Commons Sitting of 28 June 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BRYNMAWR AND WESTERN VALLEYS RAILWAY BILL
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BURY CORPORATION [Lords].
    BURY CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  BROOKES PARK (LONDONDERRY) BILL [Lords].
  To be read a second time upon Thursday, 6th July.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL [RHYL ORDER].
  Mr. Baldwin, Mr. M'Kenna, and Mr. Tomlinson nominated members of the Select Committee on Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill [Rhyl Order], with two members to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Sir William Walrond.)
PETITIONS.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, for alteration, to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Newton Stewart, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Bradford, and Grantham (two); to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANCY ACT, 1898.
  Petition from Glasgow, for extension of provisions to Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY RIFLE RANGES.
  Return [presented 26th June], to be printed. [No 251.]
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented of Rules and Programme of Examinations for 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2,296 to 2,301 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 506 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Special Report from the Select Committee on the Pubic Health Acts Amendment Bill, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 252.]

  TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, etc.) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment [June 26th] to Question [June 21st]—"That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.":—
  And which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the words the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.,' and add the words 'a Select Committee.'"—(Mr. Cohen.)
  Question again proposed—"That the

  875
  words 'the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.,' stand part of the Question."
  MR. KIMBERrose to speak.
  MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has already spoken.
  MR. KIMBER: I began speaking at five minutes before 12 on Monday, and I think I am not debarred from finishing my speech.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Debate was resumed yesterday, and another hon. Member spoke.
  MR. KIMBER: But I was informed by the responsible representatives of the front bench that the Debate would not be resumed last night and that I might go home.
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not affect the question of order.
  MR. CAWLEY: How it can be contended that this Bill can be better dealt with by a Committee consisting partly of members of this House and partly of members of the House of Lords I cannot understand. The hon. Members who oppose this Bill going to the Grand Committee on Trade would never be satisfied unless they got a Committee which would decide exactly as they wish. The hon. Member for Islington contended that the action of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite was not in accordance with the findings of the Select Committee. That Committee was "strongly of opinion that general, immediate, and effective competition by the Post Office or local authorities is necessary," and "that a really efficient Post Office service affords the best means of securing such competition." That does not say at all that the competition should be by the Post Office; it only says the Post Office perhaps might be the best means. As I understand, if the Post Office take over the National Telephone Company they will have to take it over on certain conditions.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the motion before the House.
  MR. KIMBER: On a question of order. Not being present last night, I
  876
  cannot say from personal observation what took place, but I understand the Order was called on, and immediately, on a question being put by an hon. Member, adjourned.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is misinformed. An hon. Member spoke for two or three minutes, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House turned round and said that if he persisted in his objection to the motion he would immediately adjourn it, and he moved the adjournment of the Debate, which was then agreed to.
  MR. KIMBER: May I ask one more question? Is it competent for me now to move a further Amendment upon the Amendment which is now before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: No; the question is that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question.
  MR. CAWLEY: The arguments which have been used in favour of sending this Bill to a Select Committee are that the previous Committee did not go into the question of municipal trading. I submit that a Committee investigating the telephone question could not go into the question of municipal trading. The whole matter has been investigated thoroughly, and I am decidedly in favour of it going to the Standing Committee on Trade.
  MR. LABOUCHEREOne reason why I object to the course which has been pursued by the Government is that we cannot enter into the merits of certain statements which were made by the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, and it is on account of those statements that some of us entertain an objection to this Bill going before a Grand Committee instead of being discussed in the House. The result of sending the Bill to a Select Committee at this period of the session, as is suggested, would be to shelve the whole thing. It is then proposed to send it to a Grand Committee. How have we arrived at that proposal? After the able speech of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Second Reading of the Bill, there undoubtedly was obstruction. I The next day the First Lord of the Treasury tells us that under the circumstances he proposes to send the Bill to a

  877
  Grand Committee. What were the circumstances? When the Secretary of the Treasury made his speech there was no intention of sending the Bill to a Grand Committee.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Yes.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: And yet the Secretary of the Treasury asked us to pass the Second Reading, and did not, as is usual, tell us the Bill would be sent to a Grand Committee? The intention may have been adumbrated in the mind of the First Lord of the Treasury, but it did not assume living form until the next day, when the right hon. Gentleman announced that as a condition of the obstruction not being proceeded with the Bill should be sent to a Grand Committee. That was bargain number one. How was that bargain made?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): I have thought from the first that sending it to a Grand Committee was the quickest way of getting it through.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: If the necessary time had been given in the House, as we all anticipated, it would not have been necessary to send it to a Grand Committee. But if the First Lord of the Treasury had told the Secretary of the Treasury that he would not have time given to discuss it——
  MR. HANBURY: That was not said.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Somehow or other the Secretary of the Treasury undoubtedly arrived at the conviction in his mind that it was very doubtful whether he would get time to discuss the Bill. He will admit that.
  MR. HANBURY: No.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, I cannot look into the mind of the Secretary of the Treasury, but that is the result. Did the First Lord of the Treasury or the Treasury, between the time of moving the Second Reading and the making of the announcement with regard to the Bill going to a Grand Committee, see any
  878
  Members of the House who are also directors of this Company? They will not answer. Silence gives consent. The next step is that the Secretary of the Treasury gets up and says, "We now propose to send the Bill to a Grand Committee, and, what is more, I will tell you of certain concessions that have been made." To whom?
  MR. HANBURY: To the Government.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Since these concessions were decided upon the opponents of the Bill have ceased their opposition, and yet the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to believe that the concessions have been made to the Government. The very fact that their opposition has flickered out proves that they think the concessions have been made to them. Those concessions are undoubtedly of a most important character, especially the one which will allow this company to exist after 1911. There was the strongest feeling in the House that no matter what happened we should retain absolutely all our rights to put an end to the concession at that time, and buy up their stock-in-trade at the price of old iron, if we happened to want any old iron then. The concession was not made to municipalities; they did not ask for it; they were perfectly satisfied with the Bill as it was. Another serious question in connection with the matter is that there has been an enormous amount of lobbying in regard to the Bill. It has been brought to the knowledge of the House that the banker of the company sent out a circular with a postal card, asking Members to state their views, either for or against the Bill. That was an attempt to influence Gentlemen to vote against the Bill.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Will the hon. Member quote the circular?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman did not send me one of those circulars, because he knows that my public virtue is such that it would not be influenced in that way.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The hon. Gentleman admits that he has not seen the circular, if he had I am sure he would feel his statement to be unfounded.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I did not get it, so far as I am aware, but it may have gone into the waste-paper basket, as I get a great deal of literature which goes there.
  MR. SPEAKER: This discussion is very foreign to the question before the House, which is whether the Bill should go to a Grand Committee or to a Select Committee.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: This is my reason for sending it neither to a Grand Committee nor to a Select Committee: The chairman of this company stated plainly that gentlemen had been added to the Board who were Members of this House in order to obtain a considerable amount of Parliamentary influence. There is a very strong feeling in the country against Members of the House of Commons using their influence in this House on behalf of companies of which they are directors. The whole matter ought to be threshed out in Committee of the whole House, and not sent upstairs. All the more is this necessary as the Bill has been absolutely changed since its Second Reading. As to getting through in a brief time the right hon. Gentleman the member for Wolverhampton answered that, when, a few evenings ago, alluding to a proposal to send a Bill before a Grand Committee, he said that at this time of the session the great difficulty is to get Members to attend on the Grand Committees, and always at this period of the session it is better to have a matter discussed in the House. I have no doubt that this Bill would be passed in one single night if we were given this opportunity. It is not a Party question, because a vast majority of Members both on this and the other side of the House are in favour of the Bill. This question concerns the dignity and honour of the House, more especially after these statements in regard to lobbying, and the statements about members of this Government being connected with the company. Those gentlemen have been instrumental in obtaining concessions from the country, and I think it concerns the honour of this House that the matter should not be sent upstairs, but that it should be threshed out in the House.
  SIR J. JOICEY: I must again disavow the insinuations which have been made by some Members of this House in regard to some
  880
  of us who are opposing this Bill. We are opposing this measure in the public interest, and I disavow entirely the insinuation that our action arises from any other reason. It is quite evident from what I have said in this House that I do not love this Bill at all, and I would welcome any means of delaying it in order that it may have fuller consideration by the country, because I recognise it is one of the most important questions which we have had before this House. I do not object to this Bill going to a Grand Committee, although I should prefer seeing it discussed in this House, or I would much rather that it went to a Select Committee. This Bill is not founded upon the Report which was given by the Select Committee last year, and I maintain my position with regard to that point whatever my hon. friends may say to the contrary. I say that this Bill is going in direct opposition to the strongest recommendations of that Committee. One of their strong recommendations was that assistance ought to be given by the Post Office. Now this Bill has been altered considerably. Other things have been introduced into the discussion which show that an arrangement has been come to with the National Telephone Company which goes even further against the recommendation of the Commission. It was never supposed for a moment that this licence would ever be extended beyond 1911, and if you send this Bill to the Committee you will be able to take evidence upon this point and go fully into the arrangement which has been entered into between the right hon. Gentleman and the representative of the National Telephone Company. I have strong objections to this Bill altogether, and I shall do everything in my power to delay this legislation in conformity with the regulations of this House, and I shall do my best to alter it, and if I cannot do that to my own satisfaction I shall do my best to induce this House to reject the measure. The Bill is not in conformity with the recommendations of the Committee, and I think we ought to have further inquiry into it. Her Majesty's Government are rushing this question, and that fact is strongly impressed upon my mind. I think it would be very much better if this Bill was either withdrawn or sent to a Select Committee. Then the different interests in the country would be able to see how it affects them, and on

  881
  that ground I shall support the proposal that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: After the unfair remarks made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, perhaps the House will allow me to say a war or two. In the first place, with regard to the charge as to canvassing or obstruction, I indignantly deny that there has been anything of the kind, so far, at any rate, as those with whom I am acting. The hon. Gentleman complained of some circular issued, as he alleged, on behalf of the company to members of this House, but when I asked him to quote the circular, it appeared that he had not seen it. I deny entirely that any circular which I have issued bears out the statement made by the hon. Member, or has been issued by us on behalf of the Company. Certainly we were asked to come down here and support the reference to a Select Committee, but there is nothing unusual in that being done, and I entirely deny that that was done in the interests of the National Telephone Company. So far from the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee being done in the interests of the Company, I have been informed that the directors, if they vote at all, will do so with the hon. Member for Northampton upon this question and not with us. I support this proposal because we object to Governments or municipalities engaging in commercial transactions. At the beginning of the session we found that municipal trading was obtaining greater and greater dimensions. I brought the matter before the House, at the request of the London, and other Chambers of Commerce, and the First Lord of the Treasury not only promised us a Committee to enquire into it but he also said that he considered the matter of so much importance that he suggested that it should be a Joint Committee of both Houses. The London Chamber of Commerce, supported by most of the Chambers of Commerce in this country, are opposed to this Bill because it is a great extension of municipal trading. The London Chamber of Commerce unanimously passed a resolution as follows:
  "That it is undesirable that the Postmaster-General should license county boroughs to provide systems of public telephone communication pending the report of the Joint Committee of the two Houses appointed to consider the whole question of municipal trading, and they
  882
  urge upon the Government, pending the report of that Joint Committee, that the Telephone Communication Bill should be postponed."
  If this Bill goes to a Grand Committee the London Chamber of Commerce will have no opportunity of being heard and stating their views. But if the measure goes to a Select Committee they would have that opportunity. We do complain that Her Majesty's Government, after having promised this Committee, have not been able to appoint it; but they do complain that the Government, while they have not appointed the Committee on Municipal Trading, are themselves proposing a great extension of municipal trading. Surely the various Chambers of Commerce in the country are entitled to have an opportunity of stating their reasons before a Committee of this House for passing the resolutions which they have adopted. Again, the Society of Arts and Manufactures, who have done much to promote the manufactures of this country, is also opposed to the Bill, and they have passed a resolution to the effect:
  "That no further powers for such purposes ought to be granted to such bodies."
  The Society of Arts and Manufactures is a very influential body, and they certainly are not opponents of Her Majesty's Government, and when they pass a resolution of this kind, and ask to be heard, surely they ought to be afforded that opportunity. Then, again, the Institute of Electrical Engineers have passed a resolution that it is undesirable that legislation should be passed to encourage the undertaking of telephonic communication by public bodies. All I am asking is that these very important bodies should be given by the Government an opportunity of stating to this House their reasons for the opinions which they have expressed upon this subject. I do not deny that if we send this Bill to a Select Committee we cannot probably pass it this year; but whether we pass it this year or next year it is much more important that it should be a wise

