Commons Sitting of 26 June 1900

DUBLIN ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL (BY ORDER.)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
MR. CAREAW: I beg to move "That the Bill be considered upon this day six months." I move the rejection of this Bill on the ground that the corporation are the proper people to have this matter in their own hands, and that the local town commissioners intended the following year to promote a Bill to get the necessary power. The grounds upon which the Dublin Corporation oppose this Bill are even stronger than those which secured the rejection of the Bill promoted by the Dundalk Gas Company. It may be said that the electrical supply of the corporation has not been of a satisfactory character, but the reason for that is to be found in the fact that the amount of money which the corporation were enabled to spend at that time—namely, the sum of £89,000—in the erection of plant was found to be insufficient to supply their wants, and having exhausted their borrowing powers they were unable to go any further. In the last session of Parliament, the Dublin Corporation Markets Bill extended their borrowing powers to over £700,000. Immediately that was passed the corporation arranged a scheme of electric lighting, and an eminent electrical engineer had estimated that the city of Dublin could be lighted for an expenditure of £250,000. They then applied to the Local Government Board to sanction the raising of that sum, and they placed their scheme before them. A local in-

1071
quiry, which lasted several days, was held at which the promoters of this Bill opposed the corporation scheme, but the result was that the Local Government Board passed the scheme. On the second reading of this Bill, the question of competition was discussed fully and as a result, in a very small House, there was a small majority against the corporation in favour of this Bill. In the meantime, the corporation has succeeded in obtaining a scheme which has been sanctioned by the Local Government Board notwithstanding the opposition of the promoters of this Bill, and I think it would be a very unfair thing on the part of Parliament if they allowed another company to enter into competition with the local authority. In the case of the Dundalk Bill the House would not allow it to pass, and now we ask Parliament not to establish a precedent of this character against the wishes of the local authority. This Bill as it now stands authorises the promoters to construct works and break up the streets of Dublin, and supply electricity in competition with the city of Dublin. One eminent witness at the inquiry was asked if he had ever known a case whore a private company had ever been allowed to enter into competition with the local authority, and he answered "No, I have not." I think that the House of Commons should be very slow to allow such a weak case to override the wishes of the Corporation of Dublin by passing a Bill of this kind. I merely ask the House of Commons to think twice before adopting this measure.
*MR. FIELD: I beg to second the rejection of this Bill, and do so on more than local grounds. I object on well-established principles, as I maintain that the corporation should be its own contractor for public utilities, eliminating middlemen. I would ask the House to look further abroad than Dublin in this matter, and to examine what is the general usage in this particular question. I would appeal particularly to London Members to consider carefully the object lesson which this Bill furnishes. Surely the time has gone by when this House will permit monopolies, or, rather, competitions against local authorities who ought to supply these public utilities. About the year 1882 Parliament
1072
partially stopped private monopolies in these things, but did not sufficiently encourage local authorities. We are now concerned with the Act of 1888, under which almost every existing undertaking of this character has been established. The House should remember by that Act company and municipal undertakings were placed under the same conditions as commercial concerns. The companies were allowed rights for forty-two years, and at the end of that time if they were required to do so, they must sell their undertaking and their plant at the price of old metal. With regard to the capital, the local authority had to pay it back within thirty years, and both plant and capital were almost in the same ratio whether owned by a private company or a corporation. The Board of Trade has always given local authorities the preference in granting Provisional Orders, and it has manifestly been the intention of Parliament that public bodies should take charge of public utilities. But public bodies move very slowly, and legislation, both local and Imperial, is generally behind the requirements of public opinion, and legislators have to be stirred up occasionally by the pressure of public opinion. It so happens that shrewd capitalists, foreseeing the requirements of the community, have started by getting Provisional Orders, and here in England they got possession of large areas, notably in such places as Liverpool, Leeds, and Sheffield. In some of these districts by the pressure of the ratepayers and public opinion local authorities have been obliged to take over these undertakings and paid very dearly for them. I have here a long list of figures, but I will refer to only four. In Birmingham, that model city, the amount expended in the installation of the electric light by a private company was £219,000, but the municipality of Birmingham not long ago purchased that undertaking, and they paid for it £420,000. In Liverpool the amount expended by a private electric lighting company was £264,711, and the municipality were obliged to pay for that concern no less than £436,474. In Leeds the amount expended was £ 217,420, and the municipality were obliged to pay £ 370,580. In Sheffield the ratio was almost the same, and similar results occurred in other places. I want to know if this House intends to inflict a similar financial loss upon the ratepayers

1073
of Dublin. This is a most important matter, and many people will agree with me that, in the interests of the community, the electric supply should be in the hands of the local authority, and not be allowed to pass into the private ownership which is set up by this Bill. In debating a subject of this kind we are bound to look at it from various points of view. What is the position of electricity at the present time? The number of private companies supplying electricity with works in operation are fifty-nine, as against 109 by municipalities. In regard to works in course of construction, municipalities possess sixty-seven and companies twenty. In regard to Provisional Orders, municipalities hold 105 and companies only nine. Are we now going to add to that small number of nine instead of adding one to the 105 held by municipalities? Let me compare briefly the charges for current of these systems. I was reading the other day the report of the British Association, and I find that a gentleman read a paper on this subject, and he compared twenty-one municipal undertakings with the undertakings of twenty-one private companies. He found that the cost of production in the case of municipalities was l· 87d. per unit, whilst in the case of companies the cost was 2.71d. The average charge per unit made by these twenty-one municipalities was 4½d., whilst the average charge of the companies was 5½d., or a penny more than the municipalities. This is not my own statement, for these figures were given at a meeting of the British Association, and may be tested by anyone. I have been looking up the question of indiscriminate municipal trading, to which many hon. Members of this House are properly opposed. A gentleman named M. Emile Garcke, who is a great opponent of municipal trading, has carefully gone into the whole question of companies and municipal supplies. He has made a report, and he states that the average cost per unit of production in the case of companies is 5·51d., while that of municipalities is 4·35d. Therefore, it will be seen that these affairs are not so economically managed by private companies as by local authorities. The same authority also states that the profits made by companies was 5·51 per cent., whilst that of municipalities was 5·5 per cent., so that the municipalities produce cheaper and
1074
also make more profit. I have another reason why, as the representative of the City of Dublin, I am for opposing a Bill of this kind, because it proposes to divert and take away a source of future revenue, and place it into the pockets of private shareholders. This is one of the strongest arguments against this Bill. Regarding English cities, in Leeds they have reduced the price of the electric supply ½d. per unit, and they have made a profit last year of £17,258. In Liverpool they have reduced the price from 6·86d. per unit to 4·69d., and in Sheffield they have taken l½d. off the price charged originally, and still they all work at a profit. It is the same all over the kingdom. I am in communication with a gentleman from Brighton upon this subject, in which he says:—
"I enclose cutting from The Municipal Journal. You will see there that our manager, Mr. Wright, was expert for the company, and, though he objected to Dublin going outside its area for a generating station, he is at Brighton most strongly advocating us going outside to build a new one."
Here we have Mr. Wright giving evidence before the Local Government Board in Dublin, and urging as a reason why the new scheme of the corporation should be objected to, that the Dublin Corporation were going outside the limits of the City; while on the other hand we have the same gentleman advocating that very thing in his own city. I will just read a very brief extract from the Municipal Journal. It says—
"At the first day's inquiry Mr. Healy boasted that his chief witness, Mr. Wright, would contradict everything which Mr. Hammond said. Mr. Wright, when he went into the witness box, did more—lie contradicted himself. Mr. Wright is one of those gentlemen who occupy an anomalous position: he is for the municipality in Brighton and in Whitechapel; for private monopoly in Cork and Dublin, and half a dozen other places; for the Wright patent measuring apparatus everywhere, and for Mr. Wright all the time. A man with such a contradictory professional career cannot be expected to turn out a convincing or consistent witness."
I have no desire to attack Mr. Wright or anybody else; I merely mention the facts, and Gentlemen can inquire further into the matter if they wish. In the course of the last debate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade treated the Members who opposed this Bill rather harshly. To those acquainted with the facts it is evident that the Dublin Corporation were unable to develop the

1075
electric lighting scheme owing to the want of funds and the lack of a suitable generating station. Both these obstacles have now been removed, and the Corporation have taken measures to enable them to undertake efficiently the electric lighting of the city. I have made inquiries among the large cities of England, and it is perfectly evident that the profits derived from electric lighting by the municipal authorities is applied to the reduction of taxation. But it appears to me that the City of Dublin is given exceptional treatment in many things. The citizens of Dublin are entitled to fair play and equal treatment from this House with regard to matters which are non-political, and I hope this Bill will be rejected. I have been looking at what the President of the Board of Trade has said on this matter. In the session of 1899 when the General Power Distribution Bill was before the House of Commons it was rejected on Second Reading by 164 to 132, notwithstanding the fact that the promoters of the Bill, in the course of the debate, undertook not to supply electricity except with the consent of the corporations concerned. But here we have a company seeking to obtain a Bill from this House absolutely in opposition to the corporation. In the course of the discussion on the occasion to which I have referred, the President of the Board of Trade is reported as having said—
"It seemed to him that the principle of the Bill was a direct attack upon the right privileges and duties of municipal corporations, and whatever might have been the contingent advantages which might accrue in consequence of the passage of this Bill, I should have been bound to tell the House I did not think it would be wise in passing a Bill which practically sets aside the existing law which adequately protects corporations in the exercise of the duties which they have to discharge. Any private Bill of that kind, setting aside rights which corporations have by law, ought to be rejected."
That is just my position to-day. I take up the position of the President of the Board of Trade at that time. The Lancashire Electric Bill of 1900 came up for Second Reading on the 1st March last, and the hon. Member who moved the rejection referred to this statement of the right hon. Gentleman, when the President of the Board of Trade interrupted and said—
"That Bill not only took power to go through the streets, but also to distribute light and electric power throughout the municipal
1076
area; my statement referred to that, and when the hon. Member for Macclesfield withdrew that part of the Bill I said he had met my objection and that I would support the Second Reading."
I would remark here that the powers thus referred and objected to by the right hon. Gentleman are all included in the Bill of this present company. Towards the end of the debate the hon. Member for Cardiff asked whether the written undertaking of the promoters of the Lancashire Bill that they would do nothing without the consent of the local authorities would apply to the South Wales Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman said—
"Unless the promoters of this Bill are willing to accept a provision of that kind I should not be prepared to vote for the Second Reading."
Under these circumstances I trust that the right hon. Gentleman and those who follow him will vote against this Bill. It seems to mo that the action of the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Heading of the Dublin Electric Lighting Bill is hardly consistent with the course he has adopted with regard to English Bills. A large loan has been sanctioned by the Local Government Board for the purpose of enabling the corporation to carry out an efficient scheme, and where Parliament, through the Local Government Board, has authorised a municipal corporation to borrow money for a municipal undertaking on the security of the rates, and the corporation is establishing or has established an undertaking, these special Parliamentary powers ought not to be granted to a private company, trading for profit, to undertake similar works in competition with the corporation. I am opposed to this Bill because, if competition wore entered into, it would interfere very much with the electric lighting of the city in the future by the corporation. Another reason is the opening up of the streets. The breaking up of the streets is a great obstacle which has been recognised by those outside Ireland. I happen to be a member of the United Kingdom Trade Protection Society, and I find that at a meeting in the City of London the following resolution was carried—
"That it be represented to the Parliamentary Committee now sitting to consider the question of municipal trading, that any enterprise requiring interference with the surface of public streets, such as gas, water, electricity, hydraulic power, or telephones, trams, etc., should be under the control of municipalities

1077
as trustees for the rights of the public in the thoroughfares of cities and boroughs, but that it is undesirable for municipalities to engage in retail trades."
Here you have such a society passing a resolution of this kind unanimously. I would ask the House to reject this Bill by a large majority, because it is an interference with the rights and privileges of municipalities, because it seeks to take away from the ratepayer a revenue which should be applied to the reduction of the rates, and that it will enable a private company to tear up the streets and to interfere with the convenience of traffic in the city. On these grounds, as a representative of Dublin, I trust that the House will reject this Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and add the words 'three months.'"—(Mr. Carew.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
*MB. BROWNspeaking as Chairman of the Committee which considered and passed the preamble of the Bill, said it was proved that for many years past the Corporation of Dublin had had power to provide the electric light and had failed to do so. Had the corporation done its duty there would have been no case made out for this Bill. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill had referred to the case of the Dundalk Bill, but he denied that there was any parallel between the two cases. He could only say that if the Dublin Corporation continued in the future to manage their electric lighting works as they had done in the past, he should congratulate himself that he was not a ratepayer of the city. What was the case of this Bill? It was that for many years past the Corporation of Dublin had had the power to provide the light, as he had already stated, and had absolutely failed to do so. Under these circumstances, was it not right that a new competitor should be allowed to come in and supply a great want? When the Bill was before the Committee it was proved beyond doubt that the supply of electric light was practically nil. The corporation obtained its Provisional Order in 1892, and what had been the result of its eight years' work? There was general dissatisfaction, the price charged (7d. per
1078
unit) was the maximum allowed under the order, there had been inability to supply without unreasonable delay, and many of the inhabitants of Dublin, because they had been unable to obtain what they wanted from the corporation, had had themselves to go to the expense of setting up private installations. Had any English corporation acted in the same way as Dublin the House would have let in a private competitor. An offer was made to the corporation by an electric supply company in Dublin to supply electricity at a comparatively cheap price, but that offer was refused. The corporation sought to explain their inaction by stating that they had not borrowing powers to enable them to raise the capital necessary for the work they had undertaken, but it should not be forgotten that they could, at any time within the last eight years, have obtained such powers had they applied to Parliament. Then, with regard to the quality of the light itself it had been stated to be "the worst in the kingdom, if not in the world"! With regard to the charges, while many local authorities were enabled to supply the light at even less than 4d. per unit, the Dublin Corporation were charging above 6d., and they were charging more than was charged in Cork, a much smaller city. The company by which this Bill was promoted expected to be able to supply the light at an average cost of 4½d., and it was a matter of surprise, therefore, that the Dublin witnesses before the Committee heartily welcomed the idea of competition. That the corporation scheme had proved a failure was evidenced by the fact that they had only 250 consumers. He hoped the House would confirm the decision at which the Committee had arrived after long and careful inquiry.
*MR. TREVELYAN: I am sorry, after the long debate which has already taken place, that it should be necessary for me to speak on this question, but I will be as brief as I can. I am in the position of having sat on the Committee which passed this Bill, and of having differed so strongly from the decision arrived at that I felt it necessary to divide the Committee. I am therefore bound to put before the House the grounds upon which I acted. With regard to the facts

1079
of the case I do not think there was any serious difference of opinion between the members of the Committee, or, indeed, between any of the parties concerned. The question at issue was one of policy and of the right interpretation of the facts. The House is being asked, by passing this Bill, to create an entirely new precedent. It has been so far the consistent policy of Parliament and of the Board of Trade to refuse to permit any private company to come in and compete in the matter of electric lighting in any town where the corporation has undertaken the work, and is unwilling to permit any private company to come in. But in this case you are going to make a change. The city of Dublin is the corpus vile upon which you are going to try your experiment, though the corporation is strongly, decidedly, and unhesitatingly against your doing so. You are asked to do this because, during the last ten years, the Corporation of Dublin has not carried out the lighting scheme over a small area in the centre of the city to the satisfaction of some of the ratepayers. I agree with the other members of the Committee, and it was, in fact, admitted by the council for the corporation, that up till the present the electric light supply has been insufficient, and that in many cases there has been good cause for complaint. But are there not some palliating circumstances, and are there not good reasons why the corporation were unable to carry out the work satisfactorily? I think there are. In the first place, the corporation undertook the work at a time when electric lighting was comparatively new, and, in the second place, they only had a small area over which to carry out their operations. It is impossible under such circumstances to get a cheap supply.
*MR. BROWN: The compulsory area was small, but the corporation, if they liked, could supply the light to the whole of the city of Dublin.
*MR. TREVELYAN: NO; they could not do that, because they had not borrowing powers, and it was not until last year that they did obtain power to borrow sufficient money to enable them to carry on their operations over an extended area. What the House has to decide is whether the history of the past proves the incapacity of Dublin to manage the
1080
very much larger scheme which the corporation is now prepared to undertake. I myself came to the conclusion that there was nothing to warrant the assumption of general incapacity. It is quite certain that the corporation, during the last year or two, have become alive to the defects of the smaller lighting scheme which they are carrying out, and they have been doing everything in their power to remedy the defects and to establish a larger scheme. As a matter of fact, a year or two before this private company was thought of the corporation was doing everything it could to provide a more extensive scheme. It had obtained the assistance of an engineer whose ability is recognised on both sides of the Channel, and the moment they got the opportunity they went to the Local Government Board and said, "we have now got sufficient borrowing powers, will you give us the powers, necessary for carrying out an extended scheme?" Their request was granted, and at the present moment the corporation has power to spend a quarter of a million upon an extensive scheme; it has power to put up stations all over Dublin, it has excellent engineers to carry out the work, and I maintain that it ought to have an opportunity of accomplishing its object before you admit of any competition. Give Dublin the benefit of the doubt. It has not done very well in the past, but it promises to turn over a new leaf, and to do better in the future. Suppose Glasgow came to this House and said, "We have a small tramway, or electric lighting scheme, or water scheme. We have not done very well in the past for the ratepayers, but we ask you for larger powers." What would be the reply of this House? Would you allow a new competitor to come in in that case, especially if Glasgow told you that your doing so would make it impossible for them to succeed? I do not think you would, and yet you are asked by this Bill to do that very thing in the case of Dublin. I think you ought not to do it, and I trust that Members who are anxious to treat Ireland well, and who have no fixed idea that Irishmen are unable to govern themselves properly, will join with me in trusting Irishmen a little, and will not extend to them the exceptional treatment proposed by this Bill—treatment which I am sure would not in any case be applied to Yorkshire or Lancashire, or to any place in Scotland.
* MR. RUTHERFORDsaid the real question before the House was, are corporations to have competition under any circumstances or conditions whatever, whether they carried on these undertakings well or badly? He had the honour and privilege of being the Mayor of a large county borough. He was a member of the Committee which sat upon this Bill, and, after hearing the evidence given before it, he came to the conclusion that had his own borough, of which he was chief magistrate, carried cut an electric lighting scheme in the same way as had been done by the Corporation of Dublin, he would have been among the first to advocate the introduction of competition. It was proved beyond all question that the Corporation of Dublin had done its work extremely ill. £ 90,000 had already been spent in electric lighting works, and yet, out of a population of 300,000, the corporation had only got 250 customers for its electricity. Again, they were charging the maximum of sevenpence per unit, while in a smaller city like Cork a much lower rate was being charged, and after one year's working in Cork the system had produced a profit, whereas in the city of Dublin there was a loss of £2,800 a year. The corporation had managed its affairs badly, and one witness stated that, although he had two warehouses separated merely by a street, the corporation refused to allow him to use the light for the two warehouses by carrying the wire across the street. He did not think they would find any private company acting in such a ridiculous manner. Another witness complained that, although he wanted the light, he was told he would have to wait years for it, and another said that, while he had it, it often went out, and they had to resort to the use of candles. Another firm had spent £ 3,000 upon a private installation, but, despite that, would gladly get their supply from a private company should one be established in Dublin. The present system was bad for the corporation and disastrous for the ratepayers, and he therefore hoped the House would endorse the decision come to by the Committee after a very exhaustive inquiry.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I submit that in this Bill we are debating a question of very great importance. We are asked by it, as has
1082
been pointed out by my hon. friend the Member for the Elland division, to establish a precedent. Anybody who has studied the question of electric lighting must know that it is now the rule for local authorities in England, Scotland, and Wales to light their own towns. I am afraid that Members hardly appreciate the fact that upwards of 100 local authorities are at this moment doing electric lighting business. That is the case in Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Leeds, as well as in several London constituencies, and I think it will be admitted that these local authorities have done the work much more cheaply than private companies could have done it. I challenge contradiction when I assert that the local authorities have succeeded in reducing the price of the electric light to a point lower than has ever been reached by any private company. I believe there are some local authorities who at the present moment are charging an average price of 3½d. per unit, and I am sure that no single private company could produce the light at the same price. I want to ask the House is there any precedent for acting as this Bill proposes? The Chairman of the Committee on the Bill told us that if any English Corporation had acted in the same way as the Dublin Corporation the House would at once have given a private company the right to compete with the local authority. But we have had no experience of the kind. No such case has ever yet occurred, and, for the first time, we are asked to establish the principle of permitting private competition with a public body which already has the power, as well as the duty, of supplying the electric light. I think this House is being asked to take an extremely grave and serious step, and to establish an extremely grave and serious precedent. What is to prevent a private company saying, "We have to complain of the manner in which the Manchester Corporation does its work"? I am perfectly sure that the Manchester Corporation does its work most admirably, but some complaints from some individuals could be brought forward. What would the House think if a number of Manchester capitalists came and told us, "We are a number of Manchester capitalists dissatisfied with the manner in which the corporation does its work, and we wish to be allowed to enter into com-

1083
petition with the corporation"? I venture to say that the House would scout such a proposal, and no one would venture to make such a proposal with respect to an English, Scotch, or Welsh city as is now being made regarding Dublin, in the face of every authority entitled to speak on behalf of that city. The hon. Member said that the Irish member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Derry, supported the majority in the Committee. That, I understand, is so. He is entitled to speak as a man of great authority who has had a good deal of business experience, but the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to speak for Dublin in opposition to the three Members for Dublin with respect to this Bill. He is not entitled to speak for Dublin against my hon. friend who moved the rejection of the Bill, nor for the Corporation of Dublin, which after all is the representative authority of the citizens. I know that some hon. Members will vote for the Bill for a reason which I think is both irrelevant, and, if I may say so without offence, unworthy, and that is, obstinate dislike and disapproval of the Corporation of Dublin. I have heard one or two Irish Members on the other side declare that they would vote against any Bill if they were only convinced the Corporation of Dublin was in favour of it, and that they would vote for any Bill to which the corporation was opposed. What would be said if I came here and asked that the Corporation of Liverpool should not get an electric lighting Bill because there is a permanent Conservative majority there, or that the Corporation of Edinburgh should not get a similar measure because there is a permanent Liberal majority there? This House would say that these matters should be judged locally on their merits, and on these alone. I submit another proposition, and it is this: wherever a corporation or a local authority has had to acquire the property of a private electric lighting company, it has had to do so at enormously increased expense, to the profit of the shareholders and the promoters, and if you allow this company to be established, and if in time the Corporation of Dublin should be forced, as it may well be forced, to buy up the rights which Parliament is going to bestow upon the company, in spite of the ratepayers and in prejudice of the ratepayers of Dublin, I prophesy that the corporation will be bound to do it at a
1084
very enhanced price. In Sheffield the corporation paid the electric lighting company £272,398 for a concern on which the company spent £ 124,472. In Leeds, the corporatien paid £370,580 for what cost the company £217,420. In Birmingham the corporation paid £420,000 for what cost the company £219,000. In Liverpool, where the electric lighting is admirably conducted, the corporation paid £436,000' for what cost the company £264,000. What this House is now asked to do is to put this company in a position to fine the people of Dublin for the purpose of getting back the right to do work which they wish to do now. My hon. friend the Member for South Islington represents in a special manner the local authorities of this country, because he is chairman of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The hon. Gentleman was in Dublin the other day when the annual gathering of that Association took place. The Association consists of men of all political parties, representing different towns, and one of the first things they did was to pass a resolution that electric lighting was one of the things which the local authorities were entitled to hold and have. Two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have been large and generous in their abuse of the Corporation of Dublin with regard to this question of electric lighting. I understand what their vote means. Their vote means that they mean to censure the Corporation of Dublin, and take this work out of their hands, because they think the corporation have not done the work well. I do not know a single member of the corporation, except some of my hon. friends on those benches, who are also members of that body; but I think the case that is made against them has been unduly severe. What are the facts? The corporation spent £90,000 on the electric light supply of Dublin which you will render futile by passing this Bill. When they had spent that sum they found that they had not completed the work, but they were at the end of their borrowing powers. As everybody acquainted with Dublin knows, they have one of the best water supplies in the world. It was a very expensive water supply, and having spent money on that scheme they could not raise sufficient-money to complete the work of electric-lighting. They came to this House long before this company was thought of, and asked the House to give them additional

