Commons Sitting of 15 May 1900

LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL (BY ORDER).
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CRIPPS: This Bill, no doubt, is an important one, both as regards the dock companies and as regards the Port of London. But it does not involve any unusual prin-

161
ciple, and I would ask the House to allow it in the ordinary course to go to a Second Reading in order that its merits may be ascertained. The principle embodied in it is that in order to carry out more efficiently the statutory responsibilities and duties thrown upon them it is necessary that their sources of revenue should be increased. The only question upon which I propose to address the House is, whether there is any just or sound reason for refusing a Second Heading to this Bill. Of course, the question of merit cannot be gone into in detail at the present moment; this is neither the time nor the place to go in detail into the merits of a Bill of this character, and no one who votes for the Second Reading will be giving a decision as regards the merits of the proposals which this Bill happens to contain. I can only say that there is nothing in this Bill which ought not to go upstairs in the ordinary way to be threshed out before a Private Bill Committee. If a Bill of this kind is refused a Second Reading, then the promoters—the dock companies— are deprived of the only tribunal to which they can apply. It would be contrary to constitutional practice to attempt to deal with the details of the Bill in the House itself, and should the House refuse the right of the promoters to go before a Private Bill Committee, it implies that the dock companies cannot have their case heard at all. The principle of the Bill is simply this: certain very important responsibilites and duties have been thrown on the dock companies. It is part of those responsibilities and duties not only that they should maintain the existing efficiency of the Port of London, but that they should provide for its future expansion and requirements. Up to the present time they have been able to carry out those responsibilities and duties. But the Bill is based on this, that they cannot go on providing for these statutory responsibilities and duties unless they get some additional sources of income, and what this House has to decide as a matter of principle is whether, when a company having certain responsibilities and duties thrown upon it believe it necessary in order to carry them out that it should have new charging powers, and propose a Bill accordingly, that Bill is to be thrown out without a hearing so far as the dock companies are concerned. There is no question of prin-
162
ciple involved in this Bill which can be clearly discussed and decided on the Second Reading. So far as the new charges are concerned, I shall have a few words to say presently in order that the House may understand what is involved, but the Bill merely proposes to throw charges upon persons who at the present time are using the accommodation which has been provided at an expense of several millions, and towards which they are not now called upon to contribut one farthing. To-day in the London docks lighters and barges have a right of free entry, and no charge can be made upon them whatever business they may do in connection with the Port of London. And not only is there this exemption as regards the barges and lighters, but there is also an exemption as regards the goods they put on board ships, and goods imported into this country which they take off those ships. And for the accommodation provided for the lighters, accommodation which is essential having regard to the modern conditions of trade, no charge whatever can be made by the dock companies. The unfortunate result is that the dock companies, having to provide for these services at great cost— services in respect of which they get no remuneration at all—are not only deprived of a legitimate source of revenue, but find it necessary to put a high charge on the shipowner, or on the consignee of the goods. At the present time the number of barges which use the docks is between 140,000 and 150,000, with a tonnage of about two millions, or nearly twice as large a tonnage as that of the ships annually brought into the London docks. No doubt there is one way in which the dock companies might improve their position. At the present moment they might, within the powers which Parliament has given them, place a higher charge on ships, and, of course, incidentally on the shipowners, because at the present time they are not charging up to their maximum. Surely it would be unfortunate if even without inquiry the House should compel the dock companies to increase the system of charge which already, in their opinion, unfairly weighs upon one particular industry. I do not say that that is what the dock companies propose as an alternative, but the principle they seek to lay down is to charge in proportion to the accommodation provided; it surely is fair in itself and it ought not

163
to be rejected by this House without full and proper inquiry by a Committee upstairs. How is the revenue of the dock companies raised at the present time? There is a maximum charge of 1s. 6d. per ton which may be imposed on all ships. The dock companies, however, are only charging 1s. per ton; that is to say, on a ship of 10,000 tons register they only charge £500, whereas their maximum charge is £750, and they feel it would not be a fair way of increasing their revenue to charge up to the maximum, because whereas the registered tonnage of ships using the docks at the present time is slightly over five millions, the tonnage of the barges and lighters using the docks is over nine millions, and these barges and lighters pay nothing for the benefit of the accommodation which has been provided at such heavy cost. Let me say a word or two on the question of the charges on goods. I wish to deal with this as a matter of principle. So far as goods taken on or off ships by means of barges or lighters are concerned, the company can make no charge at all, and about three-fourths of the goods imported into the Port of London thus escape all charges and all burdens in respect of the 17 millions which the dock companies have expended on the accommodation they have provided. Surely a system of that kind cannot be fair in itself, and when the dock companies are asking for power to make a fairer system of charge extending to all ships and craft which use the dock and to all goods, whether loaded overside or not, the matter ought to be allowed to go before a Committee. I think there has been some misapprehension as regards the proposals in the Bill itself. The proposal as regards barges and lighters is that there shall be a maximum charge of 4d. per registered ton, and as regards goods loaded into them a maximum in respect of some of 1s. and in respect of others of 1s. 6d. These are maximum charges. They are powers which the dock companies seek in order to provide on a thoroughly sound basis a sufficient source of revenue in order to enable them to carry out their statutory duties and responsibilities. I can recollect but one precedent of a case of this kind whore the matter was properly sent upstairs and considered by a, Private Bill Committee, and in that case no doubt the Committee refused the request of the dock company for power to
164
impose the additional charge. There is only one other port outside the Thames to which this exemption for barges and lighters applies, and that is the port of Hull. In regard to that the question was raised nine or ten years ago whether the exemption should be maintained or whether a fair charge in respect of dock service ought not properly to be introduced. There was no objection taken to that proposal as a matter of principle on the Second Reading. I am not now saying that the proposal of the dock company is the best one that could be made. I am only saying that they should be heard before the only body before which the matter could be properly threshed out—namely, before a Private Bill Committee of this House. In the case of Hull I admit that the proposal to put the charge on lighters and barges was found to be inexpedient, having regard to the special conditions and circumstances of the case. The dock company in that case had no cause for complaint, as the matter was fully inquired into; but they would have had sound reason to complain had they been prevented taking their case before a Committee, and so will these London companies if they are deprived of the opportunity of submitting their case to show what they believe is necessary in order to enable them to maintain the efficiency of the Port of London, and to secure their sources of revenue so that they may be able to carry out their statutory obligations. I now come to the various forms which the opposition to the proposals of the dock companies has taken. I will indicate what I take to be the main objections— —objections which, in passing, I may say would properly be considered by a Private Bill Committee, seeing that it would be necessary to call evidence and sift it in order to see as to the truth of the allegations made. After all, the objections are of a character very similar to those who know anything about Private Bill procedure. The first is that if this power of charging were granted to the dock companies the exercise of it would tend to drive trade away from the Port of London. Every- one will agree that if it wore found that a particular proposal would have such a detrimental effect it ought not to be sanctioned. But let mo put this consideration before this House. Nobody is

165
so interested in preserving the trade of the Port of London as the dock companies themselves. They are absolutely dependent on that trade for their own prosperity, and they depend also on its increase. Then, when the dock companies—which are more interested than any other body, because their whole future depends on the trade of London— come forward and ask for a fair hearing for a particular proposal, it cannot be said that their demand ought to be denied as a matter of principle. People who make an allegation of this kind should prove it. I believe the real fact as regards the Port of London, so far as these charges are concerned, is this. A comparison is often made between London and Liverpool; but whereas in Liverpool the charges are much more fairly adjusted as between consignee and shipowner, in London nearly all the charges are thrown upon the shipowner alone. I believe that is an unjust matter which this Bill would do something to set right. Look at the alternative. If the powers asked for by the dock companies are not given they will be compelled to make still heavier charges on the shipowner, and surely that is much more likely to affect the trade of the Port of London than the proposals of this Bill. No one will deny that a matter of this kind should be threshed out upstairs to see whether the objection is valid or not. Then it is alleged that the dock companies have managed their property badly. They entirely deny that. But that again is a matter which ought to be discussed upstairs, and which could not be discussed or decided at the present moment. People who make such an allegation ought to be prepared to prove it before a proper tribunal. But I may give the House one figure as regards the increase in the trade of the Port of London of the last twenty years. It has gone up from 2,372,508 tons to 4,281,389 tons, which is an even larger rate of increase than that at Liverpool. It is difficult, therefore, to see on what basis the allegation is made that there has been bad management in connection with the dock property. If it were true it would undoubtedly have a serious bearing on the proposals contained in this Bill; but it should be proved before a tribunal which can discuss it. Then there is the objection as to the great capital of the companies, amounting to something like 17 millions sterling. During the last twenty
166
years 4 millions have been spent on improving the dock accommodation; but the answer to that is that the dock property at the present moment is worth a great deal more than the 17 millions spent on it. If anyone were to undertake to provide the accommodation which is provided in connection with the London docks he would have to spend a very much larger sum than the dock capital stands at at the present time. It may be said that the exemption of the lighters and barges in London is of long standing. That, no doubt, is right, and would, no doubt, have great weight when the proposals of this Bill come to be threshed out before a proper tribunal. But that, again, is no reason for rejecting this Bill on the Second Reading. Charges in connection with statutory obligations or duties may be made by such a Committee for the first time in a Bill of this kind, or there may be a proposal to remove the exemption; and I quite admit that when the case of the lightermen and barge-owners comes to be considered, if they can show that the exemption they enjoy should be continued, no doubt the Committee will decide in their favour. On the other hand, they may show that if the exemption is taken away they should have some special form of protection. That, however, is a matter we cannot discuss in this House; it can only be discussed before a Private Bill Committee upstairs. The only other objections come from certain public bodies. Everyone admits that weight must be given to such objections; but again I say we here are not in a position to decide upon such objections at the present moment. For that reason I am urging that there should be a Second Reading, and that these matters should be threshed out. I see there have been proposals for Committees dealing with very wide topics, and travelling over a very wide area. Suggestions of that kind are like postponing the real question to the Greek Kalends. The promoters, who desire to promote the efficiency of the Port of London, and have brought forward what they consider the best proposal as regards increasing their sources of revenue, cannot, to be consistent, assent to any proposal to postpone that reform. Whatever has been done in the past as regards the accommodation provided in the Port of London, it is certain that there must be large additions almost in the immediate

167
future. That is a principle admitted by everyone who looks into the question, but if that is to be done you cannot do it without providing an adequate source of revenue. Whether this particular source of revenue is the best or not cannot be decided here; but you must provide some adequate source of revenue, and when you have the dock companies themselves, who at present have a responsible duty thrown upon them, coming forward with their own proposal, that proposal ought not to be deprived of an: opportunity of being examined. I do not put the case higher than that. The House ought not to deprive the parties of their right unless some great principle is involved. There is no such principle here, except, of course, that the London docks naturally excite the interest of a great number of persons. There is nothing in the Bill which takes it out of the category of the most ordinary Private Bills which come before this House. On these grounds I beg to propose that this Bill be read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. ALBAN GIBBS: In rising to move the rejection of the Bill, I wish to disclaim any hostility to the dock companies. Many directors of the docks are among my friends, and naturally, as Member for the City of London, I take the deepest interest in the docks. I am very anxious indeed that there should be a full inquiry into the state of the docks, and, if possible, some proposal should be made which would place them on a sound financial basis. I do, however, demur to committing the House by reading this Bill a second time to the principle of the Bill, which is, in the first place, it seems to me, that a new tax is to be imposed upon the Port of London, and, in the second place, that the tax should be imposed through the medium of the wharfingers and lightermen. I wish this inquiry to start unfettered and with a, much wider scope than would be possible to a Private Bill Committee sitting upon a one-clause Bill such as this. I quite agree with my hon. friend that we cannot here in this House go into detail with regard to the condition of the docks; but it appears to me that they have two arguments in favour of this Bill that they have
168
put forward. One is the bread-and-butter argument that shareholders are entitled to a decent return on their capital. That may be so, but I think that before new taxation is imposed we should consider the whole question at length. The past history of the docks should be considered. My hon. friend alluded to the fact that charges have been made against the directors of mismanagement. I do not want to make any charges of that kind; but no doubt in the past many charges of that kind have been brought, and I consider that some tribunal like a Royal Commission might enter upon them and consider them. I think there is no doubt that in past times—I do not say now—the docks were not sufficiently disposed to meet the views of the merchants. I do not say the very able men who manage the docks now do not manage them as well as possible, but even that I think would form a proper subject for a Royal Commission, or whatever tribunal is to examine into it, and they might consider whether, if new taxation is required, it could not be imposed with less inconvenience to the port than the plan which they propose. My hon. friend pointed out that there are nine million tons of barges that enter in. According to the statement of the docks themselves, they are put to £50,000 or £60,000 expenses. They will probably make £100,000 profit out of barges alone. Besides that they are going to make a charge on goods that come in, and on that alone you get an enormous revenue. The other argument is, if I may say so without offence, rather more the sturdy beggar of the Middle Ages argument. That is to say, they say they have statutory powers which they will be compelled to exercise, if you do not give them what they want, that will be so dreadful and uncomfortable that they do not wish to exercise them. These statutory powers are to tax shipping. I am not myself prepared to say without consideration that it would be at all worse for the Port of London that they should tax the shipping than that they should tax the wharfingers. They have not done so yet, and therefore I suppose they have not felt it convenient to do so. I know the shipowners are very strong, and they are capable of taking care of themselves. But this proposal seems to mo as if one were to say, "I have got a gun which I could

169
shoot you with, but it would be so painful to you for me to fire off my gun that I would like you to give me a modern gun with which I may shoot you with greater comfort to yourself." Before we give them this new gun I should like to have some inquiry whether their old gun is or is not honeycombed. I should like to be certain that the new gun will be much less painful than their old gun. But they do not propose to give up their old gun at all. I know that there is a very strong general feeling in the House that when new proposals are brought in they ought to be sent up to a Committee and examined; but this is not a new proposal at all. It is a proposal to repeal a clause in the Bill which started the docks. Under that clause the free water of the Thames was preserved, and it was provided that the lightermen and wharfingers who came to take their goods were free. Under that clause lightermen and wharfingers have invested an enormous amount of capital in their business, and that capital you propose now by this Bill, I do not say to destroy, but at any rate to cripple, and it does appear to me that that is a principle which justifies the House in rejecting the Bill at this stage. Then again, this Bill has been in the House before. In the year 1855 it was brought in,* and after a very able speech by the representative of the Government, it was rejected by 249 to 26. It has been said that the reason they rejected it was because of the high price of dock stock at that time, and I quite admit that the representative of the City of London, who moved the rejection of the Bill, did allude to the fact that dock stock was very high, and gave that as one reason; but the debate has been circulated among Members, and if they have read it, I do not think they will admit that that is the reason which influenced the House. The main reasons were those given by Mr. Card well, namely, that the docks had had a monopoly for twenty-one years, that they had been given frontages for warehouses, and given the light to tax sea-going ships, but that the right to tax barges and lighters had been deliberately taken away from them in return for the other. My hon. friend suggested that if this was referred to a Commission
* For Debate on Second Reading of the East and West India Docks Bill, l!)in February, 1855, see The Parliamentary Debates (Third Series], Vol. exxxvi., page 1505.
170
instead of a Private Bill Committee it would be hung up indefinitely; but he must be very sanguine if he thinks at this late period of the session a Private Bill Committee could get through it in time for it to come back and pass through this House during this session. A Royal Commission, which can sit in the recess, can surely go through the thing and get it into order for them to bring in such recommendations as they may make next session, and pass it then. I do not wish to weary the House now. I would merely point out that the City Corporation has petitioned against it, the County Council has petitioned against it, and the Chamber of Commerce has petitioned against it, and that most of the produce exchanges have cither petitioned or expressed their disapproval of it. On that ground I ask the House to reject this Bill now and not send it up to a Committee instead of a Royal Commission, which I have no doubt will be given to them if they ask for it.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to second the motion for the rejection of the Bill, which is opposed to the feeling of the mercantile and shipping community, and of what I may call the representative public bodies of London. When my hon. friend suggests that instead of taxing the lightermen and wharfingers the taxes should be imposed upon the shipping interest, I can assure him that would meet with quite as strong opposition as the present proposal.
MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I do not suggest that that should be done. I only alluded to the fact that they had the statutory powers.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: If they were carried into effect the result would be to add to the dues, whereas the dues are, in fact, paid not only for the use of the docks, but, according to the original statute, for the service rendered by the lightermen and wharfingers to the ship in process of loading and unloading, so that would be equally open to objection. I agree with my hon. friend who moved the Bill that inquiry is very necessary, but I cannot share his objection to my amendment in favour of the appointment of a Royal Commission on the ground that time will only admit of a Select Committee inquiring, and that we ought

171
not to demand, as we do, from the House the appointment, as I hope my right hon. friend will ultimately suggest, of a Royal Commission, for no Select Committee can have the time to go into the manifold and far-reaching consequences which would result from the passing of such a measure as that proposed. There is no trade interest in London, down to the smallest consumer, that would not he affected. It had been estimated that the prices of certain commodities, including some necessaries of life, would be greatly raised owing to the increase of the charges upon them to the extent of even 200 per cent. in the case of some classes of goods. My hon. friend who moved the Bill said no principle was involved; but surely the highest of all principles is involved — namely, that of Parliamentary contracts— because when the Act was originally taken in the last century by the dock companies it was the very basis of that arrangement that they should maintain what has been called the freedom of the Port of London. They abstracted from the Thames water for the purposes of their docks, and Parliament then very properly laid it down that, as these facilities were offered, and as river frontage was taken which reduced the accommodation of the port, for these considerations there should be this freedom of overside trade. That was the principle on which Mr. Card well contended in the debate of 1855 that this question of freedom affected the very tenure of the docks. It went to the very root of their title to this property, and he added, most properly, that there had been a dedication, now by 100 years user, of these waterways to the public and commercial interests. So that it seems to mo that a very great principle is involved—whether that which is taken upon the basis of freedom of trade is afterwards, even 100 years thence, to be departed from on the ground that it has not been found to have been a profitable undertaking. As to information being needed, I think I may say that the chairman of the Docks Committee needs some information. I read the case which he put before the country carefully, and I find that he states that this system of exemption exists at no other port in England or in the world than London. My hon. friend who moved the Bill was much better aware of the circumstances, but I differ from him in saying that the principle of
172
that exemption has never been tacitly or actively admitted. On the contrary, we have that privilege in Hull. It is a privilege which, so far from interfering with the trade of the port, is most beneficial to it, and I am quite sure it would never be raised, having regard to the experience in that port, without exciting most strenuous opposition. I see the chairman of the dock company said that was the means of ruining the docks. So far from that having been the case, the dock share- holders made a beneficial agreement with the North Eastern Railway Company, and they did so for the very object which we have in opposing this Bill, namely, to secure greater and better facilities and to reduce the charges in order to add to the attractiveness of the port. That object has been attained, and there is nothing which would be of more value than this privilege, which exists in Hull to this day. The chairman of the docks in his manifesto states that it did exist in Hull, and he alludes to that apparently as a reason for taking the course proposed by this Bill. We have the contrary case of London, and I do not hesitate to say that the dearness of London has injured it as a port; and if we continue to forgot what are the modern demands upon navigation and commerce, if we fail to take steps, not at the expense of a class, as is suggested in this particular Bill, but by raising the means from proper sources, if we fail to take care of the conservancy of our river, if we are not thoroughly up to date in regard to the dock and mercantile appliances, and, above all, if we increase the reputation which London now has, and which has led to great diversion of trade, that the charges here are excessive, we shall, I think, fail in that duty which touches the very permanence of the commercial position of London. I was going to say pre-eminence, but that is gone in a very large degree, owing to the conditions which have existed here, and which have given the preference to other ports in the United Kingdom and abroad on account of cheapness and the like. My hon. friend said, most properly, that if we prove that what has taken place under the dock company has diverted trade from London, that would be, I think he admitted, an almost unanswerable argument against a Bill for the purpose of increasing charges. I think he cannot

173
have read the proceedings at a great meeting in 1896 at the Cannon Street Hotel, at which I took the chair as President of the London Chamber of Commerce, at which all these questions were discussed from the mercantile and shipping point of view. He said, most properly, you must not use that argument by way merely of suggestion. I quite agree that is not sufficient, and I will comply with his challenge in a very few moments by stating what the mercantile body feel on this question from actual experience, and what they know of the consequences of the system which has been going on. I take, first, Alderman Ritchie (as he was then—now, I think, Sir Thomas Ritchie), who spoke at that meeting and gave this illustration of what was happening. He said he had a ship under charter, waiting orders at Falmouth for any Continental port between Dunkirk and Hamburg. He wrote to the shipowners to see what concession they would make if she were diverted to London. The reply was, "We will not have London except upon an increased rate of 2s. 6d. per ton" in consequence of the dear charges as against shipowners.; That vessel did not come to London, and the consequence was loss to the port, not only in that particular instance, but it was a typical loss to the port. Alderman Ritchie also gave this instance: At Hamburg recently goods had been warehoused by him for three months, and the landing charges and the rent were only half of what they were if the goods had been brought to the Port of London, and we have undoubtedly a standing illustration of the state of affairs when we see splendid warehouses, I am told, in a large degree unoccupied, simply because the charges are prohibitive. Another high authority, Mr. Stephen Ralli, said at that meeting that London was the dearest and slowest port in the United Kingdom. Mr. Rouse said Hamburg and Antwerp were one-third less expensive than London, and many contended that the charges there were half only of those which were made in the Port of London. I quite admit the great difficulty of making these comparative observations. There are numerous conditions to be taken into account. But I have read a table which bears out the estimate of one-half, and Mr. Rouse justified his argument by saying that the cost of weighing cotton in London was 3½d. per bale, and that the same work was done
174
for 1d. at Antwerp, and, to show the differential system, which was highly objectionable, that cotton was delivered by water in London at 4s. 3d. per ton whereas by land it was only charged 1s. 9d. And a former Member of this House told the House, in the debate of 1855 that he had diverted goods from London to other ports because the London charges were too heavy. If these are at all typical instances, if they are reliable, it proves, I think, conclusively that this is not a subject for inquiry by a Select Committee in a matter of a few weeks, but for a very broad and searching inquiry as to the whole conditions under which the trade in London has been conducted, and as to what will be the consequences if we proceed in the same manner as in the past. I think that the great remedy is cheapness instead of increased dearness of cost. If enterprise is thrown into the matter, if a real competition ensues with regard to warehousing and the like, I think the result would be found to be highly beneficial. We have to remember this in dealing with the matter, that a discussion took place here in 1855. Since then I believe the dock acreage has been very largely increased, and the dock directors stand face to face with the fact that either they did not then attribute such importance to the argument for the exemption of lighters and craft, or that they have increased their outlay with their eyes open, and, if so, they should not be rescued from a position which has shown some want of foresight in dealing with the trade of the port. Moreover, in not contemplating the great change which has taken place with regard to port matters, the rapidity of delivery and distribution instead of putting goods into warehouses, the influence of the telegraph, telephone, and the like in expediting commercial actions, they showed a want of commercial foresight, the consequences of which should not be made good by the mercantile community. I have only to add that there is one trade of which we ought to be very careful in London. We still maintain the position of a great emporium for the purpose of distribution, but if this tax is imposed it will strike at the trans-shipment trade, it will add to the diversion which has been going on of our own colonial products into competing ports, and we shall lose that which is at the present time a matter of the greatest advantage to the Port of London. I hope the House will realise

175
the vast, far-reaching importance of the question, and that it will feel that the only way in which it may be solved in the interest of the community is not by a rapid and hasty inquiry, quite inadequate for the purpose, but that it will seek to send it to an expert tribunal capable of dealing with the multitude of interests involved, and of giving a decision in the interest of the trade of the Port of London and also of the whole country, in the direction, probably, of the substitution for a private quasi-monopoly of some form of public and representative trust.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word ' now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words ' upon this day six months.'"—[Mr. Alban Gibbs.)
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. PICKERSGILL: The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of this Bill said that there was one precedent in favour of it, but he immediately proceeded to add that the circumstances were not the same. I think, therefore, I need not deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's single precedent. Referring to the argument which has been used that the effect of these additional charges would be to drive away trade from the Port of London, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether anyone had a greater interest in maintaining the trade of London than the dock companies. In reply to that I would point out that the very grievance alleged by the dock companies is that at present only one quarter of the trade of London pays dues to them, and I would therefore observe that the existing trade of London might be very materially reduced under the new proposal, to the material gain of the dock companies. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the trade of London had very greatly increased during the last twenty years. That is perfectly true, but surely that is a strong argument in favour of adhering to our present system. As a matter of fact, the proposals submitted to the House are as between the custom of London on the one hand and that of Liverpool on the other. How does London compare with Liverpool in respect of trade? During the last ten years I find that whereas
176
the trade of London has increased by 32 per cent., the trade of Liverpool has increased by only 12 per cent. The hon. Member for South Islington said that London had lost its supremacy. I think it would be more correct to say that the trade of the United Kingdom as a whole had lost its supremacy. The trade of the United Kingdom is losing ground in competition with Continental ports. I find, for instance, that in the last ten years the increase in tonnage entering the ports of the United Kingdom has been 25 per cent., whereas the increase in the tonnage entering the ports of Germany has been 44 per cent., of Holland 63 per cent., and of Belgium 68 per cent. That shows very clearly that Antwerp, Hamburg, and Rotterdam are gaining very rapidly on London. But if we compare London with other English ports, we shall find that London is not falling behind. I have shown that the total increase in the tonnage of the English ports during the last ten years was 25 per cent., whereas the increase in the trade of London during that period was 32 per cent., and therefore London is comparatively prosperous under the existing system. What I feel is that a Parliamentary bargain was really made with these dock companies. It is said that without docks no big ships could discharge in the Port of London. In answer to that I would say that without the monopoly that was given the docks could not have existed. The dock companies have really got all they bargained for, and I do not see that the fact that their warehousing business has very considerably declined is any reason why the House should take the step it is now asked to take. Having regard to the fact that this system is based on a Parliamentary bargain, that it has existed for 100 years, that on the last occasion when a similar proposition was made it was rejected contemptuously by the House of Commons. I say that the House would be really prejudging the question by granting Second Reading to this Bill until a thorough inquiry has been made into all the circumstances of the Port of London.
MR. GRAY: The fact that a very large number of my constituents are interested in the prosperity of these docks must be my excuse for addressing the House on this occasion. I will not venture to enter into detail.

