASSENGER STATION BILL [Lords].
    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petition from Llantarnam, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1845.
Petition from Auldearn, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW RELIEF (DISFRANCHISEMENT).
Petition from Gateshead, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petitions in favour;—From Edinburgh;—and Paisley; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Petition from Burton-on-Trent, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petitions in favour;—From Huttons Ambo;—Fenton;—Walker Gate;—Snarsdale;—Houghton le Spring (two);—Marsden;—Blackhill;—Birtley;—Consett;—Bishop Auckland;—Rowlands Gill;—Ryton (two);—Great Lumley;—Tyne Dock (three);—Wolsingham—Darlington;—Little Lumley;—Byker;—Park;—Howden-on-Tyne;—Wigton;—Newbiggin-by-the-Sea;—Newcastle-on-Tyne (four);—Corbridge;—Berwick-on-Tweed; Acomb;—Thirsk;—Stapleton;—Great Ayton;—Deighton;—Woodford Green;—Hamsteels;—Ushaw Mood;—East Hedley Hope;—Waterhouses;—Hebburn-on-Tyne;—Lantobie;—South Shields (two);—Cote Hill;—Birdhope-craig;—Walker-on-Tyne;—Haydon Bridge;—Wardley Colliery;—Pelau;—Felling;—Greenside;—Jarrow;—Peaces West;—Blaydon-on-Tyne;—Dunmow;—and Reigate; to lie upon the Table.
TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, &c.) BILL.
Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  AFRICA (No. 5, 1899).
  Copy presented,—of Report on the Uganda Railway by Sir Guildford Molesworth, K.C.I.E., dated 28th March, 1899, with six maps [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS CLOSED, &c., 1897.
Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 20th February; Mr. Bartley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 234.]

WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Water Orders Confirmation Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 235]

COUNTY COURT OFFICERS IN IRELAND (CLERICAL ASSISTANCE).
Return ordered, "showing (1) the allowances for clerical assistance payable to County Court Officers in Ireland on the 1st day of April, 1897, and at the present time; and (2) the arrangements adopted for vouching the expenditure for such clerical assistance within the limit of the fixed allowances."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    ANTICOSTI.
    MR HOGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether one of Her Majesty's ships on the North American station has been instructed to proceed to the Island of Anticosti; and whether her captain has been commissioned to inquire into recent occurrences on that island.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Nothing is known at the Admiralty of any such action as is suggested in the hon. Member's question.

    IRELAND AND TRAINING CRUISERS.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to, ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government to send a training ship or cruiser to Tarbert Harbour, in county Kerry; whether ships have not been stationed at Tarbert several times during late years; and why is not the same practice now continued, seeing that Tarbert Harbour is one of the safest anchorages in the West of Ireland.
    MR. GOSCHEN: My answer to the first question of the hon. Member is, "Not at present." My answer to the second is in the affirmative. With regard to the third question, the answer is that other arrangements have appeared more expedient in the interests of the Service.

    NEW POLICE BARRACKS AT KEYHAM YARD, PLYMOUTH.
    MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in connection with the building of the new police barracks now in course of erection in the Keyham Yard, Plymouth, the wages are only being paid at the rate of 4s. per day, or 24s. per week; whether the work was tendered for by local contractors who were willing to pay the rate of wages current in the district, which is equal to 5s. 10d. per day; and whether the rates now being paid are consistent with the Fair Wages Resolution of February, 1891; and, if not, will he cause an inquiry into the circumstances of this case with a view of putting the matter right.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): It is not clear what classes of workmen the question refers. The several kinds of workmen employed on the work are paid at the usual Dockyard rates.

    COLONEL MITCHELL.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War will he explain under what circumstances a letter has been officially sent by Mr. T. W. Cave from the War Office to Mr. Frank Osbaldeston, solicitor, of Chancery Lane, in reply to a communication to that gentleman respecting certain money alleged to be due to his client, Colonel E Mitchell, Royal Engineers, retired, arising out of his service of 31½ years in the Army and retirement, stating that it has been found absolutely necessary to put a stop to further correspondence with Colonel Mitchell, and that the Secretary of State for War regrets that he must decline to enter into any discussion on the subject; and whether he has any objection to state who Mr. T. W. Cave is, and what is his official position, and under what order or regulation he officially conveys the directions of the Secretary of State for War.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY To THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELLWILLIAMS,): The letter referred to was written in accordance with the instructions of the Secretary of State for War by the Deputy Accountant General.

    CORK MILITARY CANTEEN.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, with reference to the contract for supplies of provisions, etc., to the Cork Military District recently given to the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, Limited, whether he is aware that, in reply to a question upon a similar subject asked on 2nd April, 1895, the late Secretary of State for War expressed the opinion that the soundest system was to permit canteen committees to manage their own affairs in these matters, and said he should view with regret any change which might tend to alter the relations between the troops and the tradespeople in their neighbourhood; and whether, under these circumstances, the War Office will reconsider their decision and decline to sanction this new departure.
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The hon. Member, in quoting the opinion of the late Secretary of State for War on the management of contracts for canteen supplies, has omitted to state that he at the sauce time expressed his complete satisfaction with the action taken by the General Officer Commanding the Cork District. As I stated to the hon Member yesterday, it is not proposed to interfere with his responsibility.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the occasion in question there was no such thing as a contract?
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I was not aware of it. I do not know to what occasion the hon. Member refers.

    INOCULATION AGAINST DISEASE IN INDIA.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can lay upon the Table of the House any official Reports on the results of inoculation in India against cholera, typhoid, and the plague.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD G. HAMILTON,): The hon. Member is aware that a Commission has for some time past been investigating the whole question of the plague in India, including that of the various forms of inoculation. I hope that weir Report may shortly he ready for publication; and I should be disposed to await it before presenting any other papers on the subject to which the hon. Member's question refers. I should add that as regards inoculation against typhoid fever no official Reports are as yet available.

    MATAAFA.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has instructed the British representative on the Samoan Commission to veto the candidature of Mataafa; and, if so, upon what grounds.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The instructions given to the British Commissioner were not such as to bind him to any course of action. The Commissioners will, it is presumed, recommend such action as after full investigation of the facts they find desirable.

    SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether slave porters engaged in the mainland strip of the Zanzibar Protectorate to go inland can be retained in slavery on their return into the Protectorate; and, if not, whether instructions will be issued to prevent their detention for the future.
    MR. BRODRICK: The legal status of a slave in the mainland strip is not changed by the fact of his having travelled in the interior.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: Do the Government intend to change the legal status on the mainland?
    No answer was given.

    OLD GAS INSURANCE IN GERMANY.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Sate for
    64
    Foreign Affairs if he will lay upon the Table of the House a translation of the Invalid and Old Age Insurance Bill which was read the third time at the sitting of the German Reichstag on the 15th June, along with a statement explanatory of the changes it will make in the system previously established.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Bill in question has not yet been received, but Her Majesty's Embassy at Berlin has been requested to send home a translation of it with explanatory notes for publication.

    THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY ARBITRATION.
    SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state if the Commissioners appointed by the various countries in the Venezuelan case have commenced their sittings; and, if so, has he any information to give the House.
    MR BRODRICK: The Arbitration Commission for the delimitation of the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana have reassembled in Paris, and held their first meeting on the 15th inst. It has been decided that the proceedings of the Commission will be generally public, and the public will be admitted by cards of admission delivered by the Secretary. Reports of the proceedings will, no doubt, appear in the public Press, but official publications will, as usual, be deferred till the conclusion of the arbitration.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is the meaning of the phrase "generally public"?
    No answer was given.

    CHINESE RIOTS AT KIEN-YANG.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any confirmation of the telegram reporting the murder by Chinese rioters of the missionaries the Rev. H. S. Phillips, Mrs. Phillips, and a lady friend, during their attempted escape from Kien-yang.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. According to a telegram from Her Majesty's Consul at Foochow, received on the 17th instant, there was a riot at Kienning on the 15th instant, when property of the Mission was

    65
    burnt and two Chinese converts were killed, but it was hoped that all foreigners were safe. Information reached the Church Missionary Society yesterday to the effect that the missionaries were safe.

    WEST AFRICAN SPIRIT DUTIES.
    MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the sanction of Her Majesty's Government has been given to the notifications issued 1st May, 1899, by the Government of Lagos and other West African possessions of the Crown that any increase in the duties on spirits imported into those possessions on or after 1st March last and not bona fide sold before the date of the commencement of the law imposing a higher rate of duty will be liable to duty at such higher rate; whether these notifications apply to the increased duties recently imposed; whether goods on which the original duty had been paid, and which had been deposited in the warehouses of British merchants but not sold prior to the promulgation of the increase are to be liable to the further duty; whether the increase will be chargeable in respect of goods which had been cleared at the Custom House and placed in the hands of native traders for sale prior to the imposition of the new duty; and whether it will be chargeable in respect of goods which were sold or contracted for, but not delivered, prior to the imposition of the new duty.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The notification in question was issued by my direction; but it has been superseded by the action subsequently taken with my approval in Lagos and the Niger Coast Protectorate. In Lagos the duty was raised to 3s. a gallon on 13th May, and this rate will only be levied on spirits imported on and after that date. In the Niger Coast Protectorate the duty of 3s. a gallon was to be charged from 16th June on spirits imported or in stock, but I have not yet received the full text of the notice which has been issued, and am therefore unable to state precisely how it will be charged.
    MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the recent increase in the duties on spirits imported into certain West African
    66
    Colonies, and to the disadvantage attaching to differential tariffs in British possessions closely contiguous, arrangements have been made to assimilate the tariff of the Niger territories to that of Lagos and the Niger Coast Protectorate as from 17th June.
    MR. J. CHAMBEREAIN: Yes. I am informed that the duty on spirits in the Niger Company's territories has been raised to 3s. per gallon, as in Lagos and the Niger Coast Protectorate.

    THE PACIFIC CABLE.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to announce a mutually satisfactory agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Canada and Australasia in reference to the construction of the Pacific Cable.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The question is still under consideration.

    AUSTRALASIAN FEDERATION.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the fact that the New South Wales Parliament has passed a resolution in favour of federation.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. friend means the New South Wales Constituent Assembly, I think?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to say that I have received a telegram from the Prime Minister of New South Wales saying that the vote in favour of federation has been passed by a great majority.

    TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, ENGINEERING DEGREE.
    MR. LECKY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the Civil Service Commissioners ignore the Engineering Degree of Trinity College, Dublin, which implies a thorough training in surveying and drawing, as a sufficient qualification for leave to compete for posts under the Land Commission or for county surveyorships; and whether he will request the said Commissioners to specify the points in which they consider that degree to be defective.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. BANBURY,): The Civil Service Commissioners do not ignore the Trinity College degree. They consider, however, that it is an insufficient qualification unless it is supplemented by practical experience in responsible professional work.

    ARDAGH CATHEDRAL.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what, if any, action was taken by the Ancient Monuments Committee at their meeting on 4th April, 1898, as regards the preservation of the ruins of the ancient Cathedral of St. Patrick, at Ardagh; whether he is aware that the Church Representative Body are standing in the way of vesting this old ruin in the Board of Works; and whether, as the graveyard in which it is situate is now closed by sealed order, any action will be taken by the latter body.
    MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first question is that no action was taken. The Church Representative Body are precluded from vesting the ruin without the consent of the local Church authority. The Board of Works have no power to initiate any action.

    WASTE LANDS IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that on the 15th April, 1898, resolutions were unanimously carried at a meeting of crofters and others of the townships of Shader, Sheshader, Aird, and Portnaguran, in the Island of Lewis, to the effect that there is ample land contiguous to those townships not suitable for grazing, but which if cultivated would afford sustenance for the numerous fishermen and cottars in these districts; is he aware that for several months in the year fishermen in the Island of Lewis find it absolutely impossible to obtain a sale for their fish on account of the fish curers not being purchasers; and will he, with a view to assist these men in providing for their families during that part of the year when they cannot prosecute their calling as fishermen with profit, consider the expediency of making such arrangements as will enable each family to acquire two acres of these waste lands.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. G. MURRAY,): I informed the hon. Member on the 26th April last that the Congested Districts Board had received these resolutions. They were considered along with a similar communication from the Stornoway Landward Committee, and the decision of the Congested Districts Board is recorded on page 14 of the appendix to their first report. I am informed by the Fishery Board that no complaints have reached them as to lack of fish buyers in the Highlands.

    SCOTTISH FISHING INDUSTRY.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Irish Congested Districts Board make arrangements for the purchase of large quantities of fish from fishermen in the congested area, will the Congested Districts Board for Scotland consider the expediency of making similar arrangements for the purchase of fish in the remote parts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland during those months of the year when the fish curers are not buyers.
    MR. A. G. MURRAY: The conditions under which the fishing industry has been carried out in Scotland for upwards of a century are so different from what has recently been attempted in Ireland that there can be no useful comparison where the circumstances are so widely different. I am informed by the Fishery Board that no complaints have reached the fishery authorities in Scotland of lack of fish buyers in the Highlands; and that a considerable number of such buyers are men residing permanently in the locality.

    SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland has this year received applications from districts outside the congested area to be defined as congested districts: and will he state the names of any new districts which have now been added to the congested area.
    MR. A. G. MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they have had no opportunity this year of adding to the congested area. About half a dozen letters of inquiry have been received, but in no case has the information asked for been supplied yet.

    SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it has been brought to his notice that the proposed gallery across the quadrangle known as Museum Square, in the South Kensington Museum, will greatly detract from the architectural beauty of the buildings; and whether, before proceeding further with the proposed alteration, he will consult with other authorities upon architecture as to the effect which this gallery would have upon the general appearance of this quadrangle,
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): It is not intended to proceed with this gallery at once, and I shall be guided ultimately in regard to its construction by the advice of the committee of architects who are assisting me on the designs.

    CASE OF COLONEL MITCHELL.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, and cause the same to be printed and circulated to Members, two petitions of right, dated respectively the 5th November, 1888, and the 22nd November, 1894, presented by Colonel E. Mitchell, retired, through the Home Secretary to the Queen, humbly praying to be paid certain money which he alleges to be due in connection with his service of 31½ years in the Army and retirement; whether Her Majesty was pleased to issue her Royal fiat on the first-named petition, and whether the second petition was kept back from Her Majesty the Queen; and whether such a course is in accordance with the Petition of Right Act of July, 1860.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The petition presented by Colonel E. Mitchell, and dated 5th November, 1888, was laid before the Queen, who issued Her Royal fiat; and the matter was tried before the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, and decided against the petitioner. The petition dated the 22nd November, 1894, was stated by the petitioner to be almost identical with another petition dated the 10th July, 1890, which had been laid before the Queen. In accordance with
    70
    the usual practice that repeated petitions on the same subject are not laid before the Queen—a practice not, in my opinion, at variance with the Petition of Right Act of 1860—the 1894 petition was returned to Colonel Mitchell. I cannot, therefore, undertake to lay this petition on the Table; but, if it be thought necessary, I do not think that there would be any objection to laying on the Table the petition of 1888.

    CARMARTHEN CHARITIES.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member representing the Charity Commissioners whether any steps have been taken by the Commissioners to secure the proper administration of the James Yalden Nevill Charity for the benefit of the poor of the parish of Llanedi, in the county of Carmarthen; whether the Commissioners will take the necessary steps to see that in future a full and complete statement of the accounts of the charity shall be annually submitted by the trustee of the charity to the Parish Council; and whether the Commissioners will take a similar course with regard to the Nevill Charity for the benefit of the poor of the parish of Llangennech, in the county of Carnarvon.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. J. G. LAWSON,): No steps have yet been taken by the Commissioners to secure the proper administration of Nevill's Charity for the poor of Llanedi, the mode of administration, which seems to be irregular, having been but recently brought to the knowledge of the Commissioners. The Commissioners will take immediate steps to secure that the accounts shall be properly kept and duly presented to the Parish Meeting, and a similar course will be taken in the case of Nevill's Charity for the poor of Llangennech.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member representing the Charity Commissioners whether the Commissioners have under their consideration any scheme for dealing with the accumulations under the Cicely Morris Charity for the benefit of the poor of the parish of Llandisilio, in the county of Carmarthen; and whether the part of the said charity which is to be applied for the

    71
    education of the children of the poor of the parish will be administered irrespective of the religions creed of the parents of the Children.
    MR. J. G. LAWSON: No application has been made to the Commissioners for dealing by a scheme with the accumulations referred to, amounting to £42 3s. 4d., at the date of the inquiry held by the Assistant Commissioner. They will be prepared to entertain such an application, if made to them. The Commissioners will take the necessary steps to secure that the part of the charity applicable to the children of the poor of the parish is administered in future in accordance with the trusts.

    GUN LICENCES IN IRELAND.
    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 why veterinary inspectors employed by the local authorities in Ireland, and acting under the orders and powers of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council Office, Dublin Castle, when using guns for the destruction of animals suffering from rabies or other diseases, are compelled to take out licences as required by the Gun Licence Act of 1870, whereas water bailiffs, who are the private employees of local boards of conservators, are exempted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue from taking out the 10s. licences imposed by the Act; and whether he will consider the expediency of exempting the veterinary inspectors from paying the licence duty when acting in the execution of their duty.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,); I have very little information as to the use of guns by veterinary inspectors, though I believe these inspectors have on rare occasions used a gun for the purpose mentioned in the question. Animals suffering from rabies are, in nearly all cases, destroyed by the police; and swine condemned for swine fever are, as a general rule, killed by butchers. The Board of Inland Revenue, upon representations made by the Irish Government some years ago, consented to exempt from payment of duty all water bailiffs who carried guns in the execution of their duty and for self-protection. It
    72
    does not appear that any sufficient reason exists for extending a similar exemption to veterinary inspectors; but if the hon. Member will name particular cases in which an inspector has been called upon to take out a licence for using a gruff for the destruction of animals suffering from disease, inquiry will be made into the matter.

    FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS IN NORTH KERRY.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great public inconvenience has been caused to a largo number of tenants in North Kerry by the fact that the Sub-Commission have not sat at Listowel to hear fair rent applications for nearly two years; whether tenants in the Listowel district, whose applications to fix fair rents were made nearly three years ago in sonic instances, are still unheard; what is the number of tenants' applications now awaiting trial at Listowel; and whether some steps can be taken to remedy this congested condition of the Land Court cases.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: A list containing a large number of cases from the locality of Listowel, as well as cases from other districts in the County Kerry, was commenced at Killarney early last month, and is now in course of disposal. That list contains all cases from the districts listed in which applications to fix fair rents were lodged in the Land Commission prior to the 1st February, 1898. There are ninety cases from that portion of the Listowel Union situate in County Kerry, and twenty-two from that portion in County Limerick still unlisted.

    IRISH BAILIFFS AND FIREARMS.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it was sworn at the Sneem Petty Sessions Court a short time ago that James Cahillane, who is a bailiff or emergency man residing at Lomanagh, near Sneem, in the County of Kerry, threatened to use firearms on one of Her Majesty's subjects; whether Cahillane has a gun licence, and does his licence permit him to keep and carry firearms; and what action will be taken by the authorities.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed that there is no foundation whatever for

    73
    the statement in the first paragraph. The individual referred to has a licence to carry a revolver.

    LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE CHARGES.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how much the excluded charges in the case of the County of Cavan amounted to by reason of the Lough Erne drainage charges; and if the Cavan County Council has been furnished with the full particulars of these excluded charges.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The amount taken as raised for "excluded charges" in the County Cavan by reason of the Lough Erne drainage charges in the standard year is £64. I am not aware whether the County Council has been furnished with the particulars of the excluded charges in this county.

    RUINS OF TARA.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an English antiquarian proceeded to dig up the most ancient portion of the ruins of Tara; whether he had any authority to do so; and whether steps will be taken to prevent such action in future.
    MR. HANBURY: The excavation of one of the mounds was suggested by an English gentleman, who, I understand, is interested in searching for the Ark of the Covenant, and the work was actually begun by the owner of the property. The Board of Works (in whom the guardianship of these mounds is vested) had given no authority for the excavation, and on learning that it was contemplated they took immediate steps to warn the owner of its illegality. He abandoned the work at once, and the mound has now been restored to its former condition. The Board of Works are thoroughly alive to the interest felt in the remains of Tara, and they will not consent to anything which would interfere with the structure or appearance of the mounds as they stand. Nor will they permit any examination of them, however harmless, without the fullest consideration and conference with the two principal antiquarian societies of Ireland.
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the name of the antiquarian who
    74
    is searching for the Ark of the Covevant?
    MR. HANBURY: No, Sir.

    IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the form of accounts for county councils and district councils; whether, in keeping one set of accounts, i.e., the rates account, the clerk of the county council has to enter up for every ratepayer in the comity twenty-two columns across the ledger; and whether, as this form of account keeping will mean an immense increase in the staff required to keep the accounts of the county, Le will consider the advisability of immediately recalling this order and issuing a simpler form.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. With reference to the second paragraph, it is estimated that not more than one-half the columns will require to be filled as regards each rating, and each name will only have to be entered once in each half-year. It is difficult to see how the account could be simplified consistently with the provisions of the Local Government Act and the Orders in Council, but if any county council can suggest some simpler plan which will serve the purpose equally the Local Government Board will be prepared to consider it.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Why could not the old system have been kept in force?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Because it was not consistent with the Act.

    EDGEWORTHSTOWN LOAN FUND SOUIETY.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Edgeworthstown, County Longford, Loan Fund Society collapsed in consequence of the dishonesty of an official; whether it has been brought to his notice that its accounts were duly vouched by the auditor of the Loan Fund Board at a time of hopeless insolvency and mismanagement, and that many widows and poor persons have lost all their savings by becoming debenture-holders; and whether, having

    75
    regard to the general lack of care taken by the Dublin Castle Board in looking after this society, the Government will introduce a short Bill to enable these poor debenture-holders to be compensated for their loss.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member will find the question fully replied to in an answer given by me to the hon. Member for East Cork on the 23rd February, 1897.

    DISTRES IN THE KILLARNEY UNION.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution unanimously adopted by the Guardians of the Killarney Union, urging on the Congested Districts Board to open relief works in the Coom division of the Killarney Union; whether distress and want of employment prevails in Coom division to a large extent; and whether the Congested Districts Board will be asked to open up useful works in the division.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The resolution referred to has been received. The Guardians have been informed that the Congested Districts Board have no power to expend their funds on the opening of relief works. As regards the second paragraph, the Local Government Board inspector has frequently visited this Union during the past few months, and no reports have reached him of the existence of exceptional distress in any part of the Union. The inspector will again visit the district of Coom at an early date.
    MR. FLAVIN: Has the inspector specially reported on his visit to Coom?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No report has been received as to this special district.

    THE LAKES OF KILLARNEY.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that the public bodies of Kerry, including the Kerry County Council, have unanimously passed resolutions calling on the Government to purchase as a national park the Herbert Estate now offered for sale; whether he is aware that a general expression of opinion prevails throughout the United Kingdom that Killarney ought
    76
    to be saved from falling into the hands of private individuals, who may possibly altogether close up the grounds or further restrict the few privileges which tourists enjoy in their visit to Killarney; and whether Her Majesty's Government could find some means of buying and preserving for the benefit of the public this attractive estate.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I cannot add much to what I said yesterday in answer to a question from another hon. Gentleman on the same subject. I believe it is the fact that the County Council of Kerry has passed a resolution in the terms suggested by the question, but I have no evidence that there is a general feeling throughout the United Kingdom that public money ought to be spent in obtaining this public park in Killarney, and there must be obvious objections to the expenditure of public money for such purposes at a place very far distant from any centres of population, and which, from the nature of the case, is not of much value to tourists during many months of the year.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is there not some fund out of which a grant could be made to the County Council so that this place may be reserved for the general public; can nothing be obtained from the Financial Relations Committee?
    No answer was given.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 7:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 31, to leave out all the words from the beginning of the clause to the word 'after,' in line 32."—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
Question again, proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I understand the object of my hon. and learned friend the Member for the

77
Border Burghs, who moved this Amendment, is to raise the question whether after a local inquiry has been held on a Private Bill, the Bill should be referred again to an inquiry before a Departmental Committee. I would suggest to my hon. and learned friend that the form of the Amendment is somewhat inconvenient, and I doubt whether this clause is the proper place in which to raise the question. I think very great inconvenience would follow the acceptance of the Amendment. My hon. and learned friend proposes to leave out all the words at the beginning of the clause, but this is the very first place in the Bill where power is given to the Secretary for Scotland to do anything, and if my hon. and learned friend succeeds in his Amendment the result will be that the Secretary for Scotland will be precluded from doing anything at all until after a local inquiry. I think, therefore, that my hon. and learned friend would be well advised to withdraw his Amendment at this stage, and raise the question on Clause 9, which deals with the reference of Bills to a Joint Committee. There is also another reason why I would venture to suggest that this course should be taken. If we take a Division on the Amendment it will no doubt be rejected, and the result will be that the words in question will stand part of the clause. Now the words at the beginning of the clause require a great deal, I will not say of discussion, but of explanation. It seems to me that Clause 7 as it stands is unintelligible. "If there is no opposition to the Order," "the Secretary for Scotland may forthwith make the Order as prayed"; but if you turn to Clause 8 you find that that clause contemplates a case in which there is no opposition also, but an inquiry has been held, in which event a certain course of procedure is to be followed. It appears to me that Clause 7 should begin without mentioning absolutely that qualification, and then proceed as in Clause 8 to deal with the ease where there is no opposition to the Order, but where inquiry took place. There should be inserted some such phrase as "And if no inquiry has been held"; then the course which the right hon. the Lord Advocate suggested will be followed, and if an inquiry has been held then the other course is to be followed. The real antithesis is not between opposed and unopposed Bills, but between Bills on
78
which a local inquiry has been held and those on which there has been no local inquiry. I suggest to the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs to withdraw his Amendment, and to raise it again on Clause 9. As I am dealing with the words that are in question now, I would also draw the attention of the Lord Advocate to the meaning of the word "forthwith," when it is considered in connection with the words which precede. I suppose it applies to cases in which the opposition has been withdrawn; then the Scotch Secretary may make the Order as contemplated. But in the case in which there is no opposition I do not know whether the word "forthwith" is seriously meant to be "at once," without giving time for opposition subsequently to arise. Then, again, there is another phrase which really will have to be carefully considered, and that is "either before or after inquiry has been held as herein-before provided." That is a case in which there has been opposition and the opposition has been withdrawn, or where the withdrawal has been made before or after the inquiry. I take it that that is what it must mean; but I think that it ought to be made more clear. And if that is what it does mean, a subsequent question will arise as to what the intention of Parliament really is on that part of the Bill. Assuming that to be the proper meaning of the clause, I would like to ask whether it is the intention of the Government, when there has been opposition, and when there has been inquiry, and possibly a Report, and that opposition has been withdrawn after the inquiry and Report, that the Secretary for Scotland should ignore altogether the inquiry and the Report, and proceed to make forthwith the Order as prayed. Although the clause contemplates that the withdrawal may take place after there has been inquiry before the Commissioners, and conceivably after the Commissioners have made their Report, it seems to me that four or five serious cases of misinterpretation may arise on these lines. If my hon. and learned friend were to persevere with his Amendment, he might preclude us, at this stage of the Bill, from considering the points I have raised. On that ground, and on the ground that he has chosen the wrong field on which to raise the question he wants to settle, and that he had better raise it on Clause 9, I venture to hope that he will withdraw his Amendment

79
now, and allow us to take the discussion as to the meaning of the words of Clause 7.
MR. THOMAS SHAW: I am very anxious to facilitate any proceedings under this Bill. I must say that the right hon. and learned the Lord Advocate last night met me in a spirit which I thought would facilitate the discussion. He took my first Amendment, which is part of a scheme which I have set up before the House, and, so taking it, I thought that we should discuss at this stage the general scheme, which is, Should there be a Parliamentary inquiry in Scotland, and also on the back of that a Parliamentary inquiry in London? I do not propose to withdraw my Amendment, but I propose to go on with the discussion on it, and to accept loyally the decision that may be taken upon it, and that decision will not be met by me in any spirit of obstruction. I wish, if I may be allowed, to make a direct appeal to the Leader of the House on this subject. I may explain that the position of the Amendments which I have placed on the Paper is this. We have now secured by the concession granted by the Government that the tribunal which will hold these inquiries shall sit locally. In accordance with the views so clearly expressed by the Leader of the House yesterday, both Houses of Parliament, by their Joint Committee, are to visit the spot affected by the Bill and there make their inquiry. If that is so, my idea is that the Bill will be upset as to all the advantages of cheapness and promptitude if you re-duplicate another Parliamentary proceeding in England. I may say that I appeal to the Leader of the House, because what I am now doing is completely confirmed by what the Government did in a former part of the Unionist régime. In the session of 1892 the right hon. Gentleman himself introduced a Bill in the House of Commons, which certainly did not set up a Parliamentary inquiry on the spot, but what was clearly what I may call an extra-Parliamentary inquiry for the information of Parliament. But the right hon. Gentleman's scheme in that Bill was so completely in accord with my Amendment that one of the sections of the Bill was to the effect that if the preamble were proved before he Gram! Committee, then the Bill was sent to a Third Reading in this House,
80
and not to a Select Committee. That is exactly what I want to achieve by the present Amendment. I find that that was the settled policy of the Government of that day, because under the Act of 1891 there were clauses applicable to subsequent procedure in Parliament, and one of these clauses was in this form that, whatever happened, and whatever was to be done after the report of the local inquiry, the parties should not be entitled to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I only say that to confirm the view, which I hope is shared on both sides of the House, that the value of this Bill will be largely dissipated if, while you save expense by taking Parliament to Scotland, much more expense will be heaped up again by bringing the local persons to Westminster. I regret that I cannot agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment, for that, I am afraid, would be to waste the time of the Committee, but I shall loyally accept the decision of the Committee upon it.
SIR JOHN LENG: The understanding in Scotland has certainly been that the local inquiry was to conic in substitution of an inquiry, in London, whereas, from the statement made last night by the right hon. and learned the Lord Advocate, it now appears that in certain circumstances there is to be a local inquiry plus a Parliamentary inquiry in London. If this is really the intention of the Government, I think that they will be very much disappointed with the reception of their proposal. There has been in many quarters a distinct recognition of the merits of local inquiry, and it was certainly with the idea that it was to be one inquiry. Whereas, if you have first of all the expense and trouble connected with an inquiry on the spot, with witnesses called and so forth, and if, after all, that has to be gone over again in London, it will not answer the purpose for which it was understood this Bill was framed. The idea has always been that this change was to bring about simplicity and cheapness, but instead of that we shall have complication and increased expenditure. The Lord Advocate contended that it was necessary to do this in order to secure Parliamentary control, but under the scheme shadowed last night there will be abundant Parliamentary control. The new Committee is to be constituted of

81
Members of the two Houses of Parliament, and when their Report is framed it is to come on at what may be called the Report stage for confirmation by the House. What more Parliamentary control is needed? If I were an opponent of this measure I should certainly welcome the course which the Government has taken, because I am satisfied that it will quite reverse the idea in Scotland of the purpose of this Bill. In place of its being popular, it will become an unpopular measure when the municipalities and all those interested in the matter find that, instead of having a single inquiry and a single Report, we are to have this double procedure. I appeal to the Lord Advocate and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, if they wish this Bill to be appreciated in Scotland, that they should abandon altogether the idea of a second inquiry in London after there has been an inquiry in Scotland.
MR. THORBURN: The second inquiry will practically vitiate all benefits of the Bill, and if the object of the Amendment is to prevent a second inquiry I shall certainly vote for it.
MR. RENSHAW: Following the remarks which the hon. Member for Dundee made to the Committee just now, I should like to point out that this is not a surprise to those who have been following this Bill. The hon. Member for Dundee rather seems to think that this matter was sprung upon us last night by a statement by the First Lord. That is not the case. I am perfectly certain that very loud objections would have been heard in many parts of Scotland if it had not been that a provision of this kind had been inserted. Because, after all, what would be the position of people who would conic to the House under the clause we are now considering? I understand that we are considering the whole of this case under the Amendment, and any Division which is taken upon this Amendment practically decides the whole matter. The position is this. There will be a local inquiry, when the parties interested will have an opportunity of being heard. If, after that inquiry, people in the locality discover that they are going to be affected in a way in which they did not believe they were going to be affected at the
82
time of the application for the Provisional Order, then, unless another inquiry is possible, there will be no opportunity of being heard or of making their objection effective. I do hope that the Government will express their intention of adhering to the provision of this measure, as it has been before the House and before the country for so long a time. It is a matter of the greatest anxiety to those who are interested whether so vital a change in the Bill is going to be made.
MR. BRYCE: I do not wish to express a final opinion as to the right course to be taken until we have heard the opinion of the Government further on the matter. But there are two points which strike me as being worthy of consideration. One is, and I say this with deference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrew, that the whole system of the Bill has been entirely changed by the introduction of a provision that the first inquiry shall he held by a Committee consisting of Members of the two Houses. That meets the difficulty which was felt in the first instance by the Government when they framed the Bill, of removing the control of Parliament. The control of Parliament is now absolute, and therefore in that respect the Bill is entirely different from what it was originally. There is, therefore, I think, a prima facie case for the consideration of this Amendment by the Government. The second remark which occurs to me is this. Under Clause 9 it will be a matter of course that a Bill on being referred back to the House by the Secretary for Scotland will automatically go before the Joint Committee. Is it necessary that the inquiry before that body should be an automatic one? Should it not rather be for those who desire another inquiry to make their case out for such a course, and that a special order of the House or some authority should be necessary before that further inquiry takes place?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. G. MURRAY,): This matter, so far from being a new departure, which the hon. Member for Dundee seems to think, is really one of the topics that have been most discussed. I should be sorry to say how many speeches I have made on this Bill, but in those speeches, and not only in the speeches on this Bill, but on other

83
Bills, I have again and again been confronted with the question of Parliamentary control. Unless I am a very bad judge of the general feeling of the House, I think this Amendment is a complete volte face on the question. I quite understand that the constitution of the Committee of Inquiry has been changed, and now commands the confidence of hon. Members in a way in which the original proposal did not, but we must reflect that in every form of Parliamentary inquiry hitherto known an opportunity has always been given to an opponent to have an appeal on the merits. For instance, in the case of a Private Bill, after an inquiry in the one House the opponent can always renew the inquiry in the other House. Moreover, so careful is Parliament in the matter of Provisional Orders that we give the possibility not of two but of three inquiries. Accepting all the confidence placed by hon. Members in the tribunal which has been now constituted, surely four Members of Parliament going down to Scotland are not necessarily much wiser than if they had stayed in Westminster, and accordingly it would be a very strong step to take away from an opponent, who must be deeply interested, this appeal upon the merits. Therefore, both on the merits of the case and because I cannot go back on what I look upon as my pledges to the great body of the House, I am not able to accept the Amendment.
DR. CLARK: I am very much amused at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because I remember that the present Lord Justice Clerk, when he was Lord Advocate, laid it down in a Bill which we discussed for several weeks that it was the most important point in the measure that there should be no appeal from the local tribunal. What the Lord Advocate then fought for was that the Commissioners should have an inquiry, but that if there was an appeal and the matter again came before Parliament, that it should be referred back again to the same Commission upon special points. If, after the inquiry had been made, it could be shown that something had been overlooked, then the Commission would again report to the House. But both Houses in the clauses of that Bill were absolutely prevented from appointing a Select Committee or from doing anything else than referring it back again to the Commis-
84
sioners. There are two strong arguments against having a double inquiry. The first is that it is what everyone has been trying for many years past to get remedied and reformed, and the Committee of 1888 and everybody interested in this question have always been in favour of a Joint Committee inquiry, which is partly judicial and partly legislative. One of the good things in this Bill we have always agreed is that there would be a Joint Committee of both Houses, and that both Houses would be compelled to receive their Report. You have taken away the Chairmen and the Secretary for Scotland, so that the opponent will have an absolute right to come to Parliament. You will have had all the local costs, and you will have the second costs here. Everyone in this House who is acquainted with the matter knows that the reason why, in 1846, 1847, and 1848, the local inquiries were unsatisfactory and Parliament had to repeal the Act giving local inquiries was because those who held the inquiries were not persons who ought to decide questions of this sort. In this Joint Committee of Lords and Commons there is everything that we desire, and if the decision were appealed against it would only be an appeal to the same class of persons. The second argument is that it may be difficult to get Members of both Houses to go down to Scotland, and it would be much more difficult if some other gentlemen could easily be appealed to afterwards to undo the work. You would not find Members of either House eager to go and do this work if what they did was to be set aside in this manner. It is a novelty, and I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will support what on a former occasion he considered the best plan. Now that we have got the kind of Commissioners we have always considered would be the best for the purpose, I hope the Bill will be passed in this form, because it will then be a very good Bill. But I am afraid, with these double costs and double appeals, instead of being useful and effecting the reforms we expect it to do, it will be very prejudicial and very costly.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I consider that the present Amendment carries out the objects of the promoters of this Bill, because I always understood that its object was to simplify and render less costly and more convenient the procedure