  883
  Bill, and that it should be seriously and carefully considered. I have shown the House that bodies pre-eminently qualified to express an opinion on this subject have urged on the Government the desirability of taking the course we have suggested, and under the circumstances I earnestly hope that the Government will take those recommendations into consideration, and that we shall be afforded an opportunity of stating in a Committee of this House the reasons which make us believe that if the House passes the Bill as it now stands it will be adopting an unwise course. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in his speech gave strong reasons against nationalisation, and yet he proposes to nationalise the whole metropolitan area. He gave strong reasons in another part of his speech why private enterprise should be encouraged.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is now discussing the merits of the Bill.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I only wish, Mr. Speaker, to point out that the Bill really does not carry out the views which the right hon. Gentleman expressed. I have shown that important institutions throughout the country are anxious to lay their views before the Government, and I accordingly urge on the Government to send this Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure my right hon. friend that nobody in this House thinks that any stain attaches to his character in connection with any proceedings he may have thought it right to take in this matter. If there is a man in this House—and there are many men—above suspicion, my right hon. friend is certainly that man. I cannot, however, agree with the views of my right hon. friend on this matter, and I do earnestly hope that the House will not further prolong this discussion, but will take the only course which will enable us to pass the Bill this session, and bring to an end what everybody on both sides of the House agrees to be a most unsatisfactory condition of affairs. I have really not heard any objection to the course proposed, except the objection stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, that because there have been what he describes as negotiations between the Telephone
  884
  Company and my right hon. friend who is in charge of this Bill, therefore it would be proper to discuss this measure in the Committee of the whole House and not in a Committee upstairs. I fail to see that that fact is in any sense an argument leading to the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to establish. The whole result and upshot of what has passed is not that a concession has been made to the Company but that the conditions which were to be embodied in a Treasury Minute are to be embodied in the Bill. On the other hand, the Company have entirely given up their position as monopolists, to which great objection has been taken, and they have, as is well known to the House, made an agreement which will, in our judgment at all events, give facilities for that competition which I agree is so desirable for the healthy development of any great interest. My right hon. friend says that he speaks for the Chamber of Commerce of London. I did not understand that he agreed with the Chamber of Commerce, and indeed I rather gathered from his speech that he differed from it. The London Chamber of Commerce desires that the telephone system should become like the telegraphs, a Government monopoly. My right hon. friend objects to that even more than to municipalisation, and I really do not understand why he should have made himself the spokesman of a body from which he differs.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The resolution of the London Chamber of Commerce urged on the Government that it was undesirable that the Postmaster-General should licence county boroughs to provide a system of proper 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 also that pending the Report of that Committee the Telegraphs (Telephonic Communication, etc.) Bill should be postponed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend forgets that while no doubt the London Chamber of Commerce would like to see this Bill postponed, as would also my right hon. friend himself, yet the Chamber desires to see the whole matter in the hands of the Government, whereas my right hon. friend wishes it to remain

  885
  in the hands of a private company. There cannot be more divergent theories than those advocated by the Chamber of Commerce and my right hon. friend. I would be out of order if I attempted to show that if this Bill passes in the form in which it now stands it will destroy a monopoly which I do not think on the whole is for the benefit of the country, and therefore I will content myself with impressing on all the members of the House who desire to see this Bill passed that the only course which will make it possible in the short space of time which now remains to us to pass it will be the course we propose.
  MR. STUART: I sincerely trust that the House will not refer this Bill to a Select Committee, for the directly opposite reason to that given by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London in favour of referring it to such a Committee. I consider it all important that this Bill, which I believe to be a good Bill, and which I desire to see passed, should be passed during the present session. I was one who expressed the view which I still hold, that it would be dangerous that it should be even referred to a Grand Committee, but if it is referred to a Select Committee there is an end of it altogether. What would a Select Committee do? It would open up the whole question again. Counsel would no doubt be engaged, and parties would be heard, and there would be long inquiries such as have been made twice already in the most efficient manner possible by one of the strongest Committees on which I ever sat—the late Telephones Committee—and presided over by one of the strongest and ablest chairmen under whom I ever had the pleasure of serving. If we set up another Committee now, we would be exactly where we were two or three years ago. I am not going into the merits of the Bill, but I should have preferred that a measure of this kind should be considered by a Committee of the whole House. Just now we shrink from suggestions of arrangements and compromises, but possibly we might have another opinion if the details were before the House. I throw the responsibility for this Bill on the Government. I throw the responsibility on them to carry this Bill either in its present form or as near its present form as possible, and I do so
  886
  with a certain confidence, because I believe it to be in the hands of the Secretary for the Treasury, who is as determined as I and others are to see this through to the best issue. Should he fail; should his hands be bound, or should the stroke be averted, then I will regret it on his own account, and also on account of the Government, the House, and the country. If the Bill is referred to a Select Committee, then good-bye to it. The responsibility of the Government will be at an end, and all our hope of securing action this year, or perhaps for many years to come, will vanish. Let the responsibility lie with the Government. They have carried through measures without alteration in this House before, and I do not see why they should not carry this Bill without alteration; but if there is to be an alteration let it be for the better. A Select Committee would, however, be death to the Bill.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: It is not to be wondered at that the hon. Gentleman speaks with some warmth, for the simple reason that London has got all it wants. But Liverpool now desires to get what has been given to London. Speaking for one division of the City of Liverpool, and with the approval of the corporation, I am entirely opposed to this Bill. Since the Second Reading many things have happened. The right hon. Gentleman brought in the Bill to beat down the Telephone Company at any cost. I am not interested in the Telephone Company, and those for whom I speak are not concerned with its future; but the principle of the Bill was to introduce competition in order to reduce the selling value of the company.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now entering into matters not relevant to the question before the House.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: What I have been endeavouring to show is that as the Bill has been very much altered and as its principle has been changed, we should therefore send it to a more deliberative body than a Grand Committee. It is a well-known fact that as the session goes on the Grand Committee becomes very attenuated, and the members do not give that close deliberation to a matter of this importance which the

  887
  case demands. It seems to me there has been distinctly a new departure under the arrangements made with the "lobbyers" during the last two or three days. By the original Bill the municipalities were to compete with the company, but now these bodies are not going to have any competition in their districts.
  MR. HANBURY: No.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: Well, I think I read this morning that the National Telephone Company are to pledge themselves to open no new exchanges where they have no exchanges now. If the right hon. Gentleman will not allow the present company to open new exchanges and not allow other companies to open exchanges, then when the municipal bodies go in for the telephone business they will be protected from competition.
  MR. HANBURY: May I be allowed to explain what has been done. The National Telephone Company have agreed that they will not work outside the areas where they have at present exchanges. That is to say, their general licence to run all over the country ceases, and they are confined to their existing areas. But in all other areas there is a perfect right reserved, either to the local authority or to a new company.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of allowing other companies to set up where the municipal bodies start the telephone business.
  MR. HANBURY: I did not say so.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: Well, it is a natural deduction from what the right hon. Gentleman did say, viz., that the municipalities would be "protected." Therefore, I maintain, we have a new issue to put before the House. The municipal bodies are to impinge upon the work of the nation in a matter cognate to the postal service, and, without competition, they are to be entitled to engage in such an industrial enterprise, not only in their own areas, but sometimes outside their boundaries. We may fairly demand further information before we proceed to this new departure. Inasmuch as the Government have given notice of an inquiry into the whole system of municipal trading, it seems unreasonable to expect us now to sanction this wide extension of the principle without having more care-
  888
  fully examined into the subject. For these reasons, and inasmuch as a year's delay will not make very much difference to the National Telephone Company or to the convenience of the public, I shall support the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. LOUGH: The remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down illustrate the difficulty in which the House has been placed, and this has not been much assisted by the interruptions of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. Since the motion to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee was made, a revolutionary change has taken place in the attitude of the Government. Now, that change has been discussed at considerable length by the Secretary to the Treasury, and I suppose he must have been in order in doing so, and the First Lord of the Treasury has also alluded to it to-day.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was not in his place probably when I stated that the right hon. Gentleman was not strictly in order in making his statement, but as it was with the general consent and desire of the House he was allowed to do so.
  MR. LOUGH: I feel I cannot follow out the matter at all; but my point is that we ought to have fuller details of this revolutionary change before we arrive at a decision. I was glad to hear that the hon. Member for Hoxton did not oppose so strongly the reference of the Bill to a Grand Committee. I was not opposed to a Grand Committee. But I do not know what to say now. I want to know whether, before we decide, we cannot have fuller information on the important matters referred to by the Secretary to the Treasury. We are not in the position we were in when the Second Reading was taken; and we should do nothing in the dark. Will the right hon. Gentleman lay a Paper on the Table embodying fully and clearly the arrangements, which appear to be revolutionary, that have been made? If he does that I will not persist.
  MR. HANBURY: All the suggestions of the Government will be effectually embodied, by means of new clauses, in the Bill which will be presented to the Grand Committee.
  MR. LOUGH: I am glad to have got that from the right hon. Gentleman. Since he now tells us that these arrangements will be fully embodied in the Bill referred to the Grand Committee, and since the First Lord has assured us that the only way to get the Bill through this session is by referring it to a Grand Committee, I will not take the responsibility of opposing it further.
  MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: I should like to state my reasons for objecting to the Bill being sent to a Grand Committee, and my preference for sending it to a Select Committee. The situation as it stands now is completely altered from what it was only a few days ago: and it is essential, in view of the changes in the Government position, that evidence should be brought in support of these new proposals. If that is not done it would be impossible to come to a correct conclusion as to these changes. I wish to refer to a remark made in this House a few clays ago by the hon. Member for Northampton, who gave it as his opinion that I was in some measure personally connected with the National Telephone Company, and that I was the stockbroker of the company. I wish to assure my hon. friend that he is entirely wrong in that statement. I have absolutely no connection with that company in any shape or form, and am not a shareholder in it. That leads me to say that in connection with these new arrangements which have been come to between the company and the Government, no objections on my part have been removed. I stand exactly where I did; and I advocate a reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, in order to get evidence, instead of to a Grand Committee, where no evidence can be taken. I must mention first the financial aspect of the question. When the licences stood to be terminated in 1911, the financial aspect of the matter had to be approached from a particular standpoint; but since the Government contemplate extending licences for a period of 25 years, totally different financial problems will have to be considered. I am prepared to argue that this extension of the licences for 25 years will increase their value exceedingly, and make it more difficult to purchase them, and I am convinced more strongly than ever that nationalisation is the only remedy. By
  890
  referring the Bill to a Select Committee we can lead evidence on that part of the problem. Another very material and radical change introduced within the last few days, of which there was not one single word in the Bill itself, and not a single syllable, except to the contrary effect, in the Treasury minute, is the proposal to permit competition, not only by municipalities but also by companies. That fundamentally changes the whole basis of the proposals as put before the House when the finance resolution was taken in Committee, when the Bill was introduced, and at all subsequent stages of the discussion. Here is a quotation from the report of the Select Committee last year on that point—they were contemplating certain contingencies:
  "The difficulty arises in holding the balance equally between the local authorities and the company, that while it seems generally admitted to be desirable in the public interest that all licences should terminate in 1911," etc.
  This shows clearly that the only fact in connection with licences which was in the mind of the Select Committee, was the date 1911. But that is not all. In the Treasury minute which has since been published, there is evidence of exactly the same attitude of mind. In that minute, at page 4, clause 10, it is laid down that all licences will be terminable on 31st. December, 1911. It is perfectly clear that in the two earlier stages—both in the case of the Report of the Select Committee of the House, and in the case of the Treasury minute issued by my right hon. friend in explanation of his Bill—it was laid down as a fundamental principle that all licences should terminate in 1911. That principle has been departed from. We want to know the reason why the Government has departed from it, and why they are willing to give this extension of time. They called evidence on the subject, and not only is that the case, but I know my right hon. friend himself always held the view, until quite recently, as to 1911 being the date. Well, I pass from that to speak of the question of the competition of companies. That is also a fundamental change which has been made in the proposals of the Government since they were brought before the House. The Select Committee had no reference made to it, on the subject of the competition of companies. There is not a word in the evi-