177
In my opinion no Bill has ever been before Parliament on which it is more difficult to form an opinion than on this measure, and it is a Bill which undoubtedly, in my opinion, should be carefully examined by a Committee, who would inquire into all the details which a large assembly like the House of Commons is totally incompetent to investigate. It is said that this is a Parliamentary bargain, but it was made more than 100 years ago, and all the conditions have changed during the century which has elapsed. That is a fair contention and a fair justification for the companies coming to Parliament and asking that the whole question should be looked into again. It is said that they asked Parliament in 1855 what they are now asking for, but it must be admitted that the state of affairs was totally different then to what it is now. Then dock stock was quoted at a very high rate, and the docks were prosperous. To-day they are languishing without prospect of recovery, and very serious injury is inflicted by the large number of men thrown out of employment. This Bill ought to go to a Committee or Commission for careful examination. I go further, and say that the whole question of dock accommodation in London ought to be referred to a Committee, and the way to secure that is not to throw out this Bill. If the Amendment is carried the Bill will be thrown out, and there will be nothing left—no Bill, no Commission, and no prospect of it, and the condition of things which we are lamenting to-day will be likely to continue year after year. I hope that the House in dealing with the question will not regard it merely as a question between the dock directors and the wharfingers and lightermen. There are the men employed, the commercial prosperity of London, and the tens of thousands who are the owners of the £17,000,000 of capital of the companies to be considered. It is a question in which a large number of people, rich as well as poor, are concerned. I should like to make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to take up this very complex question, and grapple with it firmly, with a view to putting the dock accommodation of London on a satisfactory basis. Let him send this Bill to a Committee, as many another complicated question has been settled, with a wider Instruction than the mere reference to the Bill—an Instruc-
178
tion to inquire into the whole dock accommodation of London. In that case if this Bill can be justified by its promoters they will get it at an early date, and the further question can then be considered by the same Committee. That is a practice not unknown to the House. Those who are not familiar with the East End of London know nothing of the condition of the docks at present. This is not a mere question of a private undertaking endeavouring to get some increased powers. It affects the whole of the country, and is a national question, and I would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to take it into his hands and let the Bill pass its Second Reading, not as an endorsement of its principle, but in order that all the circumstances may be investigated. It is said, when Bills of such a complicated character are given Second Reading, that the House adopts their principle, but everyone knows that is not the case. It is the only way in which a private person or company can work in order to obtain a Parliamentary inquiry, and having regard to the very large interests involved, I think the House of Commons ought not to refuse it.
MR. STUART: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is under a misconception when he states that the only way by which there can be an inquiry by the House of Commons into this matter is by reading this Bill a second time. I can assure the hon. Member that there are other methods. I myself have put down on the Paper a notice of Amendment which, if it be discussed and adopted, will secure the rejection of the Second Reading of this Bill, but will also result in the establishment of an inquiry of the fullest and most exhaustive character. The motion, as it stands in my name, is for a Select Committee. I believe myself that a Select Committee appointed for a definite purpose is a more speedy and a surer way of arriving at a decision on a great and complex question than a Royal Commission. But I am not going to dispute the point, because by either one or the other a full and complete inquiry can be obtained. And, undoubtedly, when we consider that during this session—and certainly next session—there may be a dissolution, and that many of the Members who might now be appointed on a

179
Select Committee might not be returned to the new House, there is more to be said for a Royal Commission at the present moment than would, perhaps, otherwise be admissible. I may remind hon. Members that many of the greatest questions before this House have been dealt with by Select Committees, which, of course, expire at the end of each session, but are re-appointed session after session, with as small a change in their personnel as possible. The advantage of a Select Committee over a Royal Commission is that it has power to call for Papers and compel the attendance of witnesses. I do not wish to argue between the two, because I am clearly of opinion that in the immediate circumstances in which we find ourselves much may be said for a Royal Commission that could not be said under ordinary circumstances. At an early period of the debate we should hear from the Government whether they are prepared to appoint some such body as a Select Committee or a Royal Commission, because we shall fumble about a good deal until we know that. The hon. Member who has just spoken says that the only hold we can have, if anything is to be done, is to have something definite before the House in the shape of a Private Bill. But there is a method of dealing with this complicated and important question other than to pass this particular Bill to its Second Reading. There are instances in which a Bill involving more important issues, but which we could not altogether approve of in all its details, has passed the Second Reading of this House; but that was where the principle of the Bill was large and covered the area generally covered by the investigation of the Committee upstairs. But the principle of the Bill in this case is an exceeding small and narrow one. It is whether there ought to be a charge placed by this Bill upon wharfingers, bargemen, and lightermen to assist in procuring an adequate revenue for the docks. Will anyone in the House suggest a more hopelessly inadequate method of dealing with the Port and docks of London than that proposition? Whether that charge would enable the dock companies to emerge out of their difficulties or not I am not prepared to say, for I do not want to prejudge the question. But it is looking at the matter from only one point of view—that of the dock shareholders, and that alone. Now, the inte-
180
rests of the Port of London go widely beyond those of the dock shareholders, and widely beyond any proposition that could legitimately, under our Standing Orders, be received in connection with such a Bill as this. I am, however, glad that the Bill has been brought forward, and I do not think we shall have the dock directors against us in what I am about to say, because it gives an opportunity to this House to deal with the question as we are now, in our debate, endeavouring to deal with it, from a large point of view. For a large number of years there has been no Bill or measure before the House which could allow the House in any way to take up the dock question. The only way it could have been raised would have been by a motion on a Friday or Tuesday, and we all know how very inadequate any such motion is for securing immediate legislation, or action for legislation. It depends upon the choice of the ballot, the luck of the evening, and many other things. We have never had the opportunity of bringing before the House the request that I venture to make in the Amendment which stands in my name, and which I ask the Government to take cognisance of and to deal with. I request that "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the accommodation and facilities provided and the charges levied at the Port and docks of London as affecting the commercial and general interests of London, and what, if any, changes could be made to improve the administration of the Port and docks." Now the wording of anything that the Government may be prepared to do by Royal Commission or Select Committee may be different from anything I have stated in that Amendment, but my object is to secure a large general inquiry, in which all interests may be heard and the various proposals may be ventilated, and on which responsible, and above all, open-minded persons may be able to give a decision upon what they want to be done. There are proposals evolved in various quarters. Some are visionary, some are sound and practical. Many of them press on all sides that we must adopt that which is not only in the interests of the shareholders of the docks, but in the interest of the mercantile community of London, the interest of the traders, the interest of the wholesale traders and retail distributors, and of the working classes, and

181
of every person connected with London, which is involved in the security and satisfactory position of the Port and docks of London. In using these words, "the Port and docks of London," there is a very considerable point. It is of the extremest importance that we should have not only an inquiry into the docks of London but into the Port of London itself, including the docks. I do not want to say a word against the Thames Commission, because I know that I have stood with them in their desire to procure more money in dealing with the lower Thames. But they have not got funds for that. In a very instructive debate which took place in the House, in which a right hon. Gentleman I see before me took part, I and others pressed various points of view on the House as to the desirability of steps being taken which might lead to the better dredging of the lower part of the Thames; because we all know that it is not possible for the larger ships to come up the river except in certain states of the tide. A question was raised by the hon. Member for South Islington about the relations of the ports of Hamburg, Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Bremen, and the Port of London. I am informed by the journals that have to deal with trade matters that there is not any doubt whatever that in Hamburg there are lower charges than in the Port of London. I think I have said enough to make out a fair case that what is required is that a general inquiry on this matter should be carried out by persons whose past, whose business circumstances and relations generally, make them well able to determine such a matter from an independent point of view — such an inquiry as would cover practically the points made in the Amendment I have put on the Paper. I hope the Government will prevent the continuance of the debate by making some pronouncement on the subject, for my action on this matter will be very much guided by what steps they are prepared to take. If the result of this debate comes to this, that we get such a Commission or Select Committee as I have endeavoured to indicate, then I think not only the commercial interests of London, the greatest commercial city in the world, the interests of London as a town generally, and the interests of the working classes, will have good cause to
182
thank this debate and the causes which have given rise to it.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): There can be no question as to the great importance of the matter now being discussed. It is very much more than a local question affecting London alone. In fact I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that it is not only a local but a national question—namely whether London is to maintain the position which it now occupies as well as to be able to enter into effective competition not only with our own out-ports but with foreign ports. Now, there are so many things which the House is agreed upon in connection with this matter that it is really not necessary for me to detain the House at any length. We are agreed upon two points. One is the insufficiency of the docks in London for the work which they have to do and which we hope they will have to do in the future; and the other is the necessity for some inquiry as to how the condition of things now existing in London is to be improved. These are the two points on which the House is generally agreed, and indeed the only question, I think, which the House has really to consider now is the form which that inquiry is to take—whether the inquiry shall be an inquiry merely by an ordinary Private Bill Committee or even by a Select Committee into the proposals of this Bill, or whether the inquiry will be larger and more general, embracing the whole merits and conduct of the docks, the accommodation provided by the docks, and generally as to how the revenue is to be raised, if further money is required to be found, and in what way the docks in future shall be administered; and also the extremely important question which the hon. Gentleman who spoke last raised — not only how the docks are to be improved, but how the water-way which leads into the docks is to be improved. Well, with regard to the accommodation afforded in the London Docks, I agree that it is not in a satisfactory condition, but I think it is right to say that I consider that those who are responsible for the management of the docks have of late years done a very great deal to improve the accommodation in the docks. They have expended large sums of money in the improvement of the docks, and I think I may say

183
generally that they have exercised all the powers which they possess to fulfil properly and adequately, as far as possible, the duties which devolve upon them in managing these gigantic concerns. But notwithstanding all that that has been done it has been found that even the Tilbury Dock, which alone can accommodate vessels of great size, cannot accommodate ships equal to those accommodated by some of our out-ports, and hardly approaches the accommodation given in some foreign ports. Now, that is a state of things with which no one in London or the country ought to be satisfied. The dock directors themselves are not satisfied. They are desirous of improving the condition of things at the docks, but they say, and properly say, "How is it possible for us with the revenue we possess, with our stocks standing at the figures they now are, to raise the money necessary for improving the conditions of things in the London Docks." And that is an answer which it is impossible to dispute. They are unable to do it, and they come before the House of Commons with a proposal which, in their opinion, would enable them to fulfil the responsibilities which devolve upon them. That is a proposal to raise the charges upon barges from which they are now exempt. That is a proposal which has been made before in the House of Commons, and which has been rejected by the House of Commons when it was last before it in 1855. I think it then only obtained twenty-six votes in this House, and I venture to say that on the proposal which is now made, which is practically the same proposal—I am not speaking of the actual details, but in principle it is the same—this House of Commons is not at all likely to come to a different conclusion from the previous House of Commons in refusing its assent to this bald proposal for remedying the state of things of which we all complain. It is said by my hon. friend the Member for Bow and Bromley that the House would not depart from, that position if the Second Reading of the Bill was passed, and the Bill referred to a Committee. I think my hon. friend is hardly right in making that assumption. I am satisfied that if we did vote for the Second Reading of a Bill which imposed these charges, we would consider that we were voting for the principle of the charges. There may be many other remedies which might be
184
suggested for a full inquiry. Of course a full inquiry would not be made into the whole case if this Bill were read a second time. Although it is said by the friends of the Bill that unless that is done and the alternative of referring the matter to a Royal Commission is adopted that would mean delay, I greatly question whether that is true. If this Bill were referred to a Committee and rejected there would be an end—for at least this session or for a long time—of the proposals made on behalf of the docks; whereas, if a Royal Commission were appointed to inquire into the whole matter, that Royal Commission would be bound to consider not merely this particular remedy, but the whole question of what dock accommodation is required, and the kind of accommodation, the cost, and how that expenditure was to be met. It would also consider whether, if it were necessary that further burdens should be imposed on London and the Port of London, that ought to be done by something in the nature of a public trust rather than by a private company. For although, no doubt, the House of Commons would reject a proposal to allow a private company like the docks company to impose this additional charge, it is not at all to be supposed that they would be prepared to reject a similar proposal, or something analogous to it, if made by a public authority. However that may be, I am sure that the mode proposed by the promoters of the Bill is not the right method of getting at the bottom of this extremely important matter. That inquiry is desired is undoubted, and I hope that my hon. friends who proposed this Bill will not consider it necessary to come to a division, but agree to accept my assurance that the Government feel the necessity for inquiry on this matter as much as the dock company itself, and that that inquiry ought to be, and that that inquiry should be larger and wider, and ought to embrace much more than the financial aspect of the question with which this Bill alone deals. We propose, therefore, to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of a Royal Commission to make full inquiry into the whole matter. I wish it to be understood that I do not intend to suggest that it should be a Royal Commission composed of partisans. I think it right to make that statement, because, since it has been known that the Govern-

185
ment favoured the appointment of a Royal Commission, I have been approached by all sorts and conditions of men, representatives of various sections of the community which have interests in this matter, with requests that representatives of these particular interests should be appointed on the Royal Commission. If this thing is to be inquired into, the first necessity is that it must be an impartial and not a partial or partisan inquiry, and that the members of the Commission must be judges, men who will go into the matter with impartial minds, and prepared to come to a conclusion on the evidence placed before them; not representatives of this, that, or the other interest, but representatives of the whole community. I can assure my hon. friend, if he is prepared to accept the proposal I now make, that in the appointment of the Royal Commission there will be no delay, and that within two or three weeks that inquiry will be begun, and that the inquiry will result in great good to the whole community.
MR. BRYCE: I desire, in expressing my hearty concurrence in the proposal to refer this matter to a Royal Commission, to disclaim any hostility to the present Bill. I do not think we ought to pass judgment on the proposals in the present Bill; but the more I consider them the more I am convinced that the House is not prepared to deal with them. For the Bill raises only one small part of the subject, and we cannot deal with that without being drawn into the larger question. The right hon. Gentleman has stated the decision of the Government, and as I think the supporters of the Bill will probably acquiesce in his proposal I have little to add. I would, however, like to add a word as to my preference for a Royal Commission over a Select Committee. I think there are two strong advantages in the Royal Commission. In the first place the Committee could do very little this year, and I do not know whether it would sit next year; whereas the Royal Commission could work during the vacation, and would make much more rapid progress than a Select Committee. I hope for that reason that the promoters of the Bill will acquiesce in the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of the Government. The
186
only other remark I want to make is that I am sure the President of the Board of Trade has carried us all with him when he said that the Commission should be a non-partisan body. We have heard far too much of having Royal Commissions and Select Committees in which all interests were represented. It is unsatisfactory, and involves loss of time. It would be far better to have invariably an independent, non-partisan body. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also see that it is to be a small Commission. It ought not to exceed seven in number. I am persuaded that it will proceed much more rapidly if it be a small and impartial body rather than a larger Commission composed of representatives of various interests. In that view, and believing that the promoters of the Bill will not suffer by the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, I hope we will be spared a division.
Question put, and negatived.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Second Reading put off for six months.

BIRMINGHAM (KING EDWARD THE SIXTH) SCHOOLS BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. J. A. PEASE: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this Bill is in order, inasmuch as it proposes, by a Private Bill, to transfer powers conferred by public statute upon the Charity Commissioners.
MR. SPEAKER: I cannot quite accept the description of the Bill which the hon. Member gives. What is proposed is to make a scheme for the government of King Edward VI. Schools at Birmingham. I believe that could be done by application to the Charity Commissioners, but the power of Parliament to legislate in the matter has not been taken away if Parliament chooses to exercise it. If Parliament does legislate upon it, legis-

187
lation by means of a private Bill would be quite in order. Therefore I do not think any point of order arises. The question whether the promoters of the Bill ought to proceed by way of application to the Charity Commissioners, or to proceed, as they have done, by this Bill is a matter for the House entirely and not for me.
MR. J. A. PEASE: I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time on this day six months. I do soon grounds of public policy. A very important principle is involved in the proposal now before the House. There are an enormous number of endowed schools in the country, all of which, with the exception of Eton and Westminster, are under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. The transference of powers from the Charity Commissioners to any other public body ought to be made by public statute; but in this instance it is sought to transfer them in an irregular way— namely, by a Private Bill. On 19th April, 1888, when the Keble College Bill was under consideration the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, then Chairman of Committees, was asked his view in regard to procedure of this character, and he stated his view to the House as follows†—
"Ought emancipation to be effected by a Private Bill, or ought it to be brought before the House in a Public Bill instead of a Private Bill? He had more than once laid before the House a strong opinion that it was in the highest degree undesirable that any such departure from public law should be made in a Private Bill. In the first place hon. Members did not know what bad been done until after it had been done, and then they found, to their surprise, that an alteration had been made in the general public law by a Private Bill. Such a course opened a wide door to abuse, and if it were adopted we might find many gaps made in the public law by Private Bills."
It is therefore because the law is open to abuse that I object to this Bill being read a second time to-day. So far as I know, there is no special ground for the exemption of this particular school, but if there was some ground for special exemption, it seems to me to be somewhat anomalous that we should be asked to withdraw one endowed school out of the many hundred endowed schools at present under jurisdiction, in order to conform with the view of the governors of one particular endowed
† See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cccxxiv., page 1699.
188
school. If any changes are required, obviously the right course is that the Charity Commissioners themselves should be asked to suggest a scheme. That scheme would be publicly notified to the people of Birmingham, and the public there would have an opportunity of expressing their views in regard to the changes proposed to be effected by the scheme. Certainly, without saying anything against the Board of Education, it must be admitted by this House that the Charity Commissioners in this country have unrivalled experience in regard to schemes, and they ought to have the first opportunity of making the requisite changes in the form of the scheme. But it is very extraordinary to find that the promoters of this Bill, instead of taking advantage of the powers which were given to the Board of Education only last year under the Board of Education Act, have endeavoured by a side wind to take away the powers conferred on the Charity Commissioners by statute law. Under the Education Act of last year, by Order in Council, all these powers might have been transferred from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education; but by not doing that the Governors have made their object apparent, namely, that they did not want all the powers transferred to the Board of Education, for they are only seeking to transfer some of the powers. Take, for instance, the question of land. If this Bill passes in the present form, it will be quite possible for the governors to actually sell the land, oven that on which the schools have been endowed, and to do whatever they like with the proceeds, irrespective of the views of any Government Department. There is no public body in this country representing a public trust which can part with property without going to a Government Department and seeking its approval. In regard to the land possessed by the universities, in every case real estate cannot be parted with unless the approval of the Agricultural Department is secured. With regard to the municipal corporations, they cannot part with their land without the Local Government Board or the Treasury acquiescing in such a procedure, and therefore the endeavour to secure for the governors freedom of control from the Charity Commissioners is to create a precedent which I trust the House will reject on the present occasion. There is another point. It is not only a

189
question of land, but under the present Bill in Clause 26 the Board of Education would be itself deprived of the power which the Charity Commissioners have—to initiate schemes necessary from time to time in regard to this school. I object to this Bill not because I have any fault to find with this particular school, but I object to it on the ground of public policy. In 1888 the House was asked to determine on a similar question, and it then decided that it was inexpedient for public statutes to be interfered with by Private Bills in this way. I believe there are one, or possibly more, precedents, but I say they are most dangerous precedents to follow if even they exist; and I appeal to the House, having regard to the importance of the question, to hesitate before they pass by Private Bill powers which are invested in the Charity Commissioners by public statute and hand a portion only over to the Board of Education. I appeal to the House, because I think we would be parting with the statutory control which it is necessary for us to keep, and because the governors have been endeavouring to secure changes by Private Bill legislation instead of by Order in Council through the Board of Education, or by the more direct method of public statute. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
MR. HUMPHREYS - OWEN: I rise to second that Amendment, and I do so upon two grounds. We are about, I hope, to establish before very long a complete State system of secondary education in this country. If a system of that kind is to be of any value it must be carried out according to broad general lines, not necessarily in supporting particular schemes, or meeting the particular needs of localities, but, at all events, animated by one general spirit and directed to one general end. This Hill, if it passes, will constitute an imperium in imperio which will be independent of the educational authorities of the country, and which may carry on a system which may or may not be advantageous, but which at all events will be unconnected, and, unless very wisely administered, unrelated, to the general educational system which is about to be established. Let me call the attention of the House to some of the provisions which
190
the Bill makes. The first provision I wish to call attention to is in Clause 16, from which it appears that the governors are to have complete control over the property of the foundationers. The whole legislation of the country in regard to charities is based upon the principle that there should always be some external protecting authority interposed between the charity and its trustees. It is not necessarily any stigma upon the administration of the trustees that such an interposition should take place. Of course there are isolated instances in which a charity has been completely maladministered. These cases are rare, but it is always desirable that there should be interposed between the trustees and the charity some external and impartial authority, without whose sanction they cannot got rid of any of its property. I am myself the trustee of a charity, and I know the effect of that jurisdiction and that kind of superintendence is in the interest of and not a hindrance to the performances of the duties. This Bill entirely removes that safeguard, and if you pass it you will really see that there is no reason why you should not repeal the whole of our legislation of that kind. You are giving complete power to the authorities of this school to deal with their estates. Why should you not give the same powers to the Blue Coat School and to Charterhouse School? Why should you have this precedent for releasing this charity from the law which experience has shown is desirable and necessary for the protection of those for whom the charity is intended? I am told that this is an extremely democratic measure, and therefore should receive the support of those on this side of the House. I am not sure about that. How do they propose to effect their object? In the first place they have five persons nominated by the great universities and the new university of Birmingham. Then eight persons are to be elected by the Town Councillors of Birmingham, and these thirteen are to elect nine other members. The House will see that inasmuch as there are eight Town Councillors and only five nominated members, it is quite possible and most probable that the Town Councillors will elect the whole of the co-optative members, and the result will be that this will be a body nominated by the Town Council of Birmingham. It does not appear from