85
in regard to Private Bill legislation in certain parts of the United Kingdom. The Lord Advocate's speech really seemed to be not in defence of the Bill, but in defence of the present system. He spoke of the necessity of there always being an appeal on the merits, and he instanced the present system of hearing the same case twice over by Committees of the two Houses. That is a point upon which I thought everybody was agreed—that it would be desirable in most cases, at all events, to substitute one Joint Committee for two separate Committees. I am afraid that the critical nature of this question is hardly appreciated. The Government have made very large and important changes in their Bill, the most important no doubt being the creation of what is practically a tribunal of the two Houses sitting locally in all sorts of places in Scotland. What is to follow? According to the Government's own plan, if a Bill reported and passed by this local Parliamentary tribunal is unopposed, the control of this House is to be maintained by passing this Order through the Report and Third Reading stages, and on either of those occasions there will be an opportunity for amending or rejecting the provisions of the Order. That is considered necessary in the case of unopposed Bills. Surely that is sufficient protection for preserving the Parliamentary control—which we all value—in the case of opposed Bills, considering that these opposed Bills have been sifted—and, we are entitled to assume, carefully sifted—by a Committee composed of Members of each House. It has been suggested that we ought to follow the analogy of the Provisional Order system. But Provisional Orders in the first instance are not made by Joint Committees; they are made by an official of a public Department sent down to make a local inquiry, and it is eminently necessary in such cases that there should be Parliamentary control. But the case is not analogous. The Government have already conceded the full Parliamentary tribunal, and there can no longer he any shadow of excuse in the matter of these gas and water inquiries for having an appeal from the local Committee to what is evidently a similar tribunal in London. If the Government insist upon this, they will make the Bill quite useless for the purpose for which it was intended. It will no longer provide a simpler and less costly pro-
86
cedure; it will become a dead letter, and the object which the great majority of the House has at heart—that of reforming this procedure and making it more convenient for localities—will be entirely defeated.
MR. SOUTTAR: I desire to say a word or two on this question; first, because it is a very important point; secondly, because the Lord Advocate has been so conciliatory with regard to many points; and thirdly, because I think we are going to get a very good Bill for Scotland, and it is a pity that it should be spoilt. The alterations that have been made have made us believe that we are going to get a fine, good-working measure. If the Lord Advocate would accept this Amendment it would be entirely in accordance with all that he has been saying and doing with regard to the Bill—not as it originally stood, but as it now stands. When we were discussing the question of making it optional to promoters to apply for either Provisional Order or Private Bill as they might feel inclined, he very strongly impressed upon the House the necessity for making it compulsory; because, he said, it would be entirely to the advantage of the rich suitor as against the poor one if it were otherwise. Now he is neutralising that action, because he knows perfectly well that the only man who can appeal to London and have a second inquiry is the rich man. The appeal to the House of Lords to-day is the privilege of the rich man, and it will be exactly the same with regard to this. The Lord Advocate also said once or twice that it is a great protection that the appellant may be mulcted in costs. But that, again, is entirely to the advantage of the rich man, because the rich man does not care what the costs may be. The second reason why I think this Amendment would be entirely in accordance with the Bill as now amended arises from this fact. We were all agreed that it was exceedingly desirable that there should be some means of Parliamentary control—first, because we were doubtful about the tribunal, and, secondly, because we did not want to put too much power in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland. The tribunal is now all right. Just as the courts of law move through the country, Parliament is going to move through the country, and we have great confidence that

87
the tribunal, as the Lord Advocate has now established it, will be exceedingly satisfactory. Parliamentary control is also all right. A provision has been inserted which gives Parliament the right in connection with every measure to have the final word. Therefore there is no reason, as far as I can see, why control should be heaped upon control, and expense heaped upon expense; and if there is no reason for it, there is every reason against it. The first is the expense. There is not the slightest doubt that, unless this or sonic other Amendment like it is accepted, the expense will be increased to such an extent as to endanger the action of this otherwise excellent Bill. The second reason is the lack of responsibility which there will be upon the Committee, because the Members will feel that the case will, after all, be tried in London; and just as a grand jury always argue that it is not worth going into the question, because the common jury will go into it thoroughly, so the members of the Committee will argue that, as the case is going up to London, they need not inquire very carefully into its merits. Nor could it be at all for the dignity of the Committee that there decisions should be reversed. I do trust that the Lord Advocate will act with regard to this as he has acted with regard to so many matters, and will take away this blot from that which I believe is going to be a very excellent Scotch Bill.
MR. CRIPPS: Undoubtedly this Amendment, if accepted, will alter the whole framework of the Bill, both as regards suitors and as regards the control of this House. May I remind the Committee of what the alteration is? As the Bill originally stood you were to select your local tribunal or panel, partly of Members of Parliament and partly appointed from outside. What is your position? You still select your members from the panel, but you are merely giving preference to the Members of both Houses of Parliament. If they refuse to serve it will be exactly the same tribunal as before. I am as anxious as anyone to have simplification and economy, but it would be a very great mistake to have the simplicity and economy at the expense of justice. The number of appeals is infinitesimal after local inquiry has been held; but it is only right when an appeal does come up that justice should
88
be done and the case be properly heard. There is another argument to which I should like to draw attention. Of course there will be a question as to whether the procedure will be based on Private Bill procedure. I apprehend that the considerable factor in the question will be the nature and character of the Bill. If it is so constituted that you have this right of appeal I think there would be a very much stronger argument for this procedure than if there were no right of appeal at all. Therefore in the interests of this measure we ought to put it on the justest possible basis. There is not one change in the form of the Bill which would justify a clause of this kind. I think if hon. Gentlemen had been in this House yesterday they would know that what the Lord Advocate said was true, that this Amendment would upset the basis of the Bill.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: I only want to say one word in answer to the hon. Member for Leith. The Committee will no doubt be surprised to hear that from the year 1888 to 1897 inclusive there were 1,973 Provisional Orders confirmed by the House of Commons. There were only seventy-five of those in which there was opposition, and in only seven cases was that opposition successful. If that is so, and that tribunal was not so good as the one which is now about to be set up, it goes without saying there will be many less appeals.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If there is so little ground for appeal, then I cannot see the necessity for this machinery. The people first of all wish for local inquiry, and we in this House have stipulated that if there is a local inquiry it shall also be a Parliamentary inquiry in the locality. If it is a Parliamentary inquiry we need not have another Parliamentary inquiry here. So long as it is not a Parliamentary inquiry, and our jealousy and our suspicions of the somewhat singular series of tribunals that have existed for some years is in full flow, we ought to have a chance to appeal to the Parliamentary wisdom of the country. I do not, on the whole, think that there is anything in the point that has been urged. If the matter is to come up again in the form of a Parliamentary Committee you will have great difficulty in getting Members of Parliament to go down on the

89
Committee of local inquiry. They will probably say, "Why should we go down to Aberdeen or Inverness, or some other remote corner of the earth in order to do this service to the country when we can do it just as well here?" At the present moment a Member thinks that to go down to Scotland will not only do him good, but that he can do public service at the
same time. Do not let us destroy the work of our hands by setting up a tribunal which is to reverse or supervise what has been done with so much labour on this spot.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 201.)

AYES.

Acland Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Curzon, Viscount

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Aird, John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Allhusen, A. Henry Eden

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Arrol, Sir William

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowe, Francis William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Doxford, William Theodore

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

Drage, Geoffrey

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Baird, John George Alexander

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Macartney, W. G. E.

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Macdona, John Cumming

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

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

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Banbury, Frederick George

Finch, George H.

Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bartley, George C. T.

Fison, Frederick William

Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir Herbert E.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

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

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Milward, Colonel Victor

Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.)

Flower, Ernest

Monk, Charles James

Beckett, Ernest William

Folkestone, Viscount

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Mount, William George

Blakiston-Houston, John

Fry, Lewis

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

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Galloway William Johnson

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Garfit, William

Myers, William Henry

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Boulnois, Edmund

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Pease, Herbt. P. (Darlington)

Bousfield, William Robert

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Pierpoint, Robert

Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Brassey, Albert

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goschen, George J.(Sussex)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Butcher, John George

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Purvis, Robert

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glas.)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

Pym, C. Guy

Carlile, William Walter

Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Rentoul, James Alexander

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

Hatch, Ernest Fredk. Geo.

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Heaton, John Henniker

Ridley, Rt Hon Sir Matthew W.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas Thomson

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Chamberlain, J. A (Worc'r)

Howard, Joseph

Round, James

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Charrington, Spencer

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Chelsea, Viscount

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

Rutherford, John

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plym.)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Coddington, Sir William

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Seton-Karr, Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Kimber, Henry

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

Lawrence, Sir E. Durn'g- (Cor.)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Spencer, Ernest

Cross, Herb. Shep. (Bolton)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Llewellyn, Sir Dillywn-(Swan.)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Stock, James Henry

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Wortley, Ht. Hon. C. B. S.-

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Wyndham, George

Strauss, Arthur

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L)

Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

Williams, Joseph P. (Birm'm)

Valentia, Viscount

Willox, Sir John Archibald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

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

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

Palmer, Sir Ch. M. (Durham)

Allen, Wm (Newc. under Lyme)

Hammond, John (Carlow)

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Allison, Robert Andrew

Harwood, George

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Asquith, Rt. hon. Herb. Hy.

Rayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Pilkington, Sir GA(Lancs SW)

Baker, Sir John

Hazell, Walter

Pinkerton, John

Barlow, John Emmott

Hedderwick, Thos. C. H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Ch. H.

Price, Robert John

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hobhouse, Henry

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Billson, Alfred

Hogan, James Francis

Richardson, J.(Durham, S.E.)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Horniman, Frederick John

Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Burns, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Schwann, Charles E.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

Caldwell, James

Joicey, Sir James

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Kearley, Hudson E.

Souttar, Robinson

Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Spicer, Albert

Causton, Richard Knight

Kitson, Sir James

Stewart, Sir Mk. J. Taggart

Cawley, Frederick

Langley, Batty

Strachey, Edward

Channing, Francis Allston

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sullivan Donal (Westmeath)

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

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Clough, Walter Owen

Leng, Sir John

Tennant, Harold John

Colville, John

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Commins, Andrew

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr

Crilly, Daniel

Lough, Thomas

Thorburn, Walter

Crombie, John William

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Macaleese, Daniel

Wallace, Robert

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

MacDonnell, Dr MA(Queen's C

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

MacNeill, J. Gordon Swift

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Ewan, William

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Ghee, Richard

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Devitt, Michael

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Denny, Colonel

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wills, Sir William Henry

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Killop, James

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull)

Doogan, P. C.

Maddison, Fred.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Duckworth, James

Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Dunn, Sir William

Mendl, Sigismund F.

Wilson, John (Govan)

Evershed, Sydney

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Woodhall, William

Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carm'rth'n)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hud'rsf'd)

Fenwick, Charles

Morgan, W. Pritchd.(Merthyr)

Woods, Samuel

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wylie, Alexander

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Fowler, Rt. Hon Sir Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Gibney, James

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Gold, Charles

Oldroyd, Mark

Mr. Munro Ferguson.

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

MR. A. G. MURRAY: The Amendment which stands in my name is in furtherance of my promise to hon. Members, and it is practically the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark with certain alterations, which according to the best authorities of the House ought to be made. The object of the hon. Member was to give Parliamentary control in the
92
case of unopposed Orders, and to prevent there being any Committee stage here, and enable the Bill after introduction to at once pass to the Consideration stage.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 10, to leave out sub-section (2), and insert—'(2) No order so made shall be of any validity unless it has been confirmed by

93
Parliament; and the Secretary for Scotland shall, as soon as conveniently may be, submit such order to Parliament in a Bill (hereinafter referred to as a Confirmation Bill), and such Bill, after introduction, shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including Committee, and shall be ordered to be considered in either House as if reported from a Committee. When such Bill has been read a third time in the first House of Parliament the like proceedings shall, subject to Standing Orders, be taken in the second House of Parliament. Any Act passed to confirm such Order shall be deemed to be a public Act of Parliament.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
Amendment agreed to.
Other Amendments made.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:—
Amendments made.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:—
MR. CRIPPS: The Amendment standing in my name is, I think, an important one, because of the procedure in Parliament, and I should like to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to the Act of 1888, because the words that I propose to insert are taken from that Act verbatim. This House will recollect that the scheme of that Bill was that first of all there should be an inquiry before the Board of Trade, and that after that there should be a joint inquiry of both Houses. The intention from the outset was that there should be a Joint Committee, but it was not put as a statutory obligation upon this House or the House of Lords that they were to appoint a Joint Committee. That has never been clone. What has been done is that the matter has been left for either House to deal with under the Standing Orders. I think that it would be an unfortunate thing if we were to allow the procedure in the House of Commons or the House of Lords to be decided in this way by Statute instead of by way of Standing Orders. My submission is that a Bill passed through this House ought to be subject to our Standing Order procedure, and under these circumstances I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 24, to leave out from 'shall,' to end of sub-section, and insert 'so far as it relates to the matter petitioned against, be
94
referred to a Select Committee, or, if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, to a Joint Committee of such Houses, and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose, as in the case of a Private Bill.'"—(Mr. Cripps.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. A. G MURRAY: I think I have already, in the course of the discussion, given practically the answer to the argument of my hon. friend, and his logic does not carry the matter much further. If he is right, it is quite obvious that we can never have private legislation by Bill at all, because private legislation is subject to the Standing Orders of this House. We wish to alter that, and if we cannot put into an Act of Parliament, and if we do not put into the Bill, something which curtails the procedure of the House under the Standing Orders, we cannot have the Bill at all. Surely in these days that is necessary if you wish to make a real reform in this case. If we accept the suggestion of my hon. and learned friend there can be no certainty with regard to its effect, for each year the procedure may be altered by the Standing Orders either of one House or the other.
MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member for Stroud, as has been pointed out by the Lord Advocate, is not consistent with the Amendment which he moves. He must feel that it is impossible for him to give effect to his object by this Bill. I support the contention of the Lord Advocate.
SIR F S. POWELL: I think it is a great departure from sound principles that the procedure of this House should in any way be controlled by the statute law. I think it is a derogation from the dignity attaching to proceedings in Parliament. The Lord Advocate says that it is necessary to adopt his words in order to carry his intentions; but I do not think it is necessary, and my hon. and learned friend has showed us the way of escaping that. If that is done the freedom of Parliament will remain unimpaired. That appears tome to be a strong argument in favour of the Amendment, because under it we shall be able to alter our Standing Orders. Those Standing Orders have been changed from time to time with great benefit to the carrying on of our proceed

95
ings, and also with great benefit to the community. Therefore I think that argument tells in favour of the Amendment, and not against it. I sincerely regret the action of the Government in this matter. They do not explain what is to be this procedure in regard to the cost, or by what means the House of Commons and House of Lords will have control under this provision.
DR. CLARK: Every Bill has a clause of this kind in it, and this is a most important precedent, for we have always desired to hold in our own hands the control of the money. Now this Government has brought in a Bill by which the whole matter has been entirely changed. In several Bills which have been passed this session the financial control has passed away from this House entirely.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This is a matter in which I should like to see a change, and if I had the opportunity I should make an attempt to alter this system. I want to put one point to the Lord Advocate. Admittedly, this is an experimental Bill, and it may be highly desirable to leave liberty of action to this House, and to follow the method of procedure by Standing Orders. It might be found desirable and of the greatest possible advantage to do the very thing which the second sub-section of this clause prohibits being done and which is made unlawful. This would be swept away by the consequential Amendments which come after. It does seem to me to be most highly desirable that this House should not part with its powers of dealing with financial matters under exceptional forms of legislation. Of course, to my mind, the first sub-section is, to a considerable extent, guarded, because it is provided that it shall be subject to the Standing Orders, but the obnoxious words are those which provide that it shall not be lawful to refer a Confirmation Bill to a Select Committee. I think it is a very undesirable thing to say that it shall not be lawful for Parliament to do a thing which it is very desirable that Parliament should do. It is a very dangerous thing to infringe the power of Parliament by varying the Standing Orders. When you have found that a Standing Order is incomplete or impossible to be fulfilled, or desirable for any reason to be altered,
96
you have the power to alter it; but if you pass a cast-iron Act of Parliament, and make it unlawful to refer a Confirmation Bill to a Select Committee, then I think you are setting up a very dangerous principle, and you are practically tying the hands of Parliament. My hon. and learned friend would put an end to this by his Amendment. I do not say at all that we should never in any degree alter the practice, but we should leave it open to Parliament to follow the old practice, and I think it is extremely desirable to leave it in the power of Parliament to do that.
MR. CRIPPS: What we are dealing with here is the procedure in Parliament itself. The point is, Are we to have these statutory regulations or be governed by our Standing Orders when Bills are passing through this House? I want it to be clearly understood that the reason why I raise this point is not that I desire to alter the substance of the Bill. Why should we go against constitutional precedents? It is all very well to say that this is only one particular instance, but if you once start by going against constitutional precedents you may find them heaped up against you in many ways. We do not want to put our procedure in antagonism to statutory procedure, for that would be most unfortunate. The right hon. gentleman said that another Joseph may arise.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: No, I said that another king may arise.
MR. CRIPPS: Why should we lose the power of control which we ought to have, and of which, of all others, we should not be deprived? It is quite clear that if we sought in this House to do something which was inconsistent with statutory regulations we could be restrained in some form or another. The exact form may be difficult to explain, but we should be restrained because there would be a larger power than ourselves. Do not let us be led away by these false analogies, because what we are dealing with here is not subject to procedure in Parliament. The question is, Are we to give up our control in regard to procedure while these matters are before the House? I consider that that is an extremely important constitutional point. I do not think

97
there is any substance in my hon. friend's objection. I think it is a mistake to bring about a change of this kind, and surely it is a mistake to interfere with our constitutional privileges, and I hope we shall not be led away with the idea that the precedent which will be established is not a large one.
MR. CALDWELL: There is also another question, and it is that this House has the constitutional right to regulate its own procedure with regard to the Bills passing through this House. If we desire to hind the other House as well as this House we can only do it by Statute.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. RENSHAW: The Amendment which I have to propose is one which I think will save a great deal of expense.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 24, after 'referred, to' insert 'together with the evidence taken before the Conunissioners.'"—(Mr. Renshaw.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. G. MURRAY: I think anyone who has had any experience of judicial work will recognise that there is really nothing so difficult as for an untrained person to come to a determination upon evidence not laid before himself, but before another body. Without the slightest disrespect to Parliamentary Committees, which are well fitted to get a general view of what passes before them, I do think that they have not that specific training which is necessary in dealing with matters of this kind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That Clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. THOMAS SHAW: Upon this question I do not propose to take any Division, and I intend to carry out the undertaking I gave upon a former occasion. I would like, however, to say just one word, and that is, that as regards Clauses 8 and 9 of this Bill I think no one can read them without seeing how very complex and extremely expensive
98
the whole procedure will become under the Bill. The second matter to which I wish to draw attention is that I hope Her Majesty's Government will read the Division list upon the Amendment which I submitted to the House, because I think a perusal of that list will show that substantially the opinion of Scotland is united in desiring that there shall be no double inquiry as provided by this measure. That is my concluding observation, and in the interest of the progress of the Bill itself, in view of the Report stage, I hope the Government may be able to make some arrangement under which any opposition to the Bill may be at last taken out of the way by a concession which will satisfy not only Scotch opinion as a whole, but even the opinion of other parts of the country which was represented so powerfully in the last Division list.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:—
MR. RENSHAW: I think the Committee will appreciate the importance of having such an adviser as the referee or the legal assessor, and I think it is extremely desirous that whether it consists of Parliament or the members of the Council they should have the benefit of legal advice when it is necessary.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 29, after 'such,' to insert 'legal assessors."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. G. MURRAY: I do not think that the Bill will be strengthened by this Amendment. Assessors may contribute too little or contribute too much, and in the latter case they would have a deal of power and no responsibility, and in that dilemma you get better results without legal assessors at all.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:—
MR. DALZIEL: I think before this clause is added to the