  891
  dence or the Report upon the question, and there is nothing in my right hon. friend's Bill or the Treasury minute. This is what my right hon. friend said in April, 1898:
  "I do not believe that competition by companies would be by any means the proper course to take."
  Further on he said:
  "If, a I think, companies are practically impossible."
  That was the opinion of my right hon. friend twelve months ago, and yet he now comes down to the House and advocates such competition as one of the cardinal features of his scheme, notwithstanding that it is not in his Bill or Treasury minute. That alone is a sufficient reason for advocating that this matter should go to a Committee, where we can take evidence an these points and clear up these matters of difficulty. I do not know that I need detain the House any longer on this subject. There is, however, one other quotation that I should like to give before I sit down. Here is what my right hon. friend said:
  "It is impossible to bind our successors, but assuming that they are men of ordinary common-sense they will not allow the licences to go beyond that year."
  And yet he comes before us to-day and advocates the very thing which twelve months ago he told us nobody of ordinary common-sense would do.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now arguing the merits of the proposed change.
  MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: I knew that I should have difficulty in further discussing that matter, and so I will merely conclude by saying that we require to know something more about these changes proposed by the Government, and about this "arrangement" which does not involve a "concession." For this reason I think the House will do wisely to send this Bill to a Committee before whom evidence may be given, in order that these points may be cleared up.
  MR. BROADHURST: I understand that there are some very important Amendments to the Bill which it is proposed to put on the Paper after
  892
  this motion is carried to-day, and to a large extent we are asked to vote in the dark.
  MR. HANBURY: I fully explained the matter.
  MR. BROADHURST: Yes, I know the Secretary to the Treasury is usually correct in his statements, but when Ministers' statements are reduced to clauses they sometimes appear in a different form altogether and have a different meaning. Now, I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of intending to do anything of the kind, but we poor creatures have been caught so often that we naturally remember the fire in which our fingers have been burned. Now, Sir, as regards the question as to the Committee this Bill should go to. I should certainly support the motion for the Grand Committee on Trade. I cannot but do this in the interests of my constituents. I represent one of the largest trading communities of the country, and they are pressingly anxious for some improvement in the telephone system, which is important to their daily lives awl trade. It is more important in many respects than the telegraph system, especially in a commercial community where all the trade consists so much of detail, as the trade of Leicester does. In their interests I am bound to support the proposal—I have no choice. The right hon. Gentleman dictates to us as to how we should act in this matter. I have no option but to support him if he persists in his endeavour to send this Bill to a Grand Committee on Trade. I have been a member of the Grand Committees on Trade much longer than the right hon. Gentleman, and I have had considerable experience in the working of those bodies. I was a member of the first Grand Committee on Trade which sat in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary was a leading member, and very well adapted to that particular class of legislation. But this is essentially a national question, and ought to have been decided on the floor of the House. There is no one obstructing the passing of this Bill so much as the Government themselves. I believe this Bill might have been got through the House at two sittings. But when we get upstairs to the Grand Committee on Trade all the

  893
  experts and authorities on obstruction, opposition, and contention, may be members of that Committee, and there we may be kept fencing about till the middle of July, when the chalices will be considerably reduced of the Bill being passed into law this session. We are as anxious about the right hon. Gentleman's offspring as he himself is, and we who have had longer—I do not say a better—experience than he has, feel convinced that to refer a Bill of this contentious nature to the Grand Committee at this period of the session is not at all encouraging to those who want a better telephone system. The fact is, the Government themselves have lost time. We must not mention Bills by name, but every man in the House, on whichever side he sits, could in a moment name a Bill which might have waited till this Bill had been passed; it might have waited even till next session, or till the end of the present Parliament.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not relevant to the question.
  MR. BROADHURST: I am obliged to you, Sir, for recalling me to the paths of duty and order again. My enthusiasm for this Bill has entirely led me astray, for which I apologise. Well, is it too late to appeal to Her Majesty's Government to still let the Committee stage take place in this House instead of going to a Grand Committee? That is the whole question with which I am concerned. If the Government will, at the eleventh hour, repent of their sins, and bring the Bill into this House in Committee, I will support them in every Division, if it is a progressive Division, in order to get the Bill through. That is a perfectly honest and straightforward pledge, and one which I have never ventured to make before in my life, and I do not know that I shall repeat it unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts. We know the strength of the right hon. Gentleman if he likes to exercise it. We all regard him as a hon. He has been caught in the proverbial net, and we are the little mice endeavouring to release him from what we consider an unwise complication of interests, which has entwined him and apparently overpowered him for the time being. As regards this measure, I have not been spoken to by a single person, and the right hon. Baronet's circular has not reached me. I never
  894
  fail to read anything to which his name is attached, and if I had received a card I should certainly have read it. The constant cry of the Chambers of Commerce is that you should nationalise the whole of the telephone system, as you have done the telegraphs. Failing that, we must expect as much as we can get from you. But that is no reason why we should not tell you that you ought to have done better. The right hon. Gentleman had the power and the opportunity, and if he had insisted that the Bill should have been passed through Committee in this House the Government must have given way. I do not think, if I may say so without offence, that the arguments of the right hon. Baronet were as good as he usually employs to convince this House of the policy which he wishes to pursue. I think they are rather weak. I do not think they are arguments that you could rely upon, but perhaps he has been overborne by the great City authority, the Chamber of Commerce, into advocating a policy which is evidently not one which commends itself to the House or the country. I therefore cannot support him on this occasion. This being a national question, and not a technical question, requiring expert advice, it is far better that a Bill of this kind should be dealt with by the whole House in Committee, and not by a Grand Committee upstairs, and I hope that some effort may yet be made to see if that course cannot be adopted.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It is most interesting to see the support which the Secretary to the Treasury gets from the other side of the House; I should have supposed that this was a measure proposed by the front Opposition bench, and strenuously resisted by the Tories on this side. Me difficulty of this discussion is greatly added to by the changes which have taken place in the Bill itself. The hon. Member for Leicester says he supports the Bill because it is the child of the Secretary of the Treasury. But it is not the same child; the child has been changed at birth, and the present child is very much less like its father than the other was. Of course, we may not allude specifically to details as to the difference in the features of the two children. The First Lord of the Treasury says that the reference of this Bill to the Standing Committee is the only course that

  895
  affords a chance of passing this Bill into law this session. But what is the hurry? It is a Bill to empower the Government to spend two millions in competing with a private company. Why this hurry? Have we not spent millions enough this year? The one hiatus in my unfailing admiration for the nineteen men of genius who form Her Majesty's Government is this: their one weak point is finance, and when they come to their end "Finance" will be written on their grave.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I hope the hon. Member will endeavour to keep to the question.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: We have already this session intercepted two millions from the National Debt Extinction Fund, and we passed a resolution the other day for voting four millions.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the hon. Member is endeavouring to speak to the question, he is singularly unsuccessful.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Inasmuch as the central principle of this Bill is to spend two millions more than the money we have already spent, I say there can be no hurry to begin the expenditure this year, and consequently there is no immediate hurry for passing this Bill. In saying this I am applying the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury himself, when he says the only chance is in referring this Bill to the Grand Committee. I am not enormously enamoured of this Bill; there are certain points which ought to be cleared up. But there is one capital and absolutely conclusive reason for not pressing forward the Bill at this time. Nobody denies that on the merits of the case it would be a good thing to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, which would take evidence and consider matters entirely de novo.
  MR. BROADHURST: I deny it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Really, the support the hon. Gentleman opposite gives to my right hon. friend is very uncertain.
  MR. STUART: If the hon. gentleman had been present when I was speaking he would have known that I said, rightly or wrongly, that my view, as a member of the Select Committee, was that the whole question had been sufficiently gone into by the Select Committee.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon.
  896
  Gentleman is wrong. I did listen to his speech, with that interest which his speeches invariably command, and with that disagreement which they almost invariably arouse in me. How can he say that all matters connected with this Bill have been considered by the Select Committee, when the Bill has been invented since the Select Committee was appointed, and has been changed since it was invented? In his impetuosity and compassion for the Tory Party he has made a great mistake. Now, my last reason why there is no reason to be in a hurry is that the Government have insisted upon appointing a Committee which is to deal with the very centre and marrow of the question—the subject of municipal trading. Suppose that Committee reports altogether against municipal trading——
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It has done so.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It has not come into existence yet. My submission is that we should await the Report of that Committee which is about to be appointed.
  MR. PROVAND: No such motion is on the Paper.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Gentleman must be unaware of the facts.
  MR. PROVAND: No such thing is mentioned on the Paper as a Committee on Municipal Trading.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Book, he will find the motion in the name of the principal Whip of the Government.
  MR. PROVAND: It is not on the Paper now; it has been withdrawn.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES:It may not be down for to-day, but that does not affect the question. The intention is to appoint the Committee. Why, then, anticipate its decision? I repeat there is no hurry. There are a great many points which a Select Committee ought to inquire into; and, therefore, if this motion is pressed to a Division, I shall, unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to come to such arrangement with us as he did with the Telephone Company, feel it my duty to support the motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  LORD E. FITZMAURICE: I am afraid I shall bring