191
this Bill that the Town Council contributes one shilling to the funds of the foundation which they are to control. A governing body of that kind is, I submit, not a very proper body to control an educational foundation. I may call the attention of the House to one rather remarkable provision. It is that no one elected by the Town Council of Birmingham shall be eligible or continue to be a representative unless he carries on a trade, business, profession, or calling within the city of Birmingham or some parish adjoining thereto, such distance to be determined from time to time by the governors. I do not see that you could possibly have a more undemocratic limitation than that. Why should you restrict the choice of the governors to the ratepayers of Birmingham and district? Surely it is the experience of everybody that a mixture of persons of general eminence in educational methods would be most valuable in a body of this kind. They very likely would be anxiously animated by a desire to promote the interests of education, but they would be excluded from election in any other way. Such a provision as that marks, if I may say so, the general character of the Bill, which is, I regret to say, not so much a public spirited Bill as one giving exclusive domination to one town over an endowment which, in view of the excellent work it is doing, should be treated as a national and not merely as an exceptional endowment. For these reasons I support the view of my hon. friend. This Bill ought never to have been brought forward in this way when the House is anxious to go on to more important business. It ought to have taken its chance as a Government measure. Birmingham is not uninfluential with the Government, and the Bill might very well have been brought in as a Government measure, and under the ægis of the Education Department. I wish to call the attention of the House to two clauses at the end of the Bill relating to an endowment which is divisible in equal shares, between the trustees and the governing body. At present the measure is divided in equal shares, under the Charity Scheme, which has the force of law. The Haverfordwest Grammar School is a rather humble body, and carries on a very good little school in a remote part of Wales, and has altogether an income of £600 or £700 a year. This Bill proposes that the governing body of the
192
Haverfordwest Grammar School may enter into an arrangement for equally dividing all properties other than the properties and securities of the foundation. Anybody who has any experience of the ways of the world will see at once that a bargain entered into between the great Corporation of Birmingham on the one hand and the governors of a small Welsh grammar school on the other, is not likely to be one in which the grammar school will get the better part of the bargain. I observe the hon. Member for Thirsk proposes to amend the Bill in that, amongst other particulars, and he proposes to insert in that clause the words "With the approval of the Board of Education." I wish to say that I support that view, and I hope the hon. Member will press it upon the Government. I wish further to add that it rather shows the somewhat arbitrary manner in which this Bill has been drafted, that by implication it interferes with two clauses of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889. Under that Act there is established in each county a Committee whose duty it is to submit to the Charity Commissioners a scheme or schemes for the intermediate and technical education of the inhabitants of the county; and under Section 12 of that Act—
"An educational endowment within the county of a joint education committee means an educational endowment which is applied in the county, or is appropriated for the benefit of the natives or inhabitants of the county, or of some of such natives or inhabitants, or their children, or where the benefits of such endowments are divisible between two counties, or between the counties in Wales and the county of Monmouth, or any of them … then means so much of the endowment as the Charity Commissioners may determine to be applicable for the benefit of the county of the joint education committee."
This Bill entirely ignores those provisions of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and I wish to impress upon the supporters of the Bill the need for giving full consideration to the rights of the county governing body of Pembrokeshire and the Haverfordwest Grammar School in this Bill. I have no wish to bring to bear any undue pressure, and therefore I should be satisfied so far as relates to this point with the Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for Thirsk, and I hope that that Amendment at all events will be accepted by the promoters of the Bill or carried by the House.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"— (Mr. Joseph Alfred Pease.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now ' stand part of the Question."
MR. LOWE: As an old Birmingham King Edward schoolboy, and consequently taking a great interest in all that concerns the future welfare of the schools, I wish to say a few words in support of the Second Heading of this Bill. I hope before I sit down I shall be able to show that this foundation rests upon a somewhat different footing from that of the ordinary endowed schools which have been referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that it would be not against but in the interests of public policy that the change in the constitution which is contemplated by this Bill should be made. To begin with, these are not in any sense of the word national schools; they are local schools for the education of Birmingham children, and there certainly should be a sufficient number of men capable of governing these schools in the place itself. Nor are they on the same footing as some small charitable endowment in some out-of-the-way country village. I can quite imagine that it is necessary in a case of that kind that some controlling authority should be placed over the governors of the school, what is the main purpose and object of this Bill? The promoters do not seek in any way to get rid of any reasonable amount of control, either as regards the management of their schools or as regards any fundamental matter connected with the management of their property. What they object to in having to submit to any outside control with reference to the every-day details concerning the ordinary management of their property. These schools have hitherto been managed under schemes which were laid down by the Charity Commissioners in the years 1883 and 1884, it being also provided that the Charity Commissioners should retain in their own hands certain very extensive powers of control which were conferred upon them by the Charitable Trusts Acts and the Endowed Schools Acts. The general effect of this has been that the governing body has not been able to perform any act other than the most
194
ordinary every-day routine act with regard to the management of their property without first going to the Charity Commissioners and obtaining their consent. As might be expected, this has been found by the governors to be exceedingly irksome and inconvenient, and it has also been productive of great delay and expense in the carrying on of their operations. It is mainly with a view to get rid of this burdensome control, to enable them to be masters in their own house, and to be able to deal in a free and unfettered way with their property that the governors have introduced this Bill. At the same time there are quite a sufficient number of checks and safeguards imposed upon them to prevent any improper dealing with the property (such as seems to be feared by an hon. Member opposite), not only by the general provisions which have been incorporated in this Bill, which are practically the same as were before incorporated in the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, but also by Clause 25, which provides that any three governors who dissent from anything which is proposed to be done shall have a right of appeal to the Board of Education. This right of appeal, I want to point out, is not in any sense whatever delusive, because the board of governors is to be so constituted that there will always be upon it a sufficient number of independent governors to make this appeal if and whenever it may be necessary to do so. The House will the better realise the burdensome nature of this outside control when I explain to them the description of the property of which this foundation consists. Apart from the school buildings and recreation grounds, the great bulk of the property consists of freehold ground rents. I am informed that there are now in existence as many as 700 leases relating to the property under which these ground rents and other rents are payable, and that scarcely a day passes without some transaction concerning the property taking place. The annual revenue which is received from these sources amounts to something like £47,000. When I further explain that no single dealing with this property, no lease, conveyance, mortgage, sale, or other disposition of the property can at present take place without first having to go to the Charity Commissioners, the House can understand something of the amount of

195
inconvenience which is entailed upon the governors. I was told the other day, as an instance of the amount of circumlocution and delay which has to be gone through when a Government Department of this kind has to be approached before any dealing with property can take place, that a lease or some other document, which was sent to the Charity Commissioners as long ago as last March for their approval, has only just been received back. It seems to me that this is almost as bad as being put under the control of the Court of Chancery. What has this Board of Governors done that they should be subjected to this indignity? They are, in point of fact, no different from any private body of trustees, and so long as a private body of trustees behaves itself in a proper manner and carries on its business in a legitimate way it is not put under the control of the Court of Chancery, but is quite able to deal with its property in the manner in which it is now proposed by this Bill the governors should be allowed to deal with their property. It seems to me, then, that the only question which has to be considered by the House in deciding whether they shall accept or reject this Bill is whether the constitution of the Board, as provided for by the Bill, is such that the governors are likely to prove worthy of confidence, and to administer this foundation in the manner best calculated to promote the educational interests of the people of Birmingham. In the first place, with regard to this constitution, I would point out that it is precisely the same as it has hitherto been under the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, with the exception that an additional governor is added, to represent the new Birmingham University. There are to be twenty-two governors in all. Five of these are to be nominated governors: one appointed by each of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Birmingham, and one appointed by the teachers on the permanent staff of the schools; eight are to be representative governors appointed by the city council, and there are to be nine co-operative governors who are to be chosen and elected by the remainder of the board. The council may appoint members of their own body as governors, but the teachers may not do so, and under the clause to which the hon. Member who seconded the motion alluded (which he objects to, but which
196
I very much approve of) provision is made that all these governors, except the nominated governors, shall have some connection with or interest in the city of Birmingham. It is quite evident from this that the City Council of Birmingham will control the election of the great majority of this Board. It will be composed mainly of those who are interested in the welfare of the city of Birmingham, and will be fully and truly representative in its character. I may point out that on the present board there are no less than eleven gentlemen who are or have been aldermen or councillors of the city. There are nine members—including the present and the ex-lord mayor—who have been mayors of the city, and the chairmen of most of the large spending committees of the corporation are also on the board. What I want to point out is, that if these gentlemen are fit to be en-trusted with the administration of the revenues of the whole city of Birmingham, amounting to something like £2,000,000 a year, surely they ought to be competent to administer this much smaller amount of annual revenue without having to submit themselves at every turn to the guidance and control of the Charity Commissioners or any other outside body. It is said that one of the chief objects for the existence of the Charity Commissioners is that they shall look after the interests of posterity. I myself am rather inclined to allow posterity to look after itself; but seeing that by the falling in of leases and the increase in the letting value of land the income of this foundation has been increasing, and is still increasing year by year, I do not think there is any reason to fear that these governors will be likely to encroach upon the capital value of their undertaking. They will have no personal interest whatever to serve, and they will be quite as likely to look after posterity and to guard the future value of their property as any outside body could possibly be. The substitution of the Board of Education for the Charity Commissioners, as is proposed in many instances by this Act, was undoubtedly contemplated by the Education Act of last year, for by Section 2 of that Act it is provided that the Queen may, by an Order in Council, transfer any of the powers at present vested in the Charity Commissioners, in all matters relating to education to the new Board of Education, which was con-

197
stituted under the Act. I may also point out that a precisely similar provision to Clause 16 of this Bill—which is objected to by hon. Gentlemen opposite —has lately been inserted in the new Birmingham University Bill, which passed its Second Reading in this House the other day without any comment or opposition. At all events, the Bill as it now stands has, I understand, received the full sanction and approval of the Education Department, and there is at least a silent acquiescence in this transference of powers by the representative of the Charity Commissioners in this House. It has already, I believe, after careful consideration, passed Lord Morley's Committee, and the other House of Parliament, without any opposition whatever. In conclusion I would point out that these schools form part of one great educational system which now exists in Birmingham. There are, first of all, the public elementary schools; secondly, the grammar schools of this foundation; thirdly, the high schools of this foundation; and lastly, the new Birmingham University. And so we have that great desideratum—an educational ladder, practically complete, in Birmingham at the present time; and seeing that the first and last named of these educational institutions are not under the control of the Charity Commissioners, but that they are—so far as they need any outside control—under the control of the Board of Education, it seems to mo, to say the least of it, to be a little inconsistent and unnecessary that these schools should remain under a different authority. I think that I have said enough to show the House that this Bill is reasonable in what it asks for, and I hope that hon. Members will not persist in their opposition to it.
MR. GRANT LAWSON: The hon. Member who has just sat down has spoken of the admirable character of the education and the general excellence of this institution. That is a charming tribute to the Charity Commissioners, because all this has grown up under its authority, and the hon. Member himself received his education under the general guidance of the Charity Commissioners. I was not aware until I looked at the Parliamentary Paper that the rejection was to be moved, and I feel that this House and every Member of it has a right to ask why I as the Parliamentary
198
representative of the Charity Commissioners, did not move the rejection of this Bill. That was a matter of tactics. I have known ever since I saw the Bill that most of its clauses were wasteful and unnecessary; unnecessary because any desirable object in them could be obtained by a scheme prepared by the Charity Commissioners after an inquiry by that highly trained and strictly impartial body; and wasteful because they could have obtained those objects without cost to the charity, an expense which is now thrown upon them by the last clause in this Bill. There are other clauses which are not merely wasteful and unnecessary, but are actually mischievous. Those clauses propose for Birmingham what has been refused to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, a decision which has been reasserted here as recently as 1898. The rule as to any endowments held for the present and future is that the disposal of the funds shall not be left to the uncontrolled management of the trustees from time to time, but should be guarded in the interests of posterity by some outside body. As the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill has said, this is a rule not only with charities, but with all bodies who administer public funds. The hon. Member who has just sat down says that these governors were considered competent to manage the revenues of Birmingham uncontrolled. But has he never heard of the Local Government Board? Does he not know that Dr. Chalmers once said that public bodies were merely as potter's clay in the hands of the Local Government Board? I adopted this course because I thought that by letting the good clauses go by I might be able to stop the worst. I knew that had I moved the rejection of the Bill the Members for Birmingham would have fallen upon me. They are wise and honourable, and many of them are right honourable, and they feel very, very strongly, I understand, upon this Hill. They would join vigorously in defence of this Bill as representatives of the doctrine of Home Rule for Birmingham. Therefore I thought it was the better course for me to put down an Instruction, as I have done, concentrating the attention of the House upon these particular obnoxious clauses. If I had moved the rejection of the Bill entirely I might have been placed in a greater difficulty, and

199
the worst clauses might have got by. I hope, if this goes any further, to be able on Friday next to convince this House that the rules laid down by public policy for the safety and good management of charities in every other part of the kingdom may also be good even for so great a place and such wise men as the inhabitants of Birmingham. I shall myself vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I shall do so because, when the preamble says that the objects of the Bill cannot be obtained without the authority of Parliament, that statement is, to my own knowledge, inaccurate so far as regards the legitimate objects of the Bill. As regards the illegitimate objects of the Bill, if it goes any further they should not be carried out even with the authority of Parliament. There is just one other remark I should like to make with a view of influencing the votes in the approaching division. I want to warn hon. Members that they cannot by voting for this Bill inflict a penalty upon the Charity Commissioners. I know that the hon. Members for Birmingham carry great weight here. I know also that the Charity Commission is not as popular as it should be. In the nature of things it should not be popular, and if the Commission does its duty it cannot be popular. What is popularity? Popularity is the opinion of the present generation, but the Charity Commissioners are the guardians of the wishes of the dead and of the interests of the unborn, and in the interests of the past and the future we have sometimes to chasten the present generation. I know we are not popular in the House, and that some hon. Members may wish by their votes to inflict some penalty upon the Charity Commissioners. The Charity Commissioners are perfectly prepared to see the control of this property go to some other body, but what they object to is that it should break loose from all control whatever; so long as some other body takes it in hand we shall be exceedingly glad to get rid of it. The Charity Commissioners have done their duty with regard to it, and all they ask is that if the power is taken from them it should be given, unrestricted, to the Board of Education. That is not proposed by this Bill. My hon. friend said there were safeguards in the Bill, and referred us to: Clause 25. But that clause does rot express the desire of Birmingham in this
200
matter, and it is a new clause; it was not in the Bill when it was first introduced in another place. I have now made clear, I hope, the attitude of the Charity Commissioners, who have had great difficulty with this great institution, which is excessively purse-proud and impatient of control, and if the Board of Education cares to undertake the responsibility of controlling it, it will be a pleasant beginning for that Department, whilst the Charity Commissioners will be well rid of it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I was very glad when my hon. friend intervened in this debate. I am always glad to hear him, especially in his character of responsible and humorous representative of the Charity Commissioners, which is itself an irresponsible body. I am glad he intervened to-day, and I say it without any reflection whatever, because it would be undesirable to bring up again on Friday precisely the same issues. If the House is willing to allow the Bill to go forward to the Committee stage it would be a work of supererogation for my hon. friend to make again on Friday the speech he has made to-night.
MR. GRANT LAWSON: There is no Committee stage. The Bill is unopposed.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It must be pretty evident to the House that this is a question between a great public responsible body dealing with local officers and the Charity Commissioners. I have come into conflict with the Charity Commissioners very often, but never in such a matter as this. When I came into conflict with them it was because I thought they were a more or less irresponsible body who intervened most unjustly in order to appropriate money which belongs to the poor for the purposes of secondary education. On those points we always shall be opposed to them. We have given them a lesson, and it is they who are chastened at this moment. When the Charity Commissioners established control over the property of these foundations, no doubt what they had in view was that the governing body was in many cases entirely irresponsible, non-elective, sometimes very small, and subject to no sort of popular control. And there was a fear

201
that these governing bodies might misuse the funds at their disposal, and even the evils attendant on the control of the Charity Commissioners were deemed to be better than such a state of things as that. The hon. Gentleman said there was no precedent for this Bill. If there be no precedent it is our business to make a precedent; but there are precedents, and one of them was created last session when a similar course to that now proposed was adopted in the case of the Mason College Bill. You are dealing here with a great foundation, one of the largest foundations in the United Kingdom, with an income of something like £37,000 a year. You are dealing with an organisation which has been reformed again and again, until it has been thoroughly reorganised and put into such a form as in every sense to give satisfaction to the people of Birmingham, whatever others may think. Surely it is no part of the Radical creed to come in with regard to such an institution and say that you shall be controlled by three gentlemen and a number of clerks who will see all that you are doing and interfere in every detail. The hon. Gentleman says this school has grown up under the fostering care of the Charity Commissioners until it became a popular institution. It grew very slowly; and when it came to be a popular institution it was so hampered that it was impossible to alter any of the details without going to these precious Charity Commissioners, who take six months to decide any case, however simple it may be. In one case there was this extraordinary delay: the Local Government wished to establish a girls' school for the higher education of girls in Birmingham, and they proposed to arrange part of the payment for that school by the transfer of another charity, a cognate charity, also under the control of the Charity Commissioners. This involved the disposal of certain rent-charges; and a certain amount of Consols. From first to last there never was the slightest doubt of the propriety of the proposal, and the Charity Commissioners had nothing to say against it. Yet they must go through all these red-tape arrangements which were carried to such an extent as to really astonish a Government official, with the result that in the interval Consols fell from 112 to 103, and the charity lost a very considerable sum of money. Now it is against this utterly incompetent
202
body that the people of Birmingham protest. We do not want to get this out of all control, but, while we do not know the Board of Education, we do know the Charity Commissioners, and we do not want to know it any more. Therefore we propose under this Bill to go to the Board of Education, which may revise or refuse our proposal. The hon. Gentleman asks that the control exercised by the Charity Commission shall be transferred to the Board of Education. I think that is rather mean on the part of the Charity Commissioners. It appears to me that they wish to make the Board of Education as bad as themselves. The Board of Education does not thank them for the proposal. The Board of Education approves of this Bill in its present form, and it does not wish to follow in the footsteps of the Charity Commissioners. Sir, there is only one other point which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomeryshire, in reference to the portion of the charity in which Wales is concerned. It appears there was a sum of money—an endowment created in 1654. One half was to go to the school at Birmingham and the other half to Haverford west. This Bill proposes that if the governors of the Haverford west and the Birmingham school agree, they may divide the property, or they may sell the property and divide the proceeds. I think the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is discreditable to the Welsh people, but I am not going to contest the matter. We are quite willing to strike out the clause altogether. But as I understand none of the hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies wish that, but desire some additional protection, all I can say is that if the hon. Gentlemen from Wales are interested in this matter, we shall either meet them to their absolute satisfaction or withdraw the clause altogether from the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire,)thought that, as the right hon. Gentleman had made so handsome a proposal, the hon. Gentleman might withdraw his motion.
GENERAL LAURIE: Haverfordwest accepts the Bill as it stands. I have received a

203
letter from the Governors to-day in which they say—
"We prefer to be in the hands of Birmingham rather than in the hands of the Charity Commissioners."
MR. BOND: This matter appears to me to be a great deal more serious than the light and airy manner in which it has been discussed would lead the House to imagine. If we are to make an exception in the case of this school because it is wealthy and has powerful friends in this House, how are we to refuse similar claims from other schools? It cannot be done; and before we take away by Private Bill this reasonable control which is vested in an independent body sitting at Whitehall, we ought to give the matter a little further consideration. It is said that the Charity Commissioners intervene in every detail of the administration of this property. That is a palpable exaggeration. They do not do so; but when a mortgage is to be made or property sold they do intervene in order that they may see whether the best price is being obtained for it, and I myself have known many cases where such intervention has been of great benefit to the charity concerned. I do not dispute the fact that there is inevitable delay in every Government office, and I do not deny that there may have been delay in one particular instance which may have been prejudicial to a fund, but, looking at the matter as a whole, I say the rule of the Charity Commission
has been beneficial, and if we are to be called upon to remove that control in this instance I see no reason why we may not be called upon by and bye to revise the statute now upon the book and restore to all trustees the absolute power of dealing with funds, the safety of which might have been endangered but for the fact of their being controlled by the Charity Commission.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: It appears to me that the Charity Commission is a very unpopular body in this country, but during the last ten or twelve years during which the Welsh Intermediate Education Act has been brought into operation, it is only fair to the Charity Commission to say that we have received nothing but kindness and courtesy and wise advice from them, and I think it would be impossible to find another Department which could have dealt with the great promises of that Act in the manner in which they did. I only hope, when the question of intermediate education arises here, as it must, that England may be as fortunate as Wales has been in that respect. With regard to the Charity Commission, we can only speak for our own country, and express our acknowledgments to the Commission for all it has done for us.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 124)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Brown, Alexander H.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Milliard, Sir Harry

Doughty, George

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Butcher, John George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Anstruther, H. T.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Carmichael, Sir T.D. Gibson-

Doxford, Sir Win. Theodore

Arrol, Sir William

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

Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Evershed, Sydney

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

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

Faber, George Denison

Baird, John George Alexander

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Charrington, Spencer

Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

Burry, Rt. Hn A. H. Smith-(Hunts

Coddington, Sir William

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

Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Finch, George H.

Baylor, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

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

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Colville, John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster;

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Fry, Lewis

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Curzon, Viscount

Garfit, William

Boulnois, Edmund

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gedge, Sydney

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Denny, Colonel

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Brassey, Albert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Samuel, J.(Stockton-on-Tees)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Maclure, Sir John William

Savory, Sir Joseph

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

M'Killop, James

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Maddison, Fred.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Gunter, Colonel

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Milward, Colonel Victor

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

Heath, James

Monk, Charles James

Spicer, Albert

Heaton, John Henniker

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Helder, Augustus

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Henderson, Alexander

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Strachey, Edward

Hickman, Sir Alfred

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

Strauss, Arthur

Hobhouse, Henry

Morton, A. H. A. Deptford

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Mount, William George

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Muntz, Philip A.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Tollemache, Henry James

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffi'd)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Joicey, Sir James

Oldroyd, Mark

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Weir, James Galloway

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C. E. (Taunt'n)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

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

Keswick, William

Purvis, Robert

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Lafone, Alfred

Reckitt, Harold James

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Langley, Batty

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wills, Sir William Henry

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Richards, Henry Charles

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

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

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw. H.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swan.)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wrightson, Thomas

Lloyd-George, David

Robinson, Brooke

Wylie, Alexander

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Robson, William Snowdon

Wyndham, George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Mr. Lowe and Mr. Austen

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Rutherford, John

Chamberlain.

Macdona, John Cumming

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Causton, Richard Knight

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Allison, Robert Andrew

Cawley, Frederick

Flower, Ernest

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Forster, Henry William

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Channing, Francis Allston

Galloway, William Johnson

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Commins, Andrew

Gibbs, Hn. AGH (City of Lond.)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Gilliat, John Saunders

Baker, Sir John

Crilly, Daniel

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Balcarres, Lord

Crombie, John William

Gold, Charles

Banbury, Frederick George

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Barlow, John Emmott

Dillon, John

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Bill, Charles

Donelan, Captain A.

Hardy, Laurence

Billson, Alfred

Doogan, P. C.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Birrell, Augustine

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Blakiston-Houstor, John

Drage, Geoffrey

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. CharlesH.

Bond, Edward

Dunn, Sir William

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Holland, William Henry

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Broadhurst, Henry

Emmott, Alfred

Howard, Joseph

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)

Howell, William Tudor

Burt, Thomas

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Fenwick, Charles

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Caldwell, James

Field, William (Dublin)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

Fisher, William Hayes

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Fison, Frederick William

Kearley, Hudson E.

206

207

Kilbride Denis

Mormon, Walter

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire)

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Kitson, Sir James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Souttar Robinson

Knowles, Lees

O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)

Stanley, E. James (Somerset)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

Stevenson, Francis S.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

Stock, James Henry

Leng, Sir John

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Tennant, Harold John

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lough, Thomas

Pickard, Benjamin

Ure, Alexander

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

Pickers gill, Edward Hare

Wallace Robert

Lyell, Sir Leonard

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Macaleese, Daniel

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wason Eugene

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q.' s C)

Price, Robert John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Priestley, Briggs

Wilson, Frederick W (Norfolk

M'Cartan, Michael

Rankin, Sir James

Wilson, Henry J (York W.R.)