1085
borrowing powers. The House gave them additional borrowing powers, and the corporation then brought forward a largo and, I believe, a thoroughly good scheme for completing the work of electric lighting, making good the evils and the blots that were pointed out under the insufficient scheme. The scheme was brought before the Local Government Board, an inquiry ordered by the Board was held in Dublin, and the Board sanctioned the scheme, and at this moment the corporation is ready to carry out this larger scheme if only this House will give it the right and the power. I think it is a very strong thing indeed to ask this House on behalf of private capitalists to stand in the way of the corporation, which has the approval of the citizens, who, I think, are largely against this private company. The hon. Gentleman opposite made one point with which I wish to deal. He said, if you do not allow this competition, and if you allow the corporation to do this work, it will be hard on the ratepayers of Dublin. I know that a good many Members have been carried away with the cry that, after all, if you allow this private company to go to work, it will only cause healthy competition, which can do no harm to anyone. I will deal with that. In the first place, this form of competition has never been permitted before, and I daresay will never be asked by any representative of an English or Scotch constituency. I believe any such proposal with regard to Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, or Glasgow would be scouted. It is only when you come to Ireland that capitalists dare propose such a system of competition. Competition may be healthy or unhealthy. It is usually healthy to the consumer. It is unhealthy competition when it is a matter of supplying electric light. Look at the condition you bring the city into by such competition. You have a company making mains and tearing up the roads on one side, and you have the corporation making mains and tearing up the roads on the other side, at great expense and to the great inconvenience of the citizens. The second point is, that this competition will be competition of a private company with the citizens of Dublin. It will not be competition of one private company with another, which is perfectly fair competition. It will be competition of a private company with a public corporation, and I call
1086
that unhealthy competition. As to the rates, I say if you leave this in the hands of the corporation, as I think you are bound to do in justice to Dublin, it will be for the relief of the rates. Why, compare Dublin with other cities. In Liverpool the other day I saw one of the best systems of tramways in the world. In Glasgow recently I saw an excellent system of tramway locomotion. Both these undertakings are in the hands of the corporations. In Dublin the tramway system is in the hands of a private company, and some of the men connected with that company are the men who are behind this electric lighting scheme. The tramway company in Dublin has what, I think, will surprise the House. In any other city the tramway lease is usually for twenty-one years; in Dublin it is for forty years. I will not inquire into the means by which the tramways company obtained this extraordinary concession. I daresay it can be justified, but what is the result? The £10 shares of this company now stand at £19 5s., and very properly, because it has a concession unequalled and unparalleled in the history of municipal enterprise. The company makes a net profit of £40,000 or £50,000 a year, and the profit, which in several other cities, such as Glasgow or Liverpool, is used to relieve the rates and improve the condition of the masses of the people, goes into the hands of the private individuals who are the shareholders of the company. If you give the powers now asked for in this Bill in opposition to the Members for the city of Dublin, in opposition to the corporation of the city, and in opposition to the public feeling of Dublin, and in opposition to the majority of the Irish Members now present, you are going to repeat in the case of the electric lighting system what you did in regard to the tramway system, and you will give £50,000 a year to private individuals which ought to go to the people of Dublin in relief of the rates, and for the improvement of the city. If there is any city in the world which has a right to be saved from this system it is the city of Dublin. I see the hon. Member for South Tyrone in his place. If he were asked to describe the state of the city of Dublin, he would give a picture of overcrowding, disease and poverty unparalleled in any city in the Empire, and is that city to be deprived of the blessing and relief of municipal lighting

1087
given to other cities? If so, it is a cruel wrong, and an injustice to the Corporation of Dublin and to the masses of the people in that city.
MR. T. M. HEALY: We have listened to a very impassioned speech from the hon. Member, and it is evident that there is some politics behind this Bill. The Bill nominally deals with electric lighting, but I can assure the House that there is a great deal of gas at the bottom of it. It is a remarkable fact that the people who are most anxious for the continuation of this monopoly in the hands of the Corporation of Dublin are the gas company of Dublin. The House will hardly credit it when I tell them that the leading promoter of this competition with the gas company is the chairman and managing director of that company itself, Alderman Cotton, who is a member of the Dublin Corporation. Why, I ask, is the gas company so extremely anxious—because it is the gas company we are fighting to-day, and not the corporation, and the gas company is paying for the opposition to this Bill—why is the gas company so extremely anxious that this matter should remain in the hands of the Dublin Corporation? Because it knows that the corporation, having muddled away with the assistance of the gas company £100,000 of the ratepayers' money, will muddle away another £100,000 more if this Bill is rejected. Why, I want to know, should I as a ratepayer of Dublin have to pay 7d. per unit for my electricity in Dublin when if I lived in Cork I could get it for 3d.? The hon. Member who has just sat down made a long attack upon the tramway company. My remarks may be received with this amount of discount—that when the corporation was endeavouring to obtain a loan I appeared professionally for the tramway company against the corporation, but otherwise I had nothing to do with this Bill. When the Bill came up for Second Reading I declined to vote for it, but all reference to the tramway company has now been struck out, and therefore the question now is between competition in Dublin and a monopoly. I am bound to state exactly why the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool has made his attack upon the tramway company. It is this. The chairman of the tramway company is a former Member of this House, Mr.
1088
W. M. Murphy, a well-known Home Ruler. He is the bête noire of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division. What the hon. Member did not tell the House was that this tramway company, for the concession which he said no other company in the universe had got, has to pay to the corporation a rent of £12,000 a year and £300 for every additional mile of tramway which it makes. It is the corporation that ought to be attacked if the bargain were a bad one, but I think the corporation made an extremely good bargain. The gas company runs a newspaper in Dublin called the Freeman's Journal. The chairman of the gas company was its chief director, but he is unfortunately no more. When there was a campaign on the Homo Rule question in Dublin as to the journalism of that city, it was the chairman of the gas company who furnished certain hon. Members of this House with bogus shares to the value of £1,000 in order to oust men like myself from the board of the Freeman's Journal. The tramway company also has an organ called the Daily Nation, and in that paper the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division is sometimes unduly criticised, and no doubt politics are at the bottom of this opposition—politics and gas—and not the question of electric lighting. I desire to say why I think the opposition on the part of the corporation is unwise. The Corporation of Dublin, on the Second Reading of this Bill, were beaten by a vote of this House, and it was decided to leave the matter to a Select Committee. Although we were all glad to hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman above the gangway, curiously enough, although he was a member of the Select Committee, he voted against the Second Reading of the Bill which he was afterwards appointed to sit upon the Committee to consider. That, I think, considerably discounts the position he has taken up in the House, for he sat as a member of a Committee to consider a thing which he had voted should not come before the Committee at all. But that did not save him with the Freeman's Journal, because the most eloquent denunciations against him for his illiberality as a member of that Committee appeared in that journal. Why am I anxious that this stage should not be opposed? The principle of this Bill has been already dealt with on the Second Reading. Its details were con-

1089
sidered by the Committee, who decided that the corporation had for ten years been tried, and had been found wanting. If the corporation attack the decision of this Committee to-day, what will happen to its Boundaries Bill? That Boundaries Bill is of far greater importance to the Corporation of Dublin than this electric lighting business. That Bill is before a joint Committee of the Lords and Commons. Am I to be told, when the House of Lords last year rejected the corporation's Boundaries Bill on the recommendation of its own Committee, that if the corporation does not respect the decision of a Committee of the Commons in relation to this Bill its opponents in the House of Lords will be bound to respect a decision of a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons in respect to the Boundaries Bill? As the Corporation of Dublin have had their run on the Second Reading, and have still a further inquiry in the House of Lords into this question, it is greatly to be regretted that they did not content themselves with the decision of the Committee, and try to amend, if they could, or to secure the rejection of this Bill elsewhere. I am strongly in favour of the Corporation of Dublin having all the rights and legitimate powers possible in regard to this matter. Unlike the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, I live in Dublin; I do my work in Dublin; I pay rates and taxes in Dublin; and it is to my interest that the corporation should be conducted and have its proceedings managed in a manner creditable to the citizens. Still, I do not want to pay 7d. for electricity when I can get it for 2½d. I am not prepared to pay 4½d. per unit for municipalisation. The corporation has already muddled away £100,000. I do not blame them very much for that, because electricity was in a new state, and it was only two years ago that Professor Kennedy contended that two electrical lines could not cross without some system of induction which would be fatal to the whole of the two systems. An American engineer immediately brought forward a little standard advertisement showing that this thing which Professor Kennedy thought was an absolute impossibility was as common as dirt in every city from San Francisco to New York. I therefore do not blame the Corporation of Dublin to any great ex-
1090
tent for the mess into which they had got themselves electrically. The position in which they found themselves was this: They started handicapped with a dead weight and a loss o £100,000, and they could never hope to supply the citizens of Dublin as cheaply as a company which started without any such dead weight would be able to do. It is perfectly true that the corporation did act harshly in some cases, but that may have been the work of over zealous officials. What has resulted is that the corporation have had for ten years the cream of the city, all the richest business parts, and yet they have not been able to make a profit. If that is the case with regard to the cream of the city, are they likely to make a profit out of the slums? Furthermore, as the corporation have not taken advantage of their opportunities as they might have done, nearly all the rich houses in the city have already put in private installations. The corporation cannot supply the General Post Office; they cannot supply even Dublin Castle, which is next door to the City Hall. They cannot supply any single large business establishment in Dublin, with the result that all the large business houses have put in their own private installations, and are now lost to the corporation I am afraid for ever. Under these circumstances the question is, ought a monopoly to be continued in Dublin when wholesome competition will reduce the price? The Corporation of Dublin have muddled away the electrical talents which they had; they have buried the treasure in the ground. It may not have been their fault, possibly they undertook the work too soon. Perhaps private companies managed their affairs better—I do not know how it was. Figures have been quoted by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division and by the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division, but by whom were those figures prepared? Whose were those figures? They are the figures of the expert of the corporation who is to get a fee of £15,000 if the corporation go on with their scheme. I think I am justified in urging that figures emanating from such a source are tainted figures. Generally speaking, wherever corporations have made a success of their electric lighting, it will be found they were towns situated in the heart of the colliery districts of England or Scotland. In such places the price of coal is about four

1091
shillings per ton, whereas in Dublin at the present moment the price is twenty-four shillings per ton, and yet the case of Dublin is compared with that of Leeds or of Edinburgh. The position I take up is a simple one. A member of the Committee has stated that if it was proved that the corporation had suddenly and with a motive brought forward their scheme in opposition to that of the company, he would not be prepared to vote against this Bill. That is what has actually occurred. For over ten years complaints have been made against the corporation; it has been stated that their inactivity was due to the fact that they could not get borrowing powers. On the contrary, the corporation have plenty of power, but it never occurred to them to take any step to improve their position until this Bill was brought forward by the company. As a matter of fact, this extraordinary fact arose. Two or three years ago the corporation asked for the report of an expert, and Professor Kennedy condemned the very scheme which the corporation are now following, and they are actually going on with the scheme directly against the advice of Professor Kennedy. That is the scheme which it was now said is to be brought forward in competition with that of the Bill. If the corporation are going to spend the rates, by all means let them do so; they have the power and the authority. And if this company are prepared to spend money let them do so. My experience of electric lighting companies is that electric lighting is a very lean business; there is not so much money in it as people imagine. For one company that has succeeded, in the heart of a colliery district, there are ten which have failed elsewhere, and where one has made a profit ton have not succeeded in doing so. I think that when this matter has been dealt with by a Committee which has heard all the evidence, the House may very well allow the Bill to go on.
MR. DILLON: As a ratepayer of the city of Dublin I would appeal to the House not to pass this Bill. I have listened, in common with many other Members, to the case made out in favour of the Bill by the chairman of the Committee, and what was the chief ground on which he based that case? He did not attempt to deny that in passing this Bill, if it is passed, the House is
1092
asked to inflict upon the city of Dublin a stigma and mark of incompetency that it does not inflict On any other city or town in the United Kingdom. The exact ground, in fact, on which he claimed that the Bill ought to be passed is that the evidence laid before the Committee had convinced him that the Corporation of the city of Dublin was unfit to be entrusted with the carrying out of the electric lighting of the city. Now I appeal to the House to hesitate and to be very slow before they do apply such a severe censure as that on the city of Dublin. The hon. Member for North Louth based some argument on the impolicy of upsetting the decision of a Committee of this House. He said if we set aside the decision of the Committee on this Bill how could the corporation complain if the decision of the Committee on the Boundaries Bill were upset by the House of Lords? I ask, could a more powerful argument be offered against the passing of the Boundaries Bill than that this House had declared by its vote that the Corporation of Dublin is so incompetent a body that they are unfit to do what every small town in this kingdom can do? That is exactly the argument on which the opponents of the Boundaries Bill have based their case; they have run down the character of the Corporation of the city of Dublin, and it would be impossible to supply the Committee of the House of Lords on the Boundaries Bill with a stronger plea for refusing to extend the boundaries of the city of Dublin than that the House of Commons had decided that that corporation was unfit to take care of the electric lighting of the city. Let me direct the attention of the House to two very remarkable clauses in this Bill—Clause 24 and Clause 25. They are very remarkable clauses. Under Clause 24 it is proposed to be enacted that—
"Nothing contained in this Act or to be done under the provisions of this Act, or under any agreement to be made under its provisions or otherwise howsoever, shall enable the company or any other company or person to generate, transmit, supply, sell, distribute, or use electrical energy or power in any manner and any purpose whatsoever within the urban districts of Rathmines, and Rathgar and Pembroke."
And by Clause 25 it is provided that nothing in the Bill shall—
"enable the company, or any other company or persons to generate, transact, supply, sell, distribute or use electrical energy or power in any

1093
manner for any purpose whatsoever within the urban district of Clontarf, without the consent in writing, under the Common Seal of the Clontarf Urban District Council first had and obtained."
That is to say, you protect these small urban townships in the immediate vicinity of Dublin, and provide that the small urban district of Clontarf should not be supplied with electricity, by this company without the consent in writing under the Common Seal of the Urban District Council of Clontarf; but the city of Dublin is to be placed under the heel of this company, and that company is to have power to tear up the streets of Dublin at its own street will, without the consent of the corporation. We have come down here to oppose another electric lighting scheme for the very city in which we are sitting; and one of the strong arguments in favour of that electric lighting scheme is that the vestry of Marylebone have vainly endeavoured to buy out the company, because the company ask an extravagant price. It is pointed out that under that scheme the streets may be torn up instantly on the company's own initiative. In this way Oxford Street was opened up 178 times and Marylebone Road 108 times in one year. That is a state of things to which we in Dublin shall be exposed by this Bill if it is passed. The company will open up every street in Dublin whenever they think necessary. The hon. Member for North Louth says that he is in favour of municipal trading or municipal enterprise, but that he refuses to pay 7d. to the municipality for electricity which he can get from a private company for 3d. or 4d. But by this Bill the company are to be allowed to charge in the centre of Dublin 6d. per unit for three years, and after that 5d. per unit as long as ever they like. We know that in this country many municipalities are furnishing electricity to-day at 3d. per unit; yet here we have a company which offers, as a magnificent boon, to furnish us with electricity at 6d. per unit for three years, and after that for an indefinite period at 5d.
*MR. BROWN: That is the maximum price.
MR. DILLON: Of course it is the maximum price. Unless the corporation set up a rival scheme the maximum price will remain the price, because the
1094
company will not reduce the price below the maximum unless there is competition. The hon. Gentleman says that the Dublin Corporation would be utterly unable to compete with the company. What they want is to crush out the competition of the corporation and reduce the rate to 5d. per unit, while making an enormous profit for themselves. We know, if they succeed in passing this Bill, what will happen—what always happens. The company will spend £300,000 or £400,000, and after a few years the corporation and the ratepayers of Dublin will be obliged to pay the shareholders of the company a premium of £100,000 or £150,000 to get rid of them. This Bill in the long run will turn out to be a present to a lot of private shareholders and capitalists of £100,000 or £150,000 out of the pockets of the people living in the city of Dublin, and I do therefore strongly object to this Bill. The hon. Member founded his case in favour of this Bill chiefly upon the discontent of the ratepayers of Dublin in regard to the present state of things. But where is the evidence of this discontent in Dublin? Are the Dublin Members of Parliament in favour of this Bill? We know that the Corporation of Dublin is actively opposed to this measure, and the four Member's of Parliament for the city of Dublin are also opposed to it. Can the hon. Member for North Louth point to a single public-meeting, or any of the ordinary forms by which the feelings of the ratepayers are brought before this House, to show that there is any widespread discontent in Dublin with the present state of things? Those supporting the measure are largely men who expect to make profits, and who are named in the Bill as promoters. I am not seeking to throw any discredit on men because they promote a company, but I repudiate the idea that they represent the feelings of the ratepayers. These men do not claim to have any philanthropic motive, and if this House is so badly advised as to pass this Bill the profits of these gentlemen will be enormous. I maintain that there is no evidence before the House—and there was none before the Committee—of any widespread dissatisfaction with the proceedings of the Corporation of Dublin. Everybody admits that the corporation has not administered some of its affairs satisfactorily, but it must be remembered that

1095
Dublin commenced the work of electric lighting at a time when there was not a single electric lamp in London, and of course they had to suffer, made mistakes, and wasted some money. The city of Dublin was very early in the field, but the real reason why electric lighting was not a success in Dublin was because they had not got the capital at that time to do the work properly. Now they have got borrowing powers, and they have applied for a Provisional Order, and it is only justice to allow them to try and see if They cannot do this work satisfactorily. If the House does what the promoters of this Bill require, it will be inflicting a great injury on the capital city of Ireland. Whatever may have been the failings of the corporation—and I think they have been grossly exaggerated—the past history of the corporation does not justify such a proceeding. The city of Dublin now possesses a system of waterworks which is as good as any in the United Kingdom. It has established a cheap water supply, and I think it might be trusted to try what it can do with electricity. We have heard a good deal
of talk about the gas company. I am no friend of the gas company in Dublin, and none of us are who have to light our houses from their supply. But what I cannot understand in the action of my hon. colleague the Member for North Louth is that he is in favour of setting up a fresh private company. If it had been in my power to oppose the gas monopoly passing into the hands of a private company I should have opposed it, for it is a wrong principle that any of these monopolies should pass into private hands. But having learned from bitter experience in the past, we ought to make that experience the motive for a firm resolution that in these common needs of the community in the future we will never allow a private company to get control. I earnestly appeal to hon. Members of this House not to inflict a great insult upon the city of Dublin by passing this measure.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 180; Noes, 167. (Division List No. 162.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gilliat, John Saunders

Anstruther, H. T.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Atherley-Jones, L.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Bainbridge, Emerson

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Goschen, George J, (Sussex)

Balcarres, Lord

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Baldwin, Alfred

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Graham, Henry Robert

Banbury, Frederick George

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gunter, Colonel

Bury, Rt. Hn. A H Smith-(Hunts)

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Bartley, George C. T.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hamond, Sir Chas.(Newcastle)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Denny, Colonel

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Hardy, Laurence

Biddulph, Michael

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Bill, Charles

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)

Birrell, Augustine

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Henderson, Alexander

Blakiston-Houston, John

Drage, Geoffrey

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Boseawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Howard, Joseph

Boulnois, Edmund

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Howell, William Tudor

Bowles, Capt. H. P. (Middlesex)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Faber, George Denison

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Brassey, Albert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Brown, Alexander H.

Ffrench, Peter

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Brymer, William Ernest

Finch, George H.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Butcher, John George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

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

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

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

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Knowles, Lees

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Lafone, Alfred

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Garfit, William

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r)

Gedge, Sydney

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

Chelsea, Viscount

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

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea)

Coddington, Sir William

Gibney, James

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

Nicholson, William Graham

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

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

Lowe, Francis William

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Lowther, Rt. Hn. J W (Cum'land)

Pilkington, R.(Lanes. Newton)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace C.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Macaleese, Daniel

Rankin, Sir James

Tuke, Sir John Hatty

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.(Sheffid)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

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

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

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

M'Killop, James

Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham)

Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E(Taunton)

Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

Rutherford, John

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Marks, Henry Hananel

Savory, Sir Joseph

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

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

Seely, Charles Hilton

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

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wrightson, Thomas

Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wylie, Alexander

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Morris, Samuel

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

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

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

Younger, William

Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Mr. Arthur O'Connor and Mr. T. M. Healy

Myers, William Henry

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

NOES.

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Crae, George

Acland- Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Ghee, Richard

Aird, John

Fletcher, Sir Henry

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Flower, Ernest

M'Kenna, Reginald

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Maddison, Fred.

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Malcolm, Ian

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Galloway, William Johnson

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Baker, Sir John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Barlow, John Emmott

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Billson, Alfred

Gold, Charles

Monk, Charles James

Blake, Edward

Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gurdon, Sir William B.

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Harrington, Timothy

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Brigg, John

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Broadhurst, Henry

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Moss, Samuel

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Heaton, John Henniker

Murnaghan, George

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Helder, Augustus

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Caldwell, James

Hempbill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

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

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hogan, James Francis

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Causton, Richard Knight

Holden, Sir Angus

O'Dowd, John

Cawley, Frederick

Holland, William Henry

O'Kelly, James

Channing, Francis Allston

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Malley, William

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Houston, R. P.

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Colville, John

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Philipps, John Wynford

Crombie, John William

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Price, Robert John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dillon, John

Kenyon, James

Purvis, Robert

Donelan, Captain A.

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Pym, C. Guy

Doogan, P. C.

Labouchere, Henry

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Doughty, George

Langley, Batty

Reckitt, Harold James

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Laurie, Lieut. -General

Redmond, William (Clare)

Duckworth, James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Dunn, Sir William

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Rentoul, J. Alexander

Ellis, John Edward

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, John H. (Denbigh.)

Emmot, Alfred

Lloyd-George, David

Royds, Clement Molvneux

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lough, Thomas

Runciman, Walter

Evans, Sir Francis H.(South'ton)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Macdona, John Cumming

Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n'sC)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Fenwick, Charles

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Field, William (Dublin)

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Maclure, Sir John William

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

1098

1099

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Souttar, Robinson

Wallace, Robert

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Spicer, Albert

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Wilson, John (Govan)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersfld)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wyndham, George

Stock, James Henry

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Yoxall, James Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wason, Eugene

Strachey, Edward

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Mr. Carew and Sir Albert Rollit.

Thomas Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Bill read a second time.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered.
Amendments made.
Bill to be read the third time.

OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
As amended, considered.
MR. GRANT LAWSON: In moving the clause which stands in my name, I have no quarrel whatever with the promoters of this Bill. They asked for this very clause, and my quarrel is with those who have prevented their getting the clause they desired. The clause which stands on the Paper in my name is not my own drafting; it is taken from the Leeds Corporation Bill of last year. I may therefore call it the Leeds clause. I do not want to raise the whole question of the milk clause, or whether inspection is a good thing. That has nothing to do with the point I am raising. My point is a very small one. It is simply the question of what licence or warrant should be held to justify the invasion of the district of one local authority by the inspectors of another local authority. On that particular point, which is the whole issue between us the difference between the clause in the Bill and the Leeds clause is simply that the former allows such an invasion on the authority of one justice, while the Leeds clause provides that the petty sessions should be required to authorise such a raid, and it must be proved that the outside authority, in whose jurisdiction the dairy is, has not done its duty. I do not lay any stress on the difference between one justice and two justices. The important point of difference is that the system in the Bill contemplates each corporation acting for itself by its own inspectors raiding outside districts, whereas the clause I propose suggests that the municipality should get
1100
what it wants by compelling the outside authority to do its duty, and should only itself act in default of the proper local authority. If we look at the object to be attained, we shall see at once which of these two roads is the better road by which to attain that object. Our object is to prevent consumption by human beings of milk from cows suffering from tuberculosis. If municipalities act by their own inspectors they can stop the consumption of that milk only in their own boroughs, whereas if we can induce the outside authority, in whose district the dairy with the suspected cow is, to act, they can stop the consumption of the milk in any part of the country. There is power under the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops' Order, as amended last year, by which every authority can stop the mixing of such milk with other milk, and prevent the use or sale of that milk for human food, If the corporations, or any one of them, by having such power as I propose to give to Oldham, can, by threatening to take steps if it does not do its duty, induce the outside authority, in whose district are condemned cows, to do its duty, they will save not only their own constituents but the whole human race from the danger arising from the consumption of the milk of these tuberculous cows. Surely that is a result which is very desirable, and by the system which I suggest this could be done without friction between local authorities. If a local authority is in default it cannot complain if another authority sends its inspectors into its district. If an authority is in default it cannot be hard for another authority to say "You shall not affect our citizens." But where a local authority is not in default, it cuts at the very foundation of the principles of local self-government that its district should be invaded by the inspectors of another authority. If the proper authority will act, that is, the authority in whose district the disease is

1101
we can get by one inspector what, under the system proposed in the Bill, would require the joint action of the inspectors representing every local area in England. If we work as the Bill suggests we should, 500 inspectors may have to inspect the same cow, and institute 500 prosecutions with regard to that animal. The farmers of England do not desire knowingly to sell milk from cows suffering from tuberculosis of the udder. But even if they did, or if they were ignorant, either the Leeds clause or the model clause would stop them. This is not then a farmers' question, but the farmers have a right to ask that, if we can reach our destination equally well by either of two roads, we should choose that road which trespasses least on them. By She clause I am proposing, we should embarass the farmer the least, we should stop the sale of his milk by one inspection, and we should do it better, more quickly, and more wisely. I have only one other point to make. We are told, not by the corporations, not by the county councils, not by the urban or sanitary authorities, not by the outside authorities, and not by the farmers, but by a certain gentleman at the Local Government Board, that these "model clauses" as they are called, are sacred, and must be put into every Bill brought forward by a corporation asking for powers to deal with this important matter of the milk supply. These model clauses are supposed to derive their sacred character from the fact that they were agreed upon at a conference. I was there, and I know what that understanding arrived at was. If it was being loyally carried out in spirit and letter I should have nothing to say. The origin of that conference was that certain corporations last year brought in private Bills containing clauses calculated to secure that there should be no danger from the consumption of English milk. Under these there would have been no English milk to consume. The agricultural Members naturally threatened to oppose such an attack on their constituents by every means within the rules of civilised political warfare. The promoters of the private Bills appealed to the God of Health in the shape of the President of the Local Government Board. We invoked the aid of the patron saint of farmers— the President of the Board of Agriculture. By
1102
the intervention of these two high authorities a conference was arranged at which everybody was represented except the outside authorities whose districts were to be invaded by the inspectors of other authorities, and whose authority was to be flouted. At that conference a compromise was arranged. In that as in every compromise the peaceful people like the Member for South Somerset and myself gave way a great deal, and the aggressive corporation agents yielded something. Clauses called model clauses were agreed on, and we who represent the rural districts agreed that we would not oppose the Bills if the powers of inspection and prosecution were cut down within the limits of the model clauses. In return we understood that the Local Government Board would assist us in opposing any Bills which asked for greater powers than were contained in those clauses. Everybody understood that the powers in those clauses were to be the maximum powers which the corporations might have either inside or outside their own places, not the minimum powers which they must have. The grievance which the representatives of the farmers, or of urban, rural or district councils, or county councils, complain of is that the Local Government Board has thrown all its weight into the scale against them before the Police and Sanitary Committee. The Local Government Board will not allow corporations, for the sake of peace with their less powerful but quite as sensitive and sensible brother authorities, to ask for powers of invasion less drastic than those of the model clauses. They must be forced to abandon their own peaceable proposals, drop their clauses, and take instead the model clauses as to invasion which are sure to produce friction. Oldham, for instance, asked for the Leeds clause, which I have shown is as good for preventing danger from milk, and far better in preventing friction with farmers. On account of certain objections of the Local Government Board, Oldham has been refused these moderate powers, and has been compelled to take the full powers of the model clauses. Against that I appeal to the House, and I move the reinsertion of the clause that was in the Bill.
A clause (Limitation of powers outside borough)—(Mr. Grant Lawson)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time," put.
*MR. McKENNA: I rise for the purpose of explaining what was the action of the Police and Sanitary Committee, before which this Bill came. So far as I am aware the description the hon. and learned Gentleman has given of the relations between the Police and Sanitary Committee and the Local Government Board is quite fanciful, and certainly it is not according to my recollection of what occurred in respect to the history of these clauses. He rightly stated that the issue between this clause which he proposes to introduce, called the Leeds clause, and the clauses as they now stand in the Bill is a very simple one, but nevertheless I trust the House will bear with me while I endeavour to show that the issue, though simple, is really very important. Upon the merits of the milk clauses there is no dispute on either side. The Committee, who had all the evidence before them, came unanimously to the conclusion that if the Leeds clause were adopted instead of the clauses which now stand in the Bill the same end would not be served. Let me explain shortly the difference between them. The object of the milk clauses is to prevent the sale of contaminated milk for human consumption within the borough. In order to effect that object the clauses provide for the inspection of cowsheds whence the milk comes, whether inside or outside the borough. They also provide for inquiry, and for power to the corporation to compel any person supplying milk from an infected cow to show cause why an order should not be made against him in order to prevent the continuance of that supply. So long as the milk is supplied from within the borough it is quite clear that the proper authority to enforce the law would be the corporation. The difficulty is when the milk comes from outside. Three classes are then affected. First of all there are the consumers; then there are the purveyors of the milk—the farmers and dairymen; and then there are the local authorities. I wish to show very shortly that so far as the purveyors are concerned they will be better off under the clauses as they now stand than under the Leeds clause. It is quite obvious that the general effect of the milk clauses would be to set the
1104
law in operation on mere suspicion. When there is no real cause for the suspicion, against a farmer or dairyman it is desirable that as little notoriety should be given to that suspicion as possible. If you make the officer act on the order of one justice there will be very little harm to the farmer in the event, after investigation, of its being found that there was no case of tuberculosis in his dairy. In the case of a single justice granting the order the inspection would take place immediately; but if you have to get an order from justices in petty sessions it means delay of a fortnight or a month, and during that interval the farmer is under suspicion. It is impossible to keep that suspicion private, and consequently if the Leeds clause were adopted you would run the risk of doing an injury to a farmer who, as a matter of fact, had no case of contamination in his dairy. The Committee came to the conclusion that so far as the farmer was concerned it would undoubtedly be better that the inspection should take place quickly on the order of one justice, and not wait until the case had been inquired into in court after a delay of a fortnight or a month. The second class concerned are the local authorities. The Committee desire to respect, and I believe the Local Government Board also desire to respect, the independence of local authorities. But the independence of the outside authorities would be interfered with, whether the Leeds clause be adopted or the existing clauses retained. The only question between us is whether the independence of the local authorities should be interfered with on the order of one Justice or of two Justices in petty sessions. The Committee were convinced, by the evidence they heard, of the overwhelming importance of the milk clauses. If it is desired that they should be carried into effect it is of extreme importance that the procedure under which they are to be put into use shall be as quick and simple as possible. What is the procedure proposed by the Leeds clause? You have first of all to get the order of two justices sitting in petty sessions which means delay and notoriety. Before the justices can issue their order they have to be satisfied that the local authority of the district has not dealt with the case, and I would ask hon. Members familiar with the procedure of the Court how that evidence can be got. It is proposed that

1105
the justices shall not have power to issue an order until they are satisfied "that the local authority of the said district has not already dealt with the case, or, having power to deal with the case, has been requested by the corporation to deal with it, and has neglected or declined to do so." The Committee went into the details of the Leeds clause, and they were satisfied if that clause was introduced into the Bill it would be practically impossible for the corporation ever to get an order outside the borough, or, if they did get it, it would be after such an extreme lapse of time that its practical effect would be very slight. Under these circumstances the Committee decided that, the point in dispute being merely a question of the ground upon which outside interference should take place, the case was established for allowing the clauses as they now stand to be accepted, and the Committee have in every case brought before them adopted the same clauses. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he was only asking for the corporation what they originally desired. The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed on that point. The corporation desired the model clauses, but were threatened with opposition, and in order to meet the opposition they agreed to introduce the Leeds clause, and on that the opposition was withdrawn. The corporation have acted loyally on their undertaking, and have not taken any steps to suggest the acceptance by the House or the Committee of the model clauses, but as a matter of fact they desired the model clauses and not the Leeds clause to appear in their Bill. This is the third time this question has been raised in this House this session. On one occasion there was a division and on the other occasions no division, but in each case the opposition has arisen from precisely the same quarter, and although I do not blame the hon. Gentlemen for taking every step in their power, I trust the House will not be misled into thinking that there is any really substantial opposition to the model clauses.
*MR. EMMOTT: The hon. Member has spoken as if the Corporation of Oldham were opposed to the insertion of the model clauses by the Committee which considered the Bill. I wish to state, on account of representations made to me within the last day or two, that that is quite incorrect. They put the Leeds
1106
clause in the original form of the Bill, not. because they liked it, but because opposition was threatened. Now, after the other clauses have been inserted, they have the strongest desire that they should remain there. I unhesitatingly oppose on public grounds the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite. In the first place, I prefer the model clauses to the Leeds, clause. In the second place, I think the Committee are perfectly right in trying to secure uniformity on this matter. Further, on behalf of the constituency I represent I ask that they should not be put in a worse position than other towns which have had Bills before Parliament this session. The hon. and learned Member drew a picture of a splendid milker which had been visited by 500 inspectors.
MR. GRANT LAWSON: Not all at the same time.
*MR. EMMOTT: Well, I leave that point. I wish to point out in conclusion that the attack of the hon. and learned Member, which is nominally on the Local Government Board, is practically an attack on a Committee of this House which I think has done splendid work. I earnestly hope that the House will support the decision of the Committee.
MR. JEFFREYS: I understood the hon. Member to say that the proposal of the Oldham Corporation was to put in the Leeds clause. I had my attention drawn to the original Bill at the beginning of the session, and I can state that they did not put in the Leeds clause, but put in something of their own. That is what we objected to, and my hon. friend very truly said that the model clauses were drawn up to prevent this wholesale inspection without the authority of the justices having jurisdiction in the locality, giving power to the medical officer and the inspector to go and see the premises. I hope that my hon. friend, after hearing this, will withdraw the motion.
MR. GRANT LAWSON: I am not at all inclined to accept this version of what happened in the Oldham Bill. In the Report of the Standing Committee it is expressly stated that the promoters desired to have these clauses.
MR. STRACHEYsaid this was a question of centralisation or

1107
decentralisation. He quite admitted that there might be a case for interference where the local authorities had a dispute in this matter, but where the local authorities were found to be absolutely agreed he could not see why the Local Government Board should come and interfere. He could not understand why the procedure of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, had not been adopted in regard to the inspection of dairies and the sale of milk. The right of appeal, such as the hon. Member for Thirsk wished, was provided for in Clause 60 of that Act. He could not see why the Local Government Board denied in England the right of appeal which had already been granted in Scotland.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said this was not a question of centralisation or decentralisation. It was nothing more nor less than a question of public health, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member would proceed no further with his opposition.
Question put, and negatived.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.)
MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
Great Grimsby Street Tramways Bill [Lords].
Ramsgate Corporation Improvements Bill [Lords].
Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO NOT COMPLIED WITH.)
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.:—
North British Railway Bill [Lords].
Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

BREWERY AND COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT TRUST BILL [Lords].
  BRISTOL WATER BILL [Lords].

    COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords].
    MILFORD DOCKS BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.

BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Not amended, considered; to be read the third time.
GWYRFAI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER).
Read a second time, and committed.

LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT).
Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lafone and Mr. Wanklyn.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (No. 1) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be Printed.
CROYDON TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills (Section A), with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
GUN BARREL PROOF ACT, 1868, AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
Reported [Parties do not proceed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
EAST STIRLINGSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
Colonel GUNTER reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Edinburgh Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of Thomas Bryce Laing, Town Clerk of Leith, 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 Thomas Bryce Laing do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Thomas Bryce Laing do attend the Committee on Group J of Private Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
Sir FREDERICK GODSONreported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Shannon Water and Electric Power Bill had stated that the evidence of Frederick J. Dick, Thomas Crossthwaite, and Allen Hornsby was essential to their case; and it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, the had been instructed to move that the said Frederick J. Dick, Thomas Crossthwaite, and Allen Hornsby do attend the said Committee, and produce all maps, plans, diagrams, estimates, reports, records, and statistics, and other documents, whatsoever in any way relating to the above Bill, on Tuesday, 3rd July, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Frederick J. Dick, Thomas Crossthwaite, and Allen Hornsby do attend the Committee on Group K of Private Bills on Tuesday, 3rd July, at half-past Eleven of the clock, and produce the said documents.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

1. "That in the case of the Muirkirk, Mauchline, and Dalmellington Railways (Abandonment) Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway (Abandonment) Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

3. "That, in the case of Roe' Patent Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

4. "That, in the case of the North-Eastern Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Metropolitan Common Scheme (Petersham) Provisional Order Bill, Morecambe Urban District Council (Gas) Bill.
That they have agreed to Amendments to—Great Berkhampstead Water Bill [Lords], Motherwell Water Bill [Lords], Birmingham (King Edward the Sixth) Schools Bill [Lords], without amendment.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Corporation of the borough of South Shields for the construction of street works and improvements; and for other purposes." South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords].

SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  BRITISH MUSEUM BILL.
  Petition of the Library Association, for reference to a Select Committee; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Brechin, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Petition from Manchester, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Enstone; Somercotes; Belper; Handforth; Aldershot; Billinghay; Beeston; Sandbach; Northwich; Frodsham; and Hastings; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Heywood, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Leeds (three); Carlisle; Hampstead; Banbury; York;
  1112
  Gospel Oak; Oldbury; Worcester; Bath (eight); West Ham'; Stroud Green; Sheffield; South Cave; Gainsborough (two); Masborough; Kimberworth (two); Rotherham (three); Bishop Norton; Mailing; Newton Heath; Newcastle-upon-Tyne (two); Coventry; Heywood; Ashton-under-Lyne (two); Colne; En-stone; Ightham; Nottingham (three); Devonport; Winterley; Widnes; Maesteg; Alford; Briton Ferry; Pontycymmer; Whaplode; Cadoxton juxta Neath; Coedfrane; Wakeham; Belper; Glasshouses; South Hornsey (three); East Finchley; Whitehaven; Cross-coombe; Weymouth (two); Egremont; Dorchester; Broadway; Carlisle; Bal-derton: Northampton; Cwmbran; Sal-ford; Bristol; Clapham; Gunnislake; Ambleston; Walworth (three); Mary-port (two); Six Hills; East Birmingham; Little Addington; Carnforth; Eston; Battersea; Geddington; Lither-land; Doncaster (four); Tow Law (three); Lanehead; Penzance; Billy Row; Cumberland: Balby; St. Just (three); St. Martin's (Scilly); St. Agnes (Scilly); Mexborough; Westgate; Bray; Hull; Berkshire; Hastings; Thorne (three); Boston; Great Yarmouth; Gerards Cross; Newark Road; Austerfield; Cheshire; Camberwell; Bawtry; Frodsham; Todmorden; Maidenhead (two); Walton-on-the-Naze; Marylebone; Regent's Park; Kiveton Park; Wokingham; Ramsbury; Bracebridge; Ripon; and, Lincoln (twenty-nine); to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) HILL AND SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from Lancashire and Cheshire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) HILL; SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL; AND SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Llansamlet, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Dundonald; Portpatrick; Campbeltown; Earlston; Aberdeen; and Douglas Water; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALLER DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of Association of Burgh Officials of Scotland, against; to lie upon the Table.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from Monmouth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour; from Parkgate; Chester; Reading (ten); Saffron Walden; York; Watford; Ashton-under-Lyno; Burslem; Southampton; Oldbnry; St. Austell; Manchester; Bishop Norton; Keadby (two); Nottingham (two); Kidderminster; Magon; Bargoed; Weston-super-Mare (two); Newport; Coventry (two); Widnes; Birmingham (two); South-end-on-Sea; Garnforth; Buckfastleigh(f our); Blaengarw; Coedfranc; Cadoxton juxta Neath; Wakeham; Upper Tooting; Exeter; Ripon; Glasshouses; Stroud Green; Rochdale; Crosscoombe; Tolskithy; Four Lanes; Portreath; Pool; Redruth; South Downs; Weymouth; Summerfield; Dorchester; Weymouth; Broadway; Sandback (two); Doncaster {five); Bawtry; Pontefract; Crook; Aldershot; Radcliffe-on-Trent; Newark; Sunderland; Dovercourt; Leicester; Leytonstone; Yardley; Darlington (ton); Melsonby; Eppleby; Aldborough; Barking; Plymouth; Gunnislake; Ambleston; Sixhills; North Thoresby; Tetney; Lavender Hill; Eston; Redcar; Battersea; Clapham; Bulwell; Lane Head; Tow Law; Rotherham; Mytholm-royd; Frodsham; Todmorden; Hey-wood; Crosskeys; Fleur-de-Lis; Balby; Mansfield; Royston; Wokingham; Bradford (five); Austerfield; St. Just (three); St. Agues (Scilly); Bristol; Stithians; Burrows; Kidderminster; Bischeliffe; Sowerby Bridge; Lincoln; Woodhouse Grove; Great Yarmouth; Lantwardine; Penzance; St. Martin's (Scilly); and Hastings; to lie upon the Table.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Blaengarw; Pontycymmer (two); Coedfranc; Cadoxton-juxta Neath; and Ambleston; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUSTS FUNDS BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COUNTY TREASURERS' FEE FUND (IRELAND).
  Account presented, for the year ended 25th March, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th June; Mr. Ritchie] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 234.]
  LEAD POISONING.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 22nd June; Mr. Jesse Callings]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 235.]

  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 293 (Bermuda, Annual Report for 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report, No. 292 (British New Guinea, Annual Report for 1898–9, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Public Records (Court of Exchequer).—Copy of a Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents connected with actions arising out of seizures of goods, etc., or for the recovery of penalties under Acts relating to the Customs or Excise, and other Process in matters relating to the Revenue, which formerly were or ought to have been in the Office of the King's or Queen's Remembrancer of the Exchequer, and which are now in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].
  MADRAS LAND REVENUE.
  Ordered, That so much of the Return relative to Madras Land Revenue, which was presented 8th August, 1899, as relates to the despatch from the Secretary of State for India, with enclosures reviewing correspondence regarding sales of defaulters' lands in Madras, be printed [No. 236.]

  INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF ENGLAND.
  Copy ordered, "of Account showing the figures upon which the grant of £2,500 per annum, made in aid of the expenses incurred by the Incorporated Law Society of England in the performance of the duties of discipline imposed upon them by the Act 51 and 52 Vic. c. 65, is based."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 237.}

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—TREATMENT OF CAPE REBELS.
  MR, JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say when he expects to be in a position to lay upon the Table Papers respecting the communications which have been recently passing between Her Majesty's Government and the Cape Ministries as to the policy to be pursued as regards those charged with acts of rebellion, and particularly whether the Minute of the Schreiner Ministry upon the subject will be included in the Papers.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am not in a position to say. I am in communication with the present Cape Ministers on the subject.

  ADMINISTRATION OF MARTIAL LAW.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state what, in the areas in South Africa where martial law has been proclaimed, was the number of persons arrested under its provisions up to 31st May; how many of these had been brought to trial, and how many had been convicted or acquitted; whether, and, if so, in how many cases had the intervention of the Supreme Court been invoked, and with what result; whether, and, if so, in how many cases had persons arrested been discharged by the military authorities after conviction and sentence, after appeal had been made to the Supreme Court, but irrespective of any
  1116
  actual judgment on its part; and how many persons had been discharged without being brought to trial.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I am not in a position to give the detailed information for which the hon. Member asks. Perhaps, however, I may explain the course which has been pursued. On the outbreak of war Sir A. Milner inquired by cable whether the administration of martial law was to be based on the principles embodied in a circular issued by the Colonial Office for the guidance of governors in 1867. The Colonial Office replied in the affirmative. Two further memorandums were drawn up indicating the proper application of these principles to cases which were likely to arise, and the three documents were circulated to officers charged with the administration of martial law in South Africa. Such documents are and must be merely advisory. The safeguards of justice in martial law must be sought in the good sense, and humanity of those charged with its administration. On 9th March the Secretary of State directed Lord Roberts to furnish records of all proceedings, so that the War Office might have the advantage of the experience gained during the only recent, and by far the most extensive, application of martial law. But these particulars have not yet reached us.

  INOCULATION AGAINST TYPHOID FEVER.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to enable him to give statistics as to the effect of inoculation against typhoid fever in South Africa.
  The following questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. VVASON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to say whether the troops who submitted themselves to inoculation, who are now serving in South Africa, and have had enteric fever, have had it in a less mild degree than those who have not been inoculated; and what proportion of those inoculated recovered.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: To ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether medical records have been kept during the South African War and are already available which would show the results of inoculation in the prevention of enteric fever among the troops; whether it has been found that among those inoculated there has been immunity from the disease; and, in the event of the reports on inoculation not showing such immunity, can he state what are the results of comparisons up to a certain date between the cases of those admitted to hospital suffering from this disease who had been inoculated and those who had not been so treated.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I will reply at the same time to the questions put by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and Kinross and my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Bath. Medical records showing the results of inoculation are being compiled in South Africa, but the statistics at present available are not sufficient to enable me to give a conclusive reply to the questions. I doubt whether it will be possible to report on this question before the end of the war.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Are the troops now going out inoculated?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: It is optional with them. Facilities are given them to undergo it, but no compulsion is used.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN DISTURBANCES— JAPANESE ASSISTANCE IN SUPPRESSION.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will arrange with the Government of Japan, the only Power able to act without delay, to at once send an adequate land force to suppress the disturbances in China.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is undesirable to state the nature of negotiations which may be proceeding. Her Majesty's Government would welcome the despatch of troops by any Power which, owing to the proximity of its troops, may be able to act at once for the suppression of disturbances in North China.

  RECENT OPERATIONS—TIENTSIN AND PEKING.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: Has the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs any news from China which he can communicate to the House?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. BRODRICK,): We have no direct news from the legations, Admiral Seymour's force, or Tientsin. Our last information from the officer in charge at Wei-hai-wei is that 3,000 men of the relief force at Tientsin were encamped with-in nine miles of that place on the evening of June 23rd. The force comprised Russians, French, Japanese, and British. From private sources we are informed that the relief force subsequently entered Tientsin and marched north. Statements have reached us from various Chinese sources that the legations were all unharmed on the 20th instant.

  ADMIRAL SEYMOUR'S ACTION.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state whether Admiral Seymour withdrew from the China Squadron under his command himself and the 900 men landed from that squadron and undertook the land expedition to Peking by virtue of discretionary powers given to him, or did he so act in consequence of orders to that effect from the Admiralty; what proportion of the fighting men of the China Squadron do the 900 men represent; have any steps been taken for replacing these men by others; and, if so, when will those others probably reach the squadron.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The Vice-Admiral's suggestion that he should take command of the expedition, a step to which he believed most or all of the foreign officers present would assent, was approved by the Admiralty, if an agreement was arrived at locally. My hon. friend speaks of the Admiral withdrawing himself from his squadron. That is not exactly the way in which to describe an expedition hurried off with the utmost energy to secure the legations and the European residents at Peking. 736 men were landed with the admiral from certain ships of the squadron

  1119
  on the China station, and the total complements of the ships on the station number about 7,000. As already announced, the transport "Jelunga" has been engaged to convey to the China station 860 ratings. She will sail about the 30th June.

  COMPOSITION OF ADMIRAL SEYMOUR'S NAVAL FORCE ON LAND.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet been able to ascertain what is the strength and composition of the British naval force up country in China with Admiral Seymour; from what ships have the officers and men of the force been drawn for such land service; and whether they were supernumerary to or formed part of the complements necessary to provide for the fighting efficiency of the ships.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The naval force which formed part of the forces under Admiral Seymour is believed to consist of 736 men drawn from the "Centurion," "Endymion," and "Aurora," but the information at present in the possession of the Admiralty is not sufficient to enable details to be given. The officers and men in question formed part of the complements of the ships.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: All taken out of these three ships?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes.

  COMMAND OF THE ALLIED FORCES.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as a consequence of the absence of the senior British Admiral up country in China while at the head of International forces on land, the Russian Admiral has become the senior officer and head of the International forces on the water; and whether this state of things arises from orders sent by, or through, the Admiralty to the Admiral to leave his Fleet and proceed up country for land operations.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the second part has been dealt with by my answer to the question of the hon. Member for King's Lynn.

  BRITISH LAND FORCES FOR TIENTSIN.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state who commands the British land forces and other land forces now being despatched to the relief of Tientsin.
  *MR. BRODRICK: A telegram from the Rear-Admiral forwarded from Chefoo on 23rd June stated that a Russian major-general with a German officer second in command, and Captain War-render of Her Majesty's Ship "Barfleur" are in charge of the operations from the Ta-ku forts for the relief of Tientsin.

  CHINESE TRADE IN BRITISH SHIPS.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what are the latest figures received by the Foreign Office with regard to the percentage of the total Chinese trade carried by British ships, and the percentage which they pay of the total receipts of the Chinese customs.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The percentage of the number of vessels engaged in the foreign trade of China in 1899 was— British, 61; other countries, 39; and as regards the value of the goods carried— British, 53; other countries, 47; and the percentage of duties paid on such goods was—British, 59; other countries, 41.