  897
  myself under the censure of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, by announcing my intention to support the Government on the present occasion. The House will remember that my right hon. friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs announced that the only reason which induced him, in face of the sudden and unexpected announcement of the decision of the Government, to refer this Bill to a Standing Committee was the assurance of the Leader of the House that it afforded the only means of passing the Bill into law this session. Has anything since occurred to induce any hon. Member on this side to alter his view and to support the reference to a Select Committee? My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn says that on the merits everybody thinks there ought to be a Select Committee. I really must traverse that statement altogether. We think there have been Select Committees of Inquiry enough already, and that another Select Committee is merely a plea for further delay. The second reason put forward by my hon. friend was that as the Government were committed to the appointment of a Committee on Municipal Trading, we are therefore stopped from objecting to further inquiry into this matter. Bat the Committee on Municipal Trading is in the air: we know nothing about it. It is quite true there was on the Paper a notice for the appointment of such a Committee, but it has disappeared. ("No, no!") At any rate it is not being proceeded with. Things occasionally hang about the Order book in a most mysterious manner, but at the same time they are known to be nothing but dead horses. Possibly there may be an intention of proceeding with the appointment of this Committee, but even if that be so there is nothing to justify further delay in this particular matter. On the contrary, I imagine the experience we would gain as to the working of the telephone system by municipal authorities, which would naturally come into existence slowly and gradually, might afford most important evidence for consideration by the Committee on the general subject of municipal trading. For the reason that no material change has taken place in the situation since my right hon. friend threw the whole responsibility on the Government for the course adopted as the only means of passing the Bill this session, I shall feel justified in supporting
  898
  the alternative of sending this Bill to the Standing Committee.
  MR. GEDGE: I wish to say something upon my own part and on the part of all those who wish to send this Bill to a Select Committee. All those who favour the Select Committee have been accused of having been lobbied and being interested in the National Telephone Company. The hon. Member for Shoreditch was particularly indignant on the last occasion this Bill was before the House, and spoke as if he were the only honest man in the House. Now, I do not know any one who has been what is called lobbied, or who has any improper motive in making, the request for a Select Committee. I certainly have no connection with the National Telephone Company other than that of a subscriber to their service, which might be better; and it is because it might be better and is not, that we all desire to see the telephones in other hands. At the same time there are several things that require to be thrashed out by a Select Committee, which could not be thrashed out by a Grand Committee. There is the financial question, for instance. As I understand there will be a waste of many thousands a year if the Government plan be adopted. Whether I am right or wrong in that it is a question of importance which must be gone into very carefully. Notice has been given of the appointment of a Joint Committee of the two Houses to consider the general question of the limits and conditions to be imposed on Municipal Trading. The noble Lord opposite describes this as a dead horse, but that could hardly be, when the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, on behalf of the Government, gives formal notice for such a Committee. The Government must think it desirable and in the public interest, and if that is their opinion then we shall get the Committee appointed. Pending that Committee's enquiry and report, it is unwise to pass this Bill, which entrusts municipalities with the large operations all over the country, which the general extension of the telephonic system will necessitate. There are two sides to this question, and some of us think that this vast extension of municipal trading ought not to be allowed. Having regard to the way the Second Reading was sprung upon us we shall do what we can to prevent this Bill becoming law this year by voting for a Select Committee, because we do not think the Bill a good Bill.
  SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE: The question before the House is whether this Bill shall be sent to a Grand Committee or a Select Committee. Those who are in favour of a Select Committee are, first of all, those who object to the extension of the telephone service to the municipalities; and, secondly, those who desire to kill the Bill under any circumstances. The terms of the reference to the Select Committee appointed last session by this House covered the whole of the ground which those who now ask for another Select Committee desire to be inquired into. Is it not trifling with the House to suggest, having regard to all the circumstances, that another Select Committee should sit upon this matter? No one can possibly allege that there is not an abundance of material before the House on which to form a clear and decided opinion upon the matter. Where was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University when the proposal was made last year to elect this Committee? Not a word of objection was raised then; yet, if exception was to be taken that was the time when it should have been done. It is not fair to the Committee who sat for so many weeks to suggest that all this matter should now be gone into again. Whilst wishing well to the progress of this Bill, I reserve fully my opinion of the alteration which has been suggested by the concessions made to the National Telephone Company. They may be wise or unwise; they are not yet reduced to such a position that they can be reported to the House, but I apprehend the House will have the right to amend this Bill on the Report stage.
  SIR HARRY BULLARD: I thought that the Committee thrashed out the whole of this question. The Bill may not be perfect, but we shall have the privilege of making it so if we can on the report. I am one of those who would like to see progress made in this matter, and I cannot understand why so many members are hostile to so useful a measure. The National Telephone Company have done good work, but we want to see better work done, and this Bill will be conducive to that end, and that is the reason I support this going to the Grand Committee.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: I do not agree with the hon. Member that there is a desire on the
  900
  part of those who object to this Bill to impede the progress and development of telephonic communication. We desire to accelerate it, but we think the Bill before the House is calculated to rather retard and defeat that object than to accelerate it. I deprecate altogether the personalities which some members have thought fit to indulge in, in the course of this Debate, and I do not believe that anybody taking part in this Debate has been animated by any improper motive in desiring that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. Their only desire was that the progress of this Bill should be facilitated. What I wish to point out is that although reference has been made to the Report of the Committee of 1898, it is yet a fact that the Bill does not carry out the recommendations of that Committee.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing that.
  Sin JOHN LENGrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but
  MR. SPEAKERwithheld his assent, because it appeared to him that the House was prepared shortly to come to a decision without that Motion.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: One great reason why I think the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee is that many changes have been introduced into it. First, the Sanitary Districts objected, and they were included in the Bill. Then the company promoters and the subscribers had to be satisfied, and finally the National Telephone Company had to be satisfied, and really the only people who now remain out are the advocates of nationalisation. The Bill in its present form is most unsatisfactory.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be out of order in discussing that.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: I can only ask the Government not to take this leap in the dark. We want further light on this subject, and that can only be obtained by referring the Bill to a Select Committee. On the ground that the Bill does not follow the recommendations of the previous Select Committee, I earnestly press that the matter be referred for further consideration to another Select Committee.
  MR. COLVILLE: I also sat upon the Select Committee of last year, and I have very great pleasure in

  901
  heartily supporting the right hon. Gentleman who proposes that this Bill should be referred to a Grand Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Norwich that a reference to a Select Committee would merely mean delay. I differ from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and I think that a proposal to nationalise this very useful and necessary invention would have the effect of indefinitely postponing this Bill, which I trust will be referred to a Grand Committee and passed into law this year.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to:— Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

  SMALL HOUSES (ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The Amendment which I have to propose is to insert and substitute a new clause for Clause 8, which I shall subsequently move to delete. Clause 8 proposes to establish a local registry, but on examination we find that what practically amounts to a pledge was given to the Law Society that the compulsory provisions of the Land Transfer Act should not be extended for a term of three years. Under those circumstances, it was represented to the Government that it would be a breach of faith to introduce into this Bill a system which would practically extend the principles and practice of the registration of land. Under the circumstances, I propose to substitute a local registry which will enable the local authorities to keep an account of their transactions under this Bill, and I do not propose, as was originally intended, an extension of the Land Transfer Act. I beg to move.
  New clause:—
  "(1) A local authority shall keep at their offices a book containing a list of any advances made by them under this Act, and shall enter therein with regard to each advance—(a) a description of the house in respect of which the advance is made; (b) the amount advanced; (c) the amount for the time being repaid; (d) the name of the proprietor for the time being of the house; and (e) such other particulars as the local authority think fit to enter.
  "(2) The book shall be open to inspection at the office of the local authority during office
  902
  hours free of charge."—(Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.)
  brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELL: I must express my surprise at this change in the policy of the Government. When the Bill was introduced, it was stated that its principle advantage would be the facility with which it would provide for the transfer and acquisition of title, and also the very small cost which would be entailed. Now Clause 8, which it is proposed to take out, provides that a local authority may make advances under this Act, and that they shall cause the ownership to be registered under the Land Transfer Acts. The great object of this clause was to provide for an efficient system of registration. Then, the clause which it is proposed to leave out contains another very important proviso as regards the expense. It provides for the framing of rules with regard to the registration of ownership and for the easy transfer of such ownership, and the cost of such transfer was not to exceed 10s. The great merit of this Bill was the facility which is afforded for the transfer of land and the cheap cost of such transfer. Everybody knows that with regard to small property the fees for conveyance and transfer may be £10 or £12, and there is practically no limit to the amount. The object of the Bill is the simplification of title and facility of transfer, and it is not merely that the working man should acquire his property cheaper, but that he should be given better facilities for transferring it. The Government have not given us any good excuse for this new departure, for it is no excuse to say that some kind of assurance was given to the Law Society that the Land Transfer Act was not to be extended for three years. I protest against the Government giving any such undertaking to a society outside which would bind this House.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not so. The pledge was a public pledge given while the Land Transfer Act was passing through this House. My attention was called to it afterwards, and although I entirely agree with what the hon. Member has said with regard to the value of such a clause, I do not think the House would desire that the Government should be guilty of a direct breach of

  903
  faith not only to the Law Society but also to this House.
  MR. CALDWELL: But it will not do to spring this upon the House and say that there was an undertaking given which is the foundation for cutting out this clause. I object altogether to this clause being substituted, for the Government is only part of the House, and the rest of the House are not bound by any such undertaking. It does not seem to me that there is any reason whatever for cutting out this clause. Even if there was an undertaking of that kind the operation of this clause might have been postponed for three years. I do not think the House ought to give up this important clause because a certain undertaking has been given to the Law Society, who wish to make a profit out of these transactions, and we ought not to recognise any such undertakings as fettering the hands of this House. With regard to the clause which it is proposed to substitute I am surprised that it should be raised here, for there is no relationship whatever between Clause 8 and this new clause. I venture to say that this proposal is only a mere pretence to get rid of this inconvenient Clause 8 by providing something which seems to resemble it.
  MR. BILLSON: I do not remember any such undertaking being mentioned in this House, and I think the bringing in of this clause by the right hon. Gentleman at the present moment is a very unfortunate proceeding. This Bill went to the Grand Committee where no mention was made of any intention to make any such alteration, and no opportunity was given in Grand Committee to call the attention of those interested in the subject in the country. And now when the Bill comes on at the Report stage there is put down a clause which substitutes something entirely different. I fully agree with what my hon. friend has said—that it is difficult to suppose that this kind of legislation can be even called a substitute for the clause which is to be left out. He says that it is being done in accordance with a pledge given to the Law Society, and consequently he is giving another kind of registration. This reform in the simplification of the transfer of property will only come about if we begin by doing something. If you have all your small property put upon a
  904
  local register it will be a great advantage, but we shall never have an efficient system unless we have a local register kept in the district where the transfer takes place. When we once get a local system of registration like that, people can go to the town hall or other building and have the alteration made at once. The advantages conferred by Clause 8 have been commented upon in various newspapers as a great boon which we are going to confer, and the Bill has been commended chiefly because it would provide for a transfer being made for the small sum of 10s. But now you have a Bill enabling municipalities to lend money, but you have not got the great improvement which I thoroughly believed the right hon. Gentleman desired to introduce. If you had left this clause in and suspended its operation for three years it would have been better than striking it out altogether. But no doubt pressure has been brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman by various solicitors and others, and I think they have been entirely misguided in regard to the action which they have taken in regard to this matter. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot continue this clause in the Bill and make some alteration as to the time when it shall operate in order to meet the objection which he has raised.
  MR. WARR: I do not intend now to attempt to discuss the views which my hon. friend has just expressed upon the general question of registration of titles. Personally, I have much sympathy with them. I only desire to say that the Incorporated Law Society did not urge objections to the clause upon any selfish professional grounds, but because they considered that the clause as it stood would involve an expensive system, and would also involve a great deal of cumbersome officialism; and also because they regarded it as contrary to the pledge given when the Land Transfer Act of 1897 was passing through this House. The Land Transfer Act of 1897 provided that, except as to a county or part of a county, which would signify its desire that registration should be compulsorily applied for, no further order should be made under the section until the expiration of three years from the making of the first order. Accordingly this proposal would appear not only to be a violation of the pledge, but a