M'Crae, George

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Wilson, John (Govan)

M'Ewan William

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

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

M'Ghee, Richard

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Runciman, Walter

Yoxall, James Henry

Marks, Henry Hananel

Sandon, Viscount

Mather, William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

Mr. Joseph A Pease and

Monckton, Edward Philip

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Mr. Grant Lawson

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Question put, and agreed to.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. FIELD: I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time upon this clay six months. I wish to disclaim at the commencement of the debate any desire whatever to interfere with the development of the Mersey Docks. As a member of the Port and Docks Commission in Dublin, I am aware of the difficulties of carrying on the operations of such a body as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. But the Irish Live Stock Owners' Association, of which I am president, passed a resolution asking for further landing facilities at Liverpool, and therefore it is my duty to bring this matter before the House. It may be in the recollection of the House that we had a discussion on this matter on a Mersey Dock and Harbour Bill in 1898.* There are peculiar circumstances connected with this subject which it is necessary to explain to the House. It may be
* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lvi., page 1173.
208
alleged by those who are in opposition to my motion that I wish to disturb the operation of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board. That is not so. I wish them to carry out the powers which they obtained in their Bill of 1893 under which they could build a landing stage at Waterloo Pier. Now, if it was necessary in 1893 to obtain the assent of this House to build a landing stage at Waterloo Pier, why is it unnecessary now? In 1897 we sanctioned the Bootle Scheme to remove the live stock trade from the Prince's landing stage. That is precisely what we want now, with this important exception, that the market should be kept within the City of Liverpool. So far as I can see there was no mention of that in the Bill of 1893 or that of 1898. What we are asking for is improved landing stage accommodation with railway connections, but we have hitherto not obtained them. It would be useful for the House to know the fact that the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board generally carry out their own ideas without consulting the trades generally concerned; and that is a policy by which Liverpool has lost the tea trade. The large tea bonded stores which formerly were filled are now converted into ice-making warehouses. In the same way the wool trade was lost to Liverpool for want of accommodation, and consequently the wool came to London. The most recent result of that policy is to be found in the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal. We all

209
know that it was owing to the dock dues, high railway rates, want of accommodation, and inability of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board to provide facilities for the transit of goods to Manchester that the canal was constructed. I am not speaking for Irishmen alone, but for the whole country. If that policy is continued it may have more dangerous results in the future than they contemplate. I desire that the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board should carry out the improvements which they themselves suggested. I want them to look ahead and provide the facilities required by trade. In the particular trade with which I am connected I know for a fact that the Dublin and Manchester Steamship Company carry a large amount of live stock to Manchester without interfering with Liverpool at all. Liverpool is the natural port to which the majority of the live stock should go, because it is the great distributing centre of England, not only for Irish products, but for the coasting trade of England, Wales, Scotland, and the Isle of Man. In fact, Liverpool takes in more live stock than all the rest of England put together. I only mention a few of the ports from which stock is sent —Dublin, Belfast, Wexford, Sligo, Londonderry, Waterford, Tralee, West-port, Newry, Limerick, Larne, Dundalk, Drogheda, Cork, Galway. There are other ports from which occasionally live stock come, such as Glasgow, Ramsey, and Aberdeen. Now, I ask the House to consider seriously whether two berths form sufficient landing-stage accommodation for vessels coming from all these ports? There may come a time when a ship requires landing-stage accommodation owing to her having missed the time for getting into dock. Boats come from all parts. I do not want to detain the House with details and figures for which it would not care, but I do say that more live stock comes into England through the port of Liverpool than all the other ports put together. Therefore I ask for the convenience which is necessary. I do not rest my case on live stock alone, but on the general trade of Liverpool. The argument which will be used on the other side is that the sorting pen provides all the accommodation for which we are asking. Now, I have consulted the Bill, but I find there is no mention of sorting pens, and my contention is that the provision of sorting pens is no sort
210
of argument against the building of a landing stage at Waterloo Pier. In Clause 5, Section 6, it provides for an extension for about 100 yards in a northwesterly direction of the Prince's Landing Stage, with a bridge to connect it with the Prince's Landing Stage, but none of the sub-sections contain a word on the subject. Since the Prince's Landing Stage has been built we are worse off than before, because owing to the increase of traffic to Liverpool the Irish live stock trade is restricted to where there is foothold for the cattle only to the extent of two berths. It may be said that no further facilities will be given by the building of a landing stage than by building a platform at the end of the present landing stage. That is the way of the Mersey Docks; they built a platform at the end of the stage, and it is there to-day as a monument of their incapacity. When the water is high no ship can stand at that point, and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board were warned of that fact when they built it, whilst the Atlantic steamers come in and take up the whole of the stage. Let me show how they deal with our opponents in the cattle trade. There was an elaborate expenditure at Birkenhead. They refused to construct this landing stage which they themselves proposed without pressure being put upon them, but for the foreign cattle trade they have built two landing stages; at the same time they will not give us in Ireland the facilities and accommodation we want. The foreigners are subsidised whilst we, your neighbours, are taxed. This is not free trade. It is preferential to the foreigner. The foreign cattle trade ought to be in the hands of a municipal corporation. All these great public trades ought to be in the hands of a public authority. That is the doctrine accepted by this House and the whole civilised world at the present time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think the question of how the Mersey Docks treat the foreign cattle trade is a little remote.
MR. FIELD: At the present time the Mersey Docks are realising a great deal of money from the management of the foreign cattle trade, and it would be only just, I think, if a portion of that money was devoted to giving the necessary

211
facilities to the native cattle trade. It may possibly be said that the native cattle trade does not pay or does not realise an amount commeasurable with the amount we are asking the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to expend. Granted that that is so, I maintain that this Mersey Dock and Harbour Board is not a trader. It is a great public body, and it is its duty to develop the trade so that it will pay eventually. Hon. Members may say that that is my own individual opinion, but I happened to be in Liverpool on Sunday, and a small paragraph was brought to my notice in a Liverpool paper called the Porcupine. Under the head of "What People are Asking," it says—
".… If the Dock Board is not displaying a good deal of its traditional obstinacy and want of patriotism in the negotiations for pier head improvements?"
These words are not mine; they are the words of the Porcupine. My contention is that the Prince's Landing Stage should be kept altogether for passenger traffic, and that the Waterloo Landing Stage should be completed with railway connection to the market. This is required for the accommodation not only of the cross Channel trade, but also for the coasting trade of Scotland and Wales. Early and quick delivery is the essence of business at the present time. All perishable articles should be delivered at the time they come into Liverpool. I urge this from the general producer's point of view in the three kingdoms. This is not merely an Irish question. If live stock are delayed in the river they suffer much more than probably those who were unacquainted with the facts would imagine. Ventilation ceases almost when a vessel lies still in the harbour. When a vessel is going the ventilation is kept up. On the voyage the cattle get neither food nor water, and the sooner they are got out of the vessel the better. In submitting the motion standing in my name I am not acting with a desire to prevent the development of Liverpool. On the contrary, I wish that Liverpool may be further developed, and that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board may carry out their own proposals. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is one of the few trusts in this country that do not require money. They ought to act up to the necessities of the case and provide the accommodation that is so much required
212
for the cross channel and coasting steamers. I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid it was perfectly clear that the Irish Members of every shade of politics took the same view as the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division had expressed. This matter really affected what was one of their greatest national industries—namely, the cattle trade. It equally affected the people of the north of England, who must be fed. To the port of Liverpool there come from Ireland over one million beasts and sheep. It was exceedingly essential for the development of the resources of Ireland that this matter should be looked after. Unless Parliament would step in on an occasion like this and protect the small Irish producer against this wealthy corporation there was very little hope for the trade. In 1893 the Mersey Docks people obtained powers in the House enabling them to make, when they saw fit, the Waterloo Dock, with railway facilities to their market. The Waterloo Dock was the place where beasts from Ireland were to be landed, and the market where they were to be sold and distributed. There was a great deal of dispute in Liverpool between 1893 and 1898 as to the rights of the corporation to deal with this particular market, but that was eventually settled, and the site of this particular market was fixed, and was now known as the Stanley Market. In 1898 the Mersey Docks people, who had done nothing whatever under the powers, of 1893, came to the House with their Bill, which was criticised. He possessed a letter, written then by an official with a view to stopping the opposition which the Irish Members of every shade of politics then offered unless the industry was safeguarded, in which there was an undertaking that as soon as Stanley Market was fixed as a market they would carry out the powers they had obtained. In March this year the site of the Stanley Market was fixed, and what they expected to hear from Members from Liverpool as honourable men was that the undertaking would be carried out. Unless this Irish trade was given facilities, he hoped the House would not allow this Bill to pass on the Second Reading. He seconded the motion.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word ' now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words ' upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Field.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. LAWRENCEsaid he had no fault to find with the hon. Members who moved and seconded the motion; but he was rather surprised they had taken this action so soon after 1898, when this matter was before the House. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division had told the House that the Mersey Board was a great corporation dealing with a revenue of £1,300,000 a year, and yet he wished the House to believe that those responsible for the management of this great corporation were animated by feelings of favouritism towards certain interests to the detriment of other interests. He had never before heard anybody, in criticising the action of the board, make the very strong statement that they were guilty of protective regulations with a view to advantage one trade and depreciate another. It it were worth while he could read to the House a letter from a gentleman connected with the cattle trade in Belfast, stating that the cattle traders there were entirely satisfied with the arrangements at Liverpool, so that it was not true to say that the whole of Ireland complained of the want of accommodation. The hon. Member had sent round a whip which contained statements that were very inaccurate—two of them in particular. One of them he would not refer to, but the second was to the effect that in 1898 the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board had given him and his colleagues authority to give a pledge that the improvements and extension provided for in the Bill of 1893 would be carried out. That was not the case. In the Bill of 1893 the Board took powers, in case it should be necessary, to make certain new stages, among others one opposite the Waterloo Pier. The chairman of the board at the time distinctly stated that they did not take the powers with the view to the new stage being immediately made. He never came to the House and
214
said, "We are going to use these powers at once." As a matter of fact, the board had never yet found it necessary. In 1898, when the matter was before the House, there was a Bill of greater importance than this, whose merits were not criticised. He was glad to say that the merits of this Bill wore not really called in question. He did not think that the trade in Irish cattle was unfairly treated by this great and important board, to belong to which was considered the blue ribbon of the commercial world in Liverpool. He wished to repudiate strongly the suggestion that the Mersey Board would stoop to boycott the Irish trade or any other trade. The Dock Board dealt fairly and consistently all round. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division had complained that vessels did not get sufficient wharfage. Saturday and Sunday were the days on which most of the cattle steamers arrived, and during the last twenty-three weeks the average number arriving on Saturdays was three and on Sundays five, and he was authorised to say that the extent of wharfage available for these vessels was 1,693 ft., allowing 250 ft. for each vessel, which was a very large average. The House would see that even six vessels could be accommodated at the same time. He believed that in summer two or three pleasure boats lay at the pier from time to time, but as a matter of fact this great length of 1,600 ft. had last year dealt with 5,700 different ships, and out of the large number only eighty-six had at one time or other to give way to some other ships that might, under the harbour bye-laws, have a special claim to a berth. Out of these eighty-six vessels there were only thirteen that did not enjoy what he might call their right under the bye-laws to have a clear wharf space during the length of an hour. He submitted that the hon. Member had not proved that in any sense the wharfage at present was inadequate for the cattle trade from Dublin. It had been said that two years ago they had given a pledge to carry out the work provided for under the Act of 1893. It was never contemplated by the Board on the occasion to undertake the construction of the Waterloo Wharf, and little was it in the mind of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division. He would venture to read part of two letters on the subject. One, dated 7th May, 1898, was from Mr. Burton, the engineer, to the hon. Member

215
for the St. Patrick Division, and contained the following—
"I have now to inform you that, being satisfied by the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture in the House of Commons on the 28th ultimo, and by the statements made by yourself and by the Town Clerk of Liverpool on behalf of the Corporation, that the removal of the Stanley market to Bootle or to some other place not conveniently situated for cattle landed at the Prince's stage, is not probable, the Works Committee have recommended to the Board that works for increasing the sorting space for cattle adjoining and to the westward of the Prince's Pier be proceeded with."
The reply to that letter from the hon. Member for St. Patrick Division, dated 16th May, 1898, was to the following effect:—
"I am pleased to acknowledge that your board have acted in a businesslike manner, calculated to preserve the cross - channel coasting and cattle trades to Liverpool, by agreeing to provide the facilities necessary. I am glad an arrangement has been come to, which, when carried out, will be satisfactory to all those concerned."
After those letters had passed the Mersey Docks Board were, with reason, very much astonished to find that when this important Bill connected with other matters came before the House, his hon. friend got up and said he had a grievance.
MR. FIELD: May I point out to the hon. Member that I always maintained and still maintain that they should carry out those powers sought for and obtained from the House.
MR. LAWRENCE: The hon. Member said we gave a pledge to the House that we would carry out the works referred to in the powers obtained in the Act of 1893. We never made such a pledge, because we said it was not necessary then, and we say it is not necessary now. I will read what the chairman said at a meeting of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board on 4th November, 1892, when the resolution authorising the promotion of the 1893 (Various Powers) Bill was submitted and passed—
"These would meet the case to a certain extent, and were as much as would be wanted for a time, but in order to avoid the necessity of going constantly to Parliament, they thought it better to apply for powers to construct this floating stage, not as an alternative, but as a supplementary scheme, in case they found it necessary. No doubt a limit would be imposed upon them, but during the interval, the Board would be able to learn
216
whether the accommodation of the Prince's stage would suffice or not, and if not, there was still the larger scheme, which would cost £350,000."
That was the position the Board took up. The hon. Member had no doubt that as sensible and honourable people the Board, if necessary, would not hesitate to do anything else fairly to advance the interests of the trade. The Mersey Docks Board were, he believed, in a position to affirm that the Board of Agriculture considered that the necessity of the case had not yet been proved, and therefore they were entitled to leave the case where it was. They did not now, any more than in 1898, give a nan possumus, but any feasible proposal by which the trade of Ireland would be improved would be considered. Until the necessity had been proved it would be too much to call upon them to spend the very large figure which the building of the other wharf would naturally involve. Since 1898 they had carried out the alterations to which Mr. Burton referred. They had spent £25,000, and if they had not increased the wharfage they had certainly improved the chances of vessels getting forward with their unlading. He thought that the hon. Member before criticising the action of the Board might fairly wait until the new works, commenced in 1898, had actually come into operation.
SERJEANT HEMPHILLdid not think the hon. Member had met the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for St. Patrick Division. There had been complaints for years on behalf of cattle dealers and farmers in Ireland as to the want of accommodation for the landing of cattle at Liverpool. That was the point of the case. Ireland had very few-natural resources. Ireland was a very poor country, and the principal source of wealth in that country was its cattle trade, and every encouragement and facility should be given by that House for the carrying on and development of the trade. He denied altogether the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member who spoke last that there was any misstatement in the circular where it set forth that a pledge was given to the House in 1898 that the works authorised in 1893 would be carried out as soon as possible. That paragraph was strictly accurate, and he doubted very much

217
whether the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture would question the accuracy of the statement. How had that been met? The Stanley Market was now built, but the condition referred to had not been fulfilled. It was stated that Belfast traders were satisfied with the existing accommodation, but that was a mere illusory statement. Surely hon. Members were aware that nothing was more injurious to cattle than lying at anchor under stifling conditions. He knew from his own experience that great suffering and injury was caused to cattle in transit, and he read a few years ago a remarkable pamphlet published by his hon. friend the Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, which was based on the result of an action brought by cattle traders in Ireland against the railway companies for the manner in which their cattle carrying trade was conducted. He hoped the House would show some sympathy with Ireland in the matter. It interested landlords equally with tenants, because the landlords depended for their rent largely on the price obtained for cattle, and the tenants' subsistence depended on that source also. The Mersey Docks Board, which was a Corporation, whose wealth ought to be a guarantee that they would act in the right way—although he did not accept any such guarantee—ought not to have abused their powers, or ought not to have neglected to exercise them, in accordance with the distinct pledge given in 1893. He should, therefore, support the motion of his hon. friend the Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): I cannot congratulate hon. Gentlemen from Ireland on the recruit they have received in this debate. I am bound to say, speaking with some personal knowledge of the facts of this case, that I never heard such a grossly exaggerated statement as that the House has just listened to from the right hon. Gentleman. Anyone listening to his speech would imagine that two-thirds of Ireland, if not the whole of Ireland, was brought to a state of ruin by the action of the Mersey Docks Board.
SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what passage in my speech is exaggerated.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He should behave himself.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should not use such an expression as that.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I apologise. I ought not to have used it, but I was irritated by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
MR. LONG: I am not aware that I deserve the rebuke of the hon. Gentleman. The whole tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, so far as it contained any argument at all, was that the action of the Docks Board was ruining an Irish industry by their want of action and their unwillingness to meet the demands of the Irish farmers. I repeat there is no foundation for any statement of that kind. The Docks Board of Liverpool are not what the right hon. Gentleman says they are, a great wealthy corporation with an enormous income to spend as they like. They are, on the contrary, a very impoverished corporation, the members of which, by the way, perform their duties for nothing and administer a very large revenue which is derived from dues imposed on ships using the Liverpool docks, and unless they can see that any expenditure they are called upon to incur would be remunerative, they are entitled to hold their hands before they embark upon it. Suppose that the Docks Board had in 1893 or in 1898 made the specific promise referred to in this debate, and if they now found that there was no need for extra accommodation, is it reasonable that they, as trustees of public money, should be obliged to carry out that pledge even though they believed that no extra accommodation was required. The right hon. Gentleman said that complaints had been made on this question from time immemorial. Yes, Sir, many complaints have been made, such as those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. It has been my business to sift many of these complaints, and as a rule I have found that the charges were of a general character, and were refuted by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. I would suggest to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin that the best way to get what he wants—and what he is entitled to ask for if he believes that insuf-

219
ficient accommodation exists—is not to oppose this measure, which is a measure to develop the Liverpool docks. I had some part in the negotiations which took place with reference to the Bill of 1898. It was then suggested that the Stanley Market should be given up, and a site for a market obtained elsewhere. The Mersey Docks Board said that once the site was settled they were prepared to spend what money they thought right and reasonable to meet the demands that were made upon them. That is the position I understand which they take up to-day, and they are entitled to ask that before they are called upon by this House to spend more money, it should at all events be clearly shown to them that there is a demand for extra accommodation. Of course it is true that cattle suffer by the ships having to lie in the river for many hours, and that they deteriorate in condition if the arrangements made for their landing are not satisfactory. It is part of the business of my Department to use every effort we can to prevent such suffering, and there is no justification for suggesting that we allow the port authorities to give advantages to foreign cattle as against home raised cattle. We apply the same rules to all alike. Charges have been made that cattle have lain in the Mersey for long periods. I have brought these charges before the Docks Board. I have had each case examined into as to the exact time the ships arrived, came alongside, and had discharged their cargoes, and I do not hesitate to say that not one of those charges could be sustained. Surely if that is so, the Docks Board are merely doing their duty in holding their hands before indulging in further expenditure. I hope the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, who has played a very prominent part with regard to this question, and who has endeavoured to secure proper recognition of the rights and needs of graziers of cattle in Ireland, will be satisfied with the debate he has initiated, and that he will not think it necessary to put the House to the trouble of a division, because, if he succeeded in his motion, he would stop the progress of a Bill urgently required for the development of the docks in Liverpool, and would not advance by one iota the cause he has at heart. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if any person interested in the cattle trade will
220
bring forward specific cases, either with regard to delay or the condition of the cattle after being landed, I will undertake that they shall be sifted and examined into, and if, in our opinion, it is found to be desirable that additional accommodation should be provided, I will undertake also to press that view on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. I have not always seen eye to eye with them, but they have always been ready and willing to listen and to carefully consider any suggestions made to them by my Department, and I am convinced that if the need for extra accommodation can be shown they will not hesitate to meet the demand in a straightforward way. I believe that it would be more advisable for the interests represented by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin not to press the matter further, and to allow the Bill to be read the second time.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he must first express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to refer in the manner he did to his right hon. friend the Member for North Tyrone. He was sure he was expressing the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite when he said that it was a matter of regret that on that occasion they had not the advantage of the services of the highly efficient solicitor to the Board, as they had on previous occasions. The question was one on which Irish opinion was unanimous, at all events with the exception of hon. Members for Belfast, who thought that everything asked for except by Belfast was prima facie wrong, and therefore ought to be rejected by the House. With that exception, Ireland was unanimous in demanding better accommodation for the Irish cattle trade. He was sure they had the sympathy of the President of the Board of Agriculture in the matter. The position in which the House was placed by the motion was a little awkward. They were asked to reject a Bill 99–100ths of which they knew to be good because they were dissatisfied on a particular point. He thought it would be better if his hon. friend withdrew the motion for the rejection of the Bill and went on to the Instruction, which definitely raised the particular point as regards accommodation.
MR. WOLFFsaid he could not be accused of being one of those who thought that unless a thing emanated from Belfast it was sure to be wrong. So far as Belfast was concerned he had heard no complaints regarding the accommodation given in Liverpool. That possibly was only a negative testimony, but his experience was that if the people of Belfast wanted anything from Parliament they wore never slow in letting him know. He doubted whether it was actually necessary in the immediate future to build such a wharf as was suggested. That was a matter for the Docks Board to consider. At present steamers from Belfast landed their passengers at a landing stage which was centrally situated. If the cattle wharf were constructed lower down the river the steamers would be sent to it and the passengers would be landed among the cattle at a point further away from the centre of the city.
MR. FIELDsaid he would adopt the suggestion of his hon. friend and would withdraw the motion by leave of the House. In introducing it he had no desire whatever, directly or indirectly, to interfere with Liverpool as a port. It was with a view to developing the port that he brought forward his motion. He was glad the President of the Board of Agriculture had recognised the spirit in which he had acted, and he would only add that he had always been courteously and urbanely treated by the right hon. Gentleman.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

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 Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Heading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz:—
Great Central Railway Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES).
Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL
Read a second time, and committed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Battersea, Lime-house, Mile End Old Town, and St. George-in-the-East, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Battersea, Limehouse, Mile End Old Town, and St. George-in-the-East," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petiions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11).
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Marylebone, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Marylebone," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Hursley Union and the parish of Saint Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. "W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Hursley Union and the Parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Cuckfield (Rural), Leigh, Milford Haven, and Wallasey, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Cuckfield (Rural), Leigh, Milford Haven, and Wallasey," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Burton-upon-Trent, Dorchester, the Parts of Kesteven, Warring-ton, and Winchester, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Burton-upon-Trent, Dorchester, the Parts of Kesteven, Warrington, and Winchester," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  LONDON (CLERKENWELL AND HOL BORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries for State for improving an a ea situated in the parishes of St. James and St. John, Clerkenwell and St. Andrew, Holborn, in the county of London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings and Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley.
  LONDON (CLERKENWELL AND HOLBORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order made by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for improving an area situated in the parishes of St. James and St. John, Clerkenwell, and St. Andrew, Holborn, in the county of London," presented, and road the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]
  LONDON (POPLAR) PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for improving an area situated in the parishes of Poplar and Bromley-by-Bow, in the county of London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings and Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley.
  LONDON (POPLAR) PROVISIONAL ORDER KILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order made by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for improving an area situated in the parishes of Poplar and Bromley-by-Bow, in the county of London," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).
  Mr. OLDROYD reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the South Metropolitan Gas Bill had stated that the evidence of Professor Vivian B. Lewes, Royal Naval College, Greenwich, 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 Professor Vivian B. Lewes do attend the said Committee To day, at half-past Three of the clock.
  Ordered, That Professor Vivian B. Lewes do attend the Committee on Group B of Private Bills To-day, at half-past Three of the clock.

  RAILWAY BILLS GROUP (5).
  Mr. DE TATTON EGERTON reported from the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills, That the parties opposing the Bray and Enniskerry Railway Bill had stated

  225
  that the evidence of Charles Herbert Wilkinson, of 224, Dashwood House, 9, New Broad Street, London, 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 Charles Herbert Wilkinson do attend the said Committee during the proceedings on the Bray and Enniskerry Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That Charles Herbert Wilkinson do attend the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills during the proceedings on the Bray and Enniskerry Railway Bill.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
  Mr. ALEXANDER HARGREAVES BROWN reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Dublin Electric Lighting Bill had stated that the evidence of Mr. H. M. Swaine, Secretary to the Local Government Board, Custom House, Dublin, 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 Mr. H. M. Swaine do attend the said Committee upon Thursday, 17th May, at half-past Eleven of the clock, and produce to the Committee on the above-mentioned Bill the transcript of the Notes of Evidence taken at the recent local inquiry on the application of the Dublin Corporation for a loan in connection with the electric lighting of the City of Dublin, and the correspondence which has been received since the date of such inquiry.
  Ordered, That Mr. H. M. Swaine do attend the Committee on Group D of Private Bills on Thursday, at half-past Eleven of the clock, and produce the said documents.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL (PROVISIONAL ORDERS).
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

  1."That, in the case of the Tottenham Urban District Council Bill, Petition for
  226
  additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  2. "That, in the case of the London and San Francisco Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  3."That, in the case of the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  SELECTION.
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Railways (Ireland) Amalgamation Bills:—Mr. Buchanan; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hazell.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  CHARING CROSS AND STRAND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill, without amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, " An Act to authorise the Magistrates and Town Council of the burgh of Falkirk to construct new gasworks and other works and to acquire lands; and to confer further powers on the magistrates and council in relation to their gas undertaking; to extend the municipal and police boundaries of the burgh; and for other purposes." Falkirk Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, " An Act to enable the Cork Electric Tramways and Lighting Company, Limited, to extend their tramways to Blackrock; and for other purposes." Cork Electric Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to enable the Rhymney Railway Company

  227
  to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, " An Act for enabling the Brewery and Commercial Investment Trust, Limited, to arrange for the extinction of its founders' shares; for issuing shares in satisfaction of such shares; for subdividing the stock of the Company and creating certain preferences; and for other purposes." Brewery and Commercial Investment Trust, Limited, Bill [Lords]
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to extend the powers of the Bristol Waterworks Company for the protection of the purity of their waters." Bristol Water Bill [Lords].
  And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Taff Vale Railway Company with reference to the construction of works and the acquisition of lands and for other purposes." Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords].

  FALKIRK CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  CORK ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  BREWERY AND COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT TRUST, LIMITED, BILL [Lords].
  BRISTOL WATER BILL [Lords].
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
  Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER informed the House that the Committee on Group II of Private Bills, not being appointed to meet until Thursday next, the parties promoting the Church's Patent Bill [Lords], which was set down for consideration upon the first day of the meeting of the Committee, had appeared before him and proved that the Evidence of Mr. Cornelius Veale Dalton, C.B., Comptroller General of Patents, Southampton Buildings, W.C., was essential to their ease, and that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
  Ordered, That the said Mr. Cornelius Veale Dalton do attend the Committee on Group H of Private Bills on Thursday next at Twelve of the clock.