99
Bill we ought to congratulate the Government on the great step they have taken in the direction indicated by the clause. As I understand it every Member of Parliament who has to go down to Scotland to discharge these duties will get his travelling expenses and subsistence allowance. It is a very short step now to payment of Members, and I think the Government are to be congratulated on their action.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15:—
DR. CLARK: I understand the Government themselves intend to modify the clause before the Report stage.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: I intend to make sundry changes before the Report stage, and if the hon. Member wishes I will take out Sub-section 2.
SIR. JOHN LENG: The Amendment which stands in my name was placed on the Paper for the purpose of bringing before the Committee the question of fees. Continual complaint is made in connection with Private Bill legislation, more particularly in the case of unopposed Bills, that the House fees are excessive. The Committee which considered this Bill stated in their Report that the amount of the fees of the two Houses in 1888 was on an average about £60,000, while the expenditure on Private Bill business was from £15,000 to £20,000. The fees paid in 1897 amounted to £54,176, while the expenses were only £21,680, leaving a profit of £32,496. The Committee strongly recommended that those responsible for the fixing of the fees should materially reduce them.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the question of fees can be raised on this Bill. The question of dealing with fees applicable to Private Bills has no relation to the discussion in this clause, which deals with fees for Provisional Orders.
SIR JOHN LENG: The Amendment provides for fees for Provisional Orders.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member looks at the Amendment, he will see it contains the words, "Bills and."
SIR JOHN LENG: Then I will omit these words, and move the rest of the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 9, after 'Provisional Orders,' to insert, provided that such scale of fees shall be framed with regard to the expenses actually incurred under this Act in connection there with.'"—(Sir John Leng.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. G. MURRAY: It is certainly our intention to provide a scale of fees under the Act which shall be self-supporting, but everything of that sort must be done with the consent of the Treasury. Obviously it would be quite out of place in this Bill to give directions as to what the fees of the House should be. The hon. Member may therefore be content with what I tell him is our intention, but I should not like to be hampered by the actual words of the Amendment.
SIR JOHN LENG: The Amendment is an indication to the Treasury as to what should be done in framing the scale of fees. I have brought this question two or three times before the House, and I have always found the greatest difficulty in finding out who imposed the fees, and my questions have been evaded one way or another. At the same time I am quite willing to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, but I for one will continue to hammer away at this question until I have made some impression on the Treasury. I do not think the country is aware that so great a profit is made out of Private Bill legislation.
DR. CLARK: The probability is that this Bill will compel the reform which my hon. friend desires, because the Chairmen and the Secretary for Scotland will only fix such fees as will be necessary to cover the cost, and it would of course be ridiculous to allow Scotchmen to get Private Bills in this cheap fashion while Englishmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen are subjected to the present tax. Justice demands that what is done for Scotland should also be done for England, Ireland, and Wales. We in this House charge a certain rate, whereas the House of Lords charges so much per cent., and I think

101
that both Houses should have a uniform rate.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 16:—
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how the two systems will work side by side—the system established by this Bill and the present Provisional Order system. As I understand it, the latter system is to go on precisely as at present; but, on the other hand, the first clause of the Bill states that when any public authority or persons desire to obtain Parliamentary powers they shall proceed by presenting a petition to the Secretary for Scotland.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: The hon. Member is quite right, with one little correction. It is felt that in certain cases it would be rash to take away, for instance, the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, which has worked well for years, and the power of the Board as to Provisional Orders will remain as at present.
DR. CLARK: Why should not local authorities be able to get under this Act power for electric lighting? They can go to the Secretary for Scotland for a water Bill, or a gas Bill, or a tramway Bill, and get it by this cheap method. Why not a Bill for electric lighting also? If a local authority wants electric lighting it runs the risk of having three fights: one before the local inspector, another in this House, and a third in another place. I do not want to take away the power of the Board of Trade, but it is necessary to have a uniform practice. Why should Glasgow and other corporations, if they want electric lighting, be compelled to go to the Board of Trade, and instead of one inquiry, or at most two, have three inquiries?
MR. A. G. MURRAY: In the matter of electricity, so much has Parliament felt that the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade should not be taken away, that a regulation has been laid down preventing electrical undertakings being promoted as Private Bills, and therefore the power of dealing with them must remain
102
with my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade.
CAPT. SINCLAIR: It is much to be regretted that there is no method of ascertaining roughly the total expenditure of an application under this Bill, or any means of comparing it with the expenditure incurred before the Light Railway Commissioners. It would also be a great advantage if we could compare the costs under this Act with the costs under the present Provisional Order system.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 17:
MR. A. G. MURRAY: I move to omit in page 9, line 19, from "person" to "entitled." This will allow Parliamentary solicitors to appear at the inquiries, even though admitted after the Act is passed. That is perfectly fair.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:—
MR. DALZIEL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman when it is intended that the Act should come into force.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: At the end of the session of Parliament next year. There will be a great many matters to arrange, and the procedure is very intricate.
Clause agreed to.
MR. BRYCE: I beg to move the clause standing in my name. It is taken from the Light Railways Act, 1896.
New Clause:—
"If any objection to any draft Order is made to the Secretary for Scotland, or to the Chairmen, on the ground that the undertaking proposed to be authorised by the Order will destroy or injure any building or other object of historical interest, or will injuriously affect any natural scenery, the Chairmen shall consider such objection, and may either report to the Secretary for Scotland that such objection raises an issue or issues which ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order, or may refer such objection to the Commissioners, who shall give to those

103
by whom it is made a proper opportunity of being heard in support of it."—(Mr. Bryce.)
brought up, and read the first time.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: I will accept the clause if the right hon. Gentleman takes out the words "to the Secretary for Scotland, or."
MR. BRYCE: I am willing to do so.
Clause as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [No. 244.]

ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. BRYCE: I think this is a Bill which the House will agree in considering a very useful measure and one which is likely to be of considerable convenience. It enables certain clauses to be incorporated bodily in order to save the necessity of being added separately to each Provisional Order. That is a desirable object, and I do not think the provisions of the Bill substantially alter the existing law. There is no novelty included in it, but it enables what is clone now to be done more conveniently.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The right hon. Gentleman has correctly described the Bill. There is nothing new in the Bill, but it will conduce to a great saving of time and expense.

TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, &c.) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HANBURY,): The time that has elapsed since I introduced this Bill—a delay for which I am myself personally responsible—has had one result. It has shown complete unanimity on one point, viz., that the present system cannot possibly go on. There has not been a single resolution from a local authority, a memorial from a trading association, or, that I have seen, one single article in the newspapers supporting the existing system. The House will have noticed that the company itself has introduced Bills, which makes it as plain as possible that without fresh powers the present system cannot go on, and I am sure that the House is not prepared to grant fresh powers to a company, already with very large powers beyond those afforded to any other company, and which is absolutely uncontrolled. On that point even the City of Liverpool, which to a certain extent is opposing this Bill, is absolutely agreed, and the City Council has, I understand, requested the Members for the City to oppose any extension of the powers of the company, and a resolution has been unanimously passed by the Association of Municipal Corporations to the same effect. And surely there is every reason for a step of that kind being taken, because the figures with regard to the state of the telephonic communication in this country are positively alarming. I will compare England with other countries., In Switzerland there is one telephone in use for every 100 of the population, and in Norway one for every 144; in Sweden one for every 147; in the United States one for every 132. And I notice in all these cases there is practically no State system, but one which is worked by local bodies or general competition. Taking the principal countries where there is State control and no competition, in Germany there is only one telephone for every 149 inhabitants, in France 1 for every 432, in Austria 1 for every 640. England, even as compared with Germany, is very far behind; for in this country we have only one telephone for every 636 of the population. I pass from the countries themselves to the principal towns, and I find that in Stockholm, where there are actually three systems in competition with one another—which is a considerable argument against those who say competition is impossible in this matter—the

105
number of telephone users is greater than in any other town—1 in every 14 of the population. In Geneva the number is 1 in every 23; Berne, 1 in every 27; San Francisco, 1 in 27; Hamburg, 1 in 56; Berlin, 1 in 82; Vienna, 1 in 132; and London, 1 in 433.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Where did the right hon. Gentleman get these figures?
MR. HANBURY: I got the figures from the chief electrician of the Post Office, and they were made up to date only yesterday. But it is not necessary to go beyond our own country for examples. The National Telephone Company has had a service established in Jersey for seven or eight years. The population of Jersey is 54,000, and I am informed that there are 80 users of the telephone, or 1 in 650 of the population. But when we come to Guernsey, which is one of the places where the Post Office has granted licences to the local authority, the number of users, instead of 1 in 650, as in Jersey, is 1 in 84, although the system was only started about two years ago; and the number of subscribers is growing rapidly every day. I think, therefore, that the first essay in the direction of municipal telephones has not been very unsatisfactory. I want to say frankly in regard to the National Telephone Company that it has undoubtedly done good work, and a great deal to encourage the use of the telephone in this country; and I should be the last one not to recognise the service it has rendered in this regard. I will go further, and say that I would be very sorry, wherever the National Telephone Company has got way-leaves, and can give an efficient service, serving all alike on equal terms, and can give the public a certain service, to see that service discontinued. But it surely is a very proper request to make that the service should be efficient, certain, and that all should be served alike on equal terms. But the evidence given before the Select Committee tells a very different story. Now, what is the position at the present moment? It is one partly due to the fault of the National Telephone Company,
106
but also to a considerable extent not to the fault of the company. What we want in this country is a general service which will extend itself over the whole country; but the National Telephone Company picked out the most densely populated parts of the country, and you could not blame them for that. Being a private company they naturally consulted their own interests. We have been told by the chairman of the company that they would not extend their service beyond 1904, and that it could riot be expected that a private company should extend telephones over the whole kingdom. Even if they could, I maintain we ought not to allow a private company to have a monopoly of this kind; for we want not only a general service, but an efficient service. I will do the National Telephone Company the justice to say that wherever they do get the opportunity they give a physically effective service—that is to say, where they can get underground way-leaves and a double circuit system. But there are a large number of municipalities who will not give these underground way-leaves, who say, "We will not allow our streets to be taken up by any private company." Surely that is a very reasonable ground for the municipalities to take up, since they desire to have control over their own streets; and Parliament will never force the municipalities to grant these way-leaves. Bill after Bill has been brought into Parliament to compel the granting of the way-leaves, and the municipalities of the country with one voice have been opposed to them, and Parliament has invariably refused them. I say, therefore, that in these towns the National Company cannot give an efficient service. But it does not follow because the company cannot get way-leaves that the people of this country are to go without an efficient telephonic service, which is so important to trade and commerce. Again, we want a public service—a service that will be offered to all alike; we want a popular service which shall not be limited to a particular class of subscribers only; but, above all, we want a certain service not depending on way-leaves. Five-sixths of the present way-leaves granted to the National Company could be terminated, by those who granted them, within six or 12 months from the present day; and it cannot be permitted that a national ser-

107
vice should exist on such a precarious footing as that. Well, of course, these things being so, and these being the requirements, a good many persons have jumped to the conclusion, on the analogy of the Post Office and Telegraph Service, that State telephones would be the only solution of the difficulty. It is not surprising that the ingenious and ingenuous directors of the company should hack up those people in that view; for if the idea succeeds it means paying an enormous price to the company for their undertaking; and, on the other hand, if it merely delays the contemplated reforms, to a certain extent their interest would be served. I am bound to say that there is one other thing that impresses me very much Os to the necessity of regulating, at any rate, a monopoly like this. The in direct influence which a big company like this can bring to bear, and is bringing to bear, is enormous; and it is difficult to say where public policy begins and private interest ends when all kinds of preferences and trusteeships can be put into men's hands. I say, this constitutes one of the greatest arguments against such an enormous monopoly as this, which has such direct and indirect power. Well, is nationalisation the only solution of the difficulty, or is there any other practical remedy? I fully admit that one control is necessary, and that the control of the whole of the telephonic service must be in the hands of the State. That is necessary for uniformity, and under this Bill, for the first time, we shall be able to get that uniformity. We shall be able, in dealing with the municipalities and new licensees, to be able to insist, as we cannot do with the National Company, on that uniformity; and also, when we come to deal with the trunk lines, we shall be able to resist the imposition of terminals, which we cannot insist on in the case of the National Company. I believe that for national efficiency the State should have complete control, and that we should do the work on the trunk lines; but why should we, in addition to supervising, undertake work which can be just as well done by the local people on the spot? Something like 98 per cent. of the whole messages in the exchanges never leave the locality, never come on the trunk wires at all; and that is essentially work which there is no necessity for the State to undertake. I have been told that that
108
state of things is temporary and peculiar to England. But there is even a higher percentage than that in every country in Europe and America. The only place where that percentage is not exceeded is Switzerland, but, of course, that country is very small. Then, our trunk lines are the best and cheapest in Europe; and in addition, hitherto the service has practically been a monopoly of the larger traders, who are naturally the people who use the trunk wires. Then, I am told that if the exchanges are in different hands the communications between the exchanges will be more difficult. Well, I consulted the engineer of the Post Office particularly on the point, and he said it was a complete delusion; that the same switching would have to take place whether the exchanges were in the hands of companies or the Government. If that be so, and if there are no practical or technial advantages in State management, I ask, Why should we incur a great risk and an enormous and unnecessary increase in the staff of the Post Office, and the corresponding increase in wages? The staff of the Post Office is already 160,000 strong. The Postmaster-General is, I believe, already the greatest employer of labour in the world, and the staff is growing year by year. The staff of the Telephone Company is already 10,000, but, judging by the figures I have given and the extent to which we are lamentably behind other countries, the new staff ought to be increased by 10,000 or 20,000 more. Therefore it is not only the increase to the staff that we would have to look to, but the increase in the wages. It came out very clearly in evidence before the Select Committee, of which I was Chairman, that the wages of the company's operatives are excessively low. We found that out from experience, also, when we took over the operators on the trunk wires, and we had to raise their wages by over 40 per cent. We should have to do the same thing if we took over this enormous additional staff, besides providing for pensions and promotion. More than that, the telephone operators would endeavour to put themselves on the same footing as the telegraphists, and we know that the wages of the telegraphists are enormously above those of the telephonists, and yet the former are not satisfied with their conditions of service. After all, what does this cry for nationali-

109
sation of the telephones mean? It means immediate purchase, a certain burden thrown on the Post Office, and great disturbance of trade. It means purchase, at accommodation price, of a monopoly which ought never to have been allowed to grow up. It means that we would have to buy, as a going concern, a monopoly which will fall into our laps in 1911. While I am most anxious to treat the National Company with absolute fairness, I think that to ask us to buy up the monopoly as a going concern is to ask far too much. But what else does it mean if we are going to buy the company up? It means buying up a great deal of good work, as at Liverpool and Nottingham, I admit. The Town Clerk of Nottingham says that in that city "the telephonic communication is as nearly perfect as it can be made"; while in Liverpool they say that, whatever complaints have been made elsewhere, they were getting there a very excellent service. But in those places where the work is so good why should we unnecessarily replace it? We might leave the company to continue to do what it has hitherto done efficiently. What I object to is, that in order to buy up the good we should be compelled to buy up the bad also. Why should we have to buy up 25 per cent. of the company's system, which consists of single wires, which 10 years ago we decided that no other company should be allowed to put up? Why should we buy 25 per cent. of wires which we ourselves would never be allowed to use? Take again the overhead wires. The company's system in London consists practically of overhead wires, and the same may be said of a large number of provincial towns; and overhead wires are absolutely of no use to the State. We have no rights over overhead wires beyond that of ordinary citizens; but we have powers for underground wires, and we would always use these in preference, partly because we have these rights, and partly because the underground wires give a more efficient service. Why should we buy up wires, then, from which we could get no benefit, the tenure of which is precarious, and which do not give an efficient service? I am bound to say that, in addition to that, these wires are of very poor material, such as the State will not allow other companies to use. Moreover, a great number of these wires are called dead wires, which belong to
110
subscribers who have ceased to exist, and are of no use. Then there are a large number of private wires between men's houses and their places of business, which are outside the scope of State operations altogether, and if we were to buy them there is nothing to prevent the National Telephone Company competing with us for such wires to-morrow. Mr. Gale estimated that these private wires were worth £400,000 to £500,000. Again, there are places, like Liverpool, where the original overhead wires have been taken down, and underground wires laid at a cost of £150,000. Is the State to pay the expense of the first setting up of the wires in Liverpool, and then replacing them at a cost of £150,000? And that is going on in many other large provincial towns. Again, why should we buy up watered capital to the tune of a million and a quarter? It may be, said we are not asked to buy all this up; but I maintain we are, because in the scheme started by Mr. Ray, of Liverpool, and embodied in pamphlets which have been so industriously circulated by the National Telephone Company, that is exactly what he proposes. It is one of the wildest schemes ever put forward by a business man. He suggests that we should buy up everything I have mentioned; and, in the next place, that we should give a million and a quarter beyond the market price; and that we should pledge our credit in order to buy up the undertaking at that price. Then he assumes that we have not only to buy it at this enormous price, but that it would repay us well to do so, because, forsooth, we are to make no deductions in the present charges, which are to remain as they are. He further assumes that the expense of working the system will be, under the State, something the same as under the company. I have already shown that the rise in wages alone would be at least 40 per cent. Well, if the taxpayers' money is to be spent, I would like to get value for it; and I should like, in the next place, to see it expended in acquiring a new and serviceable plant—not in replacing or supplementing the company's system, and more especially as we are so much below the level of other countries. I do not think nationalisation is a feasible project. Now, what is the next suggestion? It is that made by the President of the Council of Associated Stockbrokers—and the stockbrokers have