  905
  direct violation of the spirit of the Land Transfer Act.
  MR. J. SAMUEL: I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary should have made another "graceful concession" by moving the omission of Clause 8 of this Bill. I have spoken in the Grand Committee strongly in favour of this part of the Bill, and we have complimented the right hon. Gentleman on his courage in trying to effect a change in the law with a view to simplifying the transfer of titles to property; but now I regret to see that the right hon. Gentleman has not the courage to carry forward this important change in the law, and to adhere to his original intention. The hon. Member for Halifax said that this was the first time this matter was introduced into any measure referring to the transfer of property. I think the hon. Member is mistaken, because my predecessor in the representation of Stockton, Mr. Wrightson, introduced a Bill in 1894 which contained a similar clause. He proposed to give facilities to working men to register their titles under the Transfer Act of 1875, and he pointed out the great advantage that would be to working men who would buy property under that particular measure. The reason why he withdrew it was because of the extraordinary pressure which was brought to bear on him by the solicitors of the town he then represented, and who were practically all conservatives. I complimented the right hon. gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, upon the re-introduction of this clause into his Bill, because I thought he would have the courage of his convictions, that he would run the gauntlet of solicitors throughout the country, and resist any pressure that might be brought to bear on the Government. We all know that the great objection to the working of this Bill is what is called the mobility of labour. Labour is a changeable commodity, and working men must go from town to town to obtain it. The principal argument used by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to that argument was, that an easy method of transfer would assist working men, and that they would be given the privilege of changing property from one to another for the small payment of ten shillings. This Measure went before the Grand Committee on Trade, and this clause went through without any comment whatever, every-
  906
  body agreeing that it initiated a very important change in the law, which I venture to say is demanded by the working classes of this country. I myself was requested to move the omission of this clause, on the ground that it would bring ruin on the legal profession. The Government, having deliberately considered it, should not have conceded the point without coining before a full House, and stating their reasons for doing so. We have had two examples to-day. We have had the Secretary to the Treasury conceding points, behind the back of the House, to the Telephone Company, and now we have the Government conceding this important point to the legal profession without the knowledge of the House. This Bill is a very defective one. I do not believe it will be of any great service to the working men of the country, but if it were to be of any service at all it would be through this clause, which provides for a transfer of property by a small payment. That would be an enormous advantage to the working classes if they purchased property under this Bill. The clause went further, and initiated a change in the law in this respect which could be applied to all property in the country. I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, who I thought had the courage of his convictions, has not stood by the Bill, but has conceded to the legal profession such an important clause. I hope we shall divide against the omission of this clause, and I hope hon. Members on the other side of the House who represent working class constituents will also object to the concession made by the Government.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I think if there be any Gentleman in this House who has the courage of his convictions, it is the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. However much we may differ from him, all of us who have known him for any length of time must conclude that, whatever he takes in hand, he is always able and willing to support. The Government and the House find themselves in a dilemma between two alternatives—one, the promise given to the people of this country that this Bill would be introduced and passed into law; and the other is, as we have heard for the first time to-day, that the Law Society has had a pledge given to it the ques-

  907
  tion, therefore, is, whether the interests of the people or the interests of the Law Society weigh more. This Bill never had my full support, because I believe with the hon. Member for Stockton that it will not effect the purpose for which it it is intended, and I claim to know the working man as well as any hon. Member in the House. When the promise was made to the people of this country that a Bill of this kind would be brought in, it was expected that it would be as completely in harmony with their interests as possible. The Bill has passed two important stages. It has had a Second Reading, and has been through the Grand Committee, and in neither of them has this matter of the pledge to the Law Society been even mentioned. The hon. Member for Stockton stated, very correctly, that of all the parts of the Bill there was not one that would attract the favour of the working classes as much as this clause. I do not know exactly what the situation would be if this clause be eliminated, and I should like to have some expression of opinion from the Government as to how much it would cost for the transfer of a house of the value of £200 or £250. This clause sets forth that it would cost ten shillings, and that would be a great inducement to a working man to buy a house. But if, as is suggested, it would cost £3 or £4 if the clause is omitted, then I think that would be a very serious burden on the working man as well as a large percentage on the value of the house. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, except the interests of the Law Society outweigh the interests of the working classes of this country, whether he would not consent to allow the clause to remain. If it be taken out I am sure the Bill will be much less useful. Why should the Law Society object? Are we to understand that the Law Society are looking ahead for work, and trying to keep the present mode of transfer, with all its complications and costs, in their hands? What will be the conclusion of the working men of this country if this clause is taken out at the request of the Law Society? I submit they will come to the natural and only conclusion, that one of the most useful parts of the Bill was omitted because the Law Society wished it. May I also suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill that perhaps the Law
  908
  Society would allow the pledge to fall into disuse and let this clause be retained?
  MR. LOWLES: I confess I fully share the views of the hon. Members opposite. I think it would be a most unfortunate thing if we were to attempt to contract the benefits this Bill promised to the working classes of this country. I myself regard the Bill as a serious and honest attempt to make the great mass of the working men of this country the owners of the houses in which they reside. This clause is one of the most important, and we have a right to complain that no suggestion of this alteration was made in the Grand Committee. The clause passed the Grand Committee without the slightest objection being raised against it, and it was regarded as a most wholesome change. If you omit this clause you will saddle the working men with an unjust quantity of costs. You will at the very outset destroy the good the Bill would otherwise do because the working men themselves would fight shy of it.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not said his last word on this matter. I suggest one way out of the difficulty. I doubt whether a pledge was given at all. It was a sort of undertaking by the Government that the Land Transfer Act of 1897 should not apply except in the limited case to which reference had been made, and only for a period of three years. I agree it is of very great importance that the clause, as it originally stood, should remain in the Bill. Otherwise the transfer of title will amount to a considerable sum, the stamp duty on £200 being £3 or £4, in addition to which lawyers' fees will have to be paid. The workman is bound to transfer his title when he moves, because he has necessarily to find his residence in the place where he finds his work, and it is very hard that he should be compelled to pay these costs. I think that is the general sense of the House. I would make a practical suggestion if the right hon. Gentleman still thinks that the pledge to which he has referred covers this case. The difficulty can be met in this way. The pledge was given two years ago for a period of three years, and it could be provided now that the clause

  909
  should not be operative for one year. That would not be any harm, as it will take time to bring the Bill into operation. By that means you will serve the working men of the country, and you will keep the pledge said to have been given to the Law Society. I think, however, that the pledge does not cover this case at all, because, although a pledge might have been given with reference to existing titles, it would not apply to new titles to be created under this Bill.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure that I am entitled to take credit for an open mind on this question, because really my own feeling is entirely in accord with the views that have just been expressed. I do not, however, attach to it the altogether exaggerated importance which some hon. Members profess to feel, and which has led them so far as to say that the Bill itself would be useless unless this clause were retained. But no doubt it would smooth the operation of the Bill materially, and would go a long way to removing the objection to the difficulty of transferring a title in case of change of residence. Therefore, I am most strongly desirous, if the thing can be done without breach of faith, that the clause should remain in the Bill. I am at a disadvantage, however, because my hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General is away on other important public business. It was he who had to deal with the Land Transfer Act, and he is, of course, very much better acquainted with all that passed on that occasion. If it turns out that a pledge was given, whether it were a pledge affecting the Government or the House, the Government will be bound by it. The question has been raised whether there was really anything in the nature of a pledge given at all, and, if so, whether that pledge was not discharged. It is evident, however, that the matter must be further examined by the Government, and in that examination we will have, no doubt, the assistance of the Attorney-General. In the meantime I think I may ask the permission of the House to withdraw this new clause, and we will deal with the matter in another place if it is found necessary.
  Motion and clause, by leave, with drawn.
  MR. DRAGE: The object of the Amendment which stands in my name is to introduce a principle which has worked so well in Belgium that the life of the proprietor should be secured for a sum sufficient to cover the expense, wholly or partly, of the acquisition of the house. It will be seen that the result of this new clause will be that on the death of the proprietor the widow, or other representative, would obtain the house without any further payment, and no loss would be sustained where a working man had paid instalments for a number of years and died. Under the present Bill the house would be lost, and similar hardships often occur as it is with building societies. The advantage does not apply alone to the working man; it would be a great advantage also to the local authorities. They would be saved from all chance of loss, and also from the very difficult and onerous task of dealing with hard cases which might arise under the Bill as it now stands. With this clause they would be able to deal liberally with all such cases. It has a further advantage, because it is designed to encourage working men to insure their lives for a substantial sum. The House is aware that throughout the country at the present moment there are burial insurances for £10 or £20, all of which is spent on the burial expenses. There is great extravagance, and the representatives of the deceased get little or no advantage. I am informed that there are no less than seven millions of these insurances in friendly societies, and seven millions in insurance companies. The House will therefore see that this clause would extend in a most useful form the principle of insurance already widely at work. May I also point out that friendly societies have already attempted to undertake this problem of life insurance up to a limit of £200. The policies issued by friendly societies, however, according to a recent decision of the Courts, are not assignable, and that difficulty will be met if the present clause is introduced. The views which I have been able to obtain from the friendly societies appear to me to be favourable to the course which I suggest the House should take. But I am informed that the friendly societies themselves have no desire to obtain any preference over other workers' advantage, and therefore it gives me great pleasure to accept the Amend-

  911
  ment of the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton, as the expenses are already cut down as low as possible. Without my clause it is impossible for the local authorities to take collateral security, and therefore the clause would encourage the local authorities to avail themselves of the Act by giving them further security that their money would not be lost. The clause is permissive, and the local authority has, therefore, power to refuse the friendly society if insolvent, or the proprietor if unlikely to keep the policy up. It would also encourage working men to insure their lives. Above all, it would induce large bodies of working men to take an interest in the friendly societies, and in the working of the Bill, and make it as far as possible a success. Last of all, if it is possible to make the friendly societies co-operate with the local authorities it would do a good deal towards solving other problems besides the problem of housing the working classes. I beg to move the new clause.
  New clause—
  "The local authority may accept as collateral security a policy of assurance on the life of a proprietor granted by a friendly or other society, and in that case shall reduce the charge for interest by five shillings per centum per annum.
  "On the death of the proprietor the local authority shall be entitled to give a discharge to a friendly or other society for the sum insured, and shall pay to the legal personal representative of the proprietor the balance of the insurance money after providing for the mortgage debt and for all expenses incurred by them."—(Mr. Drage.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see that there is any serious objection to the clause as amended. But without the Amendment I would have objected to it strongly, because I think the interest is already reduced to the lowest possible point, and the advantage to be gained by the collateral security would be so slight. The local authority, I think, will have ample security in the house, and of course if it is desired to have a collateral security, there is nothing to pre-
  912
  vent them taking it, either in the shape of a policy of insurance, or in any other form. But it is pointed out that a life insurance policy is the worst possible form of security, for there is nothing to guarantee the continued payment of the premiums. A working man may be induced this year to take out a policy of insurance on his own life, but next year he may be unwilling or unable to pay the premium, and the value of the security might therefore be destroyed. I must say that the opportunity of giving or taking this security will not be largely availed of.
  MR. BARTLEY: I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member who introduced the clause. I think it would have this advantage: it would point out to those borrowing on their houses that this is a good way of freeing their representatives from liability in case of the borrower's death. I am, however, very doubtful about encouraging friendly societies to extend their operations to life insurance. That is a branch of work for which, I think, they are not, very well adapted. I would much prefer to insert the words, "Or other societies approved of by the local authority."
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I am glad that the hon. Member for Derby has accepted my Amendment. One of the great merits of the Bill is to encourage thrift in the working classes, and life insurance is a very good form of thrift. I think it is a very great matter to invite the co-operation of the friendly societies.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I differ entirely from hon. Members who have spoken as to this new clause. I consider that, in the first place, it is unnecessary, and in the second place it is most dangerous. It is said that one of the objects of the Bill is to bring the friendly societies in co-operation with the local authorities. That is not the object of the Bill at all. The object of the Bill is to enable working men to acquire their houses on cheap and easy terms. The clause is unnecessary because, as the right hon. the Colonial Secretary has said, the local authorities, if they like to do so, can accept the collateral security of a policy of life insurance, or any other form of security. The clause is dangerous,