PETITIONS.
  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) BILL.
  Petition from Clerkenwell, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF SALE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Committee on Temperance of the United Presbyterian Church, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Erith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (NO. 3) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY BILL.
  Petitions for alteration, from Manchester; and Holborn; to lie upon the Table.
  PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Queensferry, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Two Petitions from Lewes, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Coatham; Bridgwater; Bradford (two); Sheffield (four); Barnsley; Furness Vale; Hex-table; Wareham; Port Sunlight; Lincoln (two); Stamford Hill; Parton; Pontyeymmer; Bridgend; Blaengarw; Bath; Framwellgate Moor; Liverpool; Leyland; Marple; Gwalodygarth; Sid-cup; New Shildon; and Durham (two); to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Licensed Trade Defence Association, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Inverness; Edinburgh (four); Cowdenbeath; Gullane; United Presbyterian Church Temperance Committee; Currie; Glasgow; Tarbert Lochfyne; Dunoon; Whiteinch; Paisley; Saltcoats; Stonehaven; and Perth; to lie upon the Table.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  Petitions for legislation, from Cannock; Stone; and Wakefield; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from Mitchell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM THREEFOLD OPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Dumbarton; Dalkeith; and Fetteresso; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 23rd June, 1899; The Lord Advocate]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 176.]
  STEEL RAILS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the loss of strength in steel rails through use on railways, together with the appendices thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consent of the Tonbridge Urban District Council in the case of the Tonbridge Water Provisional Order [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 177.]
  WEST INDIES (JAMAICA).
  Copy presented, of Contract between the Crown Agents for the Colonies and Messrs. Elder, Dempster, and Company for a steamship service between Jamaica and the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUEZ CANAL (COMMERCIAL, No. 1, 1900).
  Copy presented, of Returns of Shipping and Tonnage, 1897, 1898, and 1899 (in continuation of " Commercial, No. 4, 1899 ") [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 11, 1900).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and France regulating the telegraphic communication between the two countries. Signed at Paris, 17th February, 1900. Ratifications exchanged at Paris, 2nd April, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2422 and 2423 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR — PAARDEBERG OPERATIONS—AMBULANCE COMPANIES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why Lord Kitchener refused to allow the ambulance or the bearer companies to accompany the Paardeberg column on the ground of insufficiency of forage, and in consequence of which refusal the wounded at Paardeberg, numbering about 800, including officers, had to journey for three nights in wagons drawn by oxen at the rate of two miles an hour, exposed to heat by day and cold by night, the wagons being uncovered, and amid circumstances of suffering and privation; and whether any steps will be taken to secure, by a proper system of ambulance, the mitigation of the sufferings of the wounded and dying soldiers on the field of battle.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE vow WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): There is every reason to suppose that the ambulance system has upon the whole worked admirably throughout the present campaign. It is, however, of course impossible to make forced marches without the risk of most regrettable suffering among the wounded.

  PROMOTIONS FROM THE RANKS—IRISH SERGEANTS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that although commissions have been conferred on several sergeants since the commencement of the war, in no instance has a commission been conferred on a sergeant of any of the Irish regiments who have been selected for the posts of danger, and who have been in some instances practically annihilated; and, whether the War Office has any, and, if so, what explanation to offer for this omission.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The promotions to commissioned rank given so far have been made for reasons independent of the war. The recommendations placed at Lord Roberta's disposal have not yet been received.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: AS a matter of fact has any Irish sergeant been promoted?
  MR. WYNDHAM: As we have not yet received Lord Roberts's recommendations for war services I cannot answer the question.

  COMPENSATION TO SOLDIERS' RELATIVES—METHOD OF PAYMENT.
  SIR CHARLES D1LKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with any proposal to increase the amount payable to the relatives of private soldiers killed in battle, the Government will consider the wisdom of in all cases avoiding lump payments to widows, and of substituting annuity, and the possibility of making payments of annuities weekly instead of monthly.
  MR. WVNDHAM: The suggestion of the right hon. Baronet with regard to lump payments will be kept in view, but it is as yet too early to make any announcement on the subject.

  THE QUEEN'S CHRISTMAS GIFT TO THE TROOPS.
  MAJOR RASCH: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, seeing that the gracious present of Her Majesty the Queen to Her Majesty's troops in
  232
  South Africa was in the nature of a new year's gift to the 120,000 soldiers taking part in the campaign on 1st January, 1900, and having regard to the disappointment felt by some of the divisions, brigades, and regiments subsequently arriving in South Africa at not having received the same gift, whether he would recommend an explanation of the distinction in an Army Order.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The gift being a personal one from Her Majesty to the troops serving in South Africa at Christmas, it does not seem desirable to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member in an Army Order.

  THE NAVY—INOCULATION AGAINST FEVER.
  MR. BROWN: I beg to ask the Junior Lord of the Admiralty whether the Army Medical Department reports show that inoculation for enteric fever has been found useful in our Army in South Africa; and, if so, whether the Government will supply anti-typhoid vaccine to Her Majesty's ships so that sailors and others who have to land in unhealthy places may previously be inoculated on board ship.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): This matter is receiving careful attention, but definite information as to the results of inoculation for enteric fever is not yet available. When this information is received, the point raised by my hon. friend shall be considered.

  WAR MEDAL FOR NAVAL FORCES.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the medal for the Naval forces engaged in the present war will be identical with that issued to the Military forces; and, if not, whether it will be possible to secure a suitable design by means of an open or limited competition.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The operations in question being of an essentially military character, any medal granted by Her Majesty will be issued by the War Office. Naval forces co-operating with the military forces in these operations would receive the same medal.

  ROYAL ARTILLERY — RESERVE OF OFFICERS—RETIRED CAPTAINS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many captains, retired from the Royal Artillery, there are in the Reserve of Officers, and how many of them have been employed in the war or in connection with the formation of the new batteries.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of captains retired from the Royal Artillery who are in the reserve of officers is sixty. Of these two are employed in South Africa, thirteen in connection with the formation of now batteries and companies, and twenty-one in other military employments.

  ARMY CONTRACTS COMMITTEE—MR. HOUSTON—PRVILEGE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether, when he proposed the Member for the Toxteth Division of Liverpool to serve on the Army Contracts Committee, he was aware that the hon. Member is chairman of the British and American Steam Navigation Company, Limited, which has contracts with several Government Departments, including the War Office; and if so, what explanation, if any, has he to offer for proposing the Member for the Toxteth Division to serve on this Committee.
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir WILLIAM WALROND,): No, Sir, I was not aware of the facts stated in the question of the hon. Gentleman.
  [LATER.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read a notice which I think is contrary to the privileges and usages of Parliament, and probably is within the purview of that Act of Parliament by which gentlemen who contract with the War Office Departments are rendered ineligible for seats in this House. The notice has been issued from the office of R. P. Houston and Co.
  MR. SPEAKER: What is the date?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: April 19th, 1899. It came into my hands this day.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The House cannot take cognisance of a matter that happened a year ago.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg pardon. The date is April, 1900—last month.
  MR. SPEAKER: Matters of privilege must be brought promptly before the House. If the document has been in circulation for a month it is too late for the hon. Member to bring it before the House as a breach of privilege, nor is it any answer that the hon. Member only saw it to-day, otherwise matters might be brought before the House which occurred ten years ago. A question of privilege must be brought forward promptly and while it is of fresh interest.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With great respect, if that be so, Sir, and as I regard this as a matter of most intense and enormous public interest, I think I shall be justified in taking the sense of the House as to the use of the Ten Minutes Rule—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise at present.

  MILITARY EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS—ETON COLLEGE MEMORANDUM.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: On behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division of Essex, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the memorandum of the head master of Eton College, with regard to military education in public secondary schools and their association with a scheme of national defence, has been under consideration; and if he can make any statement thereon.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The memorandum has been carefully considered, and certain observations upon it have been addressed to the head master of Eton, who has been advised to bring it before the next conference of head masters. The Secretary of State for War will be prepared to deal with any suggestions which may emanate from the public schools as a whole.

  VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
  MR. F. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the new Volunteer Reserve will be limited to men who have been returned efficient six times in the last ten years; and whether, having regard to the more advantageous defence of

  235
  the country he will recommend the admission to the Reserve of all old Volunteers who qualify as marksmen.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The limit referred to was laid down after consultation with Volunteer commanding officers, and was fixed with regard to the efficiency of the Volunter force as a whole. The Secretary of State is not willing to relax the conditions without further inquiry.

  VOLUNTEER CAMPS—RAILWAY PRIVILEGES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will ask the railway companies to allow wives of Volunteers in camp to travel to see their husbands at military rates.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State does not see his way to making this request of the railway companies.

  VOLUNTEER CAMPS—FACILITIES FOR MUNICIPAL SERVANTS.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will issue a circular letter to municipal corporations, county councils, boards of guardians, and other public bodies, and also to railway companies, banks, and insurance companies, urging them to afford facilities to their employees who are Volunteers to attend camp this year for fourteen days.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is hoped that all employers will make arrangements to allow Volunteers in their service to be present during as many days as possible of the special month's training for which they have been asked to attend. But the Secretary of State thinks it bettor to defer any appeal to private employers until the arrangements made for Government employees can be announced. This will, I hope, be very soon.

  VOLUNTEERS—CYCLIST COMPANIES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the cyclist companies which the new Volunteer regulations give authority to raise are to be in addition to the present authorised strength of Volunteer regiments.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The cyclist companies can be either surplus to the
  236
  existing establishment, or one of the existing companies can be converted into a cyclist company.

  MARRIED VOLUNTEERS—SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether some arrangement can be made whereby married Volunteers may receive separation allowance at the end of seven days in camp, on condition that such allowance is returned if the full fourteen days are not served.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Such matters are being left by the Secretary of State for internal arrangement by the corps concerned.

  CADET CORPS UNIFORMS.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to relaxing the requirements as to uniform in the case of cadet corps, so as to enable the boys at the public schools to join such corps in larger numbers than the expense of providing such uniform will at present permit.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A most inexpensive uniform, consisting of a Norfolk jacket and trousers of a neutral tint, with slouch hat, has been approved, and the regulations are being amended accordingly.

  RIFLE CLUBS AND RANGES.
  MAJOR RASCH: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps the Secretary of State is prepared to take to place the means of learning the use of the rifle within reach of the cottage of every man, and particularly what assistance may be counted upon by rifle clubs in the matter of ranges, rifles, and ammunition; and if the appointment of an official or committee charged to receive the proposals and advance the views in this direction of public bodies will be considered.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State has consented to recognise rifle clubs affiliated under certain conditions to the National Rifle Association. An issue of rifles and ammunition sufficient for the purposes, of practice will be made to such clubs.

  INDIAN FAMINE—STATISTICS.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information as to the progress of the famine in India, and as to the necessity of further assistance to the Lord Mayor's Fund.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): According to the latest telegram there were 5,579,000 persons on the relief works in India. This figure is slightly lower than that of the previous week, but the reduction must not be taken as indicating any general improvement in the state of affairs, as it is probably owing to the breaking up of some of the relief camps which have been visited by cholera. In Madras and Mysore, however, the recent rain has caused a material improvement of the situation in those localities. Elsewhere the position is unaltered. As regards the Mansion House and other similar funds, in 1897 more than half the money contributed by charity was spent in making advances to the cultivators to enable them to resume their livelihood, and the funds so raised were largely in excess of the response to the similar appeal made during the present year. The Government of India, as I explained in a reply to a question yesterday, are making provision to supplement this branch of relief by making large advances themselves to the cultivators.

  AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH BILL —PROPOSAL TO HEAR DELEGATES AT THE BAR.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Australian delegates have expressed a wish to be heard at the Bar of the House in support of views they have expressed to him against the proposed amendments of Her Majesty's Government; whether he has intimated any opinion to them in this connection; and whether, if it is ascertained that they have no objection to express their views at the Bar of the House, he would see his way to facilitate that course.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. ,J. CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir; no such wish has been expressed to me by any of the Australian delegates.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN: If the right hon. Gentleman ascertains that the delegates are willing to come forward, will he facilitate matters?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman asks me a hypothetical question. I will wait until the conditions arise.

  MALTA—PUBLIC MEETING ORDINANCE.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table an Ordinance passed in Malta (No. XL of 1898), to make some provisions relating to public meetings and assemblies.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, sir.

  CHINA—RUSSIAN RAILWAY CONCESSIONS.
  SIR E ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any information to the effect that the Chinese Government have given permission to a Russian company or to Russian subjects to build a railway direct to Pekin from Lake Baikal via Kiakhta and Mongolia.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): We have received no confirmation of the rumour referred to.

  CROWN AGENTS —REMUNERATION AND COMMISSION.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is he aware that in 1878 the average cost for the agency exorcised by the Crown Agents for the Colonies in making purchases for Colonial Governments amounted to less than one-quarter per cent. on the sum disbursed by the Crown Agents; is this the same rate of percentage as is still paid by Colonial Governments to the Crown Agents for making such purchases; and, if so, can he explain why Her Majesty's Government have agreed to pay to the Crown Agents a commission of 1 per cent. on all stores ordered by them for the Uganda Railway.
  MR. BRODRICK: The average cost of agency to which the hon. Member refers does not accrue merely from making purchases for Colonial Governments. It represents the average cost of the agency business of all kinds transacted by the Crown Agents, such as the issue and management of colonial loans, the control of sinking funds, general financial business, the supervision of public works, and the purchase of stores and materials. The Departmental charges which have been authorised by the Secretary of State for the Colonies for these services vary, but that for the supply of stores is 1 per cent. to all Colonial Governments and the Uganda Railway pays at the same rate.

  VENEZUELAN ARBITRATION — ATTORNEY GENERAL'S FEES.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can explain why Sir Richard Webster as Attorney General received a fee of £2,585 for his services in the Venezuelan Arbitration in addition to his official salary of £7,000.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): Under the terms of the Treasury minute of 1895 the Law Officers of the Crown receive fixed salaries for all non-contentious business. For contentious business they are entitled to fees on the ordinary professional scale. The Venezuelan Arbitration was contentious business.
  MR. COGHILL: Will the same treatment be extended to officers of the Army and Navy?
  [No answer was given.]

  LAW OFFICERS' FEES.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the amounts of £17,264 and £11,844 received last year by the Attorney General and Solicitor General respectively, he will give the House an opportunity of discussing and fixing the amount of the remuneration to be paid to the new Attorney General and Solicitor General.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Vote on which such a discussion could be originated took place on 26th
  240
  April†; and it will be in the recollection of the House that the Attorney General gave full particulars of the remuneration of the Law Officers, and that statement, apparently, was generally accepted by the Committee.
  MR. COGHILL: Is there any reason why the Attorney General should be paid a salary three times as great as that of the Prime Minister?
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  ISLE OF WIGHT FISHING GROUNDS — DAMAGE BY PORTSMOUTH HOPPERS.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the alleged action of the hopper barges belonging to the Portsmouth Dockyard which tip their spoil near the Warner Lightship in the Solent and on the lobster grounds near the Isle of Wight, thereby destroying the breeding ground of fishes and the fishing grounds of the men engaged in taking them; and whether, having regard to the anxiety of the Government to protect the fisheries of the United Kingdom, he will communicate with the Board of Admiralty with a view of preventing such destruction and damage, and will, if necessary, insert a clause in the Sea Fisheries Bill enabling the Board of Admiralty or any other public body, as well as fishermen, to be fined for the useless destruction and damage of fish.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): My attention has not been drawn to the deposits of spoil complained of by the hon. Member. I am advised, however, that the sites of these deposits are a long way from the lobster grounds near the Isle of Wight, and that the deposits are made in places where the fishing industry is not affected.

  S.S. "MEXICAN"—NATIONALITY OF THE CREW.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any report as to the conduct and nationality of the crew of the steamship "Mexican" at the
  † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxii., page 26.

  241
  time of her recent collision with the steamship "Wingfield" in South African waters.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not yet received the report of the Court of Inquiry in the case of the " Mexican," and I am unable therefore to say anything at present as to the conduct of the crew at the time of the recent casualty. As regards the nationality of the crew, out of a total of 150, six were foreigners, and these were all employed in the steward's department.

  RAILWAY SEASON TICKET CONDITIONS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Railway Company imposes on the holders of season tickets conditions to the effect that the company are not to be held accountable for any stoppage, hindrance, or delay of the trains, whether arising from negligence, accident, or any other cause; and, will he state whether any bye-law of the company which has received the sanction of the Board of Trade entitles the company to enforce these terms as conditional on the issue of season tickets.
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand that such a condition as that stated in the hon. Member's question is attached to the issue of season tickets by the railway company referred to. The issue of such tickets at reduced rates is, however, a purely voluntary proceeding on the part of the railway companies, and the terms upon which they are issued are therefore a matter of arrangement between the companies and their customers. The railway bye-laws have no bearing upon the subject.

  PAUPER IMBECILES AND EPILEPTICS.
  SIR U. KAY - SHUTTLEWORTH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board in reference to the Report of the Select Committee on the Cottage Homes Bill, and their recommendation that it should be the duty of the county councils to provide suitable accommodation in separate institutions for the proper treatment of all pauper imbeciles and epileptics, whether a Government Bill has been
  242
  prepared dealing with this point, so as not only to make room for better classification in workhouses, but also to obviate discomfort to the aged poor in the smaller workhouses; whether this is the same Bill, or part of the same Bill, which he has informed the House has not been brought in because of the other heavy demands on Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer; and whether he can give the House any assurance that the Government will take an early opportunity of proposing such measures as are needed to give effect to some, at least, of the recommendations of the Cottage Homes Committee.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): The Bill to which I referred in reply to a question from the hon. Member for the Tyneside Division of Northumberland on the 10th instant,† is the only Bill I have considered in connection with this question, and I cannot hold out any hope that I shall be able to introduce another Bill on the same subject during this session. The object which I had in view is accurately stated in the question of the right hon. Baronet, but I think he will see that I cannot say more with regard to a measure which is not before us, and which, indeed, is not at present to be introduced.

  CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES—REPORT FOR 1899.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1899 is likely to be in the hands of Members.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE): I am informed that the Report is in the hands of the printers, and that the Inspector is revising the proofs, so that its publication will not be long delayed.

  CENSUS—PAY OF ENUMERATORS.
  MR. H. P. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the remuneration granted to the registrars and enumerators for
  † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxii., page 1248.

  243
  performing the work of taking the Census, seeing that Dr. Ogle, chief statistician, in his evidence before the Treasury Committee (Census, 1891), stated that the pay of the enumerators was not more than that of a labourer, and seeing that the present scale of remuneration was fixed thirty years ago, when the general rate of wages was at least 25 per cent. lower than that ruling at present.
  MR. HANBURY: The question of the proper payment to be made for taking the next census is being fully considered.

  KHAKI-COLOURED CLOTHES IN GAOLS.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will discontinue the use of khaki-coloured clothes for prisoners under his control.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir, I cannot see any adequate reason to do this.

  LORDS OF APPEAL—ENGLISH, SCOTCH, AND IRISH APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if there is any arrangement or understanding, or practice supported by sufficient precedent, under which the legal appellate tribunal of the House of Lords shall contain at least one member of the Scottish Bar; or whether such tribunal, in hearing Scotch and Irish appeals, may be exclusively composed of members of the English Bar who have never practised in Scotch or Irish Courts.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my hon. friend I have to say that there is no standing order on this question; but I believe as a matter of fact there is always, or almost always, a Scotch Judge of Appeal sitting upon Scottish appeal cases. That is certainly a desirable state of things, because, as my hon. friend is aware, Scottish law is different from English law.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: May I respectfully point out that the First Lord has not answered my question? I did not ask was there a standing order, but whether there was any arrangement, or understanding, or practice supported by sufficient precedent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I tried to interpret the rather vague phrases of my hon. friend. There is an arrangement, if arrangement means common practice; but there is no understanding that I am aware of. My hon. friend asks whether the practice is supported by sufficient precedent. I do not know what that means. As the hon. Gentleman will see, I am in a difficulty, and I cannot give him a more precise answer than the one I have given.

  SCOTTISH FISHERY AND CONGESTED DISTRICT BOARDS' REPORTS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state when the Reports of the Fishery Board for Scotland, the Local Government Board for Scotland, and the Congested Districts Board for Scotland will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed that the Local Government Board and the Congested Districts Board expect to present their annual Reports to Parliament next week. The annual Report (Part I. General Report) of the Fishery Board has already been presented, and will shortly be circulated to Members.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed the resolution proposed by Mr. W. H. Boyle (Gilford), at the Annual Congress of the National Teachers of Ireland, recently held in Derry, suggesting that now on the rearrangement of the salaries of Irish National teachers arrangements should be made to abolish the disparity between the incomes of teachers in non contributory and contributory unions; and whether he will restore that uniformity which formerly existed, and whether arrangements have been or will be made with the Treasury to give effect to that suggestion.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): For the future, existing teachers of National Schools in Unions that have hitherto been contributory will have in-

  245
  cluded in their income from State sources the amount of the contributions voted by the Unions. In the case of future teachers no disparity will exist.

  COUNTY ANTRIM SUB-COMMISSION —MR. DAVIDSON.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain on what grounds Mr. Davidson, a member' of the County Antrim Sub-Commission, has been dismissed or transferred to another district; and whether he is aware that Mr. Davidson was reputed to be a practical farmer and a thorough judge of the value of an agricultural holding, and that this apprehended transfer has caused dissatisfaction among the farmers of the county of Antrim.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Land Commission has an absolute discretion under the Land Acts as to the districts in which it will from time to time delegate cases to Assistant Commissioners for hearing and decision, and in the exercise of that discretion it recently changed the districts of several Assistant Commissioners, amongst others that of Mr. Davidson. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement as to Mr. Davidson's qualifications, and I have no information respecting the alleged dissatisfaction caused by his transfer to another district.

  IRISH RAILWAYS AND CANALS—VICEREGAL COMMISSION.
  MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what the intentions of the Irish Government are with respect to the appointment of a Viceregal Commission to inquire into the Irish railway question.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg at the same time to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that petitions have been presented from every county and urban district council in Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant, asking that a Viceregal Commission be appointed to inquire into the working of railways and canals in Ireland; and as, up to the present, no reply has been received from the Lord Lieutenant, whether the question has been considered; and, if so, can he say
  246
  whether a Viceregal or any other commission will be appointed to consider the question.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: In answer to these questions I have to say that numerous petitions have been received asking for the appointment of a Viceregal Commission to inquire into the working of railways and canals in Ireland. The matter has received the most careful consideration of the Irish Government, but I regret to say that we have been unable to arrive at a conclusion favourable to the request of the petitioners. The Government are not prepared to refer to another Commission, whether Royal or Viceregal, a general inquiry involving such questions as the purchase of Irish railways by the State, or their compulsory amalgamation, subject to control by a public Department, or the cheapening of carriage by rail in Ireland at the expense of the National Exchequer. As regards less ambitious expedients for dealing with the evils complained of, such as a fresh revision of maximum rates and charges, it must be remembered that new schedules of maxima were determined by Provisional Order in 1892 and accepted without objection by the Irish traders. A Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed a year later to consider whether it was desirable to adopt any other than the then existing means of settling differences arising between the companies and the public with respect to the rates and conditions of charge for the conveyance of goods. This inquiry, which extended to the Irish railways, was followed by legislation increasing the powers of the Railway Commissioners; but Irish traders have made comparatively little use of their right of appeal either to the Railway Commissioners or to the Board of Trade. This may be due to the expenses involved in the appeal to the Railway Commissioners. The Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act of last year gave, however, to the Department of Agriculture in that country the power which no English or Scottish Government possesses, of taking a case before the Railway Commissioners and paying the expenses incurred. Until it has been seen how the provisions of this Act work there would appear to be no sufficient ground for opening a fresh inquiry into the rates and charges on

  247
  Irish railways; but, even were it otherwise, I doubt whether a Viceregal Commission would be the most suitable body to undertake such inquiry.

  PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE—BLOCKING NOTICES — MR. DUNCOMBES NOTICE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether a telegram has been sent to the hon. Member for West Cumberland with the view to the withdrawal of his notice of motion as to the terms of settlement of the war in South Africa; and whether a reply has been received, and, if so, to what effect.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; not only one, but I believe two telegrams have been sent on this subject, but no reply has yet been received.

  NEW WRIT.
  For the Borough of Manchester (South Division), in the room of the Right Hon. John Douglas Sutherland Campbell, commonly called Marquess of Lorne, now Duke of Argyll, called up to the House of Peers. —(Sir William Walrond.)