  BRITISH INTERESTS IN THE YANG-TSZE VALLEY.
  MR. DRAGE: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what are the latest figures received by the Foreign Office with regard to the number and tonnage of British ships employed in the trade of the Yang-tsze Valley, and what is the percentage of British shipping so employed as compared with the foreign and Chinese ships in the same trade.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The latest year for which complete returns as to the shipping trade of the Yang-tsze can be given is 1898. In that year the number of British ships entered and cleared at the Treaty ports of the Yang-tsze Kiang was 10,753 with a tonnage of 12,271,892. Of the total tonnage of all shipping

  1121
  entered and cleared 27 per cent. was Chinese, 61 per cent. was British, and 12 per cent. other foreign.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government are taking any measures to safeguard British interests within the sphere of the Yang-tsze Valley.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Can the right hon. Gentleman, with due regard to the public interest, say more?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I have already answered a question on the subject this afternoon.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether appeals have been made from Cheng King and Ning-po for the protection of British gunboats; and, if so, whether these have been disregarded in consequence of none being immediately available; and whether Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to further augment our naval forces in the Yang-tsze region with the least possible delay.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Appeals have been made from various ports to Her Majesty's consuls to send ships. As I have already stated to the House, considerable reinforcements have been ordered to our naval forces in the Yang-tsze region for protection of life and property, but it would be undesirable to state the exact movements of the ships.

  TIENTSIN-NEU-CHWANG RAILWAY.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a gunboat has been sent to Neu-Chwang to protect the property and lives of British subjects; and whether, as early as practicable, Her Majesty's Government will station armed guards along the Tientsin-Neu-Chwang Railway to prevent the further destruction of the line.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The officers on the spot have been given full discretion, and will, we have every confidence, do their utmost for the protection of life and
  1122
  property. But I cannot pledge them to any particular measures.

  INDIAN TROOPS FOR CHINA.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the 16,000 men stated to have been withdrawn from the Indian establishment include the native battalions stationed in Mauritius, Central Africa, Uganda, Hong Kong, etc.; if, since these figures were published, material increase has been made in the force under orders for China, and what is now the total strength of that force.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The 16,000 men stated to have been withdrawn from the Indian establishment included the battalions stationed in. the Mauritius, Ceylon, Singapore, and Hong Kong. There are some Indian soldiers in Central Africa and Uganda, but they are not part of the regular Indian establishment. Some addition has been made to the force going to China, but I cannot as yet give the exact numbers.
  MR. MACLEAN: Has the number of English officers attached to the infantry battalions been increased?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I cannot say the exact number of officers accompanying the native regiments, but I understand that some addition has been made to the ordinary establishment.

  ORIGIN AND WARNINGS OF THE ANTI-FOREIGN MOVEMENT.
  MR. MACLEAN: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office received information beforehand from Sir Claude MacDonald, or any other source, warning Her Majesty's Government to be prepared for a rising against foreigners in China.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government received reports with regard to the Boxer movement in Shantung and Chihli, but no indication of any general rising against foreigners was contained in the information which reached them prior to the recent movement of the Boxers.

  DUAL (NAVAL AND MILITARY) ORGANISATION OF NAVAL STATIONS.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Defence Committee of the Cabinet will carefully consider the present dual, naval and military, organisations of our distant naval stations, in view of the fact, illusstrated by events in China, that our Admirals commanding such stations are, under the existing system, compelled to deprive their ships of fighting force when any emergency necessitates minor military operations on land, by reason of the garrisons at their bases being purely military, under the control of the War Office at home, and not at the disposal of the Admirals on the stations.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No information that we have received from China would indicate that there is any basis for the contention of my hon. and gallant friend.

  ARMY—EDUCATION OF OFFICERS' SONS.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE:: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War will he explain why officers of the Auxiliary forces who give their services to the country voluntarily are called upon to pay foes for their sons at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich and the Royal Military College at Sandhurst nearly four times the amount of those paid by officers of the Regular forces; and can he, as some recognition of their services, see his way to recommend a diminution of these fees in favour of Volunteer officers who have served the State for a definite period.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The State by diminution of fees contributes towards the education of the sons of officer's who have made the Army their profession, and more especially of those in the lower ranks. There are not the same grounds for making the concession in the case of Volunteer officers.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the great and increasing range of modern weapons, any special officer or committee is advising the Secretary of State as to the compulsory
  1124
  acquisition for the nation of any sites likely to be of service for the purpose.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: A Committee which deals with questions of this kind is already in existence.

  CADET CORPS AND RIFLE CLUBS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if, having regard to the desire in portions of the country to establish cadet corps and rifle clubs with a view to the preparation of boys and young men for the use of the rifle in the case of national necessity, the Secretary of State will consider the formation of a special department to draw up rules for such cadet corps and rifle clubs, and to provide for their encouragement, efficiency, and periodical inspection.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Regulations for cadet corps are already in existence, and are contained in the Volunteer regulations. Rifle clubs are to be affiliated to and placed under the supervision of the National Rifle Association. There does not, therefore, appear to be any need for the special Department suggested.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Then is it intended that the rifle clubs shall be managed entirely by themselves, independently of the War Office?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: They will be entirely voluntary associations for the practice of rifle shooting, and will receive certain facilities from the Government. They stand in no need of disciplinary rules.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Is any encouragement to be afforded for the establishment of cadet corps?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: My hon. and gallant friend will find the facilities laid down in the Volunteer regulations.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Surely a certain amount of discipline is required, even in rifle practice.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I believe that the National Rifle Association have succeeded in conducting competitions at Bisley for years without any necessity for intervention on our part.

  RESERVE SQUADRONS—PAY OF ACTING QUARTERMASTERS AND ADJUTANTS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will explain why no extra duty pay has been allowed to officers acting as quartermaster and adjutant in the Reserve squadron in Ireland, although such extra pay has been granted to officers performing corresponding duties in the squadrons in England.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The grant of extra duty pay depends upon the size of the squadrons and the quantity of work thrown upon the officers, not upon their geographical distribution. The first two squadrons which reached such a size as to justify the grant happened to be in England. The limit fixed is 400 men or 250 horses; wherever and whenever this is reached the extra duty pay is given.

  ALDERSHOT MANŒUVRES—HEAT CASUALTIES.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many cases of sunstroke in connection with the Alder-shot review have been treated in hospital, what was the average duration of their stay, and whether any of the cases were reported as severe or dangerous; and whether the principal medical officer at Aldershot was consulted as to the propriety or otherwise of holding the field day on 11th June.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The total number of cases was sixty-two; the duration of stay in hospital of those discharged was ten days; fourteen are still in hospital. Twenty-nine of the eases were considered severe. The General Officer commanding did not consult, the principal medical officer, or was there ground for doing so, since exceptional heat was not anticipated.

  ARMY VETERINARY DEPARTMENT— OFFICERS' TITLES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can now state what decision has been arrived at as regards the granting of military titles without prefix to officers of the Army Veterinary Department, seeing that the question has now been long under consideration, and that the decision is anxiously awaited by the members of the veterinary profession both in and outside the service.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: It has been decided to await the conclusion of the war in South Africa before coming to a decision.

  SOLDIERS' PENSIONS AND GOOD CONDUCT BADGES.
  MR. SEELY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state whether a man who left the service after seven years with three good conduct badges, and completed his time with the A, B, C sections, and was serving on D section when called up, is entitled to increased pay and pension on that account.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: A soldier on rejoining the colours would resume the good conduct pay which he was drawing on going to the Reserve. The rate of pension is not affected by good conduct badges. I may add that no man could have three good conduct badges after only seven years service.

  VOLUNTEER QUARTERMASTER SERGEANT.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether an orderly room sergeant of Volunteers, who after six years service as such has attained the rank of quarter-master sergeant, will receive pay during encampment in accordance with his rank as quartermaster sergeant or merely as an ordinary sergeant.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The orderly room sergeant in question would draw the pay of an orderly room clerk of six years service holding the rank of quartermaster sergeant.

  MARINE PENSIONERS—CASE OF ROBERTS.
  SIR JOHN BAKER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to an inquest held at Portsmouth on the 1st instant on a Marine pensioner named Roberts, who for nearly four years was an inmate of Haslar Hospital, and who was required by the Admiralty to leave, and was informed that he would receive a pension of 2s. per day; whether he is aware that Roberts was discharged without any money being given him by the authorities to support him till his pension next became payable, and that he gave his address in the discharge book as

  1127
  Alverstoke Workhouse, and was ultimately found in the water near Southsea Castle under circumstances pointing to suicide; and whether he is aware also that six other pensioners suffering from various chronic diseases were similarly discharged about the same time in a destitute condition, one of whom was found several times sleeping at nights in the furze near there, and if he will state who is responsible for the men being so discharged, and what steps it is proposed to take to avoid a recurrence of such cases.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The attention of the Admiralty was directed to this lamentable case immediately after the inquest by a letter from the Coroner, and reports were at once called for as to the facts of the case. I am not satisfied with the information I have received, and I would ask the hon. Member to postpone his question till I have made further inquiries.

  THE SHIPBUILDING VOTE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state when he expects to be able to take the Shipbuilding Vote.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot state till Friday.

  DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD— OVERTIME RECORDS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been brought to his notice that dissatisfaction prevails in the Deptford Victualling Yard with reference to the manner in which the men's working time is recorded, and which has resulted in some men who worked overtime during the late pressure of work not receiving a gratuity, and to others who worked overtime from October, 1899, to 31st January, 1900, night and day on the victualling of the transports receiving gratuities ranging as low as from 3d. to 4s. or 5s. only, and this in the face of the promise made by him that from 25 to 50 per cent. bonus on the overtime worked would be paid; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the system now in vogue at Deptford for recording the men's working time which has led to the above result,
  1128
  with a view to the introduction of a more accurate system.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): No representation has been received on the subject. The bonus paid was 50 per cent. on the actual amount of overtime earned by each individual in connection with the provisioning, etc., of the transports for South Africa, and as in five cases the amount of overtime work was only one hour, the gratuity amounted to 3d., being 50 per cent. of their pay for that hour. There is no reason to suppose-that the system of recording overtime at Deptford is inaccurate, and no necessity appears for the inquiry suggested.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: If I furnish the hon. Gentleman with numerous cases of inaccuracy, will he have them inquired into?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I have carefully examined the list of payments, and there does not seem to be any inaccuracy. Still, if the hon. Gentleman will furnish me with names, I will further inquire.

  TRAINING OF SEAMEN—TRAINING SQUADRON SAILING SHIPS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why the four sailing ships of the Training-Squadron which had been refitted and prepared for sea in October last were suddenly dismantled when on the point of sailing; what has been done with these four ships; what is proposed to be done with them; and does the Admiralty propose to abolish the system of training men and officers in a squadron of seagoing sailing ships; if so, will he, before carrying out any such intention, take measures to ascertain the opinion of all the post captains in the Navy as to the probable effect of withdrawing from the Navy the training hitherto afforded by the Training Squadron.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The reason for the change in question was that the number of cruisers required in consequence of the despatch of innumerable transports over a distance of 7,000 miles, and the necessity for watching the South African ports, rendered it expedient to substitute four fighting cruisers for four sailing ships. They have been put into the A Reserve. Their ultimate destination

  1129
  cannot yet be stated. I have already informed the hon. Member that no final or formal decision has been arrived at, but it is not proposed, as the hon. Gentleman, suggests, to circularize the 190 post captains on the active list.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to ascertain the opinion of the post captains before a final decision is come to?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am acquainted with the views of many naval officers on the subject, and I find there is a profound division of opinion amongst them on this very important subject. My hon. friend may rest assured that no final decision will be taken without the greatest consideration.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA—PORTS OF CALL FOR MAIL STEAMERS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the question of substituting Fremantle for Albany as the Western Australian port of call for mail steamers has made any progress of late.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am still in communication with the Australian Colonies in regard to this matter, and am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  NEW ZEALAND—PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT OF BOUNDARIES.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received proposals from the Premier of New Zealand for the enlargement of the boundaries of that Colony, with a view to the incorporation of neighbouring groups of islands; and, if so, whether he has any objection to specifying the suggested acquisitions.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received from the Governor of Now Zealand a memorandum by his Prime Minister, in which he suggests that certain groups of islands might be incorporated in the Colony. The islands specified are the Cook group and the Fiji and Friendly Islands.

  AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH BILL— INTERFERENCE OF COLONIAL GOVERNORS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
  1130
  for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the action of the Governor of New South Wales in taking part in the controversy arising out of the amendment of the Commonwealth Bill, and whether it is constitutional or in accordance with precedent that the representative of the Queen should take sides in discussions where differences of opinion arise among the people and in the Parliament of the colony of which he is Governor.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the press telegram to which no doubt the hon. Member refers, but I am unable to say whether it accurately represents what the Governor said.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to answer that portion of the question which contains the inquiry whether the intervention of a Governor is constitutional and with precedent?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is rather a wide question. I should say the answer depends a good deal upon the nature of the intervention and the exact language used by the Governor. No doubt it is unconstitutional for a Governor to take part in what may be called a party controversy, but I am happy to say that the question of the Commonwealth Bill has not been a party controversy in any part of Australia. But, after all, these questions are purely hypothetical, because up to the present time I have no information as to the Governor having used any language at all which bears on the subject.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the statement in question is true?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I will inquire myself.

  SUPERINTENDENTS OF AFRICAN PROTECTORATES.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an office of Superintendent of African Protectorates has recently been created at the Foreign Office, what are the emoluments and duties attached to the office, and what are the Protectorates referred to.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Yes. The appointment alluded to has boon made. The emoluments are similar to those assigned to the Third Assistant Under Secretary of State £1,000, rising at the end of five years to £1,200. The duties attached to the post are the general superintendence, under the immediate direction of the Secretary of State, of the correspondence relating to the administration and finance of the Protectorates administered by the Foreign Office, namely, Somaliland, East Africa, Uganda, and British Central Africa, as well as Zanzibar, so far as the administration of the latter is under the control of the Imperial Government.

  INDIA—HONNIBAL SHOOTING CASE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the Honnibal shooting case, when Captain Wood, accompanied by other officers, fired into a sugar cane plantation and hit an old man; whether he is aware that a villager named Kenguri detained the officers and was afterwards sentenced to four months' imprisonment on a charge of assault; whether inquiries have been made as to the injuries sustained by the old man at the hands of the officers, and whether he will lay a statement of the whole case upon the Table of the House.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The matter to which the hon. Member's question refers is now being inquired into by the Government of India, but I shall not receive any report on the subject for some days.

  INDIAN MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, with regard to the regiments and detachments of the Indian Native Army now serving beyond the frontier and abroad on the continent of Africa, Mauritius, Ceylon, the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, and with reference to the troops now ordered to China, it is intended to enlarge the regular Indian Military Establishment to the extent to which it has been reduced, by extra recruitments or by the formation of new regiments; if so, whether he will state the estimated cost of such additions to the Indian Army charges.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The question of enlarging establishments to replace Indian troops who may be employed as permanent colonial garrisons is under consideration, but no such intention exists with regard to the native troops temporarily employed out of India. Any extra expense entailed by the consequent additions will be borne by Imperial revenues.

  INDIAN FAMINE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: Has the noble Lord the Secretary for India any information with regard to affairs in India?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I received a telegram in the middle of the day from the Government of India stating that the monsoon had broken, and that the rain was spreading satisfactorily over North Bombay, Behar, and the Central Provinces.

  MAIDSTONE GAOL—WARDER SEARLE'S PENSION.
  MR. CORNWALLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take into his favourable consideration the increase of the pension of A. Searle, a retired warder, taken over from the county service in her Majesty's prison at Maid-stone, from £43 1s., its present amount, to £61 10s. 8d., the amount equivalent to two-thirds of his pay and emoluments on retirement, a rate of pension which was formerly enjoyed by county prison officers in the county of Kent, as in most other counties, after twenty years' service, and which was guaranteed to them by the; Act of 1877; and whether he will introduce legislation if necessary, at an early date to ensure to all old county prison officers the rate of pension which was in force when they joined the prison service.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The rate of pensions is fixed by the Treasury and not by the Home Office. The practice which has obtained in late years by which the pensions of ex-local prison officials have been supplemented by the local authorities has been disturbed by the decision of an auditor of the Local Government Board, and until I have received an answer from that Department on this point, I cannot decide what course should be pursued.

  JUTE FACTORY REGULATIONS.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the prosecution, on 18th June, of Messrs. Ritchie, a firm of jute manufacturers at Stratford, for neglecting to provide a fan, as directed by the inspector, to prevent the inhalation of impure dust, and to the remarks of the magistrate on the necessity of proving in each case injury to health; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The case to which the right hon. Baronet refers has engaged the special attention of the Home Office. The magistrate, in giving his decision, agreed to state a case on the question of law, and I at once gave instructions for the necessary steps to be taken to carry the matter to the High Court.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT— BAILEY v. PLANT.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether his attention has been called to a decision given by Judge Yate Lee on the 19th June at the Crewe County Court, in a case in which Samuel Bailey sought to obtain the committal of his former employer, John Dudson Plant, mineral water manufacturer, upon a judgment summons issued against Plant to enforce payment of an award previously made in favour of Bailey under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and whether, seeing that the decision given by Judge Yate Lee was to the effect that the award having been made by an arbitrator was not an order or judgment of any competent Court which would constitute a proper ground for committal under the Debtors Act, he will consider the need of taking immediate steps to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act in this particular.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I agree that the point involved in the decision referred to is one of much practical importance, and will demand careful consideration when the question of amending the Workmen's Compensation Act comes to be dealt with. But I may perhaps point out that the law on the subject is open to question, seeing that another County Court Judge has, as I understand, taken
  1134
  a different view of it. I would add that in any case the workman is not, I think, without remedy. He could, as I am advised, obtain a judgment in the County Court for the payment of any arrears due to him, and the provisions of the Debtors Act would apply.

  WALSINGHAM PETTY SESSIONS— CASE OF WILLIAM SPINKS.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case tried at the petty sessions held at Walsingham, in Norfolk, on 7th May last, when Mr. William Spinks, the defendant, was fined £5 and costs, the magistrates refusing to send the case for trial; and whether he will consider the expediency of an inquiry into the case.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have been making inquiries, which are not yet completed, into this case.

  CHARITY COMMISSION—SALES OF CHARITY PROPERTY.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if he can state how the £882,914 obtained during the year 1899 by the sale of the real property of charities was made up, giving the number of acres of land sold, and the amount realised by the sale of house property and licensed houses, and agricultural land separately.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): I regret to find that I cannot give my hon. friend as full information as I had hoped without on-tailing very great labour on a hard-worked Department. Last year the Commission made 396 orders authorising sales of real property belonging to charities. To classify that property would require an examination of all the files relating to each of those 396 orders. Sixteen orders alone account for £518,510 out of the sum referred to in the question. These have been examined and show that of the money received under them £79,704 was for agricultural land, £438,806 for property in towns, including £202,000 for the site of the Roman Catholic church in Moorfields, £78,000 for the site of the Royal Ophthalmic Hospital, and £31,000

  1135
  for property in St. Giles's, Cripplegate. I understand that the large sales of licensed premises, of which I had a vague but satisfactory recollection, took place in years previous to 1899. The great value of a church, not of a public-house, accounted largely for the rise in the figures of 1899 as compared with 1898.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: Is there no catalogue kept of these transactions?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: There are such records kept, of course, but the documents are very voluminous, and to get the exact details asked for they would all have to be carefully examined.

  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD—SCHOOL PLACES.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education what is the number of school places recognised by the Board of Education in elementary schools, whether board or voluntary, in the area under the London School Board, what is the number of projected places in such schools, what is the number of children for whom it is at the present time necessary to provide places, whether the number of such children is diminishing yearly within the London area, and how many unused sites for schools are now held by the London School Board.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): (i.) There are 798,554 places recognised; (ii.) there are 28,214 places projected; (iii.) the number for whom it is necessary to provide places is 784,590; (iv.) the number of children is not diminishing; (v.) there are sixteen sites unused at present.

  BARLINNIE PRISON—PAYMENT OF FINES BY PRISONERS.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what was the amount of money paid by prisoners committed to Barlinnie Prison in default of payment of fines in May, 1899, and May, 1900, respectively; in the latter month how much of the money paid consisted of fines paid in full on entering prison, and how much of fines paid under the Fines and Imprisonment (Scotland and Ireland) Act
  1136
  of last session; and in respect of such partial payments would he state the total number of prisoners making payment under the provisions of the Act, and the number of days by which the total terms of imprisonment were thereby curtailed.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): It is not convenient to give all the details asked for by the hon. Member in reply to a question in this House, but the Secretary for Scotland will be glad to furnish him with a statement containing the information he desires.

  GREAT NORTHERN OF IRELAND RAILWAY FARES.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in Omagh owing to existing railway charges; is he aware that on Tuesday in each week the Great Northern Railway Company issues a market ticket to Belfast, and that the fare from Omagh is the same as from Deny, though Omagh is thirty-four miles nearer Belfast, and that the cost of carrying timber from Deny to Omagh is 6s. 3d. per ton, while the cost to Ballyshannon, though double the distance, is no more; is he also aware that the charge for conveying ten barrels of petroleum from Belfast to Omagh is as much as the charge for conveying fifteen barrels of petroleum, from New York to Belfast; and will he state if he has any power to restrain the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland in the matter of preferential rates.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Board of Trade are not aware that the circumstances are as stated by the hon. Member, and in cases where preferential rates are shown to exist the jurisdiction to order their abatement is in the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and not the Board of Trade. It has, however, given me pleasure to draw the attention of the railway company to the subject-matter of the hon. Member's question.

  STRANGFORD LOUGH—CARLINGFORD LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. BLAKISTON-HOUSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received from

  1137
  the Irish Office any, and if so what, list of casualties and wrecks at the mouth of Strangford Lough; will he state from what source and at whose expense Carlingford Lighthouse is maintained, and for what class of shipping; and would he consider favourably the lighting of the existing lighthouse on Rock Angus by gas from the shore, and without the expense of lighthouse keepers in residence.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir, I have not received from the Irish Office any list of casualties and wrecks at the mouth of Strangtord Lough. The four lighthouses at the entrance of Carlingford Lough are maintained by the Commissioners of Irish Lights at the expense of the general lighthouse fund, for the benefit of mail steamers and other vessels using that lough. Any proposal for the lighting of Strangford Lough which may be made by the Commissioners, as the general lighthouse authority, will receive my careful consideration.
  MR. BLAKISTON-HOUSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received any further information on the subject of wrecks at the mouth of Strangford Lough.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): This is not a matter which comes under the official cognisance of the Irish Government, and consequently I have no information to give on the subject.

  KILLARNEY LAND APPEALS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of cases awaiting trial before the Land Commission for hearing appeals at Killarney; whether he is aware that fixtures have been provisionally made by the Appeal Commission in various parts of Ireland which do not include Killarney; and whether he can state about what date the Appeal Land Commission will sit at Killarney.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There are 157 cases from the County Kerry in which appeals have not yet been heard. In the majority of those cases the appeals were only lodged since the 1st January last. The fact is as stated in the second
  1138
  paragraph. It is not at present possible to state the date on which the Commissioners will next sit at Killarney to hear appeals.

  SALES TO IRISH TENANTS.
  MR. MORRIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state how many sales to tenants under the 40th section of the late Land Act have taken place; and whether the Government will take stops to facilitate such sales.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Advances amounting to £269,334 were made by the Laud Commission down to the end of March last, enabling 945 tenants upon sixty-two estates to purchase their holdings under the provisions of the 40th section of the Land Act of 1896. Proceedings for sale under the same enactment were pending, at the date mentioned, on some thirty-two other estates.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What will be the business on Thursday and Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The first Order on Thursday will be the Second Reading of the Tithes Bill, and on Friday Scotch Estimates will be taken.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Howell (added in respect of the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act (1881) Amendment Bill); and had appointed in substitution: Sir Powlett Milbank.
Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Veterinary Surgeons Amendment Bill:— Mr. Banbury, Sir Thomas Gibson-Carmichael, Mr. Colston, Earl of Dalkeith, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Mr. Charles Douglas, Sir Frederick Fitz Wygram, Sir Michael Foster, Sir John Kinloch, Mr. M'Crae, Sir George Pilkington, Mr. Shaw-Stewart,

1139
Mr. Tennant, Sir John Tuke, and Colonel Welby.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (JOINT COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Municipal Trading:—Sir John Leng; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. John Wilson (Govan).
Report to lie upon the Table.