  913
  because it might induce the local authorities to take up the position that they ought to insist on some other security beyond the security of the value of the house before they would make an advance. Life insurance may be a very good way of providing for old age, but it is outside the scope of the Bill. What reason is there for compelling a working man who has, perhaps, gone the length of his tether in his efforts to build or buy a house, to insure his life before he gets the benefit of the Bill?
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): I think that under the Bill, as it stands, it is perfectly competent for the local authority to accept a policy of life insurance, or any other form of collateral security. But I do not think the danger which the hon. Member for Mid Glamorganshire sees in the proposed clause is likely to arise.
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not think that the terms of the Bill should be extended in the way suggested by the proposed clause. As the Bill is framed, the local authority may not advance more than four-fifths of the purchase price, but in all circumstances they are bound to see that the value of the house is sufficient to justify the advance. If the local authority is satisfied that they have sufficient security, why should they make it a sort of condition that a working man must insure his life in a friendly society, which may not be the very wisest thing for him to do, before he can obtain the benefit of the Act? I think we are travelling outside the scope of the Bill, and making it a sort of advertisement of the advantages of life insurance, and I hope the House will not consent to the clause.
  COL. HUGHES: I object to the clause, on behalf of the working men who are, under this Bill, to be enabled to negotiate loans on cheaper terms than they can get at the present time. It would place on the working man who wanted to buy his house the burden of the premium of his policy of insurance, in addition to the burden of paying off the principal and the interest on the purchase money. It may be said that the clause is optional, but it would give the local
  914
  authorities a hint to demand this collateral security. I quite agree that without the clause the local authority may take a collateral security, but the suggestion ought not to come from us. If you put too much thrift on a man—first, the thrift of buying a house; and second, the thrift of insuring his life—he might not be able to do both at the same time, and the whole system would break down.
  MR. DILLON: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to see that the clause is absolutely unnecessary, and may have a very mischievous effect. It confers no new power on the local authority, but it distinctly offers a suggestion to them that they ought to look for collateral security.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I advise my hon. friend to withdraw the clause, after the opinions which have been expressed by the right hon. the Colonial Secretary and others. I am quite sure that my hon. friend is animated by the best motives in suggesting the clause, but I think there is a great deal in what has been said, that the local authorities might make additional difficulties in granting loans owing to the suggestion of collateral security.
  MR. DRAGE: After the appeal that has been made to me, I would ask to withdraw the Amendment.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: When this Bill was introduced last session, it was made a matter of complaint, especially by the hon. Member for Battersea, that it did not apply to London and to our very large towns. The object of the clause which I venture to propose is that it should be made applicable to London and other large towns. It is obvious that there is no reason why a number of persons should not join together to build, or acquire a row, or block of houses; and why should they not be able to obtain advances from the local authorities collectively as well as individually? The clause is only permissive, and I believe it will materially extend the usefulness of the measure. I move that the clause be read a second time.
  New clause:—
  "A local authority may make the like advances to two or more persons jointly to whom this Act applies, for the purpose of acquiring a row or block of dwellings in which they bonâ fide intend to reside; such advances to be subject to the same provisions and restrictions (as far as they apply) as if the advances were made to one person in respect of one house."—(Sir Alfred Hickman.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. friend will not press this clause. I perfectly understand his motives, but there are very strong practical objections to his proposal. A general feeling has been expressed that it would complicate matters if local authorities were allowed to advance money on houses that are not already built or in course of erection; but there is another objection to making the loans to a number of tenants jointly, which it is quite impossible to overcome. Suppose twenty tenants asked for a loan jointly, you would require to make them into a corporation; and that would involve every one of these answerable for the other nineteen, in cases, for instance, of injury.
  MR. GRAY: I am bound to agree that this clause, as it stands, is objectionable; but I am exceedingly sorry that there is no provision in the Bill which would enable two persons to purchase a house already in existence. It is very common in the suburbs of large towns for two families to reside in one house, the one on the ground floor, and the other on the second floor; and the house becomes two separate tenements, with two separate entrances. In my own borough a large number of streets would be put out of the operation of the Bill, unless it is made applicable to such cases.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: After what has fallen from my right hon. friend. I ask permission of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOWLES: I move the Amendment standing in my name with every confidence that the House will accept it. I regard this Bill as one of the most important of a social character brought before the House this session. Under the Bill the maximum sum to be advanced is £210, assuming that the price of the house is £300, and that the purchaser has £60. I have taken some pains to ascertain the relative amounts of deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank—a test of the savings of the people; and I think I am right in saying that where one person has £50 or £60 in the bank, there are ten persons who have £25 or £30 at their credit. By force of reasoning, if the amount to be advanced were increased from four-fifths to nine-tenths of the value of the house, for every one person who would be benefited under the Bill as it stands, ten persons would be benefited by the alteration I propose. We have precedents for reducing the margin of security. Under the Irish Purchase Act the Land Commissioners have actually advanced to within 2½ per cent. of the value of the property. If the Irish tenant can be trusted, surely the English mechanic can be trusted also. I am told that the arrears in Ireland are exceedingly small, and experience proves that a small margin like this has not caused loss. Another reason I have for advancing this proposal is that there are a large number of land corporations who have been buying land and building houses in the suburbs, and who sell to a working man a house by instalments spread over a long period if he pays a deposit of 10 per cent. on the value of the house. If a private party can do that surely the State ought to be able to do it also. Every quarter the rate of security would be increased at the rate of 3½ per cent. per annum. These facilities have been given to the Irish tenant occupiers, and have not been abused by them. And are English artisans to be less trusted? I sincerely believe that this measure will be very largely used, and I hope we shall afford every possible facility in order that it may be brought within reach of the greatest possible number. I believe the State can afford the small risk involved in reducing the margin from one-fifth to one-tenth, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'four-fifths' in order to insert the words 'nine-tenths,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Lowles.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'four-fifths' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: This question as to the proportion to be advanced under the Bill was fought out in the Grand Committee.
  MR. LOWLES: My particular Amendment was not discussed at all.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not saying anything about a particular Amendment, but the general question was before the Grand Committee.
  MR. LOWLES: The Amendment in my name was by a misunderstanding not moved, and no Amendment to reduce the margin was moved, although one to increase it was.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to accept the view of my hon. friend. However, there are two points to consider. We wish to advance the largest possible proportion that is likely to be acceptable to the local authorities. If we suggest to a local authority or require it to advance a proportion for which in its opinion there is not sufficient security offered, then the Bill will be a dead letter in a great many localities. In my opinion one-fifth is not too much to ask for security. It is quite true that a number of working men may not have that amount, although there are means by which they can find it, but a very large number of the better class working men have, in savings banks and other investments, amounts sufficient to cover the advance required by this Bill. The whole question has been very carefully considered, and I most strongly advise the House to retain the proportion already in the Bill.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I certainly do not wish to re-open this question, but I wish to say a few words
  918
  on behalf of a person who has been rather left without any representative—namely, the ordinary ratepayer. We all know the philanthropic motives of the hon. Member for Haggerston; but we must remember that the local authorities run a risk under this Bill, and we have no business to make that risk too great. My hon. friend who moved the Amendment referred to the cases of the Irish farmers and the Scotch crofters, but I venture to suggest that neither of them is applicable to the question we are now discussing. This is a question of houses, and houses require repairs, especially the sort of houses to be bought under this Bill. Property is rising so rapidly in London that it may be safe enough to advance a larger proportion on it; but there are many parts of the country in which house property is falling, and in which the population is diminishing and shifting away, and in such cases the local authorities would run very considerable risk if they advanced more than four-fifths.
  MR. BAINBRIDGE: I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman regarding the interests of the working man on the one hand, and the interests of the local authority on the other. My memory confirms what the hon. Member has stated, that this Amendment was not discussed in the Grand Committee, but it was left out by a misunderstanding. I am quite sure that the security proposed in the Amendment would be safe. If we wish this Bill to be made use of, we must make the terms very much more favourable for the working classes. I hope the hon. Member will push his Amendment to a Division.
  MR. BARTLEY: No private firm or prudent person would dream of going beyond the proposal in the Bill, and therefore we ought not to compel the ratepayers to do so.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 259; Noes, 67. (Division List, No. 207.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Drucker, A.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dunn, Sir William

  Llewellyn, E. H (Somerset)

  Ashmead Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Edwards, Owen Morgan

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn. (Swan.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Ellis, John Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Evans, Sam. T. (Glamorgan)

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Baker, Sir John

  Ferguson, Hon. C. Munro (Leith

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, George H.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Banbury, Frederick George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  M'Crae, George

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Ewan, William

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

  Folkestone, Viscount

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Fry, Lewis

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Garfit, William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Biddulph, Michael

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Bill, Charles

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Billson, Alfred

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton.

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (StGeorg's

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

  Bond, Edward

  Goschen, George J. (Susex)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

  Goulding Edward Alfred

  Milton, Viscount

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milward, Colonel Victor

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

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Monk, Charles James

  Brassey, Albert

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Moore, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Gunter, Colonel

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh)

  Ballard, Sir Harry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Mount, William George

  Burt, Thomas

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grahm. (Bute

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

  Harwood, George

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Newark, Viscount

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

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Heath, James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

  Pease, Herbrt. Pike (Darlington

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs., Newton)

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Howard, Joseph

  Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs SW

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S.W.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Purvis, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Crombie, John William

  Hutton, John (Yorks N. R.)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jessel, Captain H. Merton

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Roberts, John H (Denbighs.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Robinson, Brooke

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield.

  Kenyon, James

  Round, James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Doughty, George

  Kimber, Henry

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Knowles, Lees

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  920

  921

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Strachey, Edward

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Woodall, William

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

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders.

  Spencer, Ernest

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wyndham, George

  Spicer, Albert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Stantley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Usborne, Thomas

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Younger, William

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

  TELLERS THE FOR THE AYES—

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Sir William Walrond and

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

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

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Stock, James Henry

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Price, Robert John

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hazell, Walter

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H.

  Randall, David

  Austin, M.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Caldwell, James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Labouchere, Henry

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Langley, Batty

  Weir, James Galloway

  Colville, John

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leng, Sir John

  Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

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

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lough, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dillon, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Woods, Samuel

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murnaghan, George

  Duckworth, James

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Mr. Lowles and Mr. Bainbridge.