  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. Crombie; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Edmund Robertson.
  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 Borough Funds Bill:—Mr. William Allan (Gateshead), Mr. Banbury, Mr. Carvill, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Doughty, Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. William Moore, Mr. Palmer, Colonel Pilkington, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. J. Samuel, Mr. Charles Shaw, and Mr. Tomlinson.
  Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade
  248
  (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Cohen, Sir Reginald Hanson, Mr. Wolff, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Kemp, Sir Charles Dalrymple, and Mr. Ritchie; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Victor Cavendish, Captain Bethel, Colonel Milward, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr. A. K. Loyd, Mr. Monckton, Sir Charles Welby, and Mr. Grant Lawson.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords].
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., with Amendments.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 178.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 178.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered on Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

IRISH EDUCATION.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): I have to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to amend Section 18 of the Irish Education Act, 1892. The Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have in hand the reorganisation of the system of payment of the teaching staffs in the National schools. The public funds which they have at present at their disposal for the payment of teachers are, first, the money voted annually by the House, but not under any particular Act of Parliament; and, secondly, the school grants voted under the Education Act of 1892. With regard to the money not voted by any special Act, it is open to the Commissioners and the Treasury to make such arrangements as they think best for the administration of such funds, but the distribution of the school grants is determined by the fourth schedule of the Act of 1892. What the Bill proposes to do is to repeal that schedule in order; to enable the Commissioners to deal with the school grants with exactly the same free hand as they are able to deal with the moneys annually voted by Parliament.
MR. DILLON: I only desire to say a few words. I do not intend to discuss the Bill, which is an extremely simple one, but I hope that on the Second Reading, or on the Education Vote, an opportunity will be given for the discussion of the new rules which are now being drafted by the Commissioners of Education.
Bill to amend Section 18 of the Trish Education Act, 1892, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, and Mr. Horace Plunkett.

IRISH EDUCATION HILL.
" To amend Section 18 of the Irish Education Act, 1892," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND.)
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I next have to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to intermediate education in Ireland. The object of the Bill is to give effect to the recommendations made in the Report of the Intermediate Commissioners last year. It is not intended to alter the Intermediate Education Act of 1878, but rather to supplement it. The Commissioners ask for powers, which they do not possess under that Act, to use the funds at their disposal in the manner recommended by the Viceregal Commission on Intermediate Education.
MR. DILLON: Will the changes proposed to be carried out by the Intermediate Education Commissioners be submitted while the Bill is before Parliament?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I cannot give a pledge on that point; but no change can be introduced except by rules, and the Bill provides that the rules shall be laid before the two Houses of Parliament before they take effect.
Bill to amend the Law relating to Intermediate Education in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, and Mr. Horace Plunkett.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to Intermediate Education in Ireland," presented,
250
and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT (1874) AMENDMENT.
Bill to amend the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry David Greene, Mr. Radcliffe Cooke, and Mr. Brynmor Jones.
PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.
"To amend the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 23rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Last year the attention of the House was on several occasions directed from various points of view to the position of savings banks funds in this country. These funds now amount to an enormous sum—no less than £183,000,000—and are held on behalf of the Government by the National Debt Commissioners. As hon. Gentlemen are aware, interest is paid on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank at the rate of 2½ per cent., and by the National Debt Commissioners to the trustee savings banks at the rate of 2¾ per cent. The law provides that those deposits can only be invested by the National Debt Commissioners in Government funds. That works very well so long as Government funds can be bought to bear the same rate of interest as by law is paid to depositors, plus the expenses of management; but since the beginning of 1894 am sorry to say the system has not worked by any means satisfactorily. No less than £61,000,000 of deposits have been placed in the Post Office Savings Bank and in the trustee savings banks beyond the amount that existed in those banks at the commencement of 1894, and over since that date and up to within the last few months it has been necessary for that vast sum to be invested in Government securities paying a less rate of interest than by law is paid to the depositors for whom the money is in-

251
vested. The result has been that in the course of the present year it has been my duty to obtain from Parliament a Vote for £38,000 to make up the deficiency in the income of the trustee savings bank fund, and £11,000 to make up the deficiency in the Post Office Savings Bank fund. Further, the capital account of both funds taken together shows at present, if the securities are valued at par, but a very small, and, I fear, a decreasing, surplus as compared with the liabilities. It has been practically universally accepted that this state of things is unsatisfactory. For the moment the financial situation has been relieved by the great fall in Government securities since the middle of last year; but I do not expect, and I do not think any of us can expect, that that will be permanent; and, further, in 1903 there must be a considerable loss of income to the savings banks funds owing to the fact that of the £183,000,000 standing to their credit, no less than £86,000,000 are invested in Consols, and in that year the rate of interest in Consols will be reduced automatically by a quarter per cent., while, in addition to the sum of £86,000,000, a further sum of £20,000,000 Consols has been cancelled for terminable annuities, the interest on which will also be reduced, so that the savings banks funds will lose as a whole, at that date, an income of £270,000 a year. Some have suggested—and I think I was among the number—that the proper way to meet this difficulty was by reducing the legal rate of interest payable to depositors in the savings banks; others have suggested that it might be met by extending the area of investment, so as to enable the National Debt Commissioners to invest these funds in less safe securities than those in which they are at present invested on behalf of the State. I have considered this question carefully, and in my opinion the existing system does not rest on a sound basis, because the legal rate of interest paid to depositors does not bear any necessary relation to the rate of interest which these deposits can earn. I do not think this is fair to the depositor or to the State, because, if, as has happened in the past, Government securities fall so low as to be purchasable to pay three per cent. or four per cent. or more, the depositor does not under the present system get more than 2½ per cent. for his money; while, on the other hand, if only 1½ per
252
cent. can be obtained we still have to pay 2½ per cent. Therefore, what I propose is that the rate of interest paid to depositors should vary within reasonable limits, according to the rate which their money can earn. The Bill I now ask leave to introduce provides that towards the close of each year an estimate shall be made of the probable earnings of the capital of each of the two savings banks' funds respectively in the ensuing year and of the probable rate of interest which those earnings would pay to depositors. On these estimates the Treasury will determine the rate of interest to be paid, to the nearest multiple of one-eighth in the pound; and notices will be published of any change in the rate of interest at least a month before it is made. As the rate of interest to be paid ought always to be so calculated as to leave a slight margin of surplus income, a reserve fund would be gradually built up to provide against depreciation of the securities, and this might with care be utilised to some extent to make up any deficiency of income arising from a mistaken estimate. I propose that this new system should not begin until 1903, so as to give ample notice to existing depositors of the change. As the income of the trustee savings banks fund is in a less favourable position than that of the Post Office funds, I propose to credit the trustee savings banks with the income of certain securities purchased by an annuity which was set up in 1880 to replace their lost capital, and to extend that annuity from 1908 to 1914, so as to secure, as was originally intended, the solvency of their capital account. The Bill, like previous legislation on the subject, applies to deposits of friendly societies also, but those societies which are entitled to a privileged rate of interest on assurances made before 1888 will retain that privilege fully. I also propose some minor amendments in the law relating to trustee savings banks, which have been recommended by the inspection committee. I need only say, in conclusion, that I recognise fully the extreme difficulty of this subject. I have no desire whatever to press my proposals by any party majority. What is principally necessary is that the House should realise the necessity of some change in the present position, and while I submit these proposals to the House I shall be most ready to consider any suggestions that might be made of another

253
kind, which, in the opinion of hon. Members, may be more satisfactory to the public. I propose to introduce the Bill now and to give ample time before the Second Reading, when I hope there may be a useful discussion on its provisions. I can assure the House that it is my desire, on the one hand, to do nothing that may discourage providence and thrift, and, on the other hand, to secure the taxpayer against being placed in a position of subsidizing the savings banks as if they were charitable institutions rather than the independent institution which they ought to be. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Law with respect to the rate of interest payable on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank, and on money invested with the National Debt Commissioners on behalf of Trustee Savings Banks and Friendly Societies, and for other purposes connected with Trustee Savings Banks."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. BROADHURST: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give a very considerable time between now and the Second Reading of the measure he has just asked leave to introduce. I can scarcely conceive anything more disastrous to thrift and providence on the part of the people than the scheme , outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. The only comforting words in his statement were that he recognised that it will disturb, if not to a large extent destroy, the providence of the present day, and cause great consternation amongst depositors.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I did not say so.
MR. BROADHURST: Well, I think so, and that is sufficient for me. I am certain that the class of people who deposit portions of their wages with the Post Office will be considerably alarmed by the proposal, and I cannot conceive anything more likely to alarm them than this sliding-scale scheme under which the interest is to be reckoned a month before the end of the year. I do hope that the burden of any readjustment of finance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may find necessary in consequence of the large expenditure of the Government will not be visited upon the heads of the
254
working people. The State is the only bank in which many of the people will deposit their savings, and if their confidence in the State is disturbed the thrift which has been growing up among the workers for the last thirty years will be shaken to its foundations.
Bill to amend the Law with respect to the rate of interest payable on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank, and on money invested with the National Debt Commissioners on behalf of Trustee Savings Banks and Friendly Societies, and for other purposes connected with Trustee Savings Banks, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hanbury.

SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
"To amend the Law with respect to the rate of interest payable on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank, and on money invested with the National Debt Commissioners on behalf of Trustee Savings Banks and Friendly Societies, and for other purposes connected with Trustee Savings Banks," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]
ARCHITECTS' REGISTRATION.
Bill to provide for the Registration of Architects, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atherley-Jones, Sir William Coddington, Mr. Maurice Healy, and Mr. Price.
ARCHITECTS' REGISTRATION BILL.
" To provide for the Registration of Architects," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
Motion made, and Question proposed; " That Mr. Houston be discharged from the Select Committee on War Office Contracts; that Colonel Mellor be added to the said Committee." — (Sir William Walrond.)
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will not occupy the attention of the House for more than a very few minutes, but I think I am justified in

255
asking how this Gentleman came to be proposed on the Committee. The motion is that he should be taken off; I want to know how he came to be put on. I cannot say anything in the slightest degree disparaging of the right hon. Gentleman who moved this motion on the part of the Government, because he gave me today something I am quite unaccustomed to receiving from the Treasury Bench, namely, a straight answer. I asked whether he was aware when he nominated this gentleman to serve on the Committee that he was the head of a firm which had extensive contracts with the Government, and he said he was not aware. I think we are justified as a mere matter of Parliamentary etiquette, when gentlemen are nominated on Committees—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now proceeding to discuss a different question altogether from that on the paper. The question is whether Mr. Houston should be discharged from the Select Committee on War Contracts; the hon. Member is proceeding to discuss the question whether Mr. Houston ought ever to have been put on that Committee. I would also point out to the hon. Member that I am obliged strictly to enforce relevance, and to prevent him making any indirect attack upon the hon. Member for Toxteth Division upon this occasion, because it is one upon which it is quite obvious the hon. Member will have no opportunity of replying to the remarks which may be made.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I must accept your ruling, and I accept it as I accept all your rulings—with alacrity and willingness. I think I might give, without in the slightest degree making any attack on the hon. Gentleman, some admirable reasons for supporting the Government in taking the hon. Member off this Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Standing Order 16 provides that the question must be put after a brief explanatory statement from the hon. Member moving and the hon. Member opposing the motion. The hon. Member now says he proposes to support and not oppose the motion; therefore I am afraid he has no locus standi.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am the hon. Member who opposes the motion, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member began by opposing the motion.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I give way to my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn?
MR. SPEAKER: No.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then I must technically oppose the motion.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot do that now. He would be trifling with the rules of the House.
Ordered, That Mr. Houston be discharged from the Select Committee on War Office Contracts.
Ordered, That Colonel Mellor be added to the said Committee.—(Sir William Walrond.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,), who had the following notice of motion on the Paper—
Business of the House (Housing of the Working Classes Act (1890) Amendment Bill) —That the Order for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Housing of the Working Classes Act (1890) Amendment Bill have precedence this day of the Notices of Motion and the other Orders of the Day—
said: The House is aware of the circumstances under which I originally placed this motion on the Paper. I then entertained the hope that the motion might be disposed of before five o'clock, and that we might have sufficient time to conclude the debate on the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, and also to give an opportunity to private Members to proceed with their resolutions. It is, however, otherwise ordained, and the time has approached half-past eight before I have had an opportunity of moving. As the motion itself might perhaps be discussed at considerable length, the amount of time the Government measure would gain would be extremely limited, and therefore I think it is hardly worth while raising any controversy as to how the dregs of this evening should be spent. Under these circumstances I do not pro-

257
pose to make the motion which stands in my name on the Paper.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Do I understand the First Lord of the Treasury to say that private Members' motions will now be able to come on?
MR. SPEAKER: That follows as a matter of course.

PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION.
[RESOLUTION.]
MR. LEES KNOWLES: I desire to call the attention of the House once more to this subject, in which I have taken considerable interest during the past nine or ten years I have been in Parliament—namely, the subject of the registration of plumbers.† The proposal for a national registration of plumbers was made, I believe, for the first time at the Congress of Health held in London in 1884, and that was followed by a request to a public body to deal with the matter. That public body was the Worshipful Company of Plumbers. They came forward to assist those who were associated with them not merely in name, but in fact. Then there was the Congress of Hygiene in 1891, and a resolution was passed at that Congress relating to this subject. That resolution, which was moved by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, seconded by the chairman of the Health Committee of Glasgow, and supported by the Mayor of Manchester and by the medical officer of Dublin, was as follows—
"That this special meeting of the International Congress of Hygiene, assembled to consider the necessity for securing the greater sanitary efficiency of the plumbers' work and drainage of dwelling-houses and other buildings, desires to record its opinion that an organised and efficient system of registration of qualified plumbers is essential to the protection and preservation of the health of the community, and that the time, has now arrived when application should be made to Parliament for powers enabling a council of
† The following is a complete list of Hansard references to this subject:—Plumbers' Registration Bill, 1892, see The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vols. i.. ii., and iii.; numbers' Registration Bill, 1803, Vols. viii., xii., xiii., xiv., and xv.; Plumbers' Registration Bill, 1894, Vols. xxii., xxiii., and xxviii.; Plumbers' Registration Bill, 1895, Vols. xxx., xxxi., and xxxiii.; Plumbers' Registration Bill. 1896, Vols. xxxvii., xxxviii., and xxxix.; Plumbers' Registration Bill, 1897, Vols. xlv., xlviii., xlix., and 1.; Registration of Plumbers Bill; 1898, Vols. lv. and xlvi.: Plumbers' Registration, Resolution, 1899, Vol. lxxii.
258
competent jurisdiction and authority to take measures for systematically promoting technical education among plumbers in all parts of the United Kingdom."
The Government of the day were approached, and the Local Government Board suggested a Private Member's Bill, and I was asked to take charge of the Bill. A Bill on the subject was introduced in 1892, and the names on the back of it represented all parties in the House and all parts of the United Kingdom. The names on the back of the Bill were Mr. A. H. D. Acland, Sir Algernon Borthwick, Lord Compton, Mr. W. H. Cross, Mr. Dixon, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Mr. Sexton, and myself. Of those nine only two are now left in the House, the rest having been taken away either by retirement, death, or the peerage. The Bill which was then introduced had for its object to afford additional safeguards to the public health by enabling persons employing plumbers to select (when they desired to do so) persons who had given evidence of their qualification for plumbers' work. The Bill did not contemplate any monopoly, and it did not interfere with the rights of non-registered plumbers. It prohibited, however, such plumbers from representing themselves to be registered. That Bill was read a second time and referred to a Select Committee. Again, the members of that Committee will be interesting to the House. They were: Mr. Gainsford Bruce, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Samuel Evans, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Isaacs, Mr. Kimber, Mr. Lafone, Mr. John Maden, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Powell, Mr. Taylor, and myself, and of those thirteen, six. only remain in the House. Evidence was taken, and the Select Committee reported unanimously in favour of the Bill. If any hon. Members will turn to that Report they will see much interesting evidence. We had practical plumbers before us, who brought us illustrations of scamped work. For instance, we had the evidence of one plumber who showed us a dummy zinc soil-pipe which was put into a house rented at £40 a year, and this pipe was put in to imitate a lead soil-pipe. It was of the same strength as that with which packing cases are lined, was as thin as brown paper, and perforated with sewer gas. Then we had an imitation wiped joint, made of putty to imitate lead. I have here, too, a photograph which shows a section of a lead soil-pipe taken from a

259
house in Wales used as a ladies' school. The patch shown on the side of the pipe was tied on with copper wire, and the old soldered seam is open. A fever broke out in the school, and the medical officer discovered this scamped work. These are illustrations of some of the evidence which was placed before that Committee. One of the main outcries against this proposed registration is the outcry of monopoly. But there is no idea of monopoly in the proposals we make to the House. What we really want is that plumbers should be granted something in the nature —as I have described before in the House —of a university degree, that they should be granted such a certificate as will be a sign of practical and theoretical knowledge. There will be no compulsion at all for plumbers to undergo any examination for certificates; there will be no compulsion on the public to employ certificated plumbers. Further than that, we do not wish for any interference with existing rights. We want to safeguard those men who are now in business as plumbers just in the same way as men under similar conditions have been safeguarded in other Acts of Parliament. For instance, I can give precedents for registration. Apothecaries registered in 1815, solicitors in 1843, pharmaceutical chemists in 1852, the General Medical Council in 1858, dentists in 1878, veterinary surgeons in 1881, and marine engineers are registered under the Board of Trade. Further, when we come to a later date, the qualifications of medical officers of health and the qualification and certification of sanitary inspectors have been provided for under the Public Health (London) Act of 1891. We have precedents of legislation for registration even in this session in a Bill before the House, and, in fact, only to-day was a Bill introduced into the House having in view the object of registration. I do not wish to weary the House, but there are one or two quotations which I think it is my duty to bring before hon. Members. I will not quote the President of the Local Government Board, nor will I quote the Parliamentary Secretary who has taken a great and keen interest in this matter. The late President of the Local Government Board, who is now President of the Board of Trade, addressing a deputation, said—
"I feel that very many of the diseases from which we suffer, and much of the inconvenience
260
and unhappiness which undoubtedly exist, is owing to defective sanitary arrangements."
I have other quotations from different parts of the country. I have a quotation from a speech made by the medical officer of health for Marylebone, Dr. Wynter Blyth. He said—
"In Marylebone we are about to obtain a constant water supply, and we may expect that in a few months a hundred thousand people will be more or less at the mercy of the plumbers. It may be taken as a principle that directly you elevate a trade and give it facilities for education the more you do good to that trade and to the whole community."
Then there is Dr. Vacher, medical officer for Birkenhead, who says—
"We find that plumbers who are entrusted to do work do it in a way which makes it perfectly manifest to us that they are inadequately trained for the performance of such work. 'We find also that the public want some way by which they may be able to recognise good workmen."
In a public meeting in the Manchester Town Hall an ex-Lord Mayor of Manchester said—
"No body of workmen engaged in the construction of dwelling-houses can through their ignorance or carelessness inflict so much injury on the public health or cause so much loss and inconvenience to the householder as plumbers. The length of time a man has been in the trade is no guarantee of his efficiency, and the careful technical examination is the only test which will satisfy the requirements of public comfort and avert the existing dangers to the public health."
Then: Edinburgh. I am reading the opinions of representative men from all parts of the United Kingdom. Dr. Littlejohn, medical officer for Edinburgh, said—
"The public want to know when they employ a man that they are dealing with one who is competent to undertake the alterations necessary for the proper sanitary condition of their houses. If the system of registration is carried out the public will have the satisfaction they require. It is only by the national Registration System that plumbers will be able to effect this and assert their position."
Then: Glasgow. Ex-Bailie Crawford, chairman of the health committee of the City of Glasgow, said—
".…. a recognition of the fact that the increasing of the technical skill and the raising of the trade morale are the best ways of securing public safety and public health. That is the philosophy of the registration movement."
If I go to Ireland—and I recognise the valuable help of the hon. Member for West Limerick in this question—Sir Charles Cameron, medical officer for

261
Dublin, reported to the public health committee as follows—
"With regard to the registration of plumbers, I am strongly in favour of such a step being taken. I am aware that much of the plumbing in Dublin is done by persons who have not been brought up as plumbers. It is most desirable that persons who profess to be plumbers should be tested as to their competency to do the work of a plumber."
Then: Cardiff. Lord Aberdare, speaking when distributing certificates of registration to master and operative plumbers, said—
"I am quite sure the effect of this movement will be that instead of the plumber being as he has been in past times, a by-word in men's mouths for scamping his work, he will be distinguished for doing his work in a masterly manner, the equal, if not the superior, of any other trade."
Those are quotations from eminent men, men whose qualifications to speak will be recognised by the House, and from all parts of the United Kingdom. One cause of defective plumbing work was clearly brought out in the evidence before the Select Committee. It was caused by what is described as the down-grade movement. Mr. G. B. Cherry, general secretary of the United Operative Plumbers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland, gave evidence before that Committee, and upon another occasion made a statement to the following effect—
"I find from experience that the ' down- grade movement' in the plumbing trade commenced about twenty years ago. Previous to that time master plumbers throughout this country, with very few exceptions, were practical plumbers, and when they took an apprentice their first consideration was, and with a conscientious man should be, 'Have I sufficient work to keep an apprentice, and can I teach him his trade thoroughly?'"
He went on to say—
"I have slightly indicated some of the reasons of the ' down-grade movement,' but it was intensified about fifteen or sixteen years ago when trade prospered by leaps and bounds. Jerry-builders, ironmongers, tinkers, painters, undertakers, etc., seeing that a fair profit could be made out of plumbing, added it to their already too numerous, for efficiency, branches, and apprentices were taken without limit, and expected to learn six or seven different trades. This class of employers, being only interested in the apprentices so far as their money-producing power was concerned, has proved one of the causes of the production of inefficient workmen."
We want this registration of plumbers as one of the links in the chain of sanitation. The Local Government Board has under
262
its control the sanitary inspectors; they are certified men. Why should not plumbers be certified men? We should then get men who are educated and capable; the sanitary condition of our houses would be improved; causes of illness would be removed; and money would be saved; because much better plumbing would be done, for instance, the waste of water is a matter of great consideration in our large towns. The leaking of taps and the leaking of joints has caused a great loss of money to corporations like Liverpool and Birmingham, who have now paid special attention to the subject. There is a consensus of authoritative opinion, which has been shown under every Government since 1886, as to the necessity for registration. The Government has this session, I believe—at all events, recently—been memorialised by a number of Members of Parliament on this subject. About 120 Members of Parliament have signed a memorial in favour of the national registration of plumbers, and those Members are representative of all parts of the House, and of all parts of the United Kingdom. The Government have also been memorialised by the chief municipal, sanitary, medical, educational, and other bodies, and it seems to me that there should be little difficulty in and little objection to the Local Government Board framing a scheme, which, of course, would be subject to the revision and veto of the House of Commons. I am sure that if the Government did so they would receive the blessing of every householder in the United Kingdom. The whole of the district councils in Scotland moved the Secretary for Scotland to induce his support for a national measure. The Irish Members are in favour of a Bill which is much needed, if we may judge from the results of the recent Local Government Board inquiry as to the cause of the high death rate in Dublin. I could multiply arguments in favour of such a measure. I believe the only opposition offered to the proposal or to the Bill would be merely as to some of the administrative provisions. At Birmingham recently at a public meeting the medical officer of health said—
"It is of no use to have good sanitary arrangements and sanitary inspectors unless the plumbing work is well done. The health committee want really to make the plumbers their technical assistants."