HOSPITALS (EXEMPTIONS FROM RATES).
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Marquess of Bristol to attend to be examined as a Witness before the Select Committee on Hospitals (Exemption from Rates).—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
NEW BILL.
  URBAN DISTRICT COUNCILS.
  Bill to amend the Law of Public Health, Local Government, and Rating with respect to Urban District Councils and otherwise, ordered to be brought in by Sir John William Maclure and Mr. Joseph Howard.
  URBAN DISTRICT COUNCILS BILL.
  "To amend the Law of Public Health, Local Government, and Rating with respect to Urban District Councils and otherwise," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 269.]

  COMPANIES BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Every one will admit that the question raised by this measure is of very great importance, having regard to the enormous amount of capital invested in limited liability companies, and having regard
  1140
  also to the great advantage which has unquestionably been derived by trade and commerce through the formation of these companies. No one will dispute that the operation of the Companies Acts has been largely beneficial to the trade and commerce of the country but, at the same time, it will be generally acknowledged that there are many evils arising out of the existing law. A Select Committee appointed to inquire into the subject reported that the frauds committed and the losses sustained in connection with limited liability companies rendered necessary further regulation with respect to the formation of these companies; and a Return which was moved for by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool showed that in one year, 1896, no fewer than 1,261 companies went into liquidation, involving the loss of no less than fifteen millions sterling, of which £8,284,000 were losses in capital. But, although these figures are considerable, they yet are, comparatively speaking, small compared to the enormous capital invested in public companies, which amounts at the present time to 1,500 millions sterling. Therefore, the losses in the year 1896 were only about 1 per cent. of the capital invested, and that fact should induce the House to approach the amending of the law relating to public companies with very great caution and circumspection. I think that in considering the question we should endeavour as far as possible to secure that there should be no unnecessary interference with the freedom of companies in carrying on their business and in the general management of their affairs, and that we should be extremely careful not to make the law so onerous and so oppressive as to prevent the very best class of our business men engaging in the operations of these companies. Great, undoubtedly, as are some of the evils existing under the present law, I can conceive no greater evil in connection with this matter than legislation which would prevent our best business men undertaking a share in the management of these companies, and which would have the effect of throwing the management into the hands of what I may call professional directors. Another matter we ought to bear in mind is that no legislation which we can undertake is at all likely to prevent mistakes in the management of companies which entails

  1141
  in many cases large losses. We cannot hope to prevent imprudence or incompetence of managers. Neither can we attempt to prevent errors of judgment. Another thing I think it will be impossible for us to do by any legislation we can pass is to protect investors from their own folly and carelessness. I think we are bound to endeavour so to amend the law as to insure the fullest information being given to all those who desire to take part in companies or invest their capital, but to attempt to prevent them being foolish in the investment of their capital is to attempt something it would be impossible to accomplish. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the law ought, as far as possible, to provide safeguards to protect the public against misleading or fraudulent devices or the fraudulent use of existing legal machinery. In order that this matter should be fully and carefully inquired into, the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen, when he was at the Board of Trade in 1894, appointed a strong Departmental Committee to consider this question. There was in the chair one of the ablest lawyers, who understood, perhaps, as much about commercial matters as any living lawyer, Lord Davey, two of Her Majesty's judges, and two or three representatives of the professional and mercantile classes. The Committee framed a Bill, and that Bill was introduced in 1896 in the House of Lords, and no one can dispute that the Bill received careful and, indeed, prolonged investigation elsewhere. But it was a matter which required careful investigation, and having regard to the other engagements of the distinguished legal authorities who were on that Committee it is not surprising the investigation of the Committee was spread over a considerable portion of time. The investigation in the House of Lords occupied the sessions of 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899, and the result of the consideration of the Committee was an amending Bill which is practically the Bill which is now before the House. It is a Bill in many respects very different from the Bill originally proposed. It was considered that the Bill as originally proposed by the Committee which was appointed in 1894 was in many respects much too drastic in its character, and it was considerably modified. I do not mean to say I should not be glad to see a little less modification in the Bill,
  1142
  but it was very carefully considered by a body of very eminent gentlemen, and I am not disposed to quarrel with the decision they arrived at. The Bill as introduced is practically the Bill which was framed by the Select Committee of the House of Commons. In fact, it is identical with that Bill with one single exception, to which I will presently refer. I shall not trouble the House with all the details of the measure, but I shall endeavour briefly to point out some of the salient points of the Bill now before the House. The Bill provides, among other things, against the evil of directors-acting without qualification or taking gifts of paid-up shares. Many scandalous cases have arisen in connection with matters of this kind. It is quite clear that if directors undertake the responsibility of managing these businesses they ought to be properly qualified, and their qualification ought to be secured in the ordinary way, and certainly ought not to be bestowed upon thorn by the promoters of the company or by anyone interested in the flotation. Another evil against which the Bill provides is bogus or fictitious subscriptions. It is very often the case that a company proceeds to allotment when only a most insignificant portion of the capital has been bona fide subscribed with the inevitable consequence that in the course of time—sometimes a longer, sometimes a shorter period—the company goes into liquidation. We think the public in subscribing ought to be distinctly informed what is the minimum subscription on which the directors will go to allotment. We therefore provide that the minimum subscription shall be stated in the prospectus, and that three-fourths of the total amount duo on application and allotment shall be paid up before the company commences business, and paid up bona fide by those who have subscribed. We thus secure that the company starts with an adequate capital, or at least, that those who subscribe know the capital with which it starts business. We further propose to provide in the Bill that a Return of the allotment shall be made to the Registrar within seven days, so that all those who are interested may have an opportunity of seeing who their co-partners are. There is another scandal which has presented itself to the eyes of the public on many occasions in connection with companies

  1143
  —namely, secret payments to vendors and promoters. That, I think, is one of the greatest evils in connection with the existing law with which we have to deal. To prevent evils of that nature we provide that a statement shall be necessary in the prospectus of the amounts payable to the vendor or promoter, and the consideration there for. We do not consider it desirable in every case to prevent—in fact, we cannot prevent—payments being made, but we think that those who subscribe ought to have fully set out in the prospectus the amount which has been paid to both the vendors and the promoters, and what the money has been paid for. There is a practice prevalent of what is called underwriting shares. That is a practice which is not objectionable in itself so long as the public who are asked to take shares in the company know what is to be paid for underwriting, and the amount of the shares which have been underwritten. We consider this matter to be one of such importance that precautions have been taken in the Bill to prevent this provision being set aside by any waiver or agreement. Another evil which at present exists is that when it comes to the winding up of some companies it is found that the whole of the available assets of the company are mortgaged, and there is nothing at all to divide amongst the unhappy creditors. The only remedy which can be applied to this particular evil is to take care that publicity is given to any mortgages which exist. It is therefore provided that any mortgages shall be registered with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and be open to public inspection, and that any mortgages not so registered shall be invalid. There are several other provisions of considerable importance and great value with which I will not trouble the House, but with which no doubt the House is familiar. There are some provisions in this Bill which were not in the original Bill, some of which have given rise to considerable discussion and much opposition. There are the clauses dealing with the sale of drugs and the carrying on of a medical practice by a company. I am bound to say that I do not think those provisions are really very germane to the present Bill. I have no doubt that in themselves the provisions, or something analogous to them, with regard to these matters would be a bene-
  1144
  ficial alteration of the law, but I cannot say that I think they are in their proper place in a Bill for amending the Companies Acts. If those matters are to be dealt with it would be much better that they should be dealt with by a separate Bill, rather than in the measure now before the House. However, it will be for the Committee when they come to consider these provisions to decide whether they should be proceeded with, or whether they should be struck out and relegated to some other Bill at some other time. There is another provision which was not in the original Bill, and which, I think, is open to very serious objection. I mean the clause which gives a preference to a certain class of creditors incurred within three months prior to the winding-up of the company. That is an entirely now departure. I have no doubt the noble Lord who proposed this clause in the House of Lords had very good grounds, or thought he had, for inserting such a provision in the Bill; but having regard to the very serious alteration of the law which is made by that provision, I am quite unable to ask the House to retain the clause. It will be a very serious infringement of the rights of debenture holders, and I should imagine the House will not care to entertain it. There is one provision which we have omitted from the Bill as it originally stood to which I should like to refer, as it is the object of an Amendment to the Second Reading standing in the name of an hon. Member opposite. Even though the hon. Gentleman objects to the omission, he would hardly be justified in moving the rejection of the Bill. What is the history of the omission of that clause? The clause to which I refer is that repealing the twenty-fifth clause of the Companies Act, which sets out that all shares which are not paid for in cash, and for which other consideration is given, should be registered, the result of non registration being that the holder of the shares is liable to pay up in cash, although he has already paid for them in some other form. This was justifiably hold to be a rather serious provision. But an Act was passed two or three years ago by my right hon. friend, who was then Sir John Lubbock, which provided that in the case where registration had not taken place an innocent holder could appeal to the Court, which could relieve him of the difficulties in which he was placed by the

  1145
  non-registration, and order registration to take place. That, in the opinion of my right hon. friend, who was then chairman of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, amply mot the circumstances of the case. The hon. Gentleman opposite is not content with that, but desires to repeal Clause 25 altogether, and to do away with all registration of shares which are paid for otherwise than by cash. I do not think that would be a right thing to do. In the first place, I think it is perfectly right that persons should be able to make themselves acquainted with the fact whether the shares were paid for in cash or by some other consideration, and I hope the House will support me in resisting such an Amendment as that to be proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. As I have said, there are some things omitted from this Bill which I myself and many other persons would like to have seen included, but the Bill does not profess to deal with all abuses. I believe this measure to be an honest attempt to find a remedy, and a sufficient remedy, for some of the most flagrant imperfections in the present law, and as such I beg to commend it to the favourable consideration of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  *MR. CROMBIE: The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the Amendment which stands in my name, and he has rightly divined my intention, for I do not propose to move that Amendment. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt remember that the Committee referred to this clause in very strong terms indeed, and recommended that nothing short of its repeal would be satisfactory, I think the right hon. Gentleman himself is under a slight misapprehension as to Lord Avebury's Act, because I observe that in introducing this Bill he referred to this Act as having been passed subsequent to this Bill coming from the House of Lords; but that is not so. Notwithstanding this Act, in the opinion of the House of Lords the repeal of this clause was considered necessary. The right hon. Gentleman said that we wished to get rid of the registration of shares which were not fully paid up, but that is not our intention at all. It is perfectly right and
  1146
  proper that such shares should be registered, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to increase the penalty against directors who do not register them, for my part I should be very pleased. But what we do find fault with is that, owing to the working of this clause, innocent parties are punished and not the guilty. I may buy shares in a company at the full price or at a premium, and if this company goes into liquidation I may find myself mulcted in a sum far greater than the value of those shares, and that seems to me to be a very hard case. The method of procedure provided by Lord Avebury's Act is complicated and expensive, and will probably involve the consulting of a lawyer. That is very hard indeed upon innocent people who may be in no way to blame for having got into trouble. I hope that some Amendment will be submitted which in no way interferes with the registration of shares.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing this Bill, has traced its history and commended it to the House in such moderate and conciliatory language that I have no wish to import political controversy into the discussion. There is an admission on both sides of the House that some reform of the law is needed. For that reason we may dispose of any apprehension that political controversy will arise over this measure, and we may address ourselves to the consideration of the question as to how far the Bill is likely to remove the evils, the existence of which we all admit. We need not go back further than the Committee of 1894. That Committee prepared a Bill, and it will be found in the appendix to the Report, which contains a survey of the whole subject. Since then the matter has remained in the House of Lords. This Bill was thrown on the House of Lords and tossed to and fro in that assembly, and in that process it has suffered a good deal. The right hon. Gentleman himself evidently regrets that the Bill does not contain more of the drastic force which it had when it emerged from the exceptionally strong Committee which originally prepared it. It was exposed in the Lords to two dangers. There were a large number of people who had the ear of the House of Lords who were very apprehensive that difficulties would be thrown in the way of direc-

  1147
  tors and promoters of companies; and there was also that highly critical spirit which is fully developed in lawyers, which is very much in its place and extremely valuable in the House of Lords when sitting as a judicial tribunal, but which diminishes its reforming force when it comes to deal with practical evils. Anyone who reads the very interesting Reports of the House of Lords Committee will perceive how that legal critical spirit was brought to bear in this matter, and bow anxious they were to remove everything which might lead to any difficulty or difference. It seems to me that that ought to have been qualified to a greater extent than it was by a sense of the changers and evils which the existing law causes, and a disposition to try experiments a little more boldly in order to remove those evils. The public all the time are suffering, and, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman, we cannot undertake to prevent companies making mistakes or give complete protection to investors; but still we must endeavour to remove, as far as we can, those devices by which investors are deceived, and we must remember that there will always be a large number of persons who are proper objects for the sympathy of this House and for legislation, because what they are endeavouring to do is in itself perfectly legitimate, and they are in many cases devoid of legal advice and the means of getting it if everybody who was going to invest consulted a trustworthy and skilful solicitor or stockbroker there would be very little difficulty in the matter, but a great many people have not got those aids, and they are liable to be deceived in a way which would not deceive those of us who have some experience. I do not say that you can prevent those people being deceived, but you ought to remove out of their path the easiest means by which they can be deceived. In one respect I am not quite sure that this evil is not greater at the present time than it was some years ago, because the fall in the rate of interest has imposed such a severe hardship upon many people deriving fixed incomes from small sums of money invested, that when those investments are paid off they are more than ever anxious to embark in rash ventures when a comparatively high rate of interest is promised, and the evil is rather greater than it was before. I think that is a reason for endeavouring to deal somewhat
  1148
  boldly with this matter, although I do not for a single moment deny that, as a general proposition, it is impossible for us to avoid a great many of the losses which will happen. Of course, I am only speaking of people with small incomes, who are the legitimate objects of our protection. A propos of that, I should like to say that the Hill as it is drawn seems to me to represent the minimum of what ought to be put forward for legislation. If hon. Members will look at the Report of the Committee they will see that it scrutinises very carefully all the objections that might be made to more drastic remedies, and they will see also that it was a Committee of a very conservative nature. That Committee consisted of throe experienced and able Judges, several solicitors experienced in all matters relating to common law, and several mercantile men who were eminently representative of the mercantile community. From what I have heard stated by some hon. Members of the House, nearly every plan that has ever been suggested in the public press or in the House for improving the law was brought before that Committee, and those proposals were subjected to the most rigorous examination. Many of them wore rejected, and nothing was allowed to pass which had not run the gauntlet of that Committee, and the Report was a unanimous one. Therefore, I attach a great deal of importance to the fact that a Committee, composed as this was, arrived at the decision that this Bill was necessary. It has been said with truth that a very large part of the capital of this country is embarked in these limited liability enterprises. I think it was said somewhere lately that the total British capital which is embarked in limited liability companies is more than double the capital in such companies in France or Germany, and is greater than the amount embarked in both those countries taken together. That shows how large a proportion of British capital is invested in these con-corns, and how very careful we ought to be in dealing with them. But these prosperous companies in which this capital is invested are not the companies which will be affected by this Bill. Those are substantial concerns, whose prosperity proves that this Bill will not affect them. It is also said that we must not be hard on honest men, and make it difficult for them to take up business as directors of

  1149
  companies. We must also remember that honest men have always had the most complete protection in the courts of law. I am aware of exceedingly few cases— and I doubt if anyone in this debate will be able to quote more than an extremely small number of cases—in which any director or promoter of a company who has honestly endeavoured to do his duty as an honest man has ever suffered at the hands of the courts. I believe such cases are extremely few. There are cases in which a man who is personally honest, who goes into a company knowing very little of law or business, and who practically sells his name—which is very likely a respectable and distinguished one—to the company because it will adorn the prospectus and give confidence to investors—these persons sometimes suffer for the acts of others who have more knowledge and fewer scruples. They embark in transactions which often come before the courts, and for which the directors are severely handled and are frequently obliged to pay for their improper proceedings. A man personally honest may suffer in that case, but he is not entitled to much sympathy from us. Nothing does more harm in connection with companies than when a man, honest, but ignorant and incompetent, gives the sanction of his name to acts which are afterwards condemned by the courts. Therefore I do not include such a person in the category of honest men whom we must protect. Men who really know their business and who desire to give diligence and attention to it have nothing to fear from any legislation likely to be passed by this House, because they will be perfectly certain to have the protection of the courts. I believe, therefore, that the main thing we have to do is to strengthen the hands of the courts, and to extend their powers by stopping up certain loopholes which some decisions of the courts have made, and which some provisons in previous Acts required the courts to give. The Courts of Equity have in the main framed our company laws, and taking them all in all they have done it with great skill and judgment. They have been supported as a rule by the opinion of the commercial community, and they have done a great-deal to keep that opinion at a good level; and were it not for the action of the Courts of Equity we should be in a much worse position than we are at present.
  1150
  But these Courts are embarrassed in two ways: in some cases by provisions of the Statute law which do not enable them to go as far as they would like in cheeking fraud, and in other cases by certain decisions which have been given and which it is impossible for the Courts to get over. I do not say that these decisions were necessarily wrong at the time they were given, because it could not then be seen what use would be made of them, but use has been made of them, and they have given fraudulent persons loopholes of escape. I believe the right course for legislation to take in these matters is not so much to frame a great number of small provisions, as to strengthen the law in its general principles and to encourage the Courts to deal with fraud in every form in which they find it. You cannot exhaust the particulars of fraud. Fraud is infinite, and the ingenuity of man will find new methods of evading any Act we may draw. It is therefore quite impossible to stop up all the loopholes. What we ought to do is to entrust the Courts with such wide powers and to define fraud so clearly and broadly, that wherever it may appear it may be dealt with. I should therefore be the last person to suggest that we should attempt to revise the law by going into details to meet all cases which have originated in the past. It is better to lay down principles and to trust to the Courts to carry them out. Of course we must also remember that any amendments we may make in the law must be tentative and experimental. We cannot reach finality in matters of this kind. The most we can do is to provide, as far as we can, against the provisions we make being evaded. New evasions will no doubt arise, and in the course of a few years it may be necessary to deal with this subject again, and still further extend the provisions of the law. I think, therefore, on the whole, that perhaps the best thing we can do now in the way of amending the Bill is to extend it a little further, and to restore some of those broad definitions and declarations of the duties and liabilities of promoters, directors, managers and auditors which were contained in the Bill as it came from the Committee in 1894, and which, to a considerable extent, have been left out. I will not trouble the House with a minute examination of the omissions, but I may tell hon. Mem-

  1151
  bers that several important sections contained in the Bill as it came from the Committee, with regard to the duties and liabilities of promoters, the duties and liabilities connected with the issue of a prospectus, the annual balance sheet, and the duties of auditors, have all been omitted from the present Bill, and in several cases the previous Bill contained provisions for imposing fines and declaring that such and such an act should be a misfeasance which are not in the Bill now proposed. It would be tedious to the House to go through the omissions in detail, but if any hon. Member will take the trouble to compare the present Bill with the Bill as it came from the Committee in 1894, he will see that there are several omissions which tend to weaken the present Bill as a whole. I think therefore it would be desirable in Committee to consider the desirability of restoring these provisions. With reference to criminal proceedings, the Committee of 1894 did not propose to deal with the criminal law; neither does the present Bill except in one clause. If I may venture to express an opinion, I think the Committee of 1894 was right, and that the Government are right now. To deal with these matters on a criminal basis ought really to be undertaken in a separate enactment. Even then I am not very sanguine about the effect of it, because where criminal proceedings have been tried Courts and juries have been extremely timorous in applying the criminal law, and frequently the attempt to apply the criminal law in connection with a company has failed just because juries were unwilling to convict. Therefore, I believe the Government are well-advised in not introducing such a provision into the present Bill. The provisions of the Bill which seem to me to deserve the support and confidence of the House are those with regard to the issue of prospectuses, the statutory meetings, the qualifications of directors, and the information to be given as to their position and their fees and commissions, if any, the provision that no business is to be entered upon on insufficient capital, and the provision as regards the registration of mortgages and charges. There is absolute unanimity with regard to the registration of mortgages and charges, and I think that part of the Bill will receive universal assent, and will do the greatest good. I need not return to the repeal of Section 25 of the Act of 1867,
  1152
  because it has been already dealt with, but I associate myself with what has been said on the matter by my hon. friend the Member for Kincardine. I hope when we get into Committee the repeal of that section, as recommended by the Committee of 1894, will be included in the Bill, because the object of the section is attained in another part of the Bill, and therefore the provisions have become superfluous, although, if retained, they will be annoying and dangerous to innocent persons. I think the Government was also well advised in omitting the clause giving preference to trade creditors in respect of debts incurred within three months of the winding up. That could not be supported. There are two other points to which I should like to call attention. The first has reference to Scotland. As the House knows, the winding up provisions of the Act of 1890 did not apply to Scotland, and as that is not regarded as satisfactory I wish to direct the attention of the House and the Lord Advocate to it. There is one other provision which seems to me to merit attention. The House will recollect that under the Act of 1890 power is given in certain cases to the Courts to order an examination, but this valuable power has been lost by a recent decision of the House of Lords which declared that an examination could only be ordered where the Official Receiver alleged fraud against a particular person. That is a very valuable power in some respects, and one of the best parts of our winding-up machinery, because it enables the whole history of a company to be examined into, and may afford valuable ground for subsequent proceedings. This decision of the House of Lords resulted in a very serious loss indeed, and we might take the present opportunity to extend the law by providing that where the Official Receiver reports that he has reason to believe that there has been fraud in the conduct of a company, but may not be able to take the responsibility of reporting fraud against a particular person, the Court should have power to order an examination. The House will notice that a part of the present Bill proposes to deal with the winding up, and therefore there is nothing unreasonable in introducing a provision of this kind. I hope the law officers or the right hon. Gentleman will consider this matter before the Committee stage, be-

  1153
  cause I believe that it is an amendment which would considerably improve the present machinery for winding up companies. Then there is the question of consolidation. It has been represented in several quarters that the whole of the law relating to companies should be consolidated. I have the greatest sympathy with the general idea of consolidating the law on the subject, but I doubt whether the time for consolidation has yet arrived. Something, however, may depend on the shape in which this Bill finally passes. If it passes in a satisfactory form there may be occasion for consolidation, but if it passes as it now is I believe it will create a demand on the part of the community for a further strengthening of the law. It is quite clear you cannot proceed to consolidate the law until you have got it into a tolerably satisfactory state; therefore I doubt whether the time for consolidation has yet arrived. Although no doubt consolidation would make it easier to administer the law and would remove a great many evils, still there would be no good in trying to accomplish it until the law is in a shape which would be regarded with satisfaction. Although I must again express my opinion that this Bill is not quite strong enough, and that it would be better if it were in the form in which it came from the Committee, and that some of the provisions in the original Bill should be restored, still I do not for a moment suggest that we ought not to take it as an instalment of reform. I believe especially as regards the registration of mortgages and charges, the position of directors, and the provisions with regard to commissions, the Bill will be a substantial improvement on the present law, and in the hope that it will be improved and considerably strengthened in Committee I should be sorry that the chance should be lost of improving the law. I therefore venture to hope that there will be no disposition in any part of the House to oppose the Bill, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman all success in passing it.
  MR. HOARE: The principle of the Bill is one which we all must accept. There are, however, several provisions in the measure which we ought to accept with a certain amount of caution. There are exceptions to every rule, and there are a great many
  1154
  points in the Bill which require careful consideration before being passed into law. My object in rising is merely to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he would be good enough to arrange that this Bill should be taken in Committee of the whole House. It is a very important Bill indeed, and it deals with gigantic interests. Hon. Members who are more especially interested in it are. for the most part men who are engaged all through the day, and would find a Grand Committee inconvenient and undesirable. If my right hon. friend can see his way to have a Committee of the whole House on the Bill, I believe that course would meet with the approval of the House. The criticisms would practically be of a friendly character, and merely intended to improve the Bill. I believe in the long run that course would save time and conduce to the passing of the Bill.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: As a member of the Board of Trade Departmental Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has referred, I should like to say a few words I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has not exaggerated the character of the discussions in the Committee and for my own part I shall never forget the destructive and constructive abilities of two of its members. The need for reforming the law is shown by what has taken place at the last annual meeting of the Association of Chambers of Commerce. No less than six chambers of commerce proposed resolutions on this subject, and they were carried unanimously. In fact one does not speak too widely when one states that this legislation is, the most important commercial measure proposed in this Parliament, and I hope it will be carried into law. The scandals in connection with companies are important in themselves, but they have even a very more important effect, namely, their destructive effect on trade and commerce. They have been the means of destroying the investment of capital, and creating distrust, which is most disadvantageous to commercial enterprises. Then we have also to regard the manner, which almost amounts to a public scandal, in which people, especially those who have scanty means of information and guidance, have been plundered by means of company arrangements of the very worst

  1155
  kind. The evidence before the Committee in this connection showed the most startling evils. We all admit that there is great difficulty in providing a remedy. I think the law ought to impose as many impediments as it possibly can against fraudulent acts, whether in connection with companies or otherwise, so as to prevent them to the utmost possible extent. I think this Bill is a move in the right direction. The necessity of caution has been referred to; and when we remember that some 1,500 millions are invested in these companies, the safeguarding of these enterprises is one reason for the exercise of great caution. If we take steps ruinous to these enterprises it may be impossible to retrieve them. It was shown conclusively in the Committee, by evidence from abroad, that the condition of the law in this country, and the facilities which it gave for investment, have been the means of attracting to this country many hundred millions of capital which otherwise would have been invested else- where. We ought not to destroy these facilities. Joint stock companies have many advantages. They are an outlet for capital, and they give strength to capital by association, but there is one point in which they have been an especial advantage to the whole body of the people, and that is they have given an opportunity for investment in trade to the non - commercial classes. There is, however, nothing more absurd than the misconception that because a man puts capital into a concern, but devotes no time and no thought to it, he should expect as large a return as a man who devotes not only capital but time and personal ability to his business. Joint stock companies have also another advantage, and that is the opportunity they afford to small investors to invest capital. They have also the further advantage of enabling an employer to give an interest in his business to his employees who have helped him to build it up. With regard to what has been said as to the care which should be exercised in dealing with company directors, I think it should be borne in mind that the principle which ought to be adopted in this kind of legislation is one of discrimination and not one of universal incrimination. I think we should remember that, whatever may be the evils in the administration of companies, the great
  1156
  Majority of them are both honest and prosperous. The same may be said of directors. Whatever want of care may lave been shown in some instances, or the recklessness or even the dishonesty of directors, the vast majority of them are both honest and laborious. I venture to go further, and say that even promoters in many instances may be perfectly honest and capable. The great point is not to deter the most capable men from taking part in company administration. I believe a thoroughly good business board to be the greatest security of the investor. Upon this point I should like to state what a great foreign jurist said on the question of imposing penalties for directors. He said that in the business world it was known that the imposition of penalties did not stop in any great degree persons who were determined to make their fortune by robbing their neighbours of their earnings, whereas it would keep out honourable men who were afraid of finding themselves committing an error without knowing it. That is the principle on which we should as far as possible act. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there are some omissions in the Bill, as compared with the draft Bill as prepared by the Committee, which might perhaps be restored, especially the provisions relating to the financial obligations of a company, the obligation to keep certain specific accounts and to have a proper audit, and also some definition of what a proper audit ought to be. I think the Bill accomplishes much by requiring in the prospectus an exact record of the status of the company and its directors. Another point upon which the Bill is to be approved is that it strikes at the great evil of over-capitalisation. At present we have a long chain of vendors, and at the end of the chain the immediate vendor to the company, who fixes the price—that is after a large number of intermediate profits have been made. I am glad that those profits are to be disclosed, so that an investor may be able to use his own judgment. Another great improvement is the way in which the Bill strikes at improvident allotment. I have known many cases in which a vendor, by means of subsidised directors, has insisted on allotment when it was most improvident from a business point of view; and therefore the provision in this Bill dealing with that matter is a great improvement.