  Gold, Charles

  Perks, Robert William

  Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Bill as it was introduced provided, besides the limit of four-fifths of the value of the house, the further limit that the advance was in no case to exceed £240. It was represented in the Grand Committee, however, that it was most desirable to induce the purchase of freehold wherever possible, and that as the purchaser of freehold would necessarily add a considerable sum to the total purchase price, the advance should in such cases be increased. Accordingly, I undertook to bring forward an Amendment, which I now move, that the limit in the case of freehold should be £300.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end, to insert 'or in the case of a fee simple, or leasehold of not less than ninety-nine years unexpired at the date of the purchase, three hundred pounds.'"—(Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.)
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment which I now move is to prevent a man from obtaining advances under this Bill for two houses at the same time. We want to guard against the Bill being used in any way for house speculation.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: As a man is compelled to reside in the house he has purchased, how can he live six months in one house and six in another?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course residence is an essential condition for an advance under the Bill. Bat we consider that the Amendment is desirable.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 16, after 'house,' to insert, and is not already the proprietor with-

  923
  in the meaning of this Act of a house to which the statutory conditions apply.'"
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: The Amendment which I move is intended to meet the case of a bankrupt or a man dying insolvent. In that case it is very desirable that the estate should get the benefit of any payments made in respect of the house. At the same time, this would be very difficult if it were necessary for the trustee himself to take possession and realise, for he would in that way render himself liable for all payments that yet remained to be paid. The effect of this provision is simply to provide that in the case of bankruptcy or insolvency the local authorities should take possession or sell the house, and that any balance remaining on the sale over the amount advanced should be paid to the estate.
  MR. EVANS: I suppose the estate will not pass to the local authority.
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: If the hon. Gentleman will look at clause 5, he will see that wherever the local authority is entitled to take possession of a house, possession may be recovered, whatever be the value of the house, by or on behalf of the authority, as if the local authority were the landlord and the proprietor of the house were the tenant.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 3, page 3, line 22, at end to add: (5) in the case of the bankruptcy of the proprietor of the house, or in the case of a deceased proprietor's estate being administered in bankruptcy under Section 125 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, the local authority may either take possession of the house or order the sale of the house without taking possession, and shall do so except in pursuance of some arrangement to the contrary with the trustee in bankruptcy."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 7, page 5, line 17, at end to add 'and where the proprietor of any such house becomes bankrupt, or his estate is administered in bankruptcy under Section 125 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and in either case an arrangement under this Act is made with the
  924
  trustee in bankruptcy, the condition as to residence shall, if the local authority think fit, be suspended during the continuance of the arrangement.'"—(The Solicitor-General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: The Act of 1883 does not apply to Ireland. Should there not be a reference to the corresponding Irish Act of 1872?
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: I will call the attention of the Law Officers to this. I think the matter can be dealt with in Clause 14.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I have a very important Amendment to move on this clause, the object of it being to substitute for the County Council, so far as that body has jurisdiction under this Bill, urban or rural district councils, including in the urban councils the council of every borough. The reason which makes the County Councils Association, who have asked me to bring forward this Amendment, desirous of having this change, is that as the Bill at present stands the council of every urban district with a population of over 7,000 may exclude itself from the operation of the Bill, and constitute itself local authority for the purposes of the Bill. Under a subsequent Amendment to be proposed by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Warwickshire, every rural district council with a population of over 7,000 may do the same. I understand the Government look favourably on my hon. friend's Amendment, and therefore I think it would be well for me to put before the House the position in which the County Council would stand should the Amendment be carried. In the first place, I cannot understand the principle on which so many districts which are represented already on the County Council are allowed to exclude themselves from the jurisdiction of the Council, and to become local authorities under this Act. The only interpretation I can put upon it is that the Government and the right hon. Gentleman believe that the County Council will not work this Act properly. They have, so to say, a distrust of the County Council. If that be so, then why not go a little fur-

  925
  ther and make the district council, in whom apparently they have confidence, the authority under the Bill? Otherwise the County Council will be left with the apparent responsibility, and with power over only a very small portion of the county, with the result that in most cases the majority of the members voting on the application of the Act will represent districts which can at any time exclude themselves from the operation of the Act, and will, therefore, be in a wholly irresponsible position. I have obtained returns from one or two counties, in order to show the remarkable effect of this Bill. In the West Riding of Yorkshire there are 90 councillors. Under the Government proposal the representatives of the districts which can exclude themselves from the provisions of the Bill number 49, or more than a majority; while if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Warwick is carried, the number will be increased to 76, or more than three-fourths of the council voting on the application of the Act will have no real or direct interest. In the County of Stafford, of the 76 councillors, 45 will be irresponsible under the Government proposal, and no fewer than 65 if my hon. friend's Amendment is embodied in the Bill. In Lancashire, out of 105 councillors, the respective numbers of irresponsible councillors will be 67 and 75. I have here a very strong letter from Sir John Hibbert, the Chairman of the Lancashire County Council, whom we are sorry not to have with us in this House now. He points out that in Lancashire, under the Government proposal, a population of very nearly a million and a half—out of a total population in the county of less than two millions, will be excluded under the Government proposal, while if the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend is carried, the County Council will only be left with control in this matter over a population of 274,000. The House will agree with my right hon. friend when he writes that this is "an absurdity as a matter of local government." Bedford, a smaller county, shows practically the same result—out of a population of 900,000, there will, if the Amendment is carried, be left only 25,000 under the jurisdiction of the County Council. It may be argued that although the districts may claim to be excluded, they will not necessarily do so; but assuredly every district council which
  926
  is anxious to put the Act into operation will claim the right to do so, if only for the pride of carrying out the work. I believe I am right in saying that in every county England there will be an irresponsible majority of the councillors deciding on the application of the Acts to certain districts. I believe myself that if the county councils are given proper responsibility and proper powers to carry out the Act they will not be slow to put it in force, wherever there is any popular demand. No doubt the application of the Small Holdings Act was not quite so general as had been anticipated, but then that was largely due to certain adverse influences which were at work such as the depression in the price of land. But if the demand for houses proves as extensive as it is believed in certain quarters of the House it will, I am sure no county council would wish to withstand any pressure which might be applied to put the Act in force. You are putting the county councils in an unfair position if you exclude from their area the greater part of the population. If you make the majority of the councillors irresponsible you cannot expect them to work the Act satisfactorily, and not only that, but, in future, in order to solve this difficult question of local areas there will be clauses put in many Bills giving responsibility of jurisdiction primarily to the county councils, but allowing the district councils to opt themselves out of that jurisdiction. This will strike a vital blow at the root of county government. It is because this Bill may be made a precedent that the County Councils Association think it necessary to enter this protest. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see the true solution of this question. If he does not trust the county councils in all, let him trust them not at all, and put the poorer, responsibility, and jurisdiction in the hands of the district councils, and thus give them a greater inducement to carry out the Act.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 39, to leave out from the word 'any' to the end of sub-section (1) of Clause 9, in order to insert the words 'urban or rural district' instead thereof."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That the words from the word 'any' to the word 'urban,' in line 40, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. friend appears in this matter as the defender of the rights, dignities and authorities of the county councils as against the ambition of the urban and rural districts within their jurisdiction. In dealing with this matter the Government have had to consider one or two important questions. The most important has been what is the best authority for carrying out the provisions of the Bill. It seems to me that two things are required. The authority must be one of character and experience, and able to deal with what is, after all, rather novel and responsible legislation in a creditable manner, and not be inclined or liable to waste the ratepayers' money. The authority must also be sufficiently sympathetic to the objects of the Bill, in order that the desire of the population to take advantage of the Bill may not be frustrated. In the first place the Bill proposes as authorities two great bodies—the county councils and the councils of county boroughs. They possess one of these desiderata, for their experience and business capacity ensure that, if they undertake to put the Bill into operation, it will be done in a proper and economical manner. But on further consideration it appeared to us that the county councils were being asked to undertake authority over too large districts, and that it was almost impossible for them, with their other work, to have the requisite knowledge of and interest in the rural districts. My hon. friend has adduced reasons for the failure of the Small Holdings Act, but I confess I think the most important reason is the unreadiness of county councils to deal with matters which involve the obtaining of so much local knowledge. Therefore, it is provided in the Bill that urban district councils with a population of over 7,000, wherever they desire it, shall be taken out of the county councils' area, both as to liability to taxation under the Bill and as to putting its provisions in operation. Then it is proposed by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon that rural district councils shall be able to exclude themselves in the same way. By accepting that Amendment all districts with a population of over 7,000 will be provided for,
  928
  and the Amendment will introduce, as an operative authority, a most useful class of public bodies. We required a certain limit of population, and we took 7,000 as being reasonable, and calculated to secure that the authorities had had considerable experience of public business. The rural district councils will cover the rural districts on the outskirts of large towns, where, I believe, there will be the largest demand for the application of the Bill. I do not think that it is certain that all these bodies will take advantage of the opportunity to become authorities under the Bill; but the hon. Member desires that the county councils shall be relieved from responsibility altogether. That would be to leave a considerable area, not very populous, in each county, unrepresented altogether for the purposes of this Bill. Against that suggestion I must also protest, because if a labourer desires to obtain a cottage on the terms of the Bill, I think that the man should have an opportunity of representing his case to the county council. I hope that when such a case presents itself the county councils will show themselves more considerate towards the claim when made than has been the case under the Small Holdings Act. While, therefore, I am prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I am unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset.
  LORD E. FIZMAURICE: The right hon. Gentleman has announced an exceedingly important change in this Bill, a change which materially alters its provisions. I hope he will not think I am actuated by any unworthy jealousy or suspicion of urban authorities in the action I am about to take, for I may say that I support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset, because I have confidence in those authorities. I may go further than he does, because I believe that by the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon we shall be reducing the county councils to an absurd position, as they will be left with only a few detached rags of territory over which they call exercise jurisdiction in this matter. I believe myself that urban authorities and rural authorities are better fitted to deal with this Bill than the county councils. No doubt, in certain matters, it is better for the county