263
Similar opinions have been publicly expressed by representative authorities of every chief centre of Great Britain and Ireland, and the British Medical Association, representing upwards of 17,000 medical practitioners, has petitioned Parliament on more than one occasion in support of the national registration of plumbers. The Bill which I have had in my charge has up to now had numerous vicissitudes. I may begin by saying that I never had good luck in the ballot. La-it session my motion was counted out, and it is only by good luck I have not been counted out to-night. The Bill was read a second time in the Parliaments of 1886, 1892, and 1895 by increased majorities. In 1892 it was in Committee as the first Order of the Day on the Wednesday of the Dissolution. The Bill has had the support of both Governments and of the Local Government Board of both Governments. It had the unanimous support of the Select Committee of 1892. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Trade in 1893, and passed the Standing Committee on Trade in 1897. But, unfortunately, after passing that Standing Committee on Trade in 1897 it was sandwiched on a Wednesday afternoon between "verminous persons" and women wanting votes, and of course it came to grief. I hope it will not come to grief this session. I have been fourteen years in this House. I have been successful in carrying five Acts of Parliament and three motions, followed by two Royal Commissions and one Government Act. I have never failed until in regard to this measure. If the Government accept my motion and bring in a short and small Bill I believe they will have a popular measure, and one which I do not think there will be any difficulty in passing. I ask the Govern- meat now to give me their assistance, to accept my motion, which, if accepted and carried into effect, will, I believe, confer an immense boon upon the nation. I beg to move.
MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to second, the motion. I have been associated with the hon. Member opposite for some time in propagating the ideas that he has put forward. As a mechanic myself, I deplore, with him, the decline of the apprenticeship system in this country, and that decline has shown the necessity for once more resorting to
264
such means as the hon. Gentleman has put forward. In 1897, when the Bill was before the Committee on Trade, some opposition was brought forward, but I think it can be borne out that that opposition was not of a tangible character, and that it rested entirely with one class-namely, those who dealt in ironmongery. The arguments put forward by those people were not of such a character as to give the impression that their interest in the scheme was anything real, and I think the fact that almost every Labour Member in this House supported the motion in the Division which took place in 1897, that in the Divisions in the Standing Committee of Trade there was a majority of Labour Members in favour of the proposal, and that the Bill was at that time and is still supported anxiously and heartily by the practical plumbers of the United Kingdom, is a sufficient justification for the course taken by the hon. Gentleman to night. I trust, therefore, that this motion will pass the House, and that the Secretary to the Local Government Board will give an assurance that the Government after the memorial that was presented to the First Lord of the Treasury yesterday will adopt the course suggested.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is desirable that the Government should introduce legislation dealing with the subject, and create a scheme for the national registration of plumbers."—(Mr. Lees Knowles.)
SIR FOETESCUE FLANNERY: I would like to support the resolution as it stands, and also to offer a single word of warning to the Government, so completely and fully represented as it is at this moment by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board, against the blemish, or what I regard as the blemish, in the Bill introduced by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution. That blemish was the putting forward in an entirely undue manner of a certain company in the City for the purpose of administering and regulating the examinations which were set up by the Bill. That there should be examinations to ensure the competency of the persons who have so serious a duty towards the health of the community to perform as is the case with plumbers; there can be no doubt whatever in the mind of anyone

265
who has at all considered the question. The work of a plumber is work which at present is subject to very little inspection by medical officers and sanitary inspectors of local authorities, and it is frequently so badly done as to be a danger to health, and often the cause of loss of life in the case of innocent persons who trust to it. Therefore there should be some system of ensuring competency, and, further, of ensuring efficient work with regard to persons who have such important duties to perform; of that there can be no doubt whatever. But if the Government decide to accept this resolution and at some convenient time, either in this or next session, to act upon it, I hope they will avoid the blemish of allowing the legislation to be made the mere vehicle and instrument for the aggrandisement and elevation of a particular ancient City company. I am sure that that is not the desire of the hon. Gentleman who moved this resolution, but he cannot deny that that was or would have been the effect, to a very large extent at all events, of the Bill which he introduced in a former session of Parliament. Therefore, whilst supporting as I do the resolution in the form in which it stands, I venture as a humble supporter of the Government to express the wish that they will deal with this matter in such a way as to establish a national system, assisted by the local authorities so far as may be, but not in any way containing the blemish to which I have referred. I sincerely hope that the Government will take this matter fully into their consideration. I do not know any section of the community which would oppose such legislation if it were suggested by the Government, and I believe that if a moderate measure in the direction indicated by the resolution is put forward it will have the unanimous support of this House and of the country.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I am sure we must all recognise the skill and perseverance with which my hon. friend the mover of this Resolution has carried on the movement in favour of this registration for the last ten years, and I am not surprised that he has come to the conclusion, as he apparently has, that if such legislation is to be carried out at all successfully, it must be carried out by a responsible Government. I cannot, I am afraid, entirely agree with my hon. friend as to the feeling with
266
which his Registration Bill was regarded in the sanitary world. I fear it will require something more than the mere registration of the domestic plumber to make him that superior creature which, in the interests of the health of our homes and families, we all desire he should be. Surely more efficient sanitary inspection and a better and more systematic instruction of plumbers for the future is absolutely necessary. We must not imagine that by merely registering any particular class, we thereby, ipso facto, render them efficient and responsible beings. I wish to remind my hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board that if he is prepared to take up this legislation, he must see, in the first place, that such a clause as was put into the Bill of my hon. friend with regard to existing plumbers no longer finds a place in any measure which may be introduced. If you are to have registered plumbers or any other skilled class of the community, you ought not to begin by nullifying the value of that register by putting upon it all persons at present practising as plumbers. That, I think, was a grave defect in the Bill of my hon. friend, and I certainly urge that in the future, although you may not be able by a penal clause to prevent persons not on the register practising, yet you ought not to enable persons who have not the power to pass an efficiency examination, or who have not given some clear proof of their capabilities as plumbers, to obtain the advantages of being on the register and of advertising themselves as registered plumbers, thereby imposing more than they do at present on the British public. That is one point which I hope the Government will consider. The second is that they should have an efficient authority to preside over the examination which must be made. Here I would associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for the Shipley Division in saying that, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other persons, the examining authority for registration proposed in the Bill is far too closely connected with the Plumbers Company. There is grave dissatisfaction expressed with the constitution of that authority, especially among those public bodies and local authorities who have devoted a considerable amount of public money to the instruction of plumbers. The county councils, the borough councils to a large

267
extent, and the City and Guilds of London Institute — a most important body, to whom we owe a great deal of the efficiency of our examinations—were entirely excluded from any representation on this examining body. I am sure that all these authorities, if they are to continue to carry on the instruction, require to be represented in some way or other on any examining body which may be set up. I do not think that a measure carrying out the object of this motion would be either very short or very simple, although some registration measures can be made both short and simple. At the same time, I think that if such legislation is to be carried to a successful conclusion—and there is a great deal to be said for the general principle involved—it must be undertaken by a responsible Government, and if the Government take up the matter, I trust they will consider the suggestions I have ventured to put forward.
MR. FIELD: I rise simply for the purpose of supporting the observations which have been made by the last two speakers who have addressed the House, and to state that when I was connected with the Plumbers Association in Dublin, they wore strongly in favour of such a measure being introduced. I entirely agree with the suggestion that the local authorities should be the authorities entrusted with the duty in this matter, and I entirely dissent from the idea that the examinations should be made and the certificates of registration issued solely by a particular trade society, the representatives of the public having nothing whatever to do with it. We have had several meetings of the bond fide plumbers of Dublin, and they are unanimously in favour of such a measure being introduced. There can be no doubt whatever that the plumbing business is much more important now than it used to be. By the changes which have been introduced into the system of sanitation plumbing has become, so to speak, an important element in civilisation, and, therefore, in order to meet these developing needs, it is desirable that such a measure as is proposed should be introduced. I am also strongly of opinion that a measure of this character should be introduced by the Government, and not by any private Member. A private Member has no chance in this
268
House of passing any measure of a large character into law, but if the Local Government Board introduced a proper measure such as is indicated I have no doubt whatever that it would appeal to the common sense of the House, and that the Bill would be passed almost unanimously. I do not think we should go into any of the details of the question now. There is merely a motion at present before the House, and that motion, except as to general principles, ought not to be discussed. The details must be put forward in a Bill, the clauses of which can be discussed, and I hope that such a Bill will be introduced into the House and passed.
MR. H. D. GREENE: This is one of the most important sanitary proposals ever brought before the House with which I am acquainted; and it seems to me rather hard that the hon. Gentleman who moved the resolution, and his friends, should ask the Government to take up legislation which is to be based upon speculations of their own. I did not hear one single figure given by my hon. friend as to the number of plumbers in existence, or as to the amount of work they do, or as to the cost of the proposed system of examination and registration; and yet we are to be asked to commit the Government to introduce legislation on the subject.
MR. LEES KNOWLES: I should like to refer my hon. friend to the Report of the Select Committee of 1892.
MR. H. D. GREENE: Unfortunately for myself, I have not perused that or many other Blue-books. I did not hear my hon. friend give us any detailed suggestion as to who is to conduct the examination which is to precede registration. I do not know that there are any skilled persons on the staff of the Local Government Board who have a special knowledge of plumbing work; and we ought to have some suggestion as to what moans should be employed for adequately conducting the examinations. I quite agree that it would be a dangerous thing to place this matter in the hands of some City company which might not have sufficient technical knowledge. It is suggested that the local authority should be responsible; but who is to bear the expense? Is it to be provided out of local or Imperial funds?
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: There are in existence local authorities who undertake such examinations. Then, the technical education classes throughout the country might very well deal with the question of examination.
MR. H. D. GREENE: I am not prepared to say whether they are or not; but some detailed information as to their capacity should have been given before asking the Government to undertake legislation of this sort. But why pick out the plumber for legislation? Why not also the man who builds the chimney, who has as much to do with the sanitary condition of the house as the man who puts up the bath or soil pipes? The jerry builder is also quite as much responsible for the sanitation of the houses he is engaged in building. To pick out one trade for special legislation is to go beyond what the House should be asked to do. I do not oppose this motion altogether. The Government, have I think, a right to say that although a case has been made out, in one sense, for expressing a benevolent wish towards this project, they have no adequate information to enable them to carry it out.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): I do not think my hon. friend the Member for Salford has any reason to complain of the attitude of the Government towards this question. The Local Government Board have always sympathised with the principle of the Bill which the hon. Member has introduced. We have always recognised the importance of that principle and sympathised with my hon. friend in his attempts in this House to carry through a measure like that which he has just explained. But it is a wholly different thing when my hon. friend drops his Bill and comes practically to the conclusion that it is hopeless to carry it, and then asks the Government to take up his measure and pass it. I could understand his coming to the House and saying that the Government should alone do this work, which is impeded by a minority in the House; but if the hon. Member will take the trouble to look at the Parliamentary history of his Bill he will see what has been its fate during the past ten years. The first Bill was introduced in 1892 and passed the Second Reading which affirmed the principle of the Bill,
270
and was referred to a Select Committee. There are two objects in referring a Bill to a Select Committee. The one is to secure evidence or information, and the other is to get rid of the Bill for the session. This Bill was not brought on again that session, although I believe that a great deal of information was elicited in regard to the question. But the Bill was brought on again in 1893, passed its Second Reading, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, and that Committee, after several sittings, came deliberately to the conclusion that the Bill was one which ought not to go further.
MR. LEES KNOWLES: Allow me to explain. The Committee had adjourned in order to obtain the advice and assistance of the Local Government Board; but, as that accidentally was not forthcoming—the President and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board being unable to attend—the Committee were of opinion that there was no prospect of their converting the Bill by amendment into a satisfactory measure, and they resolved not to proceed further with its consideration. They did not, however, condemn the measure, but they experienced a difficulty in dealing with it. In the following Parliament an identically similar Bill was amended by the Standing Committee and reported.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I was not aware of that fact, because I was not Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board at the time. But I know that the late Sir Julian Goldsmid reported to the House that the Committee had come to the conclusion that they ought not to proceed further with the Bill. Now in 1894 the Bill was pressed again, but it did not reach a Second Reading. In 1895, and again in 1896, the Bill was moved, but the debate in each year was adjourned. In 1898 it was referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, and after five or six days' debate in that Committee it emerged and came down to the House, and the debate on the Report stage was so prolonged that the Bill was lost. Now, the House will see from this brief history of the measure that although the principle is right, as I hold it to be, it is not a simple measure, or one which the House is prepared to adopt without a great deal more consideration

271
than it has yet been able to give to it. The most effective debate my hon. friend the Member for Oldham ever had upon the Bill was in 1898, when it went through the Standing Committee and came down to this House. What happened then? The whole struggle took place upon the question of what should be the examining and registering body. I am bound to say that I think the county councils, the borough councils, the city guilds, and other authorities moved rather late in the day. We had never heard that they desired to be on this examining body until the Report stage; and then they came down like an avalanche on my hon. friend, and, at all events, destroyed the Bill for that session. There is a great deal in what my hon. friend the Member for East Somersetshire says, that there is no reason why a City company should have the sole control of this matter. The Bill had been long enough before the House, and I maintain that if these bodies had been really interested in it they ought to have appeared against it long before 1898. In that respect I think my hon. friend has good ground for complaint against them. After the Bill was lost my hon. friend appealed to the Local Government Board to take it up. Now the Local Government Board has many duties to perform, but I agreed to receive a deputation representing all parties—the City guilds, the county councils, the borough councils, and other parties—which was headed by my hon. friend. But as that deputation could not agree the one with the other I was forced to tell them at the close of the interview that unless they agreed among themselves the House of Commons and the Government could do nothing for them. I advised them that they should have a conference and thresh the matter out amongst themselves, and agree on the main features of a Bill which should be introduced. They did take my advice, and they met in the Westminster Palace Hotel and discussed the matter at great length; but the conference ended by their coming to no agreement. Now my hon. friend, after he has failed to reconcile the differences of the various parties on this question, comes to the House of Commons—he seems to have been successful in getting the ear of the House to-night—-and asks the Government to step in and undertake the task in which
272
he has failed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "and" Why not?"] I think the Government has a right when there is a general agreement upon an important public question to look the facts in the face and to see what can be done for it; but before the Government moves in such a question I hold that there ought to be something like general agreement. There are people who think that the Government can do anything. I do not belong to that class. A Government may well be called upon to submit legislative proposals upon a subject of public interest upon which there is general agreement, but the Government cannot take up this tangled skein and attempt to harmonise the opinions of those who are not agreed as to what they want. I take as a sample of the difficulties that arise the argument of my hon. friend the Member for Somerset, who objects to the clause in the Bill which reserves the right of existing plumbers. My hon. friend warned the Government that if they agreed to such a clause they could not expect to succeed; but if we do not save the rights of existing plumbers the public will be apt to consider them unqualified for plumbing work, and some thousands of workmen will be thrown out of employment.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I said that they should not be put on the register.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The chances are a hundred to one that if they are not put on the register they would not be employed, and therefore thousands of them would be thrown out of employment, and I am not prepared to undertake the responsibility for anything of that kind. I do not think that the examination and registration ought to be left solely in the hands of any City company whatever. I think if this measure is to be tackled in earnest there will have to be representatives of all the bodies my hon. friend referred to on the examining board. But first of all my friends must settle their differences. I made a perfectly fair proposal when the deputation waited upon me. I said that the Government were then anxious to help them. They are anxious now. But, looking to the divergence of opinion and to the Parliamentary history of this movement, I strongly advise my hon. friend not to press his motion to-night. I strongly advise him to attempt, once again, to get those who profess to be interested in the

273
question to agree among themselves. If they agree I see no difficulty in their succeeding in passing this Bill. My hon. friend has made a good fight in the House of Commons, and, in the main, I sympathise with him. I hope he will not be discouraged, but press forward and get the opinion of those he represents to go on in one direction. But I cannot say that the Government can accept the motion, because to do so would be to pledge themselves to legislation upon which they are not prepared to enter.
MR. BANBUEY: We are all lost in admiration at the perseverance which has been exhibited by my hon. friend in regard to this question, and we sympathise with him in his endeavours to secure legislation on this subject. I agree with him that, in the main, the principle which he wishes to advocate is right; but, on the other hand, I confess I see many objections to passing an abstract resolution like this. The objection which my hon. friend below me has urged, that legislation of this kind might possibly throw out of employment many thousands of working men, is one that cannot be disregarded. I do not know whether my hon. friend proposes to make his Bill permissive or not; but if all existing plumbers are not to be put on the register without examination, it naturally follows that these would be thrown out of employment. Then the difficulty arises as to what is to be the registering body. I agree that it would not do to put it in the hands of a City company. The power should be in the hands of the local authority. If the examination for registration were put into the hands of one body the result would be that a close corporation would be formed, and I am not sure that that would be for the public benefit. When defects are found in plumbing work, I am not at all certain that it is invariably the fault of the workmen; it is rather the fault of the master who wants to make work for the future. Under the circumstances I think my hon. friend would be well advised to accept the suggestion made by the Under Secretary to the Local Government Board, and be content with the present discussion, and not press his resolution to a division.
MR. TOMLINSON: Having on previous occasions taken part in dis-
274
cussions on this subject, I again ask the permission of the House to offer a few remarks. When the Bill on this subject was last before the House two hon. Members, who are not now Members of the House, took a prominent part in the discussions in Committee. Lord Heneage took an adverse view to the Bill on grounds to which I need not now refer, but Mr. Caine more or less represented the class of workmen who are not plumbers but I believe call themselves ironmongers. Mr. Caine objected very strongly to the Bill then before the Committee, being apprehensive that the registration of plumbers might indirectly curtail the employment of the ironmongers. Such a difficulty might easily arise in the building trade if the registration of plumbers were made imperative. It must be remembered that the plumber does only a part of the sanitary work in house building; and if the ventilating shafts, for instance, are not properly constructed the sanitary condition of the house will not be effective, even if the plumber's work is perfectly carried out. I would urge upon my hon. friends that they should widen their view of what is required. The function of the registering body ought to include the registration of all classes of workmen whose operations conduce to the perfect sanitation of houses. I have been much impressed with the great improvement in the plumber work in residential houses in recent years; and the public are in great measure indebted for that to the work of the Plumbers Company. I have no doubt that if the Plumbers Company work on the lines on which they have begun, without registration, they will make still further improvements, but if it is still desired to consider a scheme of registration, I would press the necessity for widening the inquiry, so as to bring every class of sanitary workmen in the building trade into it.
MR. RENSHAW: I think this Bill is worthy of the consideration of the House, for much of the health of our dwellings depends upon it. Anything worse than bad plumbing cannot be imagined; and the House is very much indebted to the hon. Member for bringing forward the resolution which he has so ably supported. All we ask is that the Government should introduce at an early date some legislation on the sub-

275
ject. I believe that over 120 members have signed a requisition to the Government on this matter; and I hope that the result of the discussion this afternoon will be to induce the Government to introduce legislation even this session, or at any rate in the immediate future. Those of us who have had experience of plumbing work agree that the sooner they do so the better. I heartily support the motion that my hon. friend has brought forward.
MR. S. T. EVANS: The resolution which has been moved by the hon. Member for Salford is an old friend with which we have been acquainted for eight or nine years, and which we have discussed under various phases, both as a resolution and as a Bill. The resolution to-night calls on the Government not only to introduce legislation dealing with the subject, but to create a scheme for the national registration of plumbers. That may be a desirable end in the mind of the hon. Member for Salford, who has devoted the whole of his career to this grave, vast, and important subject, but although he has devoted nine years to it he has not been able to introduce a scheme which is in any way workable. I believe on one or two occasions he was able to snatch a Division, and on one occasion he sent the Bill of which he was then in charge to one of the Standing Committees, which in the result said the scheme proposed by the hon. Gentleman was altogether unworkable, and the Committee took the extraordinary course of returning the Bill and refusing to have anything further to do with it. I am not at all sure, that we are not too apt to register everything and everybody, but of this I am sure, that until my hon. friends can produce a scheme which is workable they have no right to ask the Government to legislate upon the subject. I did not happen to be in the House when the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Government said the Government could not deal with this matter at this stage, but I quite agree that to pass a resolution of this kind would simply be to express a pious opinion on which no legislation can take place. The first thing which the pro-motors and the hon. Gentleman who has taken this under his wing during a large portion of his career, ought to do is to
276
produce a scheme and press it on the attention of the Government.
MR. LEES KNOWLES*MR. LEES KNOWLES, with the permission of the House, pointed out that the memorial to the Government in support of the registration of plumbers was signed by 120 Members; but at the same time, as the Secretary to the Local Government Board, who had always assisted him in this movement, and had promised to do all he could, had stated that he could not introduce a Bill during this session, he (Mr. Knowles), in his discretion, thought it would be better to withdraw the motion, which he now asked leave to do.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON THEATRES — SUPERVISION OF PLAYS, ETC.
[RESOLUTION.]
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: The House has for some time been considering a question affecting the sanitation of the country, and I am now about to ask the indulgence of the House while I call attention to a subject affecting the moral well-being of the Empire, and call attention to some of the grave blots connected with our theatres at the present time. I am well aware that I am attempting a difficult task in bringing the question of theatrical performances before the House; yet I believe that few subjects attract greater attention at the present time, and that a great body of opinion, both inside and outside this House, is in sympathy with the resolution which I now submit to the House, which runs as follows:—
" That this House regrets the growing tendency to put upon the stage plays of a demoralising character, and considers that a stricter supervision of theatrical performances in needed alike in the interests of the public and the theatrical profession."
I found my views very much on the views of the best dramatic critics in this matter. Some of the first theatrical critics have been deploring for the past ten years the decadent character of the drama, and in the opinion of some, it has reached a lower stage than at any time since the Restoration. While in many departments of national life great progress has been

277
registered during the Victorian era, it will not be denied that a class of plays is now acted which would have been prohibited fifty years ago as grossly immoral. I am sure that the House will agree with me that this is no light matter, because the moral standard of a country is largely affected by the drama, especially among the young. Multitudes of young men and young women form their ideas of what is right and wrong in no small degree from what they witness on the stage; and when they see the purest and holiest things of life turned into derision, and disgusting licentiousness treated as the normal rule of life, is it likely that their own moral standard will remain high? Is it not certain that the same effects will follow in London as in Paris: that a decadent drama, and, what always accompanies it, a decadent literature, will produce a decadent nation? Now, I do not ask the House to accept these statements from me, because it may be said that these are puritanical objections. I will confine myself almost entirely to the opinions of competent theatrical critics, so that no one may ride off on the plea that I am bringing merely puritanical objections against the stage. I do not attack the legitimate drama. I have never advocated the absurd view that the dramatic art should be wholly condemned. Like many others, I have studied with delight the Greek plays, and I freely acknowledge that the drama holds a great field in human education. The Attic stage was a great educator of an illustrious people, and the best plays of Shakespeare fathom the depths of the human soul. What I wish to bring before the House is not the legitimate drama, but those foul and corrupting plays that no good actor or actress should touch with a pitchfork, and which no youth can witness without taint. By permission of Mr. Clement Scott, one of the oldest and best theatrical critics, I quote from a recent utterance of his in New York. Speaking of these degrading plays, he said—
"Why should we not frankly call them heathen plays, or plays destitute of any moral sense; plays artfully contrived to attract sympathy for vice; plays that cover detestable selfishness with a glamour of romance and sickly sentiment; plays that bring the power and allurement of good acting, or show, or spectacle, or personal charm, to deaden our moral force and moral fibre? That is when the danger lies."
278
Again, he tries to give an explanation of the reason why these objectionable plays have become so common, and he says—
"We may ascribe it to the change of tone and thought at our public schools and universities, to our godless method of education, to the comparative failure of religion as an influence—to this, that, or the other. But there it is. We cannot get away from it. Society has accepted the satire, and our dramatists of the first class have, one after the other, broken away from the beautiful, the helpful, and the ideal, and coquetted with the distorted, the tainted, and the poisonous in life. Any appeal to them in the name of Art is vain. According to their utilitarian creed all must be good that pays, and so for the moment our theatres are crowded to excess to see ' snap-shot society dramas,' with their pronounced vulgarity, their hideous presentments of men and women, and their cheap satire."
I believe that nine-tenths of this House and the majority of the nation know that these words are true, and many of our best actors and actresses wish it were not so. But they cannot or dare not speak out, for to do so is to be boycotted by the profession. There is a false code of honour in all professions, which makes the honourable members hesitate to denounce the dishonourable. But I am certain the sympathy of many of them is with those who work to reform the stage. But let me give the House something a little more specific in the way of proof. The most popular and by far the ablest of these corrupting plays is "The Gay Lord Quex," by Mr. A. W. Pinero. I will ask the House to listen to two criticisms—one appearing in the Daily Telegraph, one of the chief admirers of Mr. Pinero; and the other in the Westminster Gazette. The Daily Telegraph said at the first appearance of the play—
"Seldom has an act so bold in conception, so daring in execution, been presented as that which follows. That Mrs. Grundy will raise her voice against it may be expected; that the world of fashion will flock to see it is no less certain. In ' The Princess and the Butterfly' Mr. Pinero broke in upon the sanctity of a lady's afternoon toilet. in ' The Gay Lord Quex ' he goes a step further and introduces us to the duchess's boudoir, with bedroom attached, on the stroke of midnight. Here the farewell meeting between her and Quex is to take place. On a little table stand a box of Argyropulos cigarettes, a bottle of champagne, ' Felix Poubelle, Carte d'Or,' and a couple of glasses. It is hardly to be denied that in several passages of this brilliant and extraordinarily ingenious act the very brink of unnecessary riskiness is reached. Words and phrases fall from the mouths of the artists