  1157
  With regard to registration, I think the House will agree that it would be impossible to have double registration in this matter. One reference was made of a practical character to what may be termed bogus allotments, that is to say, allotments to nominees and vendors in order to secure completion of the contract by the company going to allotment. A very interesting specimen of what may be done in company making is shown in the case of a company registered in 1891, the capital of which was 9,600,000 shares of one farthing each; the total subscribed capital was ld. Without saying that that is typical, there are a great many companies which have commenced on very similar terms. The great want of the present law is the want of the opportunity of combination between the shareholders in the earlier stages. They are scattered, and do not meet until the statutory meeting, and when they have been defrauded they are not able to take combined action. I think this Bill is an improvement in this respect, that in it future the statutory meeting must be called within one month, and the accounts must be on the table. I would farther suggest that they should be open for inspection for some days afterwards. I think there you have great security for the combined action of shareholders in any fraud which may take place. Some remarks have been made about debentures, but I do not think the House yet realises the importance of this point. A man owning a decaying business turns it into a company, and the company issues to him debentures, and he becomes his own secured creditor from that moment. Not only are his creditors out in the cold, but the shareholders also, because he practically holds all the assets. In future both mortgages and debentures will have to be registered at the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, and then anyone who thinks of becoming a shareholder or proposes to give credit will have the means of knowing exactly what the financial position of the company is with regard to the preliminary expenses. I think the company should undertake to pay them. Now, a general assertion has been made that underwriting is illegal and grossly immoral. I do not say it is not legal, because from time to time we have had expressions of opinion with regard to it, but there is nothing immoral in it. It is a necessary commercial element
  1158
  in the formation of a company, but a check would be placed against dissipation of capital by underwriting without information being given. There are some clauses which go some way to secure honest administration, and Clause 30 does not appear to me to be at all too drastic, providing as it does that a wilful misstatement should render a director liable to conviction of a misdemeanour. I must also refer to the absence of some official provision such as the Committee proposed, as to the question of audit, and some definition of the duties of auditors. I think the clauses which we inserted in Committee, after full consideration as to what the effect of their introduction might be, might have been retained, and I still hope that they will be inserted in the measure. Impress on every director his obligation to use reasonable care and prudence in the exercise of his powers, and give a right of action to the shareholders in the event of a director departing from that great commercial principle. I think it would be a wholesome check to directors if they knew that they would have to devote all their time to their duties, and that if they did not they were under some liability to the shareholders. In conclusion I have only to say I most respectfully differ from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in what he said with reference to the consolidation of the Company Acts. Consolidation is almost a necessary preliminary to amendment, and in many instances the House has acted on that principle. The Bankruptcy Act is one instance, and the Merchant Shipping Act is another. In both those cases the Government complained of Amendments delaying consolidation. We have already party statutes dealing with company law, and I cannot help thinking that probably, among the difficulties which directors have to meet, not the least is that of not knowing what the law is, and not being able to find out exactly what is the position of the law in regard to this matter. In this country we urgently need consolidation. We are outstripped by other countries who have consolidated their laws, with great advantage to themselves. The need of this Bill has been demonstrated; it carries out a principle that the whole House will be ready to accept. It may not protect completely those who rush to be rich, but if they take more care in their own interests the Bill will

  1159
  give them full opportunity or knowing what they may expect, their rights and their obligations as shareholders and directors, and it will, I hope, lie the means of improving commercial morality and advancing the trade of the country.
  Mr. LAWSON WALTON: I trust the House will not yield to the suggestion that some method of consolidation should precede the passing of this amendment of the law. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill has pointed out that it is impossible to deal with so large a subject except by instalments; and that this measure is nothing more than an instalment in the settlement of a number of difficulties that must arise in the administration of so large a branch of the law. I do not propose to waste the time of the House in praising the merits of the Bill, but I wish for a brief space to point out some omissions which have been made from it. It may be that these omissions are inevitable—no law is-ideal and perfect. It is possible that some of the scandals which of late years have shocked the commercial world are beyond the reach of the law. This, measure, as I read it, would leave many of these scandals entirely uncorrected Promotion, where it is undertaken on behalf of a company, will no doubt be exposed by the operation of one clause of the Bill. But modern company promotion is undertaken by the vendor, and the moneys expended by the vendor in promotion are expended out of the moneys received by him as the price of the property or business he sells. I doubt whether this Bill will ensure publicity-being given either to the amount expended in that fashion or the mode in which the expenditure takes place. Let me give to the House a concrete case. A small business is bought for a few thousand pounds, which it is proposed by the promoter to sell to a company for—45,000. There is a margin of—30,000 of profit. The promoter of the company has purchased the business and paid for it, and therefore he is not struck at by the clause which attacks the vendor in this Bill. Having purchased the business and paid for it, it would be impossible for him to obtain from an individual purchaser anything like a corresponding profit to that which would be given by a company. How is that profit divided Half of it is distributed in; payments to directors who join the board and give to
  1160
  the company the advantage and use of their names. A portion is expended among the press, and a portion is used in paying for the placing of shares. That, promotion account shows, that—30,000 is divided as to one-half—or a large portion of one-half—in illegitimate expenditure, and the rest is net profit in the hands of the promoters. That is a scandal which was exposed in a very recent case. Now, I have scrutinised this Bill to ascertain, whether any of its provisions would operate to prevent any repetition of such a disgraceful state of things. Of course, where the promotion is undertaken by some other person than the vendor, the Bill gives protection by publicity to the account, but where the promotion is done by the vendor, there is no means by this measure of ensuring that the shareholders and the world will know exactly what the profit is, and how it has been expended. I will try and suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in Committee some mode in which this matter can be reached, but I think he will agree with me that in its present state transactions of the nature to which I have referred will not be interfered with by the Bill. Another omission from the Bill is that it assumes that every company is formed by means of a prospectus or of some preliminary statement; and that adequate notice is given to the shareholders by providing that certain information shall appear either in that prospectus or preliminary or initial statement. That assumption is falsified in many cases in which we get a company formed without prospectus or preliminary circular. It is inadequate to deal with cases where the capital is subscribed, not on the faith of the prospectus or preliminary statement, but on the faith of the names in the prospectus, in which case the prospectus is not read. This Bill is inadequate to deal with such a case, and also to deal with other cases of that kind. For instance, it is also inadequate to deal with a case whore, although there are statements in the prospectus, there are other statements in the prospectus or in the articles of association which compel every shareholder to waive the rights which he may by law be entitled to enforce against the person who is responsible for the misrepresentation on which he relied. It is perfectly well known to Members of of the House that many companies are originated in the neighbourhood of the

  1161
  Stock Exchange without either prospectus or preliminary statement, particularly in gold speculation, and that a market is created by the operation of certain interested persons, and the mere fact that shares are being dealt in daily induces the public to come in and deal with these shares. In all companies of that class the provision of the Bill ensuring that certain information should be given in the prospectus ceases to have any operation. In regard to waiving, I recently saw a case in which it was stipulated in the articles of association that the directors of a company might make secret profits to any extent, and that the shareholders should not be entitled to enforce the law against these directors in respect of any profits that they had made. I wonder how many of the shareholders of that company ever read the articles of association which imposed that most serious restriction upon their legal rights. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he may reconsider some of the provisions of the Bill. First of all, so as to deal with the case of certain companies which come into existence without a prospectus, or if with a prospectus with statements qualifying the provisions in regard to the waiver of shareholders' rights, and also dealing with those cases in which reliance is placed less on the language of the prospectus than on the names of the directors, who often allow the use of their names to the company promoters. There are other topics on which I might dilate. The first is in reference to the one-man company to which the hon. Member for South Islington has referred. A very useful decision of the Court of Appeal was recently reversed by the House of Lords, with reference to the legal obligation attaching to the proprietor of a company of that kind; and I should suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the introduction of a clause reviving the right of the creditors to have recourse against the person who has, in point of fact, the whole of the company's property secured by debentures and receives the whole of the profits made by the business. Then there is one other casus omissus, and that is the failure to deal with the very serious condition of things which has arisen in connection with founders' shares. The ordinary shareholders and the public ought to know, in plain terms, on the face of the prospectus, what are the rights of the holders of this very novel and anomalous
  1162
  interest in connection with a company. One case recently made public showed that the holders of founders' shares controlled the directors and the whole company's business, with the result that all the profits made by the company over 6 per cent. went into the pockets of the holders of the founders' shares, though that profit was obtained at the risk of the ordinary shareholders of the company. In other words, the holders of the founders' shares were in a position to utilise the whole of the company's machinery for the purpose of filling their pockets with the profits, and to cast the whole liability for losses on the ordinary shareholders. Now, that position was only to be ascertained after a most careful inspection and scrutiny of the articles of association, which being ascertained would have barred any general subscription. And yet that company was floated under the authority of a well-known man. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to insert a provision in this Bill that, where there are founders' shares the full rights of the holders of these founders' shares in reference to the company's assets shall appear in the prospectus, so that a very important element of that kind might not be lost sight of by the public who are invited to subscribe their money. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on having introduced this Bill, which, I cannot help thinking, is one of the most important commercial measures introduced in this Parliament. I trust it will be discussed in Committee of the whole House, and that in the end we shall have a very valuable and important addition to our commercial law.
  MR. MARTINsaid he hoped that the Committee stage of the Bill would be taken in the whole House. No doubt many of the provisions of the Bill were fairly satisfactory, but they could not all be accepted without reservation, and it was necessary that every clause should have the fullest consideration. For instance, the provision in regard to the qualification of directors might exclude men, such as foremen in works owned by a small company, who would make most valuable directors if a qualification were given to them. Then he would point out that a return in reference to members of a new company was to be made within seven days; but he was informed by a secretary

  1163
  to a company that that would be almost, if not quite, impossible, and that it would take six weeks or more before such a return could be made. The provisions as to dealing with vendors as promoters would require to be very carefully considered. It was perfectly true that the vendor was now generally the promoter, but it was perfectly impossible to des-criminate between the two in the Bill as it was drawn. In regard to the question as to the publicity of mortgages, that was a step in the right direction; but even there the clause might work great hardship. It was the custom for a company which had large sums of money coming in at certain seasons of the year to borrow money from their bankers on the security of their uncalled capital for a period of six weeks or two months, until that money came in. The clause in the Bill might prevent them doing this, because the publicity given to the transaction might injure the position of the company. If that danger could be avoided the clause otherwise would be satisfactory. The House ought to remember that one of the objects of the Limited Liability Acts was to enable people to lose their money, if he might say so. What was wanted was to give facilities not for speculation, but for enterprises which were attended with a certain amount of risk, and if the House were fully conscious of that, the necessity would be seen of giving encouragement to businesses with a certain amount of risk but which could not be called wild speculation. He offered the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that this Bill was regarded with a great deal of satisfaction by a great many men engaged in business.
  MR. ATHEKLEY-JONES: I think the full discussion upon this measure will be much more properly taken in Committee than at this stage. At the same time, there are one or two 'topics in the Bill which I will venture to discuss, though in no hostile spirit. The right hon. Gentleman may be well gratified with the reception which the Bill has received from all parts of the House. This Bill, I think, is a well-intentioned effort to meet a very unpleasant state of things, though I believe the acuteness of the position has been somewhat exaggerated. The right hon. Gentleman has enumerated the main
  1164
  points to which the remedial clauses of the Bill are directed. First, he mentioned the case of disclosing to the public the amount which a director pays for his shares as a qualification, and the necessity that these shares should be paid for by him in cash. Now, I venture to suggest-to the right hon. Gentleman that the remedy which he proposes is purely chimerical. What he aims at is the destruction of the guinea-pig director. Now, the guinea-pig director is a. person who receives fees amounting to, say, £200 per annum, and he will be required, under the clause, to find some qualification of probably not more than £200. To insist that he shall find that £200 out of his own pocket, and to think that by so insisting you are going to get rid of the guinea-pig director, is a pure delusion. It is perfectly evident that if he has not got the money himself he will obtain it by some elusive method from some one of the promoters, or will provide himself with £200 from outside, in order to secure an annual remuneration of £200. You will not by this provision in the slightest degree militate against the guinea-pig director. I do not know any means by which you will be able to prevent that class of persons serving on a Board of Directors except by compelling all directors to hold a substantial and. proportionate amount of the capital of the company. Of course, few do that, and you will find great difficulty in obtaining director's of companies. You would also lose the services of very useful men. I would urge another objection. There are numerous instances in which a person is connected with a family business or a firm, where the qualification of director is not £200, but much heavier. It may be desirable that he should serve on the Board, but he probably cannot, or may not find it convenient to find the large qualification necessary, but the firm or family business with which he is associated find the money for that purpose, and the man might be made a most useful director. I know from my own experience that by the clause as it stands, he would be prevented being appointed, because of the necessity imposed on him of having the qualification in his own right. There is one other point to which I desire to call attention. There was an excellent provision in the Bill, in spite of what was being said against it, to give a priority to trade creditors. I cannot

  1165
  help thinking that in abandoning that provision, the right lion. Gentleman has struck at the root of the Bill. For example, here is a company formed with a capital of £50,000, £25,000 as debentures, and £25,000 as shares. The real value of the property is only £25,000, the £25,000 of share capital being a pure figment. The company commences its operations and runs into £20,000 of debt. The creditors observe that the company has a capital of £50,000, and they trust it. The company comes to grief, and the mortgagees are very likely able to appropriate every scrap of the property, to the exclusion of those creditors who have trusted it on the faith of the capital of £50,000. I know that objection to the right hon. Gentleman's original provision was taken by influential business men, but I think that in the interests of the commercial community at large, it would be wise for him to reconsider the position he has now taken up. I do not like to differ from my hon. and learned friend, but I cannot help thinking that the provisions of Clause 12 meet the point that he raised that the profits made by the immediate vendor to the company are not disclosed. I cannot help thinking that sub-section (f), associated as it is with sub-section (j), does compel the vendor to the company, or the company on its own part, to disclose to the public not only the amount paid to the immediate vendor but the amount paid by him to the vendor from whom he purchased. I do not at this time wish to engage the attention of the House further, but I think it would be desirable if the right hon. Gentleman would consider these two points.
  *MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I do not wish to detain the House long, particularly after the very long, not to say exhaustive, debate which has taken place on the subject. My principal object in rising is to give expression to the views of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and the Liverpool Law Society with respect to the Bill. I can in the first place join in the almost unanimous expressions of welcome on the part of the House with respect to the Bill. I think we all feel that this Bill is greatly wanted. Public opinion is quite ripe for a reform of company law, and I think the provisions of the scheme which the Government have been so long preparing will in a large measure meet
  1166
  the requirements of the case. It cannot be denied that the operation of the system of limited liability has been of enormous, advantage to the country, as has been pointed out in the course of the debate. It is a system well suited for those great undertakings by which the commerce of this country is to a large extent conducted. It has afforded opportunities for the investment of capital which would otherwise have remained idle and unprofitable, but at the same time the system of limited liability has been greatly abused. Opportunities have been taken by unprincipled men to bring before the public bogus companies, and there is a strong feeling that something ought to be done to stop these abuses. Reference was made by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade to the losses arising to this country from the insolvency of limited companies. I think he said that the losses were, comparatively speaking, small compared to the enormous amount of capital invested in public companies. That may be true, still I think we must all admit that it has been very great and very serious. In illustration of this I would refer to the motion which I myself moved, and which the House granted, on the subject of loss by companies in 1896. A return of companies wound up in 1896 was issued by the House of Commons in August, 1899. It shows that the number of companies wound up in that year was 1,261. In connection with 334 of these there was no probable loss, while with respect to 252 no returns had been obtained. With regard to the remaining 675 companies the loss to the shareholders amounted to £13,227,225, and to creditors £1,978,136, making a total of £15,205,411. If, as regards the 252 companies wound up, and of which no returns had been obtained, we estimate the loss in proportion to the loss in connection with the 675, we get a sum of £5,846,000, and thus we arrive at a sum total loss to creditors and shareholders of £21,051,411. Of course, the task of discriminating between the use and abuse of limited liability is one of great delicacy. We must be careful in rooting up the tares lest we root up the wheat also. So far as my limited knowledge goes I endorse the opinion that the Bill is an honest attempt to meet the difficulties of the case. One of the principal causes of the failure of companies is the remissness of directors. I agree with

  1167
  the Bill in so far as it seeks to bring home to directors their real responsibility, but I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that we must not go too far in this direction. While taking such steps as may be necessary to prevent directors so far as possible from evading their responsibilities, we must not place on them obligations which would prevent men of character and repute from acting as directors. The President of the Board of Trade said that we must: be careful not to make the obligations on a board of directors too onerous, but I cannot help thinking some of the clauses of this Bill are of that character. Let me take one by way of illustration—Clause 9, which requires that in every case of an allotment of shares a return should be made by the company to the Registrar within seven days. If there should be default, and if the directors know of it, they are to be severally liable to a fine of £50 for each day that the default lasts. That is a very serious penalty indeed. I think it is going too far. Although that penalty may never be imposed, yet the fact that it is on the Statute-book may prevent men thoroughly qualified from taking these positions. A further clause relates to inadequate descriptions in prospectuses, and I agree with the Hon. Member for South Leeds in doubting whether its provisions are sufficiently stringent to disclose the real interest of the original vendor. I think I may say that feeling is shared by many others. It may be generally stated that, throughout the Bill, sufficient exemption is not made in the case of private companies. I think that with reference to companies which do not appeal to the public, several clauses will have to be modified. With regard to statutory meetings it may be that what is proposed in the Bill is a very desirable arrangement; but the provision that at the first statutory meeting any subject 'may be discussed is open to objection, because it is felt that this latitude may be abused by people who get into companies by taking shares for the purpose of injuring the companies. The clauses in respect to the registration of mortgages have been generally approved, and I heartily participate in that approval; but to enable persons interested in provincial companies to obtain the benefit of this arrangement, it has been suggested that it would be very desirable
  1168
  if copies of the entries in the register could be sent to the County Court of the district where a company is interested, so that the people on the spot may be able to get the information required. In regard to the matter of auditors, I think that the description of their duties in the Bill is insufficient. It is necessary, not only in the interest of the shareholders but in the interest of the auditors themselves, that they should know what their duties are It is very desirable that there should be some clear definition of what is required of auditors, and in particular that they should report whether, in their opinion, full and fair balance-sheets have been drawn up.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Mr. HEDDER-WIGK, Wick Burghs). House counted, and forty Members being found present.
  *MR. CHARLES McARTHUR (continuing)said: There are one or two defects in the Bill I wish to call attention to. One is the preference given to debts contracted within three months of winding up. I am very glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that the clause is to be withdrawn, and also the medical clause. I hope this Bill will pass through. If we wait for a perfect Bill we will never have any Bill at all. We have in this Bill the foundation of a good and useful measure. I trust that the structure raised on that foundation will be one free from the difficulties of the present situation, and one which will hand down in increased measure the benefits of the limited liability system.
  *MR. HOLLAND: I should like, as a business man, to thank the President of the Board of Trade for what has now been, done with the view of redeeming some of the pledges which have existed many years that there should be some legislation in regard to company law. I can testify that at various meetings of chambers of commerce throughout the country there have been resolutions passed in this direction for many years past, but, unfortunately, little or no progress has been made. Of course the Bill which is now before us is in no sense an ambitious measure. It does not profess for a moment to deal with all the

  1169
  evils which have attended company promotion, but I think the fact of this not being an ambitious measure will be all the more likely to ensure its passing during the present session. I thoroughly endorse the position which the President of the Board of Trade has taken up in regard to the extreme undesirability of legislating so as to have the effect of deterring responsible men from undertaking directorships. I think the first object should be to get the best men to serve on the boards of limited companies, and then, having secured them, to see that they shall exercise reasonable care and diligence in the discharge of their duties. It is quite clear from the enormous increase in the number of joint stock companies during the last few years that they fulfil a public need, and not the least of these needs is that they enable an investor, without having himself a practical experience of business, to spread his capital over a great variety of businesses, and in that way to minimise the risk of losing his capital. I think it is a laudable object that the Board of Trade should make it hard for a joint stock company to begin business unless there should be an adequate supply of capital. Inadequacy of capital has been one of the most fruitful causes of disaster in joint stock companies. While all the material information should be given in the prospectus, it is of the utmost importance not to take away from the investor the sense of responsibility for examining for himself as to the details of the concern and forming his own opinion as to its prospects of success. I am glad there is a clause in the Bill providing for the publication of the commission paid to underwriters. I am aware that some chambers of commerce have suggested that such commission should be limited to 20 per cent. I must say that I do not myself concur in any such limitation. I think the amount of the commission may well be left entirely unlimited, provided only that the amount of that commission shall be set forth in the prospectus. I think Clause 13 will be somewhat impracticable of application in the case of very large concerns, for I see it prohibits a company from varying the terms of any contract it may have entered into without complying with very considerable formalities. This may operate harshly when it is desired to alter the remuneration of managers
  1170
  and others with whom agreements may have been made. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade does not favour the giving of priority to new creditors over debenture holders. I think it might have been to some extent justifiable to give that priority had there been no registration whatever of those debentures or mortgages; but in view of the stipulation that those securities shall be registered their position ought to be inviolable, and no new creditor should be allowed to take precedence over them. I think the seven days mentioned in the Bill is a period entirely inadequate, and I think the President of the Board of Trade has him-himself recognised this. It is stipulated that the mortgages shall be open to the inspection of the members and the creditors of a company. It might be well not to limit the inspection to the members and creditors, because there are many individuals who, though not creditors now, might contemplate becoming creditors, and if they were not to be allowed access to the documents until actually becoming creditors I think a real hardship would be inflicted upon them. I entirely concur with some observations made by previous speakers that there should be no discouragement of the gift of the necessary qualification in shares in certain instances to men to become directors. Having had considerable experience of manufacturing districts in the North, I can testify that very often the most desirable class of men to get on the boards are men who have had practical experience of their respective businesses—men who have the brains but not very much capital—and if the gift of qualifying shares to them is to be discouraged, I think a very undesirable step will be taken. I cordially agree with the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds that there is a very great abuse in the existence of founders' shares in certain companies. I am sorry that that evil is not touched on at all under this Bill, but I recognise that it is impossible to deal with all the abuses which exist without making the Bill exceedingly cumbrous, and to that extent diminishing its chances of passing into law, and therefore I cordially welcome the introduction of the measure, and shall do what I can to help it to pass into law.
  *MR. MARKS: I think the course of the