111
taken a very prominent part in this question, I do not know why. They say, "We believe that either the Government should assume sole control or enable those at present working the telephones to obtain full power to develop the same, subject, of course, to control." Well, I have already explained that that could not be done in places where the National Company have no way-leaves, and these are the very places where we want the service extended. Parliament would never allow these municipalities to be compelled to grant the way-leaves to a private company; and when it is suggested that the Post Office should go through the form of calling the company its agent and then use its own powers over the heads of the municipalities in order to give the company the way-leaves, that is an absurdity. Having shown the practical impossibility of a State system, and having shown that the National Company could, under no circumstances, supply places where there are no proper way-leaves, we are thrown back on only two other sources of supply. The one is the local authorities, which I propose should not be merely limited to municipalities of 50,000 inhabitants, but should include the sanitary district authorities. The effect of this would be to cover the greater part, almost every part, of the country, and it would also allow local companies to be introduced, if they could get way-leaves from the authorities. I think it is quite possible that while a corporation may be unwilling to grant way-leaves to a rich and powerful company, they might be willing to grant them to small local companies over which they would have more control. What would be the effect of that? In the first place, both the corporations themselves and the small companies would be new licensees, and we would be able to impose conditions on them, which, unfortunately, we are not able to impose on the National Company; we should guard against preferences or against a refusal of the service to all persons alike upon equal terms, and we should require that it should be a popular service. Of course, it must be clear that we should be able to extend the service all over the country, and the question of way-leaves would fall to the ground, because the local authorities have their own way-leaves, and if they do not choose to work the service themselves they can give it and
112
their way-leaves to a local company. In fact, by this means, I believe we would give as good a service as the State could possibly give, and in some respects, in regard to these way-leaves, a better service. Because I believe that there might be a good deal of friction with the municipalities if the State went into the streets and broke them up under their undoubted powers. In fact, there have been complaints already where the State has done that. Thus it would be a great advantage if the Government could supplement the service in a great number of areas. More than that, it might have the result of wakening up the National Company to give a better service where the municipality or other local companies could compete; because both municipalities and the local capitalists would say to the National Company, "If you do not give us a better service, we will devise a system of our own." I am one of the first to object that it is not sufficient that this service should be efficient, but we must also require that it should be thoroughly fair to the company; and from first to last I have endeavoured to act in strict fairness to the company, because I do admit that they have done great and useful work. What is the position of these two proposed alterations with regard to the company? It has been admitted from the first that there is no unfairness in starting against the National Company—that will be admitted by my right hon. friend. It has never been a question that it was perfectly fair to start new companies in opposition. Then conies the question of municipalities, and the company no doubt did raise very grave objections to the municipalities, because the Government in this Bill have recognised that to a certain extent the granting of licences to municipalities does place them in a different position to companies, because the whole constituency of a Corporation has a direct interest in encouraging it. We have tried to balance the advantages and disadvantages, and we have made this offer to tire company and have embodied it in a Treasury Minute. First of all, when fair competition is brought into play, we will purchase in 1911 all the existing plant of the company which is fit and suitable for the work. We shall not decide the point of suitability—that will have to be decided by an independent expert. Considering

113
that in 1911 we are under no obligation to buy any of the company's plant, I think that is a very fair and large offer. In addition to that, where the National Telephone Company is absolutely free from control, we are going to impose certain stringent conditions on the municipalities which we cannot impose on the National Telephone Company. We have also made a further offer, that if they will at the limit of their extensions connect their exchanges with the extensions of the corporations, we will not only- purchase in 1911 all their plant which is not obsolete, but all the future plant they may have erected, and that I consider is a very large offer. If I were a large shareholder in this company—and it applies to the shareholders rather than the directors—I should say, "Are we wise in opposing such an arrangement and opposing this Bill?" I do not think the conditions are likely to change very much in twelve years. The Government now is against nationalisation, and I think the Government twelve years hence will also be against it. If we do not nationalise, these municipal exchanges must go On and have the National Telephones with these conditions. All we want is an efficient service, and it does not matter to us how it is given. It is only where the National Telephone Company cannot or will not give an efficient service that we offer to put these other persons in their place. That, I think, answers the criticisms which were made in a memorial of the Bristol stockbrokers, who the day after the Bill was brought in passed this resolution, that the Government "are attempting improperly to depreciate the value of the share capital so as to prepare for the ultimate purchase of the company's undertaking on confiscatory terms." But we do not want to purchase at all. Nothing would put us in a better position than we already are; and as to any idea of depreciating the value of the shares in order that we may purchase at a low price, that seems to me to be very wide of the mark when we need not purchase at all. What are the objections to this Bill, and who are the objectors? In the first place, the main objectors are the large traders and tradesmen of this country, and it is remarkable with what unanimity, what sameness of language, all these resolutions have been passed; no matter from what part they come, the language is almost
114
identical. In addition to the resolution of the Bristol stockbrokers, we have those of the various chambers of commerce, who again represent the large traders of the country. But these chambers of commerce are not opposed to this Bill. Only 22 out of 96 oppose it. Why do the large traders object? Because at the present moment they get uncommonly good value for their money for a subscription of £15 in London, and £10 in the provinces; they have an unlimited right to send messages, they monopolise the exchanges. Compare this with the telegraph. Suppose we were to say that nobody should send a message unless he paid £15 a year, and nobody should use the telegraph unless he were a subscriber. Naturally, those in that favoured position would not want to be disturbed. What does the telephone service say with regard to this? Before the Committee the case was pointed out of a man who sent 200 messages a clay in return for a subscription of £18, getting £300 worth of messages, calculated at the rate of a penny a call. The National Telephone Company want to make their service a popular one, and we want to also, and it is these very men who are opposing our popular service. Such a state of things exists here as exists in no place abroad. The service ought to be thrown open to the whole country; not only to the large traders, but to the small tradesmen as well. It is perfectly possible to retain the subscription system side by side with the other, and the Post Office has worked it out and finds that a man who sends 3,000 messages a year will be able to get 5,000 for a smaller amount. But the opponents of this Bill have in one respect turned round. They say now that at the present moment the trunk lines are crowded at certain hours of the day, and if more subscribers come forward they will lie still more crowded. But we shall meet that objection by laying a larger number of trunk lines, and if that is done the last objection will be gone. The other opponents we have are a few of the largest towns, and they again are ill a minority, as shown by the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporations Association last year—that in the event of the Postmaster-General not taking over the telephone service it should be competent for municipal and other local authorities to undertake such service within areas composed of their own dis-

115
tricts, or a combination of such districts. All the opposition comes from Liverpool and Nottingham, and it so happens that those two places are exceptionally well off. They have made a very good bargain with the National Telephone Company, and have a good service; but that is no reason why they should stand in the way of smaller corporations not so well able to fight their own battles. What are the real complaints that these men make? Take the Town Clerks of Liverpool and Nottingham. The only objection which the Town Clerk of Nottingham makes is that no other system but a national system could supply a service to the country districts at such a distance. I do not believe that. I believe a company could supply it just as well as the State.
AN HON. MEMBER: Better.
MR. HANBURY: The Town Clerk of Liverpool admitted that he had no objection whatever to municipal enterprise in telephones where there was no service at the present moment, and no competition with the National Telephone Company. But only consider what that area is. Consider where there are telephones and where there are not. According to the Town Clerk of Liverpool those are the places where municipal telephones may clearly start, though he opposes it on the ground of the limited use of the telephone, and that it does not extend to the bulk of the population. It does not do so now, and never will, unless our system comes in. There are a great number of places where there is no competition. But if the toll system were introduced there is no reason whatever why in a great number of our towns there should not be just as large a proportion of telephone users as in Stockholm, or Geneva, or Berlin. Take Guernsey. The information sent to me only a couple of days ago as to Guernsey furnishes a remarkable illustration of what municipal enterprise would do. The States of Guernsey only started the telephone two years ago, and they have already one telephone to every 84 of the population, and a tariff which meets every class of subscriber. They pay £5 13s. 4d. for 4,000 calls, or over five calls for one penny, and £2 10s. for 1,250 calls, and a penny for five calls after. The result is that they are paying interest on their capital, a Government
116
royalty of 10 per cent., and are also building up a sinking fund. Local authorities are, after all, the best judges of their own interests. They need not start a service if they do not want it or if they think it is not to the interest of their ratepayers, especially now that we are giving them three alternatives after the arrangement with the National Telephone Company. In Stockholm, where there are more telephone users per population than in any place in the world, they have three systems working side by side in opposition to one another. There is the State system and two companies. We have in this country our own Post Office exchanges, but I am bound to say that, owing to Treasury regulations, they are not worked as they ought to be. That I perfectly admit, but even so we have been paying a large interest on the capital; and, although our exchanges are not so flourishing as they might be, they have been giving a handsome return for the expenditure. An intelligent Treasury has now abolished those regulations. It is true that the National Company is, to a certain extent, at a disadvantage in that it did not get underground lines. But in Manchester they had; and yet there, though the National Company is giving an efficient service, a new company applied for a licence, with the support, I believe, of the Corporation. That does not look as if competition within the same area is such a dangerous thing for the municipality. Then there is another alternative. The local authority may buy up the National Company in any area, or—and I think this is much the more likely course—it may connect the service of the company and that of the municipality. We are offering them every inducement to do that. We have said if they will do it we will buy up their new plant. It is said that the National Telephone Company would never connect with the exchange of another company or Corporation, but that is not the opinion of the very able manager, who said in the Committee that he did not think there would be any practical difficulty in carrying out such an arrangement. I believe, too, that the company would find it to its own interest to adopt such a course, and effect such a combination. It has been objected that Corporations would not give a popular service. Corporations will have to please their constituents, and if their constituents wanted this service

117
and did not get it, they would turn out the Corporation who refused it and put in one who would give it. What are the inducements to a popular service? Well, in America, within the last three years, since the service has been made a toll one, it has grown by leaps and bounds, and only yesterday I read a statement in the paper to the effect that Germany has also introduced the toll system, and is popularising its service, not only in Berlin, but throughout the country, and the system is working well. I have only one other remark to make with regard to the question which has been raised as to the sinking fund. It has been urged that we do not give Corporations sufficient time to recoup their expenditure. I think that even 12 years is a considerable time for that purpose. When we recollect the conditions we are offering, they would only have to redeem 50 per cent. of their capital by 1911. We do not regard it as by any means a certainty that 1911 will see the end of the licences of the new licensees. If nationalisation is as unpopular with the Government of that day as it is with the present Government, municipalities will retain the service long after 1911. I hope I have made the case perfectly clear. I hope there is no impression that we are anxious in any way to take an unfair advantage of the National Company. On the contrary, I think I have shown the House that, if our proposals are accepted, that company will be in a better position than they have ever been before—they will, at least, be in a much more certain position. Not only that, but they will get a popular service, and a service not dependent on a precarious tenure as it is now. I hope the House, looking at the emergency of the case, and to the fact that the United Kingdom lags far behind other countries in the matter of telephonic communication, which is so essential to our trade and commerce, will agree to the Second Heading of the Bill, and pass it through its other stages without any unnecessary delay.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
SIR J. JOICEY: I feel some hesitation in rising to address the House immediately after
118
the right hon. Gentleman has moved the Second Heading of the Bill. But as I was one of the Members of the Committee, and paid great attention to the evidence which was given before that Committee, I thought it my duty to state my views, if they do not altogether coincide with those of the right hon. Gentleman, as early as possible. No one recognises more than I do the efforts made by the right hon. Gentleman to elicit all the facts of the case during the proceedings in Committee, and I am bound to say that we could not have had a Chairman who was more anxious to be impartial, and to bring the Committee to a satisfactory decision on the subject before them. But, Sir, in the course of those proceedings I am bound to say that the evidence which was elicited bears out to a very considerable extent the statements which were made by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech. I can confirm his statement that the National Telephone Company has done good service; that service, like that of all public companies, has been to some extent insufficient and inadequate.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and, forty Members being found present,
SIR J. JOICEY (continuing): I was, saying that I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the service of the National Telephone Company was inefficient and certainly inadequate. But I am bound to recognise the difficulties that any public company has to contend with in developing a new service. Many of the patents were untried, and a good deal of the work was new to those who had to produce it, and under these circumstances some allowance should be made for any great company which is doing public work or public service as the National Telephone Company has been doing. Now, Sir, I have not the slightest interest in the National Telephone Company, either directly or indirectly, for had that been the case I certainly would not have been a Member of the Committee. Whilst I attended the sittings I, like every other Member, so far as I know, and particularly like the right hon. Gentleman who was the Chairman, endeavoured to give impartial consideration to

119
every question brought before the Committee. But, Sir, whilst I was in that position I was prejudiced neither in favour of the Post Office nor the National Telephone Company. My object was to render such service to the community as I was able to. Now, Sir, I am bound to say that the National Telephone service, if you look round and see the ground that it occupies, which forms a very small proportion of the whole country, certainly is inadequate. I must say, as a member of the Committee, that I was somewhat astonished at the policy which had been pursued by the Post Office. I was certainly under the impression that if the Post Office believed competition to be a good thing, they, having the power both to compete themselves and to compete by means of other licensees, ought to have developed competition. But, instead of developing competition, so far as I was able to gather from the evidence, they rather discouraged it; nay, they encouraged the National Telephone Company to get rid of its old competitors. Well, what was the object of that? They believed ultimately that there would have to be a national system, and they encouraged the National Telephone Company to get rid of its competitors, so that in the event of the adoption of a national system there would be only one system to purchase. That was the impression which I got from the evidence, but I cannot say what impression other members of the Committee received. There is no doubt whatever that there was great necessity for competition so long as the service was in the hands of one company, call it an Imperial company, or call it what you like. Had it been, like the Post Office, in the hands of a Department of the State, it could have developed the system perfectly, so far as perfection can be got by a State Department, and then, I think, competition would not have been necessary. But what did the National Telephone Company do? The National Telephone Company did what every other company composed of private individuals would do. It selected, first, those localities where it thought it could develop a system with the greatest advantage to itself. Well, I do not blame the National Telephone Company for doing that. It is just what any other public company would do; a railway company, for instance, or a gas-works company, or a water company, naturally develops those
120
sources which it thinks it can develop with the greatest advantage to itself. Well, I must say that there are many disadvantages in connection with having more than one supply, so that I can appreciate to a certain extent the action of the Post Office. I happen to live at Newcastle-on-Tyne, where we have a dual service—a service by the National Telephone Company and a service by the Post Office—and I must say that while I believe in that city we have perhaps one of the best services that the Post Office gives in any part of the country, yet I do think that it would be more conducive to the interests of the users of the telephone if these undertakings were in one hand. Why is that? Every tradesman, every manufacturer, who finds it necessary to have the telephone, instead of having one telephone, always has to have two, in order to communicate with the whole of the subscribers. Of course, if there were a communication between the two authorities, the necessity for this would to a large extent disappear; but I am one of those who believe, notwithstanding all my right hon. friend has said, that it would be very much better to have one service. Well, I must say that there are many disadvantages in the course which was recommended by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly think it would be very much more to the interests of the community if we had a national system of telephones worked on the same principle as the Post Office and the telegraph system. Why I object to my right hon. friend's Bill is this. We had a Committee which went into the whole question, and, so far as I am able to gather from the Bill of my right hon. friend, I cannot see that the Bill is based on the Report of the Committee. In the first place, the Report goes into the question as to whether the Post Office have the right of being just and equitable to the National Telephone Company by allowing competition. Well, that point is perfectly cleared up to my satisfaction, and I consider, as the Report states, there is little doubt, in my mind, that the postal authorities have full power to give such competition. But then there is another reason why competition is desirable, and what did the Committee say that reason was? On page 10 of the Report it is stated:
"Competition appears to be both expedient and necessary—first, to extend and popularise

121
the service, and next to avoid a danger which is by no means remote if no alternative system is in operation—the purchase of the company's undertaking at a price forced upon the Government of the day."
There are two distinct objects which the Committee had in recommending competition. One was that it should extend and popularise the service, and everyone who really knows what the service is in other parts of the world—in America, for instance, and in Berlin—will agree with me that there is much to be done in this country yet before the telephone service is developed as it should be. So far as Berlin is concerned, I believe, with a very much smaller population than in London, there are nearly twice as many subscribers to the telephone as there are in London. But I am glad to say that while Berlin is greatly ahead of London, when you take the whole of Germany into consideration, and compare it with the whole of England, the Post Office authorities who have been sent over have stated that undoubtedly England was ahead.
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: NO, no!
SIR J. JOICEY: I am quite prepared to substantiate what I have stated. However, let us take the other part of the Report. There is always a doubt in the Report as to whether licences should be given to municipal authorities or not.
"Your Committee would recommend that if licences be granted to local authorities the precedent of the Electric Light Act of 1882 should be followed."
If—there is always a doubt. Then, further—
"So far, therefore, as the legal or equitable rights of the company, or licensee, or other interests of the locality are concerned, your Committee see no reason why licences should not be granted to local authorities."
I want to make this plain, because it will be recognised that it is very important. Let us look at what is stated at the end of the Report. I was very much astonished at my right hon. friend not alluding to this Report in his very excellent and able speech. I certainly thought that if the Bill was to carry out the recommendations of the Committee he would have referred to the Report. But what does it state?
"On reviewing the whole of the evidence, your Committee is strongly of opinion that
122
general, immediate, and effective competition by either the Post Office or the local authority is necessary, and consider that a really efficient Post Office service affords the best means for securing this competition."
If that is not a strong recommendation for Her Majesty's Government to take over the control of, or compete with, telephones in connection with this important system, I do not know what is. Then again:
"Your Committee, in thus recommending Post Office service, assume it will constitute a real and active competition, and that concessions to the company not required by them will cease; such competition should, in their hands, be carried on by a distinct and separate branch of the Department. and in future be conducted under strictly businesslike conditions by a staff specially for such a duty."
On looking through the Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman, I am bound to say that it does not carry out the recommendations of the Committee. Here is a distinct recommendation that the Post Office is the best authority to compete with the National Telephone Company, and that they ought to establish a separate Department in order to do it satisfactorily.
MR. HANBURY: I think the recommendation of the Committee there was that it should be a separate department of the Post Office, to deal with the National Telephone Company and other telephone services.
SIR J. JOICEY: I will leave the House to judge of the words without the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. Let us see what the words are—
"On reviewing the whole of the evidence, your Committee is strongly of opinion that general, immediate, and effective competition, by either the Post Office or local authority, is necessary, and consider that a really efficient Post Office service affords the best means of securing such competition."
MR. HANBURY: Read on.
SIR J. JOICEY:
"We further consider that when in an existing area in which there is an exchange the local authority demands a complete service, the Post Office ought either to start an efficient telephone system itself"—of course, that is our recommendation—"or grant a licence to the local authority."