  929
  council to have the jurisdiction, but I am inclined to think that in regard to this particular question this Bill, if it conferred the primary authority on urban and district councils, with an appeal to the county council, would prove a more valuable piece of legislation. What will be the result of the change made by the right hon. Gentleman? We shall have this extraordinary state of things when the Bill passes into law; we shall have the county council exercising jurisdiction over a few detached places, and urban and district councils acting as separate authorities. This will lead to rating and other difficulties and involve no end of trouble. I think the only course open to the Government is to adopt the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for East Somerset, and to place their trust in urban and rural councils throughout the country, allowing the county councils to retire from the field, as they are perfectly willing to do.
  COLONEL MILWARD: As we are practically discussing the substance of the Amendment I have placed upon the Paper, perhaps it would be convenient if I stated the reasons which have actuated me in making this proposal. The objection I have to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset is, that it excludes county councils altogether, and inserts urban and rural councils without any limit as to their size. Now, we all acknowledge that tins is an Act under which a considerable amount of public money may be spent, and it is therefore desirable that it should be administered by responsible persons. But if we admit all the urban and rural authorities, the number of small bodies entrusted with these powers will be exceedingly great. Take the case of the County of Chester. There you have twenty-two urban districts with a population of less than 7,000, many of them having a population of only 1,000 or 2,000. This is an experimental measure, and you are going to entrust large powers for borrowing and lending money on house property to these very small districts. I do not think it would be a safe thing to do. I therefore feel bound to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset. The question then arises—to whom shall we entrust the primary authority for putting this Act into operation? On the one hand you have the
  930
  county council, and on the other hand you have the urban and rural districts with a population exceeding 7,000. In passing, I would point out that a rural district with a population of 7,000 has a far larger rateable value, and therefore is of far greater importance, than an urban district with the same population. I have the highest opinion of the work of the county councils, but it has been, brought home very strongly to me that this not a body which can possibly administer an Act of this kind satisfactorily. When you have districts separated by fifteen, twenty, or thirty miles from the centre of the county, your trouble at once begins in a matter of this kind; for, before you are justified in lending money, it is requisite to have local knowledge of the persons to whom the money is to be advanced. The noble Lord, the Member for Wiltshire, has spoken of the difficulties that may arise in connection with finance. It is certain that if losses should occur under this Act—I do not believe that they will—it will be necessary to have a differential rate. But you have that already. Lancashire is honey-combed with non-county boroughs, and there you already have differential rates; and surely, if you have to have a differential rate for one district it is just as easy to have it for twenty. I therefore do not attach much importance to that argument of the noble Lord.
  MR. DILLONIf this Amendment is accepted, and the county councils are still left in authority over those districts which cannot or will not take autonomy themselves, you will have in every county council in the country a large number of irresponsible and responsible councillors. You will have some representing autonomous districts, and others who do not. If this Bill is passed at all, the proper machinery to work it is such as that which has been employed in Ireland and Scotland for the erection of labourers' cottages—councils sufficiently small to have a personal knowledge of the district and its inhabitants. It will be exceedingly difficult for county councils to put this Bill into operation at all, and that difficulty will be enormously increased if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is accepted; because, to expect the county council will be able to do justice in administering this Act to the remaining few districts which will be debarred from

  931
  claiming autonomy, is too much, and those districts, as a result, will be excluded from any benefit at all. There are many parts of the country of Ireland where the county councils have less knowledge of the remoter parts of their districts than they have of the Metropolis. Then, again, what would be the financial relations of the districts which remain under the jurisdiction of the county council and the districts which obtain autonomy under the Amendment?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There will have to be a consequential Amendment.
  MR. DILLON: That being so, it does not appear to me that there is much force in the contention of the noble Lord. I think there can be no doubt that the best machinery for carrying out this Act will be the district councils.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Personally, I should prefer the county council to the district council. I do not think that it is at all clear that the county councils would be less sympathetic to the labourers than the district council, for county councils usually act through local committees. There is, no doubt, a great deal of misunderstanding about it, and I quite recognise the difficulty that would be felt in the matter, and that the right hon. Gentleman may not be ready to hand over all these powers to the county council. The objections to this scheme are very great, but I suggest that it might be well to follow the precedents that are set in other Bills, giving the power to the urban and district councils, but giving a concurrent power—a power to act on appeal—to the county councils. By that means you would remove from the Bill the blot which is now upon it, of studding a county with small administrative districts, to the detriment of the dignity and weight of the county council. Personally, I think that the district council ought to go out altogether, and that the parish councils ought to come in.
  MR. BILL: I think the figures taken from Staffordshire, where there is a large county borough and urban district population, show that it would be well if this power were left in the hands of small and local bodies rather than the hands of the county council. Inasmuch as under the altered
  932
  scheme now accepted by the Government, only a wretched residuum of the population would come under the purview of the County Council, so far as this Bill is concerned. I believe that that would secure greater uniformity and simplicity, and therefore I should suggest that the Amendment before the House should be accepted.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The difficulty of the Government in this matter is that they do not like to give this authority to smaller bodies than those controlling 7,000 population; but it is suggested that that objection might be got rid of by giving an appeal under this Act from the smaller bodies to the county councils in a case where the local authorities had refused to take advantage of the Acts. There is a precedent for such a course in the Act of 1894, and if that was done it would get rid of the difficulty of accepting the Amendment which is now before the House. It has been shown conclusively that if you take out all these local authorities it will only leave a small residuum, and the county council would not be able to take advantage of the Act. All the larger areas would contract themselves out of the Act.
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: The hon. Gentleman has correctly stated that there is great difficulty in the way of adopting any such proposal as that which has been made, because it is not desirable to entrust, in the first instance, at all events, the administration of this Act to very small authorities. We want an authority representing a considerable population, and with that view the limit of 7,000 has been suggested. It appears to me that it is desirable that the Act should extend to the whole country, and therefore we must provide some authority to act in those parts of the country not included in the districts that adopt the Act and which have a population of 7,000. For that purpose it is desirable that the county council should have jurisdiction so that if there is any number of labourers who want cottages they may have some authority to which they may go, even if they do not reside in an urban or rural district with a population of 7,000. It has been suggested that there should be an appeal from the district council to the county council, but I ask the House to consider the difficulties that will anise if we allow an appeal of that kind. A man would go to the district council and

  933
  ask for an advance to enable him to purchase a house. If the district council refused it is suggested that he should appeal to the county council, and the county council is then supposed to hear evidence and, if they think fit, make the grant out of the county rate. So we shall have two sets of authorities working in the same district and we should have interminable proceedings. I suggest to the House that it had better adhere to the arrangement that has been suggested, and which, on the whole, avoids the greatest number of difficulties and attains the maximum of good.
  MR. GRAY: I am sorry to hear the decision of the Solicitor-General that the appeal to the county authority should not be accepted. I fear the result may be, that a small urban or district council may
  come to the conclusion that there might be some risk attached to this Bill and would decide to become an authority under the Act for the express purpose of not putting it into operation. In a case of that sort an individual would be placed at a great disadvantage if he had not a right of appeal to the county authority, and I would still venture to press strongly the suggestion that in those cases where individuals might be precluded altogether from purchasing houses in the district where their work compelled them to live they should have an opportunity of appealing to the county authority.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 126 (Division List No. 208).

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Chelsea, Viscount

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

  Allsopp, Hon. George

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

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Coddington, Sir William

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Arrol, Sir William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bagot, Captain J. Fitzroy

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

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

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Baird, John George A.

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Ed. T. D.

  Graham, Henry Robert

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

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Barnes, Frederick Gorell

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith. (Hnts

  Curzon, Viscount

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

  Gunter, Colonel

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Donkin, Richard Sir

  Heath, James

  Biddulph, Michael

  Doughty, George

  Helder, Augustus

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

  Brassey, Albert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

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

  Howard, Joseph

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Finch, George H.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. H.)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Flower, Ernest

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Garfit, William

  Kemp, George

  Kenyon, James

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Colonel Wm.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Sidebothom, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Keswick, William

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Mon mthsh.)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Kimber, Henry

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

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Murray, R Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Spencer, Ernest

  Knowles, Lees

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Newark, Viscount

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Stock, James Henry

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool

  Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rl'gt'n

  Thorburn, Walter

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Lowe, Francis William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lowles, John

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Usborne, Thomas

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Purvis, Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Pym, C. Guy

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rankin, Sir James

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Warr, Agustus Frederick

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

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

  M'Crae, George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Robinson, Brooke

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Round, James

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Ch'lt'nh'm

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. Jn.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wyndham, George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Milton, Viscount

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Younger, William

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Monk, Charles James

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Sir William Walrond and

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dillon, John

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-un'r-Lyme)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Langley, Batty

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Duckworth, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumber.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dunn, Sir William

  Leng, Sir John

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

  Edwards, Owen Morgan

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Austin, M.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Baker, Sir John

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Logan, John William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lough, Thomas

  Bethell, Commander

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Billson, Alfred

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Birrell, Augustine

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Ewan, William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Burt, Thomas

  Gold, Charles

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

  M'Leod, John

  Caldwell, James

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Maden, John Henry

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Harwood, George

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hazell, Walter

  Murnaghan, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Colville, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

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

  Crilly, Daniel

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Crombie, John William

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardig'n

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Davitt, Michael

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dewar, Arthur

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Nort' umb'rla'd)

  936

  937

  Perks, Robert William

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs S W

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Spicer, Albert

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Steadman, William Charles

  Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

  Priestly, Briggs (Yorks)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

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

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Randell, David

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tennant, Harold John

  Woodall, William

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Woods, Samuel

  Roberts, John H. (Denbigh)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Samuel, J.(Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Wallace, Robert

  Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Bill.

  It being after half-past Five of the clock, further proceeding on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
  Sir William Houldsworth reported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Oldham Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of James Dyson, Mill Brow, Streetbridge, Royton, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said James Dyson do attend the said Committee on Friday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That James Dyson do attend the said Committee on Group L of Private Bills on Friday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
  Reported [Preamble not Proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Fourth Report, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 253.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  CLERICAL TITHES BILL.

    AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
    On the motion for adjournment,
    THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir W. WALROND,): In moving the adjournment of the House I beg to give notice on behalf of the First Lord of the Treasury that tomorrow he will move the suspension of the Twelve o'clock rule so as to conclude the Debate upon the Clerical Tithes Bill.
    MR. DILLON: I desire in a few words to renew my protest against the way in which Irish Members have been treated in regard to the consideration of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill. It is a Bill of Some importance, of 35 clauses, and of great complexity. We have been kept waiting here three or four days in expectation of that Bill coming on, and as I understand now, it is not the intention of those who control this matter to give us any intimation of when it will come before the House, but to keep this Bill upon the Orders, not in the first or second place, but farther back in the Orders, that they may be able to snap a Second Reading at any moment when it is convenient and when Irish Members may not be present. I am within the limits of accuracy when I say that no considerable body of Members of this House have ever before been treated in this way with regard to a Bill in which they were interested. The Bill was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and it has

    939
    always been the invariable custom of the Government to give notice under such circumstances as to when that Bill will be taken. To us that notice has been refused. When I complained to the First Lord of the Treasury he professed that he was very anxious to see the Bill passed, but would give us any promise. I consider that the Irish Members in this matter have been treated with great contempt, and I shall take every opportunity of protesting against the course which has been pursued.
    MR. FLYNN: I desire to support the protest of the hon. Member for Mayo. This is a measure which is mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and it is not fair on the part of the Government to displace this Bill for the purpose of bringing in the Clergy Tithe Bill, which gets first place in the Orders. But I suppose we may protest and protest and continue to protest, but it will be all the same so far as the Government is concerned.
    MR. HEMPHILL: I merely rise to join in this protest as an Irish Member. I think it is very hard that some intimation should not be given to us as to when this Bill will come on. Irish constituencies naturally expect that Members should be present on a discussion of a measure of so much importance to Ireland, and the least that the Irish Members can expect from a Unionist Parliament is that the business of this House should be conducted in such a manner as
    940
    to give them an opportunity of being present when such Bills as this are brought forward. This Bill is a most important Bill, and contains 35 clauses, every one of which will admit of more or less discussion. It deals with extensive interests in Ireland, and large sums of public money, and it should have full and adequate discussion. It is not a Bill on which the Leader of the House when he throws it upon the table, ought to say "There it is, and if you do not like it you can leave it."
    MR. JOHNSTON: I think a very unfair attack has been made on the First Lord of the Treasury, and it is very unfortunate that it should have been made. The First Lord of the Treasury has declared that he is anxious to pass this Bill, and we all know of the great anxiety of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Irish Attorney-General to secure this. A great number of Members are desirous of seeing it passed into law, and I do not think that the attack which has been made upon the First Lord is either right or proper.
    MR. DILLON: May we ask when this Bill will be taken?
    SIR W. WALROND: Perhaps it would be better to ask the question of the First Lord to-morrow.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.