  1171
  debate has exhibited a singular and welcome unanimity in reference to the character of the measure, and an equal unanimity with reference to the necessity for some legislation to remove existing evils in connection with the administration of the Joint Stock Companies Act. It has been frankly said by the right hon. gentleman in charge of this Bill that this measure does not aim at removing all the evils which now exist. It will, therefore, possibly be sufficient for the House at this stage to address itself to the question of whether the remedies proposed so far as they go are of the character best calculated to accomplish the end the measure has in view. I cannot help thinking that rather undue importance is attached to the question of the qualification of company directors. I do not think that anyone acquainted with joint stock company enterprises will believe for a moment that any considerable part of the evils which arise from them is due to a lack of qualification—that is, pecuniary qualification—on the part of the directors therein concerned. It does not follow that because a director is a large shareholder he is therefore better qualified to direct the affairs of the company. Indeed, the much abused "guinea-pig" is sometimes a very competent director of company interests. He is not infrequently a retired Government official, possibly with colonial or military experience, who is content to supplement the meagre pension which the liberality of the nation bestows upon him by the few hundreds a year which he can derive from the administration of the affairs of a company. I am bound to say that in my experience he is not at ail infrequently a very competent person for that work. He may be called upon to attend board meetings two or three times a week, and the £300 or £400 a year which he derives from the two or three companies with which he is connected, while they do constitute a very substantial and welcome addition to his income, are, at the same time, fairly earned by him in his attendance at board meetings and in his general supervision of the business of the companies. To imagine that any real advantage would result to shareholders if the qualifications of these professional directors were set forth in the memorandum of association, or in the prospectus of a company, seems to me to be an idle dream. It may b;3 that a director will buy his own
  1172
  100 shares; it may be he will get a friend, to buy them for him. The man who can earn £250 a year by being a director of a company can always find some one willing; to put up the £100 necessary to buy the shares which constitute his qualification. Then comes the question of the prospectus. I would like to suggest to my right hon. friend that the provisions in respect of the prospectus are calculated to cut both ways. To a certain extent, it is true, a great advantage would accrue to the public from setting forth in the prospectus of every company the full particulars which by this Bill the prospectus should contain. But the provisions with reference to the prospectus are to apply only to a company which is about to make a public issue of shares. It is notorious that some of the very worst company scandals which have occurred in the City, at any rate in the past fifty years, have been in connection with companies which never issued prospectuses at all. That is true not only in reference to colonial companies, and South African companies, and foreign companies, but to British companies, while with regard to American companies no prospectus is ever issued in England. If these are important safeguards which are provided in this Bill, it seems to me that they will fall far short of accomplishing what is desired if they cannot be in some way extended to all companies whether they do or do not make a public appeal for subscriptions. It might be urged that this is impracticable. I suggest that it is not impracticable, and I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider for a moment whether the filing of a prospectus might not well be made a condition precedent to the registration of any limited liability company. What is the present situation with respect to a company which is brought out without a prospectus? In the first place, no one is responsible, no misrepresentations can be made, the whole of the shares are issued in. the first place to the vendor or his nominee, and those shares are got off through the Stock Exchange or some other agency. There is another evil in connection with this matter of the non-prospectus company. It seems to me that one of the chief requirements in connection with the Amendment of the Joint Stock Companies Act is this, that as soon as possible it should be rendered impossible, or at

  1173
  any rate as difficult as possible, for a bankrupt trader to avail himself of the Joint Stock Companies Act for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. That is, in my judgment, one of the commonest and one of the most crying of the present evils. What is the position under the Bill we have before us? A bankrupt trader forms himself into a joint stock company with the aid of certain clerks of the solicitor whom he employs. The shares are issued to him, and they are peddled out among the creditors to a certain extent, and to a certain extent they are peddled out, if it is a large enterprise, through reputable stockbrokers; if it is a small enterprise, then through the disreputable circularising stockbroker. In any case, he gets rid of the shares in some. way or other. Under this Bill he is under no obligation whatever to disclose any fact with respect to his business, and nothing is commoner than for a small tradesman who knows he is on the eve of bankruptcy to turn himself into a joint stock company and to get out of his liability. It is as common as having a fire, and is more effective. I would earnestly urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, if, as it is clear, the authors of this Bill believe the prospectus is the vital part of the joint stock company scheme, that a prospectus should be insisted upon whether a company makes a public issue of its shares or whether it does not. Then there is the statutory meeting. In respect of this I think some careful consideration should be given, even in the early stages of the Bill. Up to recent times the statutory meeting has been—I will not say a convivial gathering, but at any rate quite an informal gathering, at which the chairman usually explained to the shareholders that they were called together, not that he has anything to say or that there is anything for them to do, but because the eccentricities of Parliament require it, to comply with certain formalities. It is proposed under this Bill to make the statutory meeting a very important meeting. It is proposed, indeed, as it seems to me, to make of it an occasion for a thorough investigation of the company in its very earliest stages. I think that is a very desirable thing, but we must sec to it that the provision of the Bill does not defeat its own purpose. I can discover nothing in the Bill to prevent a company from holding its statutory meeting before the
  1174
  issue of its shares. If I am right in my reading of the measure, that would defeat the obvious purpose you have in view. First you form your company; then you get your directors; then you hold your statutory meeting; then, having complied with the statutory requirements, but not until then, you issue your shares. You have then got a long run before you, during which you are under no obligation to call the shareholders together or give any account of the progress of their enterprise. Then there is the question of commissions for underwriting. At the present time I think I am right in saying there is no limit to the amount of underwriting commission that may be paid for the placing of shares under any circumstances. But Clause 10 of the Bill before us only provides that it shall be lawful for a company to pay a commission upon any offer of shares, for public subscription, and that, if I read the Bill correctly, would exclude the payment of commission under any conditions other than those of public subscriptions. In the event of a private placing of shares or debentures no broker would be entitled to receive any commission, and no company would be entitled to pay any commission. So that it seems to me that, while apparently and ostensibly legalising the present practice, the Bill would really be limiting an existing right. In regard to the payment of preliminary expenses I cannot help thinking that the Bill weakens rather than strengthens, the present law. It is provided that no company may proceed to allotment excepting under certain conditions, and may not proceed with any business until certain formalities have been complied with. I am referring now to Clause 8. But under Sub-section 3 it is provided that nothing in this section should prevent any company paying or contracting to pay any preliminary expenses. In other words, there is no limit to the amount of preliminary expenses the promoters may defray. They may fail to get the amount of money which they have set forth in their memorandum of association as the minimum upon which they will proceed to allotment, and having failed to obtain that minimum they may not proceed to allotment, and, being unable to proceed to allotment, they may not go on with any business, and they must keep the money they have received intact except in so far as they may pay that money away for the pur-

  1175
  poses of what are called "preliminary expenses." That is a very vague term; and assuming, as we must assume, that this most welcome Bill is aimed at the dishonest company promoter, it does seem to me to open the door to him to do things without incurring any penalty, which at present he is unable to do. If some limit were put upon this matter there would be some protection afforded to the public; but, as it stands, assuming a dishonest promoter with a dishonest scheme, assuming the public refuse to rise to his bait, the dishonest promoter is still at liberty to use all the money he happens to receive for the purpose of what he may call his "preliminary expenses." There are one or two other points to which at a later stage of the Bill I shall venture to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. At present I would confine myself to this observation. In so far as the Bill fails to touch the case of the non-prospectus company it fails in its purpose. In so far as it deals with the question of commission it cuts down an existing right and substitutes no equal right in its place. In respect of the registration of mortgages even, if I am correctly informed, it affords no additional facilities to those which already exist. In conclusion let me refer to one other point—namely, the right of a shareholder who has applied for shares to claim the cancellation of his allotment in the event of any irregularity. He is limited under this Bill to one month, and it is stated specifically that he may not apply for a rectification of the register later than one month. I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that that limits an existing right. If these points should be dealt with at some future stage of the Bill I cannot doubt that the measure will accomplish a great deal of good; but the chief object to be achieved, namely, the protection of the public—not only the share-investing and the share-speculating public, but the legitimate trading public—from the present evils which arise from the flotation as companies of the businesses of bankrupt tradesmen cannot be effectively dealt with unless at some stage of this Bill we can provide a means to prevent an insolvent trader from turning his business into a company for the purpose of foisting the shares upon the public, either for cash or its equivalent, without as a condition precedent to obtaining registration he
  1176
  shall have filed at Somerset House something which, for purposes of any possible litigation, will serve the object of a prospectus at all stages.
  *MR. BUTCHER: I welcome this Bill as a very businesslike and practical method of dealing with a subject of vast importance not merely to the commercial classes, but to that enormous mass of people who may be described as the investing public. I welcome it all the more because it is not of too ambitious a character. We must remember that by far the great majority of companies and of company directors are honest, and we must beware lest in endeavouring to suppress dishonesty we render it impossible for any gentleman of position and honour to engage in the directorate of a joint stock company. The main principle upon which this Bill is founded is that of giving full information to the persons chiefly interested—the shareholders and the creditors or the intending shareholders and the intending creditors. If that information is given it is for them to say whether they will deal with or invest in the company, and, provided they get ample information, it is their own fault if they either invest in or deal with a company which turns out unsatisfactorily. That, to my mind, is a great merit of the Bill. Another merit of the measure is that it strangles dishonest companies in their inception. The great majority of dishonest companies get money from the public and go into speedy liquidation. This Bill, if it is effective, will prevent those companies coming into existence. At an early stage the company will be stopped, and the promoters and other persons who are intending to profit by it will be deprived of their booty. There are only two points in the Bill to which I desire to call attention, but they are points which I venture to think are of very great importance. One is the question of the prospectus. The Bill provides, and properly provides, that a considerable number of matters affecting the company, and which naturally affect the mind of intending shareholders, should be specified in the prospectus. But what I do not find in the Bill, which I think it would be advantageous to have there, is some more specific remedy in case of non-compliance with the provisions of Clause 12. I do not see what is to happen if this clause, which

  1177
  states what, is to be included in the prospectus, is not complied with. It may be said, and possibly truly, that Clause 30 would in some cases make it a misdemeanour on the part of promoters issuing a prospectus which does not comply with the requirements, and would subject them to punishment accordingly. That may be, but what I want to know is what civil remedy has the shareholder who invests money on the faith of such a prospectus? It may be said he would have an action for damages, but what I think he should be entitled to is some means of getting rid of his shares. The Bill says the prospectus ought to contain certain things. It seems to me that a man who has applied for shares on the faith of a prospectus ought to be entitled to got his money back if it turns out that the prospectus is not in accordance with law. That is a matter in which the Bill could be amended in Committee if necessary. There is another clause which to my mind is of enormous importance—namely, the clause relating to the registration of mortgages. My hon. friend says that that does not strengthen the existing law. I rather think he is in error there, because although the existing law provides for the registration of mortgages properly so called, it does not provide for the registration of debentures. This is a very important fact. Let me give the House one specific case which I am afraid is of very frequent occurrence, where the non-registration of debentures causes great loss to shareholders and creditors. A man owns a failing business, and sells it to a company which is formed for the purpose of buying it. The purchase money is taken chiefly in debentures. The company, after a short and inglorious existence, goes into liquidation. In the meanwhile the public have subscribed money for taking up shares in this company, and trade creditors have supplied goods to the company without receiving payment. When the company goes into liquidation in comes the vendor, and these debentures swallow, up every fraction of the assets of the company, and the trade creditors and the shareholders lose their money. The Bill provides for the registration of all debentures, and if, when a creditor sees a very large number of debentures registered, he chooses to trade with the company, all I can say is that it
  1178
  is his own fault if he suffers. On the general aspect of the Bill I should like to refer to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for St. George's and the hon. Member for Rotherham. They appeared to think there was no harm in the practice of giving qualifying shares. I hold the strongest opinion that that is a most dangerous method by which to qualify directors. Where does this qualification come from? In nine cases out of ten it comes from the promoter, and the gentleman who gets the shares, consciously or unconsciously, in nine cases out of ten, becomes the tool and carries out the objects of the promoter. I am extremely glad that the Bill proposes that any person who undertakes the responsible duties of a director of a joint stock company, in which he is bound not only by law but by honour and duty to do the best he can for the interests of the shareholders, shall not be qualified by the promoter, or by some other persons whose interests may be directly antagonistic to those of the shareholders. On the whole I am glad to support this Bill, because I think as it stands it will provide, as far as possible, a remedy against many of the abuses which now exist and it will not act as a deterrent to responsible persons acting as directors of companies.
  MR. BAYLEY: I think there must be a feeling on both sides of the House, and especially on, the part of gentlemen who have had long experience of the ordinary commercial routine of business life, that the right hon. Gentleman, by pressure behind him, has withdrawn one of the most important clauses of the Bill. There must be a feeling of great regret amongst those who represent the commercial classes of the country that the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the clause dealing with debentures. I did hope that we should have a clause dealing with fraudulent cases only, where the issue of debentures has been a fraud upon the ordinary trade creditors. All who have had any commercial experience know how very easy it is to turn a concern into a limited, company worth £10,000 when it is going steadily down hill. It is all done as a sort of family affair. You give debentures for the £10,000, which is the real value of it, and you go into the market for the rest. Practically you go into the open market and you buy goods to the extent of

  1179
  £10,000. The ordinary shareholders never get anything, the debenture holders foreclose, and then there is nothing for the ordinary creditors. In small businesses this is done to a very considerable extent, and the Judges have pointed this out repeatedly. Surely the ingenuity of the Government or the Members of this House could devise a provision to meet the particular case of fraudulent debenture holders. I hope that in Committee a clause will be produced dealing with this particular class of fraud in getting money from the ordinary trade creditors. I do hope the Government will reconsider this question. There are other serious questions in regard to which this Bill ought to go a little further. There is too much fraud in other companies which the Government will have to face eventually, but whilst this Bill deals in only a limited way with a great subject, I believe the House will support the Government in passing to a successful issue a Bill which is honestly attempting to deal with a great question.
  MR. BANBUEY: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in regretting that the Government have withdrawn the clause dealing with debentures. On the contrary, I think that clause was a great blot on the Bill, and I am extremely glad that they have undertaken to withdraw it. As far as I understand, it is not possible to pass a law in this or any other Parliament which will prevent every species of fraud. Frauds will occur and people will invest their money foolishly, whatever we do to safeguard their interests. The hon. Gentleman argues that a company is made by the debenture holders to enter into bargains to make profits for themselves, and that the shareholders get nothing. I would point out that as far as my experience goes it is the shareholder who enters into contracts with the traders, and if people are foolish enough to give them credit without first ascertaining that they are in a position to." justify that credit, then they must take the risk. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member say that he viewed with regret the clause; as to the qualification of directors. I should say that clause was about the best in the Bill. The idea that a director should receive his qualification from somebody else has been the cause of the many failures of companies that have
  1180
  occurred during the last few years. It is quite true that you may possibly have some official of the company who thoroughly understands the business and yet has no capital, but that man should not be made a director, but an officer of the company. A director should certainly have a direct interest in the company, and the class of people anxious to add £150 or £200 to their income as a sort of supplementary income are the worst class of directors you can possibly have. You want business men with business qualifications to take the position of director, and they should have a large interest of their own in the particular company of which they are directors. A man who has had no business experience at all is the very worst class of director you can get. I am very glad indeed that the Government have introduced this clause into the Bill.
  MR. RITCHIE: I beg to move that this Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade. I regret that I find myself out of accord in regard to this motion with several hon. Members of the House whose opinions are entitled to the greatest respect. But the question is, does the House honestly desire that this measure should be passed into law during the present session? If it does, then I think the most effectual way of doing that is to refer the Bill in the ordinary way to the Standing Committee. If a Bill of this kind is not one of those which can properly be referred to the Standing Committee, then I might complain that that institution does not fully carry out and fulfil the objects for which it was set up. Anyone who has been present, and who has gone through a complicated Bill on the Standing Committee, must know that the discussions on those Committees are of a much more business character than they are in nine cases out of ten when discussed by a Committee of the whole House. I know it is said that the meetings of the Committee are held at a time when many hon. Members cannot conveniently attend; but I wish to point out that there is a full opportunity when the Bill comes back before the House on the Report stage to discuss any particular matter which any

  1181
  hon. Member desires to discuss. I hope the House will support the Government in their anxious desire to pass this measure into law, and will agree to the reference to the Standing Committee on Trade.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc."— (Mr. Ritchie.)
  MR. LAWSOX WALTOX: It is obvious that the reference which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed will limit very largely the area of suggestion in regard to this measure. One or two hon. Members who have spoken asked that the whole House in Committee should be allowed to consider this scheme. They pointed out the personal inconvenience in regard to attendance during the time which the Standing Committee conducts its business. It is obvious that this course will limit very largely the number of Members who will take part in the further consideration of this measure. It is also obvious that it will shut out a number of hon. Members who are personally familiar with the administration of the existing law, and who could give great assistance to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to carry a measure that will be of permanent utility to the future administration of this important legislation. I cannot conceive that this House has not time between this and the month of August to dispose of this measure. We certainly should not occupy a very long period in discussing the details of the Bill in this House, and the experience of a larger number of Members would not be unfruitful of suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman would be likely to consider. I fail to see any reason whatever for sending this measure upstairs to a Committee of which many of us are not members, and where many of us will not be able to attend, especially in regard to a measure in which so many Members of this House are so deeply interested.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the constitution of the Standing Committee upon Trade is somewhat peculiar. If he casts his eye over the names he will come across many hon. Members who will admit that they are in no way well quali-
  1182
  fied to deal with this subject. Moreover, it is a question in which the outside public take a great interest. When the matter is disposed of upon the floor of this House we have the assistance of the comments in public journals, which is not always available in regard to proceedings upstairs. The session is not yet near its conclusion, and I think it would be possible to deal with this question before a Committee of the whole House.
  *SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will allow this Bill to go before a Committee of the whole House. This Bill affects Ireland, and no part of the country has been more victimised by bogus companies than Ireland. There are very few Members from Ireland on the Committee on Trade, and very little opportunity is afforded to point out the defects which there are in this measure if you send it to a Select Committee. Besides this, the experience of those hon. Members who have had to deal with the company law in a professional way is most material and of great advantage, and the Committee suggested includes hardly any lawyers. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles at that remark, but we know that it is his idiosyncrasy to think that the world would get on better if there was no law and no lawyers. We in Ireland, however, have always been particularly respectful to the law, but this is really a serious matter', and a change is being made which vitally concerns that part of the United Kingdom, and we have not had an ample opportunity of discussing this Bill on the Second Reading. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] Because we were anxious to facilitate the progress of the measure. The question is why should we not discuss so serious a Bill as this in a Committee of the whole House, where every section of the kingdom will be represented. The course suggested seems to be utterly unreasonable. We all know that a great deal of the mischief which this Bill is intended to obviate arose from the defects in the earlier Bills of 1862 and 1867, and if those Bills had been closely watched and adequately discussed, probably the opportunity would never have arisen that has taken place of fleecing the public, especially of Ireland, through the medium of bogus companies.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I will not argue the wider and almost irrelevant question of the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, but I will come to the narrower issue which is immediately before the House. I submit that one or two of the arguments which have been adduced in favour of sending this Bill to a Committee of the whole House ought not to have very much weight. One of them is that introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to the effect that there is not a sufficient number of lawyers upon the Standing Committee on Trade. So far as that is concerned, it is a misfortune which can be remedied quite sufficiently to meet the general view of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Another argument to which I do not attach great weight is that used by my hon. friend, who says that the Grand Committee on Trade would not from day to day have the advantage of the commentary of the daily press. I do not know that that is an argument which ought to have very much weight in influencing the decision which we have to come to to-night. The real argument against sending this measure to the Grand Committee on Trade is that certain hon. Gentlemen in this House who, by their professional knowledge, are most qualified to deal with the technical details raised by this Bill, are prevented by their daily vocations from attending the sitting of the Grand Committee without putting themselves to considerable inconvenience. I think that is an argument of considerable weight. But if I may judge by the reception which this Bill has received upon the present occasion, there is no probability that the discussions in the Grand Committee will be of a protracted character. I should imagine that one or two days at the outside would be quite sufficient to deal with this Bill. [Cries of "No."] That, at any rate, is the opinion of those who are best qualified to advise me in the matter.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: It would take two nights in the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUK: Then that is a sufficient reason for taking the course we have suggested, but I will leave that point and return to the main current of
  1184
  my observations. Let it be remembered that the Grand Committees were created for the very purpose of dealing with Bills of this kind. It is a Bill which has no party flavour about it, which raises no popular passions, no great political isues, but which does deal with important details in commerce or in trade; and it is exactly that type of Bill for which the Grand Committee system was instituted. I think it would be a very serious commentary upon that institution, and a very serious blot upon its utility, if the House were now to refuse to send this Bill to the Grand Committee because some hon. Gentlemen think it would be difficult for them to serve. My hon. friend who has just sat down pointed out that by the constitution of the Standing Committee on Trade many hon. Members would be excluded who are specially qualified to add weight and lustre to that Committee. I would point out, however, that the constitution of that Committee is elastic, and there is a possibility of adding fifteen members to the Committee, and I am sure that number would include all the specially qualified Members of this House who do not at present serve on that Committee. Therefore, I think that argument falls to the ground. Those who are better qualified than I am to judge inform me that in every Bill of this kind there is a special advantage in being able to be in touch with the Minister in charge of the Bill, and to have the draughtsman close at hand to be able to draw up. Amendments which the discussion on the Bill seem to render necessary. That is not the case in our discussions in the House, so that there are real advantages in the machinery of the Grand Committee which this House fails to provide. These are the reasons which induce the Government, with considerable reluctance, and on grounds which I think will commend themselves to the House at large, to maintain the view which we have expressed— that this Bill, by its character, by its reception, and by the nature of the discussion which is likely to arise, is exactly the kind of Bill which ought to be sent to the Grand Committee. I hope that my hon. friends will, in the first place, be able to help us upon that Grand Committee, and will in addition, when the Bill comes down to the House on the Report stage, urge before a larger audience any views which may not have re-

  1185
  ceived full development on the Committee upstairs. I hope the House will adhere to the motion made by my fight hon. friend.
  Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 163.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

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

  Asher, Alexander

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finch, George H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. Wellesley

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Godson, Sir Augustus E.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curzon

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bethell, Commander

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Purvis, Robert

  Bill, Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Brassey, Albert

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hammond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Burns, John.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Butcher, John George

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Helder, Augustus

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Holland, William Henry

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Glare, Octavius Leigh

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon, James

  Steadman, William Charles

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Langley, Batty

  Stock, James Henry

  Colville, John

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Lucas-Shad well, William

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Curzon, Viscount

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  William's, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Maclure, Sir John William

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

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Killop, James

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wylie, Alexander

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wyndham, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Doughty, George

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morrell, George Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Faber, George Denison

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

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fardell, Sir T. (George)

  Murnaghan, George

  NOES.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harrington, Timothy

  Runciman, Walter

  Billson, Alfred

  Hazell, Walter

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

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

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  M'Crae, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dewar, Arthur

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Maddison, Fred.