123
Yes, but what does it say before? "We consider that a really efficient Post Office service affords the best means of securing such competition." It is perfectly clear that it is the intention of the Committee that the competition should be by the Post Office, and by the Post Office alone.
"Your Committee, in thus recommending a Post Office service, assume it will constitute a real and active competition, that concessions to the company not required by them will cease. Such competition should in their hands be carried on by a distinct and separate branch of the Department"—that is, by the Post Office—"and in future be conducted under strictly business-like conditions by a staff specially qualified for such a duty."
Of course, the "staff" alluded to is the staff employed under the Post Office in connection with the Telephone Department, which the Committee recommend. It is perfectly clear that the Bill does not carry out these recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, stated that the National Telephone Company picked the plums of the different areas. I am not surprised at that. But if the service is not effective, the Post Office, in order to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, is bound to compete with the National Telephone Company in those particular areas, and to establish a telephone system in areas where the National Telephone Company does not exist. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to show the difficulties in connection with giving other licensees powers to establish a telephone system. I am not in favour of giving other licensees such powers. The Post Office should have no other competitor than the National Telephone Company, because I look forward to the time when it will be absolutely necessary that the whole telephone system should be conducted by the Post Office Department, and on that ground it would be very much better indeed if the Post Office Department practically covered the ground where telephones do not now exist. Then with regard to way-leaves, he said the pulling up of the streets would be a difficulty; that you could not expect municipal authorities to give power to any licensees other than the Post Office to pull up streets. I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman's judgment is accurate in that. No doubt there might be one or two municipalities who would object. There are municipalities who object to everything where the public convenience is concerned. As a rule, municipalities
124
look after the interests of the ratepayers in their own localities excellently, but wherever the public interest clashes with their own, they support their own as against that of the public. The difficulties as to the way-leave question are more imaginary than real. The Post Office would bring such power to bear on local authorities that they would not have much difficulty in getting the necessary way-leaves. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman express the belief that it was quite possible that the National Telephone Company would have its licence extended, and that it is quite possible that the municipalities if they adopt the telephone system would have their licences extended beyond 1911. I was under the impression that the Committee recommended distinctly that no licences should extend beyond 1911. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman sees difficulties in the way, and that is why he made that statement; because what would happen, supposing this Bill were passed, and under it a large number of municipalities were to get the power of establishing telephones in their own areas? The licences would all expire in 1911. The same thing would occur as the chairman of the National Telephone Company said would happen. After 1904, in all probability, all capital expenditure would cease. Possibly some arrangement would be come to that that capital expenditure should be made under the surveillance of the Post Office authorities. But supposing a number of municipalities carried out this telephone system with licences expiring in 1911, and that certain arrangements were made that their plant should be taken over by the Post Office? What I am afraid of is that where these municipal authorities start telephones some of them may make it a very profitable business. Does anybody in this House believe that a Government could be found to stand against the municipal interest of this country, and to say that they would refuse to extend the licences? The pressure which would be brought to bear upon any Government by the municipal representatives in this House would compel them to yield. If you took them over what would be the result? You would have to give enormous compensation. Every municipal authority that was making these profits would have a heavy vested interest, and the vested interests to be dealt with in 1911 in connection

125
with the municipal authorities would be a hundred times as great as those we have to deal with now in connection with the National Telephone Company. That is why I think it would be disastrous to allow municipal authorities to have licences to work the telephone system. Suppose you applied the same rule to the Post Office system, and allowed all municipal authorities to deliver the letters in their own localities. The principle is exactly the same. I wonder what would become of the poor outlying country districts that now do not pay their expenses. How do you expect to get the outlying country districts brought into connection with the telephone centres if you are to allow the profits realised from the service in our large cities to be swallowed up by the municipalities? All the profits realised in these large towns ought to go to the purse of the Post Office to be used in developing the system in the outlying districts. I challenge any Member who represents an agricultural county to vote for this Bill, which is in direct opposition to the interests of all who live in agricultural districts. There are some Members who are very anxious for municipal authorities to practically control all the telephone system in their own localities; there are some people who really, when the word "municipality" is mentioned, seem to grovel at it, and are prepared to give it any powers whatever. No one recognises more than I do the splendid services municipalities have rendered to the country, but there are some municipalities which are not fit for these powers, and whose localities would be better attended to by the Department. I cannot support this Bill without further consideration. If this Bill represents the only conclusion the Government can come to, I think they have been rather hasty in deciding this most important question, which will affect not only the present generation, but the next also. I hope the Government may be induced to withdraw this measure, or, at all events, to give further consideration to the question, so that we may not enter upon an important scheme like this, affecting every part of the country, without having looked fairly at all sides of the matter.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I confess I am at a loss to understand the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. When I
126
understood from the beginning of his speech that he intended to oppose this Bill, I thought it was because he did not approve of the Report of the Committee of which he was a member. But we are given to understand that he does not in the least disapprove of the Report, but he complains that this Bill does not carry out its recommendations. I would ask anyone who has read the Report in what respects it differs from the Bill. The Report is a practically unanimous one; it was carried by a large Committee with only five Divisions, and after the most careful consideration the Committee recommended "general, immediate, and effective competition," either by the Post Office or by local authorities. What does this Bill do? It asks for powers to be given for "general, immediate, and effective competition" with the National Telephone Company, either by the Post Office or by local authorities. Can any man, comparing the Report with the Bill, say that there is any discrepancy what-over? I thought we had come to a very sensible Report, and that the Government had taken very immediate steps to carry it out, and the very last thing I expected was for a member of the Committee to get up and tell us that the Bill did not do what the Committee recommended. If the Committee did not recommend competition by these two methods, what did it recommend? The hon. Gentleman appears to think that it recommended nationalisation. He talked a good deal about the State acquiring the telephone and working it all by itself. But, in that case, where is the competition? The word "competition" clearly contemplates that there must be two people, each working, in some sense, in opposition to the other. To pretend, therefore, that when we use the word "competition" we mean "nationalisation" is to make a pretence which the words of the Report cannot possibly support. The hon. Baronet also tries to throw discredit draw this measure, or, at all events, to upon the statements of my right hon. friend by saying that some expert, whose name I did not gather, who was sent over to Germany, told us that England was far in advance of Germany in the matter of the telephone. If that is so, that is not the opinion of so eminent an authority as Mr. Preece, the Engineer of the Post Office, and by no means an enemy of the National Telephone Company or a friend of the system of municipalisation, for in

127
answer to Question 5171, which I put to him myself—the question being, "Comparing Germany with England"—he said, "Well, there is no doubt they are very much in advance of us," and he evidently held that the system which prevails in Germany, which is not an unregulated monopoly in the hands of a company such as we have here, was infinitely superior, and had developed the telephone there to an extent to which it has not been developed here.
SIR J. JOICEY: Do I understand the hon. Member to controvert my statement that while Berlin is ahead of London, yet Germany is behind England as a whole so far as subscribers are concerned?
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, certainly. That statement was made by Mr. Preece. In cross-examination he modified it. He said, "Well, there is no doubt they are very much in advance of us." I cannot attempt to explain any discrepancy, but that was the modification of his original statement, and I give it to the House for what it is worth.
SIR J. JOICEY: May I read question 5100? "Then as far as London and Berlin goes, London is behind Germany, is it not?" This is what Mr. Preece said:—"London is behind Berlin, but England is in advance of Germany."
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not wish to weary the House by going into this question in detail, but I will now quote question 5170:
"That, I think, there is no doubt about. Speaking of Germany as a whole, do you think Germany is very much behind us? Rave you any figures for the whole of Germany as compared with the whole of England?"
He answered, "No. I think as a rule the telephone in Germany is more advanced than in Scandinavia." I asked him, "Yes, but I am comparing it with England." He replied, "Well, with England; there is no doubt in Germany they are much in advance of us." I pressed it home. "They are in advance of us?" "There is no doubt at all about it." I do not think I can go beyond that; but if anything more is really wanted, all I can do is to quote the figures that have been
128
already given by my right hon. friend, in which he shows that, whereas in England one person in 636 possesses the telephone——
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Ridiculous!
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am afraid I cannot accept my right hon. friend's view that these figures are ridiculous seeing they are official statements, put in in evidence, and not my own. My right hon. friend who introduced the Bill has stated that they are taken from a return that he received quite recently. I know perfectly well how my right hon. friend arrives at the idea that these figures are ridiculous. It is because the National Telephone Company has got a very clever plan of including with exchange telephones the private wires. Mr. Forbes did that in giving his evidence, and when cross-examined by me he had to admit that it included private wires. Private wires do not benefit the general bulk of the community in the least. They are mere private machines for the private use of private individuals. If you compare the number of exchange telephones plus private wires in England with the number of exchange telephones without private wires in Germany you will institute a perfectly unfair comparison. That is exactly what the National Telephone Company in a great many instances have done, and that no doubt is the cause of the discrepancy which appears ridiculous to my right hon. friend. The fact remains absolutely proved—it has never been disproved—that while this country is far in advance of most foreign countries in regard to nearly every mechanical appliance, we lag behind the rest of the world in regard to telephones. The figures have never been contradicted, that in Norway one person in 144 was on the telephone; in Sweden one in 147; in Luxembourg one in 160; in Switzerland one in 172.
AN HON. MEMBER: Will the hon. Member tell us whether they are under State agency or under private agency?
Mr. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: In the case of Norway and Sweden you have State agency, local companies, and also municipal telephones. In Stockholm

129
you have local companies and also State agency. In a great many places in Sweden you have local companies. In Luxembourg and Switzerland it is State agency. In Germany, which has a State system, one person in 410 is on the telephone. That is a step worse than the system of local companies and municipalities combined that prevails in Sweden; but when you come to the United kingdom, you get a step still further worse—one in 636. That is the result of an unregulated monopoly, and the object of this Bill is to break down as quickly as possible this most unfortunate monopoly, which the Post Office has allowed to grow up. Are we prepared to acquiesce in a state of affairs in which we lag so far behind the rest of the world? Are we willing for our trade to be handicapped the fact that our telephone system is run not for the benefit of the public, but for the benefit of the shareholders of the National Telephone Company? What is the prime cause which makes us lag so far behind other countries? What precisely is it that places us under this disadvantage? It is the excessive cost of the telephone in this country. Compare London with Berlin. I will quote Mr. Forbes, who says that "the mean cost of the telephone in London is about £14, while in Berlin it is £7 10s." What possible reason can there be why we should pay twice as much in London for the use of the telephone as they do in Berlin? Take the cage of a country where the telephone has been extended, not merely as in England to the larger towns, but, practically, to every small country place, i.e., Jutland, in Denmark. In Jutland there are no less than 300 exchanges, and the subscription rate varies from £3 10s. to £4 3s. per annum. I venture to think that in this country we might develop the telephone to a very large extent in our country districts just as they have in Jutland. Why do we not do it? Because we are in the hands of the National Telephone Company, who do not see an immediate prospect of a large return, and who, therefore, will not go to the country districts; and because, if they did go, they would impose a rate which is altogether beyond the reach of the people living in the country. We are constantly told that the thing cannot be done in this country at a lower rate, and Mr. Forbes talks about the "relative values," and all the
130
rest of it, and that labour is cheaper in Germany, and, therefore, the telephone is cheaper. I am quite prepared to admit that; but, even so, I deny that if we had a proper system the telephone would be so much dearer in England than it actually is, and for this reason. Attempts have been made, not successfully so far, because the policy of the Government has been against it, to introduce a different system of telephony in this country. In Glasgow, for instance, an estimate was got out for setting up a complete system of exchanges. What was the rate to be? Was it £14, as under the National Telephone Company in London, or £8 or £10, as is charged by the company in a great many country towns? No, the charge suggested was five guineas. It was proved conclusively at the inquiry in Glasgow that the telephone might be made to pay exceedingly well in the hands of the Corporation at that rate. Then there is the extraordinary instance of Guernsey, where a local system has been set up. Already one in about 86 of the population has gone on to the system, as compared with one in about 600 in the neighbouring island of Jersey, which is in the hands of the National Telephone Company; and the rate charged is Guernsey is infinitely cheaper than the rate which is now being charged in Jersey, even after a very large reduction has been made. There are two reasons why these high rates are charged. The first is because the company, having a monopoly, is doing what everybody else with a monopoly would do—it is making as much as it possibly can; and the second is that the company is bound to pay interest upon a capital which is altogether too large. We have heard a great deal about the capital of the National Telephone Company. It has been said that it is very unfair to talk about "water" with the National Telephone Company. I will quote the words of Mr. Forbes, and the House will see what the chairman of the company admits is the extra amount of capital upon which this interest has to be paid. Mr. Forbes, in the 1895 inquiry, Question 4787, said:
"The total amount of money spent on the actual construction of the thing was £1,813,000; the amalgamation value and purchase value (those are the figures I read to you) was £3,105,100. The difference (what some people are pleased to call the water value) was £1,292,000."

131
Therefore the people of this country have to pay extra rates in order to provide the National Telephone Company with the interest upon this £1,292,000. Whatever may be the position of the National Telephone Company, is it right, is it fair, is it in the interest of the general public that they should be left in the enjoyment of that monopoly, and that our telephone rates should be determined, not by the actual cost of the service, but by the amount of "water" the company have to pay interest upon? It has been said that we are dealing unfairly with the National Telephone Company by bringing in this Bill. In the conversation which has been going on in the Lobby—and there has been a great deal of conversation in the Lobby in the last two days—I have heard the statement over and over again that nothing more scandalous was ever clone, especially by a Conservative Government, than to ask the Post Office to compete with what they are pleased to call "their own partner." If there was any suggestion of unfairness in this competition, I should be the very last to advocate it, and the right hon. Gentleman would have been the last person to bring in a Bill which did any injustice to the National Telephone Company, or any other company working under a licence from the Crown. What is the fact? The fact is that throughout the whole of this business the Post Office has always retained to itself an absolute right of competition, and has laid down emphatically times out of number that no company would have any cause of complaint if competition were started. The Treasury Minute of 1892, which has been so often quoted, after laying down that no new licences would be granted for the whole country says:
"But although this is the policy which commends itself to Her Majesty's Government, it must be distinctly understood that should licences hereafter lie granted on other principles, no company now or hereafter to be licensed will have any ground to complain of breach of contract or want of good faith on the part of the Postmaster-General."
Let us take the licence under which the National Telephone Company works at the present moment. Their licence was granted, I think, in 1884, and confirmed by a subsequent licence in 1892, and contains these words:
"Nothing in these presents contained shall prejudice or affect the right of the Post-
132
master-General from time to time to establish, extend, maintain and work any system or systems of telegraphic communication (whether of a like nature to the aforesaid business of the company or otherwise) in such manner as he shall in his discretion think fit."
Lastly, Mr. Forbes is asked by the Committee which sat in 1895 (Question 4614) whether he agreed with Mr. Lamb that "there is not even an honourable engagement on the part of the Post Office not to grant competing services," and he answered, "The Post Office are absolutely free. I will go a little further, and say that in all the negotiations (which were prolonged) there never was the slightest suggestion, directly or indirectly, of any such cession on the part of the Post Office, or a promise or pledge to lock up their discretion." It is proved up to the hilt by documents that anybody can inspect that there is no question that the Post Office has an absolute right to compete with the National Telephone Company, either by itself or by licensing other companies, or by licensing municipalities; and the suggestion that in so doing they will be acting in had faith will not hold water for a single instant. I know perfectly-well that my right hon. friend says such a suggestion has never been made. Mr. Forbes came before the Committee last year, and suggested that we should be acting in had faith, or that there would be some breach of an understanding—an understanding going behind a legal document—if any sort of competition were started. Mr. Forbes was confronted with the evidence that he himself gave in 1895; and what happened subsequently? All the Postmaster-Generals and Chancellors of the Exchequer who have linen in office while these negotiations were pending, one after the other, came before the Committee, and said there had been no such understanding at all, and they alleged, one after another, in perfectly clear terms, that the Post Office were absolutely free to compete with the National Telephone Company themselves or by any of their nominees. There is no doubt that the opposition to this Bill has come from the statement which has been sedulously circulated by the agents and friends of the National Telephone Company that we are acting in an unfair spirit in asking for competition. It is only fair that the House should know that there is not the slightest troth in the suggestion. What is the real opposition to this Bill?

133
It comes from a variety of sources. There are some persons who hold that municipal trading is a bad thing. It is rather late in the day to suggest that, because a great many municipalities now are responsible for their own gas, water, and electric light, and my limited experience goes to show that, as a rule, they do these things very well indeed. But this is not even municipal trading, because it has been laid down in the Report of the Select Committee, and confirmed in it Treasury Minute, that the telephone is not to be worked by the municipalities at a profit. I do not understand what sort of trading there call be when the idea of profit is absolutely wiped out. Other persons object to competition, and say it would be much better that the telephone should be in the hands of any one authority. Probably one unified system for the telephone would be the best plan if we could get it. No doubt that is what ought to have been done when the telephone was started sonic years ago. But that was not done, and are we to waste the ratepayers' money in buying up a large amount of obsolete plant at an inflated price in order to obtain what theoretically might be the best system? When people talk about the evils of competition, I am doubtful whether they have considered what competition has existed in the case of the telephone, and what the result has been. It has been admitted by all who have studied the question that the best town in the world, so far as the telephone service goes, is Stockholm, and yet in Stockholm you have three competitors working together and competing with each other. The hon. Baronet opposite said that was all very well, but in Stockholm the telephone does not pay. At all events, the chairman of the largest company in Stockholm stated before the Glasgow inquiry that they paid a dividend of 8 per cent. and were only precluded from paying more because 8 per cent was the limit allowed by their articles of association. Therefore the Stockholm Company under competition pays better than the National Telephone Company does with a system of monopoly; and I venture to think that the stimulus of competition might have a good effect even on the National Telephone Company. Other people object to this proposal because they think the local authorities are not the proper bodies to develop the system in the country districts, I do not know that local authori-
134
ties would be likely to develop the system very largely in the country districts, but if you allow the large municipalities to develop the system in their own localities you leave the Post Office free to go into the country districts and develop the system there, where the telephone has never been introduced at all. Therefore the provisions of this Bill will allow not merely local authorities to establish telephone services, but also enable the Post Office to do so in order to supplement the admittedly inadequate service which exists now, and then I think you will cover the country with the telephone in a manner which has never been done hitherto. I apologise for detaining the House so long, and I do not wish to occupy the time of the House longer, but I do urge the Government most strongly to persevere in this matter. The present system is admittedly wrong and inadequate. The telephone service in many places is bad, and even where it is good, as my right hon. friend pointed out, it only touches the upper classes, and it does not provide the telephone for the masses. There is an extraordinary absence of call offices everywhere, which does not conduce to make the telephone popular, and it does not go to the smaller places. The company appear to have only picked out the plums and taken the telephone there. Not only is the telephone system defective now, but it is likely to be more defective in the future. Mr. Forbes has said that in the year 1904 the National Telephone Company would be probably obliged to refuse all new subscribers; therefore I ask what is to be done? Can we allow a system which is defective now to continue, especially when it is likely to become more defective in the future? Can we contemplate with equanimity the suggestion that five years hence no new subscribers are to be allowed to go on the telephone, and that no further development of the telephone system is to take place in any part of the country? It appears to me clear that something must be done, and must be done quickly, and the question is what is to be done? The Government propose that the system of the National Telephone Company should be supplemented by competition, and by giving to places where the National Telephone Company now does not exist power to establish a system partly by the Post Office find partly by the local authorities. Tome that seems to be a reasonable and prac-