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

  Duckworth, James

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbr'gh)

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Moss, Samuel

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flower, Ernest

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs S. W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gibney, James

  Price, Robert John

  Mr. Lawson Walton and Mr. H. C. Richards.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  MONEY-LENDING BILL [Lords].
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [21st June] proposed to Question [21st Juno], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  And which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Birrell.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  *MR. MARKSsaid there seemed to be a general consensus of opinion that the evils which had been disclosed by the practice of a certain class of moneylenders required to be dealt with by the legislature, and there could be no doubt that the recent exposures of money-lending vampires should be dealt with without delay. But, at the same time, the House did not desire that the treatment of the evils should be characterised by any injustice to any class, and it was a matter for careful consideration as to what extent they would be justified in making the Bill then before the House retroactive. Under the Bill, if it became law, it would not be only a matter of pro-venting evil in the future but of undoing contracts already effected. The Bill proposed to prevent the extortions and in many cases the swindles which had been perpetrated by men of the Isaac Gordon stamp under a variety of aliases, by requiring all money-lenders to register themselves as such in their own names. But for all practical purposes such an enactment, without further safeguards than the Bill provided, would not be worth the paper it was written upon. It was nothing more than playing to the gallery. Any money-lender who desired to carry on business had only to go to a highly respectable solicitor and incorporate himself into a company and the solicitor would be quite prepared to lend seven clerks as signatories to the articles of association, and these money-lenders under some alias or other in the form of a company could carry on business as before. It might be said that we could get behind the company, but that could not be done, because the shares could be issued to bearer, and Isaac Gordon, Limited, could carry on exactly the same as before the com-
  1188
  pany was formed. A money-lender could form as many companies as he pleased, and the business could still be conducted under the alias of one or a dozen companies. Men of the Isaac Gordon type would be able to conceal themselves behind the Companies Act, and they would go a step further as a company than they did as private individuals. They would explain to their clients that under this Bill they could only lend at fifteen per cent., but they would further explain that they were only in a position to lend money to their own shareholders, and if the client was not a shareholder he would be told he would have to take forty-five £1 shares for every £100 advanced before any business could be entered into. The price of those shares added to the fifteen per cent. would bring it up to the traditional 60 percent. What was a money-lender? Who was the-money-lender who was to register himself? The definition given in the Bill was, "Every person whose business was to lend money or who advertised, or otherwise held himself out as carrying on that business." Solicitors held themselves out as carrying on that business. Were they to be included in the operation of the Bill They were not exempted in definite terms; and if it was intended that they should be exempted, what became of the other classes—the capitalist who lent money on the Stock Exchange, who did not limit his interest to 15 per cent. or 30 per cent? If 15 per cent. was the limit imposed by the State great difficulty would be experienced in carrying over some mining accounts. These were points which ought to be considered, because, although the Bill was aimed at the 60 per cent. sharpers of the West End, it was not aimed at the highly respectable 30 per cent. capitalist in the City. It appeared to him that the only way in which a man could discover, if this Bill came into operation, whether he was a money-lender or not would be to get himself prosecuted, and then if he were convicted he would know he was a money-lender, but if he were discharged he would know he was not. He could not regard the Bill as a serious, remedy for the great evil which undoubtedly did exist.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House had shown, the ingenious de-

  1189
  vices by which money-lenders would be able to keep outside the limits of this measure when it became law. He admired the ingenuity of the hon. Member, but he doubted the efficacy of his methods. Even if the hon. Gentleman were right there was no reason why the House should not pass a measure dealing with a great many of the evils complained of. He desired to remove one or two misconceptions with regard to the Bill. One misconception was that the Bill implied that all moneylenders were scoundrels and swindlers. Nothing in the Bill justified any such suggestion. Many money-lending transactions were most advantageous to the borrowers themselves. Many persons require a loan for a short time, and it was extremely advantageous for them to be able to get it even at a high rate of interest. There were many money-lenders in the country who carried on their business in a legitimate manner, as advantageous to the borrower as to themselves. At the same time considerable abuses had grown up which would have to be done away with. Another misconception was that this Bill aimed at the revival of the usury laws. If that were so he should oppose it. He believed any attempt to revive the usury laws would be both useless and wrong. A high rate of interest was by no means an indication of fraud. It often happened that a man could advantageously borrow for a short time at a rate of interest which would amount to a very high rate per annum. As to two-thirds of the Bill, there was practical agreement. The chief controversy had arisen as to Clause I. Clause I. of the Bill was a clause whichought to be supported, because it embodied the principle that where a money-lender was proved to have made a harsh and unconscionable bargain with a borrower the transaction might be reopened by the Court and adjusted. This was a principle which had for generations been acted upon in our Courts of Equity. The objection that this was an interference with freedom of contract was unsound, because there could be no freedom of contract where there was weakness on the one side, and advantage taken of that weakness on the other. Such a condition of things made it impossible that there could be any freedom of contract in the transaction. But if the clause was to be passed into law it would require amending in certain particulars. First it provided that where the Court
  1190
  "had reason to believe" that a certain state of things had arisen it might interfere. That must be altered so as to read "where the Court is satisfied on the evidence." A second point was this. The Bill provided that the Court had to be satisfied that the rate of interest charged by the money-lender exceeded the sum mentioned in the schedule. The amount of interest charged was not a criterion of the bona fides or the mala fides of the transaction, and he suggested that all mention of the rate of interest should be left out, and that it should be left to the Court to decide, upon all the circumstances of the case, whether or not a bargain was a harsh and unconscionable one. There was a third point. The great majority of these cases would come before the County Court. As the law stood, there was no appeal from the County Court on questions of fact; and, therefore, when the County Court had decided that a bargain was harsh and unconscionable, which was a question of fact, and had reopened the transaction, there could be no appeal. He thought it was important when giving County Courts this extended jurisdiction that we should subject them to a right of appeal. Such an amendment would have a double effect. It would make the County Court more careful, and probably would not greatly increase the cost, because the unconscionable money-lender would be very loth to advertise himself in a second Court. He supported the Bill because it would remedy admitted abuses, while it would not inflict any injustice upon a class in which there were many deserving and honourable members.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONcongratulated the hon. Gentleman upon the access of an enthusiastic supporter of this somewhat extraordinary measure. The only other cordial speech in its favour was that delivered by the hon. the Secretary to the Local Government Board, and his parental relation to the Bill somewhat biassed his opinion in regard to the matter. The hon. and learned Member for York had no doubt enthusiastically defended the one clause of this measure which he should have thought would have elicited the condemnation of every legal Member of the House. His hon. friend was in favour of conferring upon a judicial tribunal the right of setting aside a bargain, not in accordance with the

  1191
  application of any defined legal principles, but in accordance with the view the members of that tribunal might take of certain abstract principles of humanity and philanthropy. They were to unmake a bargain, not because it was opposed to statute; they were not to determine that it involved a restraint of trade, or was against any defined principles; they were to have the assistance of no principle either from the common law or from statute, but they were to appeal to the realm of ethics or moral philosophy, and from the inner consciousness they were supposed, somewhat rashly, to possess, they were to come to the conclusion that the bargain was what the Bill described as "harsh and unconscionable." And if they arrived at that conclusion, without any control or appeal, the assent of the parties was to be set aside, and an entirely new contract was to be made by the Court. With all respect to his hon. friend, such a principle was absolutely foreign, he had almost said, to the jurisprudence of any civilised country; at any rate it was utterly unknown to our own. What reason had we to imagine that our judges were educated in any system which would entitle them to exercise this new jurisprudence with advantage to the community? Judges were sometimes lawyers; but what right had we to suppose that they were philanthropists? What reason had we to imagine that they had been educated in any system of humanity or ethics? How were we to infer that the average county court judge might take an enlightened view of what was harsh in the commercial relations between a lender and a borrower of money? And what assistance did we give him in arriving at the conclusion that the relation he was asked to adjudicate upon was unconscionable in its character? His hon. and learned friend the Attorney General had said that the opposition to this measure was founded upon a most complete misconception as to its real meaning. He would like the Attorney General to tell the House what meaning he attached to the word "harsh," and what was his abstract definition of the word "unconscionable"? Suppose that two men of adult age and average familiarity with affairs enter, on equal terms, and without any intention of fraud, into a contract, it might be to pay 60 per cent. for a loan of money for a short
  1192
  period, how were we to decide that it was "harsh"? Were we to appeal to the inner consciousness of the County Court Judge? If that Judge thought that 50 per cent. would have been enough, was he to set aside the transaction? What did the word "unconscionable" mean? Did it mean fraudulent? If so, the existing law-was sufficient, because if a bargain were fraudulent it might be set aside as well as if the word "unconscionable" had been used. Did it mean harsh? If so, the word "harsh" was enough. So that we get a piece of rhetorical legislation by which a County Court Judge, on no defined principle or regulation to guide him, and subject to no review, was to sot aside a bargain because in his opinion the borrower might have secured more favourable terms. In the very able and ingenious speech made by the hon. and learned Member for York, we were told that the application of principles of this kind was not unknown in the existing law, and that a Judge set aside a contract if it was in restraint of trade. But in such a case there were well-defined principles of law given to the Judge for application to the case. What was the real blemish in this measure, assuming that there was some case for a change in the law? The measure dealt solely with the harshness attending the initial transaction. It left out of sight altogether the harshness attending the enforcement of the bargain. The cases which appealed to the signatories of the Report of the Select Committee were nearly all cases in which the lender ruthlessly sought to impose his bargain at a time when the borrower was entirely at his mercy. The lender who has lent his money on terms might be guilty of great barbarity. The bargain of Antonio and Shylock was a bargain which Antonio applauded. The infamy was the enforcement of the contract. And so we might get a transaction on terms which were not unfair; but if the lender sought to enforce it at a time when the borrower was unable to pay, that difficulty could be dealt with by the existing law. This measure would introduce untold confusion into the administration of the law in this country. It was said that we would drive money-lending beyond the four seas, that we would force it underground and into subterfuges, and compel the moneylender to take refuge in subterranean channels. He was told that

  1193
  an entirely new department had been created in the jewellery trade—a man bought diamonds at 150 per cent. more than they were worth, and then borrowed money upon them, and left the diamonds in the hands of the lender as security for a loan. Another illustration was the incorporation of a company with the provision that the borrower should become a shareholder of the company. It was impossible, while there were men who wished to borrow money and had no credit, and men who wished to lend money, and were prepared to take the risk of its never being repaid, to prevent transactions of that kind. Then they would have in every County Court district a different standard as to what was harsh and unconscionable. One County Court Judge had announced that he would never enforce a bargain for a loan of money in which more than 5 per cent. was charged, no matter what the security might be. Another County Court Judge had decided that the borrower should have a fortnight's grace before being called upon to pay the money. Thus there would be districts in which the money-lender would flourish, and others in which he would be strangled out of existence. All this confusion would take place because there was not in the Bill any defined legal principle which could be applied to all these transactions. There was no specific test which could either be proved or disproved, but only the inner consciousness of a class of men who had no special experience in appeals to the principles of economics and humanity, to which the law did not apply. Having regard to that view, he appealed to the House not to give way to the sentiment which had produced this Bill. It had been produced with good intentions, but it would not yield the wished for results. An hon. Member had pointed out that there was an enormous discrepancy in the opinion of Judges as to the punishment of crime. Did we wish to extend that element of uncertainty into other branches of the law? If there was anything more deplorable than another in the administration of the law, it was the inequality of the sentences for offences against the person and larceny. The Home Office and the Judges themselves had very considerable perplexity in connection with the infliction of punishment attending the commission of crime, although there was a great body of tradition and a large body of opinion among
  1194
  the members of the judicial staff to assist them. But what would be the uncertainty if fifty-six tribunals in the country had cast upon them the duty, without any guide, to determine what they considered harsh and unconscionable He quite agreed that the law required altering, and he would gladly have supported a moderate measure upon the lines the Attorney General seemed to have in his mind when he rose to support the Second Reading of the Bill. He said a good deal about the first clause; that we should register the money-lender, should regulate the carrying on of his trade, and prohibit issue of circulars to young men under age and improvident. All that was admirable, and if the Government had been content to introduce a measure of that class, and content with re-defining the common law of fraud, he would have supported it. Let them re-define the common law in all classes of fraud, and enact that, unless a money-lender could satisfy the Court that the borrower was a person of average intelligence with a fair knowledge of business, and thoroughly understood the interest he was to pay, and the conditions of his bargain, then the Court could set aside the bargain. He would go further and say, let the Government enlarge the common law of duress or provide a redefinition of duress, so that if it appeared that the moneylender was taking advantage of an apprehension of exposure and scandal on the borrower -in making the bargain, then the bargain should be set aside. He would support such a measure, because there we should have a legal principle which would allow the Judge to determine its application to a particular case. But if we were to call upon the judicial body in the administration of jurisprudence to be guided by no principle except their own humanity and sympathies, then we would introduce into purely commercial transactions an element which would lead to confusion and be of no advantage to the community.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think it convenient to intervene at this stage, because I rather hope that after the time which has been devoted to the Bill the House may now come to a decision. I shall be very brief; and the first question I should like to ask the House is, what we are, on both sides of

  1195
  the House, agreed upon. I believe we are all agreed that the mere magnitude of interest charged on a sum of money is no reason for interfering with a bargain come to between lender and borrower. We are all agreed that an interest which, on the face of it, may seem extravagant, excessive, and, in the words of the Bill, almost harsh and unconscionable, may, if you look into the facts, prove an interest which does no more than secure the lender against the very probable failure of the borrower to repay the money. In other words, we are all agreed that we ought not, under a disguise, to attempt to revive the old and discredited usury laws. The second point on which we are all agreed is that there are some harsh, unconscionable, and tyrannical bargains to which it is absurd to apply the term freedom of contract at all—bargains which no moralist would support, which everyone would like to see broken, if they could be broken without the destruction of some very important principles. Where we differ is as to whether the particular machinery which the Bill provides for dealing with harsh and unconscionable bargains is of a kind which interferes illegitimately with freedom of contract between adult human beings, and whether the task we impose upon County Court Judges and other judicial authorities is a task which ought to be imposed on them and which they are competent to perform. On that point authorities differ in opinion. But let it not be supposed that there is agreement between the opponents of the Bill. The Bill has been opposed by hon. and learned Gentlemen on the other side of the House in very important speeches, not only for different reasons, but for reasons absolutely inconsistent with each other. There was the hon. and learned Member for West Fife, who interested and amused the House the other night for a considerable period, and was the first to lead the opposition to this Bill; and there was the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds. Well, these two learned Gentlemen are agreed upon nothing except in their opposition to the Bill. They absolutely and fundamentally differ otherwise. The hon. and learned Member for West Fife says that this equitable power to deal with harsh and unconscionable bargains is a power which from time immemorial has been inherent in our courts of law; that the principle of law which Clause 1 em-
  1196
  bodies is a principle of English law, and is not the creation of the revolutionary mind of my hon. friend the Under Secretary of the Local Government Board; on the contrary, it is a principle which all the greatest authorities on English law have for many generations extolled as one of the glories of our equity system. But the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down brushes aside with one wave of his hand the whole equity system of the country. He says: Are you going to ask Judges untrained in moral philosophy and in the humanities to seek in their inner consciousness for principles to apply to questions of fact, to questions of law, between man and man? The hon. and learned Member for West Fife declares that Her Majesty's Judges are sufficiently trained in the humanities and in moral philosophy to be able to extract from their inner consciousness the very principles by which problems of this kind are to be decided. The hon. Member for South Leeds is not content with demolishing courts of equity and abolishing courts of criminal jurisprudence, but he tells us that we are already under the tyranny of moral philosophy and the humanities. He has explained to the House that you cannot avoid dealing with these problems; that every Judge who tries a criminal has to draw from his inner consciousness some moral estimate of the guilt of that criminal, and to apportion the sentence according to the estimate. Surely that is not a more difficult problem than is cast upon the Judges of the land by this Bill.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: I say, do not extend it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUK: The hon. and learned Gentleman says the principle exists, but do not extend it; surely that implies that he dislikes the principle. I can say that by the confession of the lawyers in the House this kind of responsibility is, by the nature of the case, a responsibility which is forced on all the Judges, and has been deliberately undertaken by all our great Judges in equity. That being so, it seems to me that the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman falls self-destroyed to the ground. Is it not as well to make the question clear on the face of our Statute-book that this kind of equitable jurisdiction which has been exercised by practical judges is

  1197
  really part of our law? I have been told, I and I have no doubt the story is true, that there have been County Court Judges so impressed by the iniquity of bargains otherwise strictly accurate and correct brought before them that they have given some such decision as this—that the debtor is indeed liable for the full amount claimed by the creditor, but that he need not pay that full amount except at a rate of a penny a week, or some trifling sum which will finally extinguish the debt at the Day of Judgment. That is the argument which was so powerfully put before the House by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Leamington. Is it a good thing that that kind of technicality should be forced on a Judge who feels that he is bound by his office to do equity? There is a famous instance of the way in which usurers may be used by technical courts, which the dramatic genius of Shakespeare has rendered immortal. For my own part, I have always thought that the expedient by which Portia demolished Shy lock was one of the most abominable pieces of technical special pleading that ever was contrived. Yes; but it was forced upon the Court because they had not got this Bill. If the principle of my hon. friend's Bill had then been in existence we should, no doubt, have been deprived of a dramatic masterpiece; but, on the other hand, Shylock would, I think, have been treated in a manner far more consistent with the dignity of a court of law than he appears to have been on the occasion to which I have referred. [Laughter.] The House laughs, but really these considerations are worthy of being held in mind. My hon. friend's Bill has been admitted by its opponents not to be revolutionary in its dealings with the law of this country. I have stated that in the view of the Government we have no desire to revive the usury laws in any disguise whatever. What we do desire is to prevent gross acts of tyranny against a small and very helpless class. We do not think we are injuring the legitimate money-lender, who performs a most useful and important function in the general social organism. The only thing we interfere with is the extravagant exercise of his power, which, in every age and in every country, has brought his profession into disrepute, and which, in some countries, has even threatened the public and social order of the community in
  1198
  which he lived. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in recommending the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. Any Amendments which do not touch the principle of the Bill may easily and with advantage be introduced in the Bill in Committee.
  MR. BECKETT: I am sorry not to find in the speeches of the Leader of the House and a number of other members of the Government any consciousness of the fact that they are dealing with interests of vast magnitude to the small traders of the country. If the Government inform the House before the Second Reading is taken that they intend in Committee to withdraw the schedule, it will greatly facilitate the passing of the Bill.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL, GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)was understood to say that it was the intention of the Government to withdraw the schedule in. Committee.
  MR. BECKETT: That will remove many objections to the Bill. I feel sure if the Bill had been drawn up on the reasonable lines laid down by the hon. Member for York it would have been generally accepted; and I think if it is remodelled in Committee in that spirit it may prove a very useful measure. I do not propose to interfere with the discussion between the lawyers as to the extent of the moral consciousness to be exercised by the Judge. All I can say is that it ought to be the business of the Judge to administer the law as he finds it, and not as he thinks it should be. There is no doubt that this Bill deals harshly and unconscionably with the money-lending fraternity, as if they were thieves and liars. I venture to say that the borrowers are not always immaculate. According to Charles Lamb, the world is divided into borrowers and lenders, and the borrowers are "free, pleasant, jolly fellows," whereas the lenders are "harsh, disreputable gentlemen, who ought never to be seen except on business." If the world is divided between borrowers and lenders, it is inevitable that money will be lent, and the needs of the one and the other will determine the contract in either case. The question has been frequently asked, "What is a money-lender?" and

  1199
  the answer seems to me as difficult to ascertain as that other question, "What is truth?" My answer is that a moneylender is a dealer in money, just as a banker or a pawnbroker; but he has this disadvantage, that in 90 per cent. of cases the money-lender lends money without any security. That being so, he is entitled to fair protection, and certainly ought not to be singled out for condemnation in this way. My great objection to the Bill is the schedule, which fixes the rate of interest at 15 per cent., and I am very glad to hear from the Government that they are prepared to withdraw it, and to make concessions on the first clause. If they do that, they can make this a very useful measure to the community at large.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not at all dissatisfied with the course of this debate, and I feel fully justified in the motion I made on a previous occasion, when the Bill was under discussion, for its rejection. But having regard to the concessions made by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and to what the First Lord of the Treasury said in his speech in reply to the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I may by permission of the House ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I understand that there is an actual promise to strike out any reference to 15 per cent. in the schedule, and that Clause 1 is to be amended to the effect that if a Judge has evidence before him in coming to a conclusion that the bargain was harsh and unconscionable it may be set aside, and that there is to be an appeal on that question from the County Court Judge. I cannot bind forty legions; if I could I would, but I do not want to put the House to the trouble of a division on a question of this sort. I only trust that the benevolent dispositions of the Government shown to-night will be carried out in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg leave to move that the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The Standing Committee on Law has more-work before it already than it can do.
  MR. T. W. EUSSELL: I will move that it be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade instead of the Standing Committee on Law.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc." (Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  MR. BIEEELL: In reference to that, we have just sent a very important measure to the Committee on Trade, namely, the Companies Bill, which everyone will agree is of much greater importance to the community at large than this Bill. I do not see why the Committee of the whole House should abdicate its functions. The discussion will almost entirely turn on Clause 1, and there is no reason why, for once, we should not have that discussion in Committee of the whole House. I hope the House will not send the Bill to the over-burdened Standing Committee on Trade.
  MR. BECKETTalso thought that the Bill should be remitted to Committee of the whole House.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONjoined in the appeal for Committee of the whole House.
  MR. PAEKEE SMITHsaid that all the Bills before the Committee on Law were short Bills, and could be got through very quickly. It seemed to him that that Committee would be more suitable.
  MR. A. J. BALEOUE: I do not gather that there is likely to be much difference of opinion regarding the principle of the Bill, and, as regards the drafting, I think that could be better done with a Grand Committee than with a Committee of the whole House. As regards the principle, that is a question which undoubtedly the House ought at some stage to pronounce upon, but I think the Report stage would be a very convenient time for that. The reason why the Government have selected the Grand Committee on Trade is

  1201
  because there is only one Bill before it, whereas there are four Bills before the Grand Committee! on Law. Under the circumstances I am disposed to think that the motion of my hon. friend really represents the most expedient course to take.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I would like to remind my right hon. friend and the House of the effect of sending too many Hills to the Standing Committees. The Grand Committees are often very badly attended,
  and the House would lie astonished if it could see the attendance on some of the Bills sent up to them. I think it is open to doubt whether we ought to send so many Bills of such importance as we do to the Standing Committees. I do not oppose the motion, but I respectfully submit to the House a word of caution on this practice.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 150; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 164.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Nicholson. William Graham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fitz Wygram General Sir F.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gedge, Sydney

  Penn, John

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Phillotts, Captain Arthur

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bethell, Commander

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

  Bill, Charles

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Renshaw Charles Bine

  Brassey, Albert

  Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Bullard Sir Harry

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Burns, John

  Holland, William Hentry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Butcher, John George

  Houldsworth, Sir William H.

  Russell, T. W.(Tyrone)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

  Sandon, Viscount

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

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Johnston, Heywood (Sussex)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

  Kenyon, James

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Langley-Batty

  Steadman, William Charles

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Lawrence, Sir E. During-(Corn)

  Steward, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawson John Grant (Yorks.)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leigh-Bannett, Henry Currie

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Corbett, a. Cameron (Glasg'w)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Lucas-Shedwell, William

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Willoughby de Eresby Lord

  Dairymple, Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham)

  K'Killop., James

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Wylie, Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wyndham, George

  Doughty, George

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Duckworth, James

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shrop shire)

  Faber, George Denison

  Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Finch, George H.

  Murnaghan, George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Hazell, Walter

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hemphiil, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Brigg, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Caldwell, James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

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

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, David A. (Mertlryr)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Moss, Samuel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Price, Robert John

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Mr. Lawson Walton and Mr. Birrell.

  Harrington. Timothy

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  A clause (Part of (5 and 7 Viet., c. 9], s. 58, not to apply to proceedings under this Act)-(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland)-brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  Another clause (Definition)—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland)—brought up and read the first and second time, and added.
  It being Midnight, Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Thursday.

  CUSTOMS DUTIES (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HANBURY,): The Bill is simply to give effect to an Act passed by the local legislature of the Isle of Man. Unless the Act is sanctioned by the Parliament of the United Kingdom it cannot remain in force longer than six months.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How is the integrity of the Empire preserved?

  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  Ordered, That Sir Albert Rollit be discharged from the Committee on Registration of Firms.
  Ordered, That Mr. Cohen be added to the Committee.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  WATER SUPPLY BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I hope the House will allow this Bill to be taken now. It is simply a Bill to remove certain difficulties which stand in the way of the construction of light railways in Ireland, and it assimilates the law of Ireland to the law in England. It is a measure which the Government ought to have introduced, and I can see no objection to it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): It is a controversial measure in many respects, and the Government cannot accept it without discussion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I express the hope that the Attorney General will not take up a non possumus attitude towards this measure, but that he will approximate his mind to the views of Irish Members in the matter. We are only asking that the law of England should apply to Ireland, and we are now met in this unreasonable, manner by the Attorney General.
  MR. ATKINSON: I have carefully considered the matter, but we cannot! accept the Bill without discussion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:. I bet you will accept it before the session is over.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  Adjourned at live minutes after Twelve of the clock.