135
tical suggestion. The only other alternative is that the companies should be bought out now, in which case you will be buying a lot of plant which is on the single-wire system, which has now become obsolete, and you would pay a price for it altogether too big, and just about twice the amount for which the whole plant of the National Telephone Company could be replaced. That is the alternative, and I understand that the Government have not the slightest intention, as a national policy, of buying up the National Telephone Company. Something must be done, and I urge the Government to pass this Bill, which has been already well considered. I understand that there is a suggestion to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. That is the most transparent device for delay that I ever heard in the House of Commons, and there is nothing which the National Telephone Company desires more than that this measure should be referred to a Select Committee. We have had Select Committees on this question, and last year we went into the subject as fully as any Select Committee could possibly do. I say that this suggestion for a Committee is a mere device for delay, and I hope the Government will persevere in their intention, and that they will pass this Bill through its Second Reading to-night, or as soon as possible, and that they will certainly refuse the suggestion to refer the measure to a Select Committee.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The Secretary to the Treasury has made a very able speech, but a great deal of it was against one of the principal proposals in his own Bill. He has shown the grave and indeed conclusive reasons against the telephone service being undertaken by Government, and yet he proposes that Government should undertake it throughout the metropolitan area. The Government have promised an enquiry into the whole question of municipal trading, and yet they themselves propose a great extension of the system. Is any Bill really needed? Is the telephone system generally inefficient? It is much more recent than telegraphy, and yet, last year, while there were only 80,00,000 telegrams there
136
were over 540,000,000 messages sent through the telephone. It is idle, therefore, to talk of it as inefficient. It the telephone system is inefficient, how shall we characterise the failure of the telegraph system? But then it is said that the service here is more expensive. The comparison is very difficult. In Germany and Sweden Sir W. H. Preece believes that the State works the telephone at a loss, though there seem to be no accounts which show the result clearly. Moreover, in this country the company has to pay 10 per cent. of its gross receipts to the Government; and if the railway companies had had to pay 10 per cent. of their gross receipts to Government, does anyone suppose that our railway system would have been as good as it is? But when comparing our telephone system with that of other countries we must remember that the company here has also to pay way-leaves. These items amount to some £3, which must be allowed for in comparison. Again, in Germany a night service is not given. Lastly, Under existing conditions the English company has to amortize its stock by the year 1911. On the whole, therefore, it is almost impossible to make any exact comparison. But are we behind other countries? Here I will quote a very high authority, Sir W. H. Preece, the engineer in chief and electrician to the Post Office, He said in his evidence given before last year's Committee (p. 277):
"It is a most astonishing thing that, in the Press and all you read, they speak of the telephone system in England being so backward—so much behind other countries: as a matter of fact we are before Germany. The condition of telephones in this country is very advanced and it is a most unjust thing to have it constantly appearing in the Press and other places that the telephone in England is far behind the age."
Many of the complaints of the telephone rise from inexperience in, its use. Sir W. H. Preece pointed this out to the Committee of last year, and expressed his opinion that:
"If one-quarter of the intelligence (no doubt he meant the practice) of the operator were transferred to the subscriber, 99 per cent, of the complaints would cease."
I come now to the clauses which authorise and encourage municipalities to engage it,

137
the telephone business. Sir, our manufacturers and chambers of commerce view with much alarm the tendency of municipalities to engage in trading transactions. Some 200 petitions have been presented to the House this year by manufacturers and others, protesting against this tendency of the day. In the first place it will inevitably lead to an increase of rates. Business is not the plain sailing which some persons suppose. All those who have had to do with patents know how risky they are. For one patent which gives a profit, 10 leave a loss. I am not going to argue against the management of gas and water by municipalities. In some cases, at any rate, this may be desirable. There is, however, no member of the Government whose opinion on such a matter is entitled to greater weight than the Attorney-General. As Chairman of the Council of the Society of Arts he has had exceptional opportunities of studying the question, and he has told us:
"Whatever—might be said as to the profit made out of undertakings such as gas or tramways worked by corporations, his belief Wits that if the matter were thrashed out it would be found that the burden on the ordinary ratepayer was less where no such risks were undertaken."
Mr. Acworth, who has made a special study of this subject, has said:
"Anybody who knew the working of a corporation, as distinguished from a private trading holly, knew that if a corporation had not an absolute monopoly it was bound to go to the wall."
He further says:
"That workmen invariably do less work for a municipality than for a private owner; he did not know why they should, but experience proved that it was so."
Here, again, I may quote the very able Government Commissioner in the Glasgow inquiry. He gives his reason for thinking that the municipality have not considered the cost:
"All this shows that the Corporation have not really faced the question of finance, and, considering that the Corporation have a loan of £8,000,000, it seems to me that, from a ratepayers' point of view, it is a somewhat hazardous proposal that the Corporation should construct an entirely new telephone system … upon expectations which depend mainly on theoretical estimates and opinions; especially when it is remembered that the members of the Corporation have little or no personal knowledge of the construction and management of a telephone system."
138
My next reason for objecting to municipalities undertaking these new duties is the immense amount of debt which it will involve. Already that debt is enormous, is increasing, and must in any case increase. But if we put on them these new duties it will become something portentous. Moreover, you will alter the whole character of these municipal loans. Now they are safe, because municipalities do not engage in risky operations; but if they are to compete with building societies, to run tramways and omnibuses, carry out gas and electric lighting, work the telephones, and become manufacturers of the appliances used in these trades, the result will be that some municipalities, at any rate, will lose large sums, and municipal stocks will fluctuate according to their success or failure like those of other manufacturing concerns. Some municipalities will inevitably ruin themselves. The next objection is the amount of work which it will throw on these local bodies. There are many men who will give much of their time to public duties; but if they have to devote the whole they will not do so, and cannot be expected to do so, without payment. Yon will make it quite a big business. Surely the condition of New York ought to be a warning to us. Another result of this policy will be the enormous multiplication of municipal employees. The councillors will have to settle the wages of the electors. The results are easy to foresee. We have had some experience of that already. Victoria has lost £8,000,000 by its railways. And why? The Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the circumstances, and they reported that the railways were over-manned, and that the staff were overpaid. There were two persons to do the work of one. They proposed numerous economies, but in the words of the Economist:
"It is already clear that these proposals will meet with the strenuous opposition of the employees, who, unlike the Department itself, which is described as 'disorganised, if not demoralised,' are closely organised. The Board report in connection with this matter that there are seven associations established amongst the employees, the avowed object of the members of all being to protect their rights and privileges. The secretary of the association (an engine-driver), in the course of a long speech, denounced the report of the Board in unmeasured terms, calling its statements 'lies,' that a principal and valuable witness Was a 'cast-off expert in another colony,' That the Board had proved 'an abor-

139
tion and a sham;' and so on. All this stuff was punctuated by loud and prolonged cheering,' etc. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly assured the audience that, as ever, the working classes of the colony had his full sympathy'; and other Members of Parliament talked ambiguously, one inciting the men to prepare for 'the ordeal that would be sure to come.'"
The Society of Arts have expressed themselves strongly on the subject. They urged the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to enquire into it, 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."
The municipalities themselves have not asked for it. The Government have shown that they consider the question of municipal trading as a very grave question by themselves proposing not merely a Committee of this House, but a Joint Committee with the House of Lords on the question. Surely they ought not to prejudge it. This Bill proposes a great extension of municipal trading. Surely the Council of the London Chamber of Commerce were logical when they unanimously resolved:
"To urge on the Government that it is undesirable that the Postmaster-General should license the councils or county boroughs to provide systems of public telephonic communication, pending the Report of the Joint Committee about to be appointed by the two Houses to consider the whole question of municipal trading, and to urge upon the Government that, pending the report of the Joint committee to be appointed by the two Houses on municipal trading, the Telegraphs (Telephonic Communication, &c.) Bill should be postponed,"
Now, Sir, I come to the second part of the Bill—the proposal of the Government to institute a telephone service in London, and ultimately to work the whole system. This is open to most of the objections against municipalisation, told sonic others. There is the risk, I was going to say the certainty, of loss, which will fall on the taxpayers generally for the benefit of the few. There is the objection to increasing the number of employees. There is also the objection that it will check private enterprise and stop the progress of applied science. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech gave conclusive reasons against the nationalisation of the telephone, and yet he proposes to do in London exactly what he has himself
140
denounced. If it be right in London, why is it wrong in other places? We have seen in various parts of the world the benumbing influence of the Government undertaking work of this kind. Take the case of railways in India. There is a great desire to invest English capital in China. Many English railway companies are working in other foreign countries. Why are no new companies being started in India? Because the Government make railways themselves, and naturally invests will not compete under such circumstances. A very interesting paper was read last April at the Society of Arts by Mr. Bell, who has made a special study of railways and written a standard work on the subject. Mr. Bell was at first very much in favour of the management of railways by the Government, but the result of his experience had been to convince him that
"the only means of introducing a new and vigorous life into Indian railways is by inducing a free and unrestricted now of private capital to India, and that this implies the gradual, but eventually complete, abandonment of State administration."
He says:
"I have laid stress on what I should call the pernicious element in the present policy of the Government, i.e., the retention of the idea that, the State must continue to exercise direct action in both the construction and working of railways. I have that this cannot co-exist with really vigorous life in private enterprise, and that it is the latter to which we should look as the ultimate and sole agency for such operations."
Sir Julian Danvers, who has beers connected with Indian railways from their commencement, and acted as Government director, so that he speaks with, perhaps, unrivalled experience, in the course of the discussion, expressed his opinion
"that the agency of companies was, upon the whole, the most satisfactory nude of carrying out railway enterprise. That seemed to be now the opinion of the Government. Railways, being commercial concerns, were better in the hands of those who could manage then t on commercial principles. If the choice was between a State and a company, the latter was on the whole most desirable."
I do not ask the House to accept any opinion of mine, but I may cite the very highest authority on such a question—the Society of Electrical Engineers. The society has passed the following resolution:

141
"That in the opinion of this Committee it is desirable, 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 these kingdoms should discourage the limier-taking of exchange systems within telephone areas by independent enterprise."
I really could not myself put the case against the nationalisation of the telephone more strongly than it was put by my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury in reply to a deputation. What has happened in the case of the telegraphs? Soon after they were purchased it was found that £1,000,000 had been spent, not only without the authority of Parliament, but actually without the head of the Department having the least idea that this had been done. Fortunately, the money was honestly spent, but it might have been otherwise. A few years later it was found that we were losing money by the telegraphs. It is often said t hat this is because we gave too much for them, but that is not the reason. In 1875, the Government appointed a Committee to inquire into the reason of the loss incurred by the telegraphs, and the Committee accounted for it by pointing out that the wages and salaries paid for the subordinate work had all been greatly raised. Since then the loss has been still further increased by the lowering of the charge for messages. The total loss, according to the last return, was £7,000,000. The loss last year was over £600,000, and according to the return the interest on the capital was £298,000; so that, even if nothing whatever had been given for the system, the actual loss on the working would have been over £300,000, and it is a loss which is increasing every year. Since the Bill was introduced a number of important bodies have passed resolutions with reference to it, and in moving the rejection I am not expressing merely my own opinion. The Corporation of Liverpool have resolved that they record their great dissatisfaction with the Government scheme for dealing with the telephone, and that they protest against the proposals embodied in the Telephone Bill. Resolutions condemning it have also been passed by the Liverpool Dock Board, and all the principal Liverpool associations, by the Changers of Commerce of London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh,
142
Belfast, Dublin, Nottingham, Sunderland, and some twenty others of our principal Chambers of Commerce; as well as many Stock Exchanges—for instance, those of Glasgow, Liverpool, and Manchester. This is surely a very remarkable consensus of Opinion, and it is, moreover, the opinion of those whom the measure most concerns. I hardly remember any case in which such remarkable opposition was shown to a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Associated Chambers of Commerce met and did not say a word about this measure. What happened? The Associated Chambers met after the Bill was introduced, and a very strong resolution was proposed condemning the Bill, but the London Chamber of Commerce thought that it would not be desirable that an opinion should be expressed on the Bill until there had been more ample opportunity for considering it. I was present, and in fact I myself seconded the previous question, on the ground—a very wise ground—that the Associated Chambers should not hastily pass such a resolution, For my part, I maintain that the telephone is nationalised already. The State receives one-tenth of the gross receipts. It gains £100,000 a year by the telephone and loses £600,000 a year by the telegraphs. Moreover, the gain by the telephone is increasing, and the loss by the telegraph is increasing. Surely the wise course is obvious. But we are asked by this Bill to do exactly the opposite. We are asked to abandon the system by which we profit, and replace it by the system under which we lose. I confess I doubt whether the Government have considered fully the course on which they are inviting us to embark in this and other similar Bills. The hon. Member for Battersea knows his own mind, and has the courage of his opinions. Lord Wemyss said, at the Society of Arts, he should like to ask Mr. Burns whether it was his view that all private property—what he called instruments of production—should be in the hands of the State or the municipalities. Mr. Barns at once answered "Yes." This is, indeed, the logical conclusion from the proposals contained in the Bill. The hon. Member for Battersea wishes that all the instruments of production in the country should be in the hands of municipalities or of the Government; but I do not think he can see the end of the road he is taking.

143
No doubt there often seems a temporary and specious advantage in a proposal that any given business should be undertaken by Government or municipalities. Why begin with the telephone? There are other things more important. Take the case of bread. Bread is more necessary than the telephone. Why should not the Government supply Londoners with bread? The profits of bakers are much larger than the dividends of the Telephone Company. The Government might largely reduce the number of shops and the expenses of distribution. Everyone admits it would Le a mistake, but it seems to me that there is more to be said for taking up the business of bakers than that of telephones. The hon. Member for Battersea and his friends do not shrink from the proposal, and they are at least logical. I have shown that this Bill is opposed by the Society of Arts and Manufactures, by the Society of Electrical Engineers, by the great Chambers of Commerce, and by several of the Stock Exchanges—all, in fact, who have expressed any opinion on the subject. We contend that the commercial operations of the State and municipalities should be confined as strictly as possible. If a business is of great utility and cannot be carried on by private enterprise, there is do doubt a ease for State intervention; but where, as in this case, the business can be and is conducted by able and responsible companies, the intrusion of the Government and municipalities is unwise injurious, and contrary to public policy. I believe the State will lose, and lose heavily, by the telephone, as they have by the telegraph, but I would rather base toy ease on the broad ground that it is unwise, and contrary to the public interests that Government should undertake business for profit. That is not the true function of Government. I submit that the proposals in this Bill are unwise and impolitic; that they will lead to a heavy loss, and cheek both private enterprise and scientific progress. Committee of last year only inquired into one part of the subject, and being therefore convinced that the subject requires further study and inquiry, I propose after the Second Reading to move that it be referred to a Select Committee. No doubt the result will be to postpone the matter for the present year, but it is of comparatively little importance to settle the question this year. What is of import-
144
ance is that when we settle it, we should do so wisely.
SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE: No one has greater respect for the right bon. Baronet than I have, but fail to see that there is really very much in his speech that was relevant to the Bill before the House, and I should like to bring the attention of the House back to the Bill which has keen moved a second time to-night. The measure is certainly not the least important of the measures introduced into this House he the Government. Indeed, I would venture to say, if I did not see the state of the front Opposition Benches, that it is the most important measure yet introduced by the Government. All classes of the community are deeply concerned in this Bill, because all classes are interested in the development of the trade and Commerce of the country; and it is precisely because the aim and object of this Bill, as reflect in the opinion of the Select Committee of which I had the honour to be a menthol, is to develop that trade and commerce, that I venture humbly to support it. We are every day hearing from chandlers of commerce and other bodies that our commerce has to sustain an intense and cumulative competition, and anything that would remove the obstacles to lair trade and facilitate its progress surely deserves the earnest consideration and approval of this House. The Times not long ago said that the telephone was not only a modern adjunct to our trade and commerce, but a most essential adjunct to our commercial life. The expansion of our telephone system is called for by public opinion and by the necessities of our commercial life. What is it stands in the way? Notwithstanding what has been said by the right hon. Baronet, the present service is insufficient and inadequate. The right hon. Baronet quoted the opinion of Sir William Preece with great approval, but in his official report made in 1896, Sir William Preece stated:
"The British public floes not care for the telephone. It is unpopular because it has been badly managed in the past."
I think that is an answer to the right hon. Baronet when he said that there was no ground of complaint regarding insufficient or inadequate service. Sir William Preece says further, that a perfect service and a

145
moderate and equitable tariff would be as popular here as in Berlin or Stockholm. The high charges exacted is another great obstruction in the way of the expansion of the telephone system. The object of this Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee. The Committee came to two conclusions—one, that the present telephone system could not be of general benefit to the country; and, secondly, that the monopoly of this private trading company could only be remedied by competition. The Committee recommended that the competition should be in two forms—State competition and competition by the local authorities. It did not say that competition was to be entirely by the State or by the local authorities; but it did say that where the State could more efficiently give competition there the State should come and that where a local authority could more efficiently give competition there it should come in. It was established before the Committee that the National Telephone Company obtained a monopoly which it was never intended it should obtain; it is a monopoly of an exceptional and aggravated character, which benefited the shareholders, but which has been really most disastrous to the public interests. It is a monopoly which has no analogy in our public service. We have given monopolies to railway companies, gas companies, and water Companies, electric lighting companies, and tramway companies, but with regard to all those companies we have imposed stringent restrictions; and conditions in the public interest; but we can find none in regard to the monopoly exercised by the National Telephone Company. It is a monopoly unrestricted, for instance, as to its charges, unrestricted as to its dividends, as to the capital it can create, and as to the conditions of issue of that capital, and unrestricted in the method of preferring one trader to another, and the manner in which it will serve one and not another. There were practical illustrations given before the Committee of evils resulting from this unrestricted monopoly, and the result has been to stifle instead of stimulate telephonic enterprise. What are the interests involved? They are threefold: the interests of the public, of the Postmaster-General, and the National Telephone Company. The Postmaster-General has absolutely and exclusively the right to grant licences, and it is his duty to exercise the right in
146
the interests of the public; and by the licence which was granted to the company in 1884 it was believed that that duty was being exercised in the public interest, and, of course, competition was not to be excluded. At that time there were no less than fourteen competing companies; but, one by one, the National Telephone Company bought them up and absorbed them, and what was a competitive system was turned into a monopoly. Monopoly was never intended for another reason. By the terms of the licence the rights of the Postmaster-General to conduct a telephone service himself were specially reserved, and he also reserved the right to grant similar licences to others. The public never expected that there would be this monopoly, for everyone expected that when the National Telephone Company's patents expired in 1891 competition would increase. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made it very in his speech tonight that the result has been to retard the development of telephonic enterprise in the country. I am not going to repeat the figures, but the fact exists that, owing to the National Telephone Company having this monopoly, the United Kingdom is only tenth on the list of European countries with regard to telephonic enterprise. I may point out that even in our own colony of New Zealand we have an example which puts us to shame in this matter. It is a thinly populated country, but it has 5,443 subscribers. In Wellington, there is one to every 37; in Auckland, one to every 33; in Dunedin, one to every 25; and in Christchurch, one to every 18. At the same time there were in the metropolitan district only 10,848 subscribers, or one to every 519 inhabitants. We are put to shame in this matter by Berlin, where, with its million and a-half of inhabitants, there are more subscribers than in the London district, with its six millions of population, and this is principally due to the fact that the rate is there only £7 10s. a year. Such has been the effect of the monopoly of the National Telephone Company. What is the remedy? It is that prescribed by the Bill—competition, the effect of which will be, first, to reduce charges; and, second, to improve the service, which is inadequate at the present time. The issue before the House is whether that remedy, prescribed by the Select Committee and embodied in the Government Bill, is sound, or whether the

147
remedy suggested by the right hon. Baronet opposite, of nationalisation, should be adopted.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: My remedy is true competition by companies.
SIR J. WOODHOUSE: I undestand that the position of the right hon. Baronet is true competition, and I gather from the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury he is prepared to meet the right hon. Baronet to a large extent on that ground. But the first point which the Government and the Committee want to ensure is the breaking down of the monopoly of the National Company, and I am bound to say I have heard very little from the right hon. Baronet as to the breakdown of that monopoly. I say that when we get this Bill we will have reduced charges and a more efficient service. According to the report of Dr. Von Stephan, when the charges in Berlin Were reduced from £10 to £7 10s. per annum the effect was, in one year, an increase of 100 per cent. in the local exchanges, 68 per cent in the subscribers, and 118 per cent. in the number of connections. We believe that competition and lower charges would produce the same result in this country, and the only issue between us is as to what the nature of that competition should be. I think that the best competition that could be introduced, at any rate in the case of the great municipalities of the country, is municipal competition. I have good authority for that. Sir Spencer Walpole, the late Secretary to the Post Office, said to the Committee:
"I do not think a Government Department is likely to prove a very active competitor."
The question was put to him:
"Therefore your opinion is that municipal competition would be the more vigorous of the two?"
And he replied:
"I think so; it is obvious that the National Telephone Company are more afraid of municipal competition than of Die competition of the Post Office."
I do not think that one who was so long in the service of the Post Office should be regarded as a Mean authority.
148
Why should we be alarmed, as the right hon. Baronet seems to be, at the introduction of municipal competition? The only argument against it is that it would alarm the merchants and manufacturers of the country. We have heard of that bogey before, when it was proposed to confer power on the municipalities to work tramways, the water supply, electric lighting, gas, etc. There can be no more difficulty in a municipality, working telephones locally and within the area prescribed than in their supplying water, gas, electric light, and working tramways, all of which, it is admitted, they have done with great advantage to the community. The right hon. Baronet shakes his head but let him go to Sheffield and inquire whether the tramways have not been worked by the municipality with great success, or go to Glasgow, where they have reduced the fares to one halfpenny for every man, woman, and child, and made a large profit. Anyone who studies the matter knows that municipalities can do it without being open to the reproach of the right hon. Baronet, that evil results would follow as they did from Tammany in New York. A municipal telephone service has been established within the last few years ill Amsterdam and Rotterdam, Holland. In Rotterdam, according to the report for last year, after providing for every expenditure—and they are very liberal to their employees—they made a profit of £5,500, which enables them to pay interest mill the sinking fund to pay off the capital in 25 years. With examples of this kind before us I cannot understand the objection to a municipal service. We had before the Committee representatives from Glasgow and Edinburgh—two of the most enlightened municipalities in the country—and they said that their municipalities were prepared to establish municipal exchanges, and that they had already lists of subscribers who were prepared to support them. We have an illustration as to the effect of local exchanges in Guernsey, the only place where the Postmaster-General has in recent years issued a licence as against the National Company. In Jersey there is a population of 54,000, and the National Company charged a rate of £10, which was reduced at the threat of competition to £6 10s. but the ratio of subscribers was only one to 650 of the population. But in Guernsey, under the licence of the Postmaster-General, there was a telephone to one in

149
every 84 inhabitants, with a cheap system of 30s. subscription and 1d. for every call. That is not imagination, but fact, and an object lesson as to what would take place throughout the country if this Bill were passed into law. I cannot understand the objections to a municipal service raised by hon. Members who profess to be acting solely in the public interest. I can understand the fight which the National Company are making in this matter. There is no doubt they are moving heaven and earth to prevent this Bill being passed into law. It is common knowledge that they are using the great interest which the representatives on their board have in this house, and the enormous interest of their clientèle; on the Stock Exchange, to prevent this Bill passing into law. I would ask any hon. Member whether he was ever so deluged before with resolutions of the Stock Exchange; but I would ask them to disregard these resolutions and the interests of a private trading company, and regard only those great public interests which we are here to represent, and, at the same time, to do justice to the interest of the existing company which the right hon. Gentleman has under his care. Municipalities, in working a telephonic service, would have sole regard to public interests they would conduct operations under the public eye, they would have no paid board of directors, but would have a large stall which could supply a cheaper service and extend the telephone system as the trade of the country demanded it should be extended.
MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: The hon. Member who has just sat down, and those who preceded him on the same side, seem to think that there is no alternative but their own pet municipal system, and that all those who oppose the Government scheme are the advocates of the National Telephone Company. I assure the House that that is not the case, and in proof of that I appeal to the unanimous opinion of the community of which I am one of the representatives. Their opinion is perfectly solid on this question. Those who know the Parliamentary representatives of Liverpool know that they have no want of sympathy with the general views of the Government, but I venture to say that there is an equal unanimity on the
150
part of the people of Liverpool in their objection to the Bill now before the House. That objection does not proceed from one quarter alone, but from the Chamber of Commerce, the mercantile body, the Corporation, the Dock Board, the shipowners, the Steamship Owners' Association, and even from professional bodies. All those sections of the community have joined together in expressing their desire that the Government Bill should be withdrawn, and that the Government should endeavour to formulate some Bill on the principle of nationalisation. Now, some remarks have been made as to the character of the deputation which waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury a few weeks ago, and which I introduced to the right hon. Gentleman, and some endeavours have been made to disparage the composition of the body. I would only say that the deputation was of a most weighty character, and although it has been said that it did not include all the Chambers of Commerce in the country, I believe that no Chamber Of Commerce in the country has expressly adopted the views of the Government, except that of Tunbridge Wells, which can hardly be regarded as a great commercial centre. I want to state the reasons why we take the step, with great regret, of opposing this Bill. I am sorry to find that the Secretary to the Treasury has imputed interested motives to the objectors to this Bill, and that line of argument was followed by the hon. Member who has just sat down. But I assure the House that I would not have addressed it on the subject had I had any interest, direct or indirect, in the National Telephone Company. The deputation which waited upon the right hon. Gentleman at their preliminary meeting inquired whether any one of the proposed speakers at the interview had an interest in the Company, and the result was that it was found that not one of them had any such interest. It has been argued by the right hon. Gentleman that this is a movement in behalf of the large and wealthier traders in the country, in order to keep to themselves the monopoly of the telephone which they have now got. That is altogether a mistake, because wholesale and large traders are not so narrow-minded as not to know that what would benefit small traders would also benefit them. As the right hon. Baronet the Member for London

151
University has said, all that the Chambers of Commerce have desired is that some steps should be taken to popularise telephones throughout the country. I think we all admit that a man who is an unlimited user of the telephones ought to pay more than the man who is a limited user. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the German system on this subject, but that is a State system. I think we are all agreed that the present system cannot continue. I do not want to make any charge against the National Telephone Company, and I think t hat the House should not deal unfairly or ungenerously with them, for we have to remember that they were the pioneers of the telephone enterprise in this country. They pushed it, spent large sums of money upon it, and developed it when it was coldly and doubtfully, regarded by the Government. The result is that the company have now 883 exchanges and 542 millions of calls per annum. One other reason why the present arrangement cannot continue is that the dual control involved is most unsatisfactory in in the working. Although the trunk wire conversations are not more numerous than 4 per cent., great delays now occur, and it is impossible to locate through whose fault these occur—whether it is the fault of the National Telephone Company or of the Government trunk wire service. We should, therefore, consider very seriously and carefully what ought to be the system in the future. Any system, to be a success, must have these essential characteristics—single central control, uniformity of system, communion between the users of the telephone, and control over the way-leaves. Now, the Bill before the House contains two main features. It asks for power to borrow two millions sterling, with which the Post Office should enter into more energetic competition with the National Telephone Company in London. I object to the word competition in the matter of this service, believing, as I do, that it is a mistake altogether. Competition is all very well with respect to trade, but it is not desirable in a national service, where it is essential that there should be complete co-operation between all parts of the undertaking. It is the essence of competition that one system should attempt to displace any others that compete with it, and that is not desirable here. Another objec-
152
tionable feature of the Government proposal is that it involves a large unnecessary expenditure of capital; for it means two or more systems working side by side where one ought to suffice; two exchanges for one, and two sets of wires along the streets instead of one. The second section of the Bill is even more objectionable, where it proposes the municipalisation of the telephone. At present the United Kingdom is mapped out into 471 telephone areas, of which 336 are in England, 86 in Scotland, and 52 in Ireland. It the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were carried out, the result would lie that each of these areas would be a separate authority, with separate systems, competing with each other. The general effect would be a multiplicity of systems which would involve the business of the country in the utmost confusion. But that is not all. Each of these areas includes a large mint-her of local authorities. Take Liverpool, for instance. In that area there are 158 square miles, partly in Lancashire and partly in Cheshire. In it are included the boroughs of Liverpool, Birkenhead, and Bootle, 17 urban districts, and two county councils. If this Bill is adopted by each of these local authorities, and if each sets up its own separate telephone system, confined to its own particular area, how can inter-communication he arranged between them all? Junction wires would be required; and at whose expense are these to be provided? The adoption of the Bill in this respect would be going back, not to the days of the Heptrarchy, but to the days of village communities—I might even say, to the Patriarchal age; and confusion would be worse confounded. May I look at the matter for a moment from a municipal point of view? There are already 114 municipal boroughs in England, the local authorities of which have entered into agreements with the National Telephone Company, 13 in Scotland and 103 urban districts in Ireland. These agreements have to a large extent obviated the objections made to the present system, for they require the company to provide a twin wire system, to lay the wires underground on a payment of, I think, 5s to the local authority for each wire, not to increase the present charges, and to give the service to every citizen who will pay the changes and enter into an agreement with the company. I submit to the House

153
that the true remedy for the settlement of the question is the nationalisation of the telephones. An hon. Member has said that the Government would have to buy the "water" and pay an exaggerated price for the undertaking of the National Telephone Company. Surely, if no agreement has been come to, have we any reason to doubt but that a fair result would be arrived at by arbitration? The labour difficulty has been mentioned, and it has been said that the Post Office employs 160,000 persons, and that it is undesirable to increase the staff. I will put before the House a practical suggestion—that the Government should take over the control of the telephones, leaving the company to work out their system until 1911, the company, charging sufficient to pay interest and provide a sinking fund. Now, Sir, I support the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for London University that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It may be said that we have had a Select Committee already. But it has never considered the question of nationalisation, and therefore the inquiry has been incomplete. Moreover, since this Bill has been introduced an important change has been made which demands serious consideration. There is no occasion for urgency; it is of far more importance that we should not take a false step. Having regard to all the circumstances, we had better delay our imprimatur to the Bill until the whole of the various points I have mentioned have been thoroughly dealt with.
MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: Before asking the House to listen to one or two observations upon the main question, I should like to refer in a single sentence to what has already assumed the aspect of a personal question. My right hon. friend, in making his motion this evening, made reference in his speech to stockbrokers, and on the other side of the House, in a speech which we have just listened to, a very pointed allusion was made to the effect that stockbrokers and the Stock Exchange had had a great deal to do with this question. Well, Sir, for my sins I have had to follow the profession of a stockbroker, but I should like to ask the House to accept my assurance that in any line I have taken with regard to this Bill I have been actuated purely by public motives. If I were to look at this matter
154
from a personal point of view I could see in the proposal of my right hon. friend this evening—a proposal for the establishment of an unlimited number of companies—a bountiful field for my own energies in relation to my own particular business. But that consideration does not enter into my mind in the slightest in considering this problem. If I may be allowed at this somewhat late hour, I should like to offer a few remarks upon the general question. This Bill, which has been brought in by my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Treasury, proposes to carry out the recommendation of a Committee of this House which examined the subject and repotted last year. I need not refer to the provisions of the measure itself or to the Treasury Minute which has been published in explanation of the Bill, beyond saying that it is necessary, in order to understand the precise proposals of the Government, to read these two documents together mid to treat them as a whole. That is the only way in which a proper understanding of the question as it presents itself to this House can be come to. Well, Sir, the first remark which I desire to make is that the Bill is not justified by the Deport of the Select Committee. That criticism has already been made this evening by an hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Joicey) who had the privilege of sitting upon that Committee but what I wish to point out also is that the Bill goes further than the reference. The reference to that Committee was substantial and precise. It was to inquire and report whether the telephone service was, or was calculated to become, of such general benefit as to justify its being undertaken by municipal and other local authorities. The reference is confined exclusively to the question of whether or not a municipality should be permitted to take up this enterprise. In the Report we find that the Committee travelled outside that reference, and in their Report they recommend that competition should take place, either by the Post Office—by the Post Office preferentially—or by municipalities; and they go on to say that a really efficient Post Office service is the best means of obtaining competition. But this Bill does not provide for an efficient Post Office competition. This Bill provides that two millions of money should be drawn from the general taxation of the country in Order that that money may be

155
spent in the area of London. I very much doubt whether, when that comes to be understood, the people throughout the country generally mill be satisfied that such a large sum of money should be drawn from such a source and should be devoted exclusively to the development of the telephone service in London. The metropolis, of course, is an exceedingly important place as well as being the capital, but, after all, it was not, I venture to think, in the minds of the Committee when they made these recommendations, the only place where an efficient postal service should be in angurated. Well, Sir, there is another point which I desire to state in connection with this matter. In the Report of the Committee we do not find a Report which gives to the House a complete indication of the evidence which the Committee had before them when they considered the question. For instance, one omission in this Report I should like to draw special attention to. It has been referred to previously this evening, but it will bear pointing out once more. In the evidence—I have not the evidence, here, and it would not be fair to trouble the House with it—most important witnesses were called on behalf of the Government. Those witnesses were high officials of the Post Office, and gentlemen who had been accustomed for years to handle the telephone question in all its phases. What was the evidence those gentlemen gave? The evidence those gentlemen gave was that in their judgment the telephone was a national service. It was a service which should be undertaken by the Government, and they even went so far as to say that it had always been the intention of the Department that it should ultimately become a Government service. Well, Sir, I say that that evidence was very important evidence, and I complain that whereas matters have been brought into this Report—I am making no reflection on the Committee—which have not been points upon which reference was made to the Committee, we are not provided with guidance where we had reason to expect it, but have been left to wade through the very voluminous evidence to which I have referred till we come to the evidence of the Government's own witnesses, in order to discover that they were most emphatic in the view that the telephone service
156
should be a national service. Well, Sir, we have had to-night from the right hon. Gentleman a further proposal which was not contained in the reference to the Committee, and which was not contained in the recommendation's of the Committee, and that proposal is that there should be granted an indefinite number of licences to private companies to undertake this business. Well, before I speak of the question of inaugurating these various and conflicting services, I should like to say one word with regard to the opposition which has been offered since this Bill was brought into this I House. I will not go in detail into the arguments as to the validity or importance of that opposition. I venture, however, to say, that no more remarkable series of resolutions have ever been passed with regard to any measure having a commercial bearing than the series of resolutions which have been passed by Chambers of Commerce, by Stock Exchanges, by Corporations, and by other large bodies interested in commerce and finance throughout the country. There is one point, however. I desire to note. My right hon. friend said that practically the only corporations which had moved in this matter were the Corporations of Liverpool noel Nottingham. But I find that there have been a large number of resolutions from other corporate bodies, and in particular I find a resolution which was passed by the Council of the Association of Municipal Corporations on 12th January, 1899. This resolution was to the effect that the Municipal Corporations Association strongly protested against the powers of the National Telephone Company being extended, and against any Act being passed which might tend to delay or interfere with the Government undertaking the telephone service of the country. Now, Sir, the fact that this Bill has been brought in cannot alter that opinion. But other bodies have taken the same view. I find that at a meeting of the Convention of Scotch Burghs, in which all burghs of importance are represented, a resolution was passed urging the Government to undertake the management and control of all telephones throughout the country, and memorialising the Government accordingly. I know also that individual corporations in Scotland have done the same. I do not profess to have followed the movement

157
so closely in England as I have done in regard to Scotland, but I think it is minimising the importance of the position as regards corporations to say that practically only Liverpool and Nottingham Corporations have acted in the matter. But, Sir, the main question to be considered is the question of how far the Government scheme meets the difficulties of the case. I should like to say as to that that nothing could exceed, to my mind, the absolute absurdity of contemplating that there should be in large centres, in existence at the same time and competing with each other, a series of different bodies endeavouring to serve the public in the matter of telephones. It appears to me that there is a root fallacy lying at the bottom of the whole question, and that fallacy is to assume that when you have provided a man with a telephone you have given him telephonic communication. You have done nothing of the kind. What a man wants, if he wishes to have the telephone, is to be put into communication with all those who also have the telephone, in order to carry out his business without the loss of time involved in calling personally. I ask the House to consider what will be the result of the competing systems established under the Bill. The immediate effect will be to cause great expense, owing to the competition to obtain the services of the limited number of skilled operators and experts available. The proper telephone service in the future must be a Government service under the control of some central authority like the Post Office, established on a uniform system, and made as cheap as possible in the interest of the public. But the proposal of the Government is no remedy for the state of affairs which exists, while the whole policy embodied in the Bill is a new departure on behalf of the Government. There is no way out of the muddle into which the Government has got except by a policy of purchase.
MR. W. F. LAWRENCE[speaking amid cries of "Divide!"]: It is all very well for hon. Members to wish to divide the House at this stage, but this is a question of such very great magnitude that it ought not to be hurriedly passed over. The question is whether our telephone system is in future to be worked by Private companies by
158
municipal bodies, or by the State. I am one of those who believe that the private companies are properly ruled out of the question, inasmuch as we cannot expect the streets of a municipality can be placed at their disposal; but I am also of opinion that Municipal systems are out of the question. I think my hon. friend and colleague in the representation of Liverpool, who has just spoken, has shown clearly to everybody who has been lucky enough to hear his very lucid and short speech, that a municipal system in a large area with separate exchanges is perfectly unworkable. I am quite certain that the business community which I have the honour to represent would repudiate such a proposal. A previous speaker has alleged our action is taken merely in the interests of the National Telephone Company. With the permission of the House I will read one or two lines of the resolution passed by the Liverpool City Council on the 6th of February. It is to the effect that the Council strongly protest against the powers of the National Telephone Company being extended, or to anything being done which would tend to delay or interfere with the Government undertaking the telephone service. I submit that, the action of Liverpool——
It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

SERVICE FRANCHISE BILL.
As amended, further considered.
Amendment proposed—
"In Page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word 'tenant,' to the word 'not withstanding,' in line 11."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
Debate arising, and it being after mid-night, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow,

COUNTY COURT OFFICERS IN IRELAND (CLERICAL ASSISTANCE).
Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 20th June; Mr. Hanbury], to lie upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the motion fir the adjournment of the House,
MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Barracks Loan Fund Bill is the first Order for to-morrow; and whether the Under-Secretary for War is going to make a statement in moving the necessary resolution.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend, the Under-Secretary for War will make a statement at 12 o'clock to-morrow in introducing the Barracks Loan Fund Bill, which will be the first Order of the Day. The second Order will be the continuation of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Telephones Bill.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Metropolitan Streets Regulation Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly not at present, Sir.
Adjourned at 10 minutes after Twelve o'clock,