279
which make the listener catch his breath and move uneasily in his place."
The Westminster Gazette said—
"A little while ago Mr. John Hare was championing bravely the cause of propriety on the English stage, and denouncing indignantly: the wickedness of Ibsen; and yet in ' The Gay Lord Quex' he presents a piece with a wealth of indelicate detail as great in quantity as could be collected from all the Ibsen plays offered to the British public. What becomes of poor Nora's remarks about her stockings when compared with these one where the beautiful duchess in her dressing-gown, at midnight, wonders, with Lord Quex, who is with her in her bedroom, at what moment in their guilty intrigue he acquired from her the blue silk garter with diamond buckle which she exhibits to the audience".
I am told that the fine ladies of Belgravia, who wore horrified at the first night of this play, can now see nothing indelicate in it, and take their young daughters to initiate them into fast life. I can only say that if wealth and rank admire such scenes I would rather accept the moral standard of the average costermonger. I notice that the author of this play made a speech at Birmingham a fortnight ago, in which he ridiculed the Lord Chancellor and Sir Edward Clarke for having courageously attacked these corrupting plays. The Lord Chancellor used these words—
"On all sides intellectual development was visible, yet there were dark features in respect to our literary taste. Familiar public amusements, plays, and so on, were tainted with what, with all reverence, he might call the spirit of those who made a mock of sin. And to his mind it had become a serious question whether, seeing some of the plays now being | enacted, there was any great advantage in finding somebody to act as censor, and to prevent them from being played. If some of the plays now before the public might be played lie did not know what might not be played."
The majority of this House will, I believe, agree with the Lord Chancellor, and I may add, with Sir Edward Clarke, who spoke to the same effect, and not with Mr. Pinero, who accused them of a prudish view of life and being unable to understand—
"That the real decadent drama and the real decadent literature were the drama and the literature which presented a flattering but false conception of human conduct. And (concluded Mr. Pinero) they must not accuse us of discourtesy if we make bold to warn them of the danger of evil association with
280
those people who, under the pretence of being moralists, are nothing but moral-mongers."
The success of "Lord Quex" has produced a crop of imitations even viler. I take from the Era, a leading theatrical paper, a critique of "Zaza," recently produced in London from America. It says—
"One of the most unpleasant plays that we have seen in London for some time past is ' Zaza.' …. It is a disgraceful libel on the dramatic profession, and the story is developed with so much base and sordid realism, the seamy side of an illicit connection is shown with such perverse and persistent grovelling in the mud, that the effect created is repellent and depressing. … Zaza gets Dufresne into her dressing-room.… and there plies him with all the brazen wiles of the pavement. The scene in which Zaza attempts to allure Dufresne is frankly and unblushingly animal and gross—indeed, the whole of. this first act reeks with the vile odours of cheap dissipation. No attempt is made to disguise the merely physical attraction which Dufresne possesses for Zaza, and her overtures to him are of the most unwomanly and immodest order. The scene in which … she edges up against him and places her face close up to his is one of the most audacious and startling exhibitions ever seen on any stage, and the exuberance of Mrs. Leslie Carter's huggings and kissings throughout the performance is repellent in its sensual exaggeration. As for the picture of life behind the scenes, it is simply disgusting, and the representation of such vulgar ribaldry and loose living is in itself an offence against good taste. Whatever value 'Zaza ' may possess as a drama is not in the least added to by these pictures of vile debauchery behind the scenes of a French variety theatre; and the English play going public must indeed have fallen low if the best passport to their approval be the presentation, in elaborate detail, of foreign vice and Continental lewdness. Mrs. Leslie Carter, the representative of Zaza, made the part even more displeasing than was absolutely necessary. Details which might have been toned down … were insisted upon with almost perverse tactlessness…. Crude and mean as the French authors and American adapter Have made the play, Mrs. Carter accentuates its crudeness and meanness by her reading of the principal part, …and Zaza only seems to us a sensual, irritable and vulgar creature, without the redeeming qualities of grace, charm, and sweetness."
In another paragraph the same paper says—
" Playgoers who really love the dramatic profession will indeed feel sad after witnessing the first act of 'Zaza,' now being performed at the Garrick Theatre. We have never seen the profession dragged through the mud so shamelessly. It is a great grief to us to find American actors and actresses taking part in

281
such a disgraceful libel of their own calling and trying to bring their class into contempt, giving enemies of the drama an opportunity of pointing to evidence of the stage itself as to its inner life. It must be a bad bird that fouls its own nest."
The House, I think, will agree that that criticism is made by a theatrical paper, by critics not in the habit of speaking too strongly against the stage. I will ask the attention of the House while I give one criticism, from the pen of Mr. William Archer (Morning Leader, 9th April, 1900)—
"Take such a piece as ' The Belle of New York,' for example—probably the greatest success of recent years. What was it but one long glorification of the vulgarest order of debauchery? In so far as it meant anything at all, it meant approval and admiration for drunkenness and all the other diversions of a recklessly 'fast' life. But was it the vicious or even the congenitally, fundamentally vulgar section of society that kept it running to full houses for eighteen months? Not at all. This section, of course, contributed its full quota to the devotees of the ' Belle'; but she also attracted in their thousands people of education and breeding, of decent life and presentable manners. Some of them fully realised the clotted vulgarity of the entertainment, and revelled in the sense of superiority involved in that very realisation.
"Vulgar entertainments there will always be, so long as there are people of vulgar tastes to be catered for. But their popularity, in England at any rate, would be much less overwhelming if people of culture and refinement did not affect and even parade in regard to the theatre a vulgarity of taste which they would blush to own in regard to any other department of art or of life. Many Oxford and Cambridge men, for example—not merely irresponsible undergraduates, but dons and dignitaries—when they run up to town for a few days, rush eagerly to 'The Gaiety Girl,' or' The Circus Girl, 'or' The Belle of New York,' and can scarcely be dragged to any higher form of entertainment."
I must apologise to the House for dragging it through these sickening details. My object is to show what a farce the present form of censorship is. The Lord Chamberlain is the Earl of Hopetoun, and his deputy is Mr. Spencer Ponsonby. Fane, and he has an examiner of plays, Mr. Redford, and on his advice the Lord Chamberlain gives his licence. These odious plays are now exempt from the common law of the country, which could put them down as indecent but for this licence. And now they go from London all through the provinces, tainting the atmosphere wherever they go. All the higher and nobler attributes of human
282
nature wither and perish m such an atmosphere. But the public is helpless, and weak-minded people say it must be all right because the censor has allowed it. Is it any wonder that the Lord Chancellor asks for the abolition of the censorship? I am sure we should be far better off without it. Anyhow, it is an archaic survival of a time when only two patent theatres existed in London, and when the plays were performed by His Majesty's actors, and a Court official superintended them. It was altogether a Court affair.* Now there is free trade in theatres, and a far more dangerous trade than public-houses is without any control at all. I am a strong believer in local government. Wherever, municipal bodies have powers they use them for the good of the community. The Music Halls in London were once as bad as, or worse than, the theatres; since they were placed under the County Council they have wonderfully improved. Everyone tells me the change is astonishing. The same would happen if the theatres were placed under municipal bodies. Public opinion would steadily; act on the theatrical profession through these bodies. There would be kicking and restiveness for a time; but at last the theatres would fall into line and, after some of the worst had been refused their licences, the others would find it necessary to consult the moral sense of the community. There has been a marvellous change effected in the city of Liverpool in my lifetime through the action of the police directed against certain moral evils by a reforming Watch Committee and an intelligent bench of magistrates. The one Department which remains hopelessly bad is the theatre, because it is not subject to local control, except as regards structural arrangements and the sale of refreshments. I feel sure that if the licensing of plays was given either to the municipality or the bench of magistrates, the improvement that would take place would astonish everyone. I do not believe in the judgment of experts; but
* In The Parliamentary History, Vol. x., page 321, will be found a report of "Proceedings relating to the Play-house Bill," introduced by Sir Robert Walpole in 1737. A long quotation from Coxe's Memoirs of Walpole gives a full account of the control exercised over the English stage, from the "Abbot of Misrule" of very early days, to the" Master of the Revels" of the time of Henry VIII., and so to the Lord Chamberlain.

283
I do believe in the average common sense and the average morality of the ordinary householder. I have always found that his instincts are sounder than those of London Society, which is invariably on the wrong side whenever there is a battle between good and evil. I advocate this change not only in the public interest, but in the interest of the theatrical profession itself. The better portion of that profession are disgusted with the present state of things. I have letters urging mo to go on. These are from prominent men in the profession, but they do not wish their names given. They have a longing desire that something should be done to relieve them from this foul taint, which is degrading modern art. It is cruel to put modest women to play the part of harlots. It is very difficult to see how a woman can keep any refinement of soul when playing such disgraceful parts. What did Clement Scott say a year or two ago in a famous interview reported in Great Thoughts I He said—
"It is nearly impossible for a woman to remain pure who adopts the stage as a profession. Everything is against her. The freedom of life, of speech, of gesture, which is the rule behind the curtain, renders it almost impossible for a woman to preserve that simplicity of manner which is, after all, her greatest charm. The whole life is artificial and unnatural to the last degree, and, therefore, an unhealthy life to live. But there are far more serious evils to be encountered than these. These drawbacks are the things that render it impossible for a lady to remain a lady. But what is infinitely more to be deplored is that a woman who endeavours to keep her purity is almost of necessity foredoomed to failure in her career. It is an awful thing to say, and it is still more terrible that it is true, but no one who knows the life of the green-room will dare deny it. Nor do I see how a woman is to escape contamination in one form or another. Temptation surrounds her in every shape and on every side; her prospects frequently depend upon the nature and extent of her compliance, and, after all, human nature is very weak."
I am glad to know that later on in the same interview he added—
"Two things I want to be made clear—(1) That it is quite possible to lead a good life on the stage. Thousands do. Miss—, for instance, is as good a woman as ever lived. But the fact that many do lead good lives does not remove the great temptations from the weaker brethren.
I need say no more on this painful topic. The better part of the theatrical profession will be most thankful if some check can be put on the frightful temptations
284
that surround the stage. I can point out to the House one reason for the failure of the censorship. The written words of a play do not really show its immoral tendency; that depends on indecent dress, gestures, innuendoes, and suggestive acting. It may be quite possible to pass a play so far as the written words are concerned, and yet it may be so acted as to be perfectly intolerable. It is for this reason that I believe no real control can be exercised over theatres except by the power of refusing licences on the ground that the management has been on the whole bad and depraving. I believe local bodies would exercise that power with a great deal of discretion and moderation. I have found by a long experience in Liverpool that this principle applied by an intelligent bench of magistrates to the licensing of public-houses has effected an astonishing revolution in the order and decency of those places. The same would hold good of theatres. A few examples made of notorious offenders would lift up the whole moral level of the stage. The bad theatres would kick against it, and two or three would lose their licences, but in a short time they would all conform to the law. I know that the Home Secretary sympathises with the proposal I make. I would recommend him to consider whether it is not possible to have some licensing authority that would have much more thorough control of the theatres than at the present time. Possibly the magistrates might be better than an elected body. I myself prefer a representative body. I think they can gauge the moral sense of the community, and if they do not act they can be turned out. But I don't care whether you take the one or the other. Let me add that there are many related evils which we cannot grapple with so long as extreme licence is allowed to the stage. One of the worst of these is that of disgusting pictures, drawn from the most indecent exhibitions in theatres, which are sold to young men and boys. The worst scenes are photographed and collected into books and sold to boys, or published in the low illustrated paper, which is one of the deadliest evils of the day. You cannot prosecute the vendors of these obscene pictures with any chance of success while you tolerate their presentation in theatres. It cannot be denied that the glorification of harlotry, which is thought by some to be a sign of high

285
art, is undermining that wholesome repugnance to vice which used to be a mark of English society. Only on that ground can I explain the following quotation from Mr. Lecky's "Map of Life "—
"A more recognised, though probably not really more pernicious example of false ideals is to be found in the glorification of the demimonde, which is so conspicuous in some societies and literatures. In a healthy state of opinion the public ostentatious appearance of such persons, without any concealment of their character, in the great concourse of fashion and among the notabilities of the State, would appear an intolerable scandal, and it becomes much worse when they give the tone of fashion, and become the centres and models of large and by no means undistinguished sections of society. The evils springing from this public glorification of the class are immeasurably greater than the evils arising from its existence. The standard of popular morals is debased. Temptation in its most seductive form is forced upon inflammable natures, and the most pernicious of all lessons is taught to poor, honest, hardworking women."
How has that come about? I say it has largely come about from those gross re-presentations in the theatre. They are connected very closely indeed. From the theatre has come those indelicate modes of female dress common in London society, I which scandalise our American and colonial friends. The people who gloat over "Lord Quex" and "Zaza" have already reached a level where mere accident alone keeps them from leading such lives themselves. I travelled in America for months, and I never saw a lady appear as they often do in London. The sex in America is much more stringent. I was grieved to receive a letter from South Africa not long ago from a colonist who had paid a first visit to London. He wrote to me that he went to a London theatre and he saw such orgies of vice that his loyalty to the mother country was greatly shaken. He expected to find the mother country the home of all that is good and pure, but he returned to South Africa disillusioned. If England is to uphold her position in the vast British Empire it must be by cultivating the respect of the multitudes who look up to the mother country. I cannot too strongly express my conviction that a decadent drama and a decadent literature mark a, stage in national decline. All the great empires of antiquity perished of internal corruption. The moral law of God is
286
inexorable. "The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small." The congestion of idle, dissolute wealth we have in London is the great danger in this country. Let me appeal to the strong spirit of Imperialism that now exists and which has led to noble self-sacrifice. Would it not be the highest patriotism to keep the heart of this great Empire sound? Is it not lamentable to find that our colonial and Indian fellow-subjects when they visit the Metropolis of the Empire are often staggered at the orgies of vice they witness? If we wish to maintain the loyalty of this great Empire we must keep a standard at home which will command its respect. Is not this a favourable moment to attempt moral reforms? Many families are in mourning. London society has lost its usual gaiety. Many are saying; "Oh for the touch of a vanished hand, and the sound of a voice that is still! " Is this not the voice of God calling the nation to repentance? Let this House strike a true keynote to-night, and I believe it will vibrate through the Empire. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to second the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House regrets the growing tendency to put upon the stage plays of a demoralising character, and considers that a stricter supervision of theatrical performances is needed alike in the interest of the public and the theatrical profession."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Everybody must admire the evident good intentions and the high purpose of my hon. friend who proposed the motion. I sympathise a good deal with what he said, and I feel bound to say that he rather justified his own statement that this is not a question on which expert opinion ought to be listened to. I understand that my hon. friend is not in the habit of visiting theatres himself; in fact, I do not know that he has ever been inside a theatre, and for him to come to this House to tell us what theatres are like seems to me rather a contradictory

287
position. I think we can judge of his knowledge of the theatre when he refers to a play whose name he is not able to pronounce. My hon. friend has raised a question a good deal more serious than perhaps he supposes. He talks of the theatre leading to impropriety of dress— in the audience I suppose he means. Perhaps it will be more correct to say that impropriety of dress in the audience is the real reason of a good deal of the impropriety of dress on the stage. The real truth is that the stage is a fair representation of the current feeling and opinion, and even, I will say, of the standard of taste in the country. My hon. friend wishes to give the public redress against these plays. I will tell him what redress they have. They need not go to the plays. Does my hon. friend propose that we should establish in this country a censorship which shall tell the people the plays they ought and ought not to see? How are we going to establish a censorship of that kind? I am afraid that the very plays that my hon. friend would wish that the public ought not to see are the plays which I would consider most moral, elevating, and instructive. He would denounce them as demoralising. I will tell you the kind of play my hon. friend would like to see if he would like to see a play at all. He would like to see a melodrama in which there was a villain with all the vices, a baronet or a marquess—
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: A Tory.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Not necessarily a Tory, but a play in which there was a villain with all the vices, especially of the aristocracy, in which then; was a hero, of course of the humbler class, with all the virtues, in which, of course, there was an Irishman with all the humour, and in which it was conclusively' proved that virtue was always triumphant in the humbler class, and that vice, especially among the aristocracy, was always visited
288
with the pains and penalties which ought to follow evildoing in this life. In other words, my hon. friend would desire a travesty of life—a melodrama, which has no more resemblance to the realities of human existence than the experience of my hon. friend has to the theatre. I, on the other hand, take a different view of the stage. I do not regard the theatre as a place that is necessarily bad, any more than I regard it as a place that is necessarily good. I regard the theatre as either good or bad according to the manner in which it is conducted. I regard it as good or bad in proportion to its resemblance to the realities of life, and not merely the figments and creations of either popular taste or lurid imaginations. My hon. friend quoted Mr. Clement Scott, a great personal friend of my own, whom I regard as one of the greatest authorities in the matter of dramatic criticism. But Mr. Scott has his prejudices. He belongs to the same school as my hon. friend. He belongs to the school of the Adelphi melodrama. I believe that the drama and the novel in order to do good to humanity must do good by being real, and true, and lifelike. I ask my hon. friend, can any drama or any novel be real or true or lifelike which does not take count of the evil of life as well as the good of life? I have a somewhat peculiar taste, perhaps, but my idea of a really happy afternoon is to listen to one of the gloomy plays of Ibsen, who represents on the stage dark, terrible, and even loathsome incidents of life. But do not these things exist, and if they do exist ought they not to be presented to the public mind to warn and instruct? What the hon. Member wants is a melodrama with a wicked baronet and a loyal hero—all the virtues on one side and all the vices on the other. He does not want the realities of life on the stage. I say the drama will never teach a lesson to humanity until it puts the dark as well as the bright side of life on the stage. I do not concur in the view that the stage or society has deteriorated

289
My hon. friend draws a very dark picture of the present state of morals in this country. It is not my business or desire to say that everything is right in the morality of the country at the present day. On the contrary, I think that there is a great deal that is very sad and disheartening at the present day. But, is it as bad as the society of two generations ago? Is the Court as bad to-day as the Court of George IV. or of William IV., or is the morality even of this epoch, not that I defend it, as bad as the morality of the early years of the present reign? I think all these statements with regard to the deterioration of the morality of this country constitute far too dark a picture, although I admit there is much in the present age, as there will be for many ages to come, requiring reprobation and reform. My hon. friend answered his own case. He described the decadence of empires, and stated that if this empire became rotten at the heart it would go as others had gone before. In the face of all that, he observed that no age and no era had seen finer examples of the sacrifice of wealth and comfort and home, of love and affection, and all the other things that appeal to men. My hon. friend is not going the right way about it. He has first of all to correct public taste, and public taste will correct the theatre. I take another view. He asks that there should be local control of plays. I entirely dissent from my hon. friend as to the remedy. I say let the public decide this question. I have confidence in the public. Then he says, "Let us have a tribunal such as the County Council in London." I have great respect for the County Council, but I do not admire it as a judicial tribunal for dealing with amusements. I took part in the, discussion a few years ago in regard to the conduct of music-halls. It way referred to the County Council. That body was called together, and several speeches were made. Wore the speeches judicial in tone and character? The speeches, with all duo respect to the
290
gentlemen who made them, were utterly irrelevant to the subject at issue. The result was that a number of regulations were made in regard to the music-halls, and what did they come to In one music-hall people were allowed to drink and smoke, in another they were allowed to smoke and not to drink, and in others they were allowed to drink and not to smoke. The result was that one of the music hall managers was rolling in money rapidly by selling drink and cigars which by virtue of the County Council regulations the others were prevented from selling. The regulations lasted, I think, twelve months or two years, and at the end of that time they ceased to exist. Boards were put up here and there, and there was all this faddy, irritating, and Haggling kind of interference with the interior arrangements of these halls. My strong conviction is that a municipal authority is the very worst body to decide those delicate questions of art which are far more difficult than my hon. friend in his philosophy supposes. My hon. friend has found fault with realism. I am an advocate of realism. I believe realism in the drama and in the novel has done more to teach lessons of morality, sympathy, justice, and peace than almost any other agency in the world. Look at what is taking place with regard to the question of war. A man who to-day would write a novel of the kind I used to read about the romance of war would be laughed at, or his work would be accepted by the journals that circulate either for hoys or for such innocent and ingenuous friends of the theatre as my hon. friend.: To-day nobody speaks of the romance or glory of war. [Cries of "Oh!"'] I don't know anybody who speaks of the glory of war to-day. They may speak of war as a melancholy and terrible necessity for the country, but nobody speaks of the glory of war. They speak of the sufferings, the sacrifices, and all those things with regard to war, but no man dares to speak of war in the way in which novelists

291
spoke of it thirty or forty years ago. The hon. Member speaks of the stage drama as having gone down. I say it has gone up, because it has become more true to life than was the case forty or fifty years ago. If today war is looked upon in the world with the proper degree of horror, the men who have to be thanked for it are such as Tolstoi, Zola, Erckmann-Chatrian, Sudermann, and others, who have given true, real, and living pictures of war instead of those gilded, romantic, and false views which were given in years gone by. It is impossible to keep the stage in the lines suggested by my hon. friend. The stage ought to be the mirror of life, and the mirror of life must reflect other things than mere joys and virtues. Finally, I appeal to this House to stamp upon the idea that it is the duty of Government to dictate to the nation in regard to the tastes and amusements of the people.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am almost as incompetent as the hon. Member for Flint to speak upon this subject, for he never goes, and I scarcely ever go, to the theatre. I therefore am almost as far removed as he is from being an expert, and must equally disclaim any intimate connection with the subject with which we are dealing to-night. In listening to the tirade which the hon. Member has given against the theatre, I thought I had gone back 200 years to the time of Dryden. The speech seemed to me to be a feeble and impotent paraphrase of that splendid passage in which Dryden speaks of the decadence of the stage in his time—
"O wretched we! why were we hurried down
This lubric and adulterate age
(Nay, added fat pollutions of our own),
To encrease the steaming ordures of the stage?"
That is a little better than the language of the hon. Member for Flint, but it is no stronger; it is a little better expressed, but it suggests exactly the same sentiment. And if it were true in Dryden's time that the "steaming ordures of the stage " were being added to, so far as my know-
292
ledge extends it is absolutely untrue, and the reverse of true, in these times. I observe that all those who, like the hon. Member for Flint, believe that there is only one form of immorality, and that sexual, are very close students of that particular form; they search for instances of sexual immorality. I presume, therefore, that the hon. Member is a close student of the drama of the Restoration. That being so, he must be aware that that drama teems with the most monstrous situations and the most indecent language, and that there has been nothing at all approaching it in the present century in this country. Plays that were produced upon the stage in the time of Charles II. would not now be looked at by any manager or suggested by any author. Therefore, I say the hon. Member is about 200 years behind the time in the speech he has delivered to-night. But my reason for not going to the play is that I find it intolerably dull. To my mind a stage-play is, or should be, a work of art, reproducing no doubt the real conditions of life, with a certain amount of point and finish, making it more or less true to nature, more or less interesting, more or less exciting, more or less a work of art. That sort of play I have never found in this country; I have found it abroad. With the exception of the works of Shakespeare, I have nowhere found it in the plays I have seen here. I have been banished from the playhouse because it seems to me that I can find not only the comedy of life, but the drama of life, so much more aptly and interestingly reproduced in life itself than ever upon the stage. If I want to find the play of passions, where should I look for it so much as in this House? The great virtues and some of the minor vices are to be found at play here in every debate we have. Where was there ever such a scene of— well, amity and concord and agreement as is to be found among the nineteen men of genius composing Her Majesty's Government? Where such unbroken fidelity as is to be found on these benches, where such confusion as on those? Oh, Sir! when I see such and such a Minister with such and such another Minister walking together arm-in-arm in the street, and when I remember what I know of the secret history of those Ministers, I pass them by and chuckle: I have a better play in my mind

293
than any that the stage could ever produce. That is the reason I do not go to the play. Do let me address one word of admonition to the hon. Member for Flint. There are other forms of immorality than that particular form upon which he delights to dwell, and they are far worse forms—forms more injurious than the one to which he refers. There is want of charity—the charity that thinketh no evil. I wish I could find that virtue in him, but it seems to me to be most conspicuously absent. ["Oh, oh!"] I am judging from his speech. He did not bring us harrowing instances of these wicked plays from his own experience; he brings us the views of newspaper critics who may be play writers themselves, and who may be entirely prejudiced in their views of a play against which they have been unable to compete themselves; they themselves write plays, and they believe the plays they write are better that those they see on the stage. The hon. Gentleman's testimony is suspected testimony. Had he brought us his own experience and told us that he had seen these harrowing things, these low - necked dresses, these semi-nude females ["Oh, oh!"]—I am quoting the words of the hon. Member—had he told us he had seen these things, I should have attached some importance to the words, but he has not seen them. Is he sure that they exist? I have never seen a semi-nude female on the stage, nor a quarter-nude female. Does he believe that they exist? He appealed to the public virtues. I do not know about those, but really, let him be a little charitable, even to ladies in low-necked dresses. Surely he must have some conception of what a work of art is. There are statue galleries full of statues; there are academies full of pictures, and there is a varying quantity of dress upon some of the figures, male and female, represented in those pictures. Does the hon. Gentleman propose to go to all the statue and picture galleries in Europe with his pockets full of fig - leaves, and to place them where he thinks they should most appropriately be placed before anybody is allowed to visit these places? Surely not. A work of art claims a certain freedom of treatment, no doubt; but I do not believe that any such freedom is made in or is exercised upon the stage, and, as I have said before, I think the hon.
294
Member is under an entire delusion when he says there is an absence of adequate clothing on the part of performers on the stage. I have no sympathy at all with the stage, I have no liking for it, but I do claim a fair understanding for it. Take, for instance, the play of "Othello." That play is generally supposed to represent the tragedy of a man torn by passion and jealousy. I do not think that is at all the real view of "Othello." I think the moral of "Othello" is that passion makes a man a fool, and that the only intelligent person in the play is Iago. That is my view of it, and that is a possible view—just as in the play of " The Merchant of Venice," I think the moral is that the only honest person in the whole play is the Jew, Shylock. He made a fair bargain, and insisted upon it being carried out. The others tried to "do" him; they were a bad lot of people. The only really decent person—I think that is what Shakespeare meant us to see—was Shylock. But we do not all see these particular things in the plays, and that is the mistake the hon. Gentleman makes. He sees in the play that which he was not intended to see; he sees in the semi-nude females that which he was not intended to see; and he mistakes the whole purpose and character of the thing. I am sure his intentions are good, but I am perfectly certain that that which he advocates is bad, and I hope the House will have no hesitation whatever in rejecting the motion he has brought forward.
MR. SOUTTAR: The speech to which we have just listened seems to me to have been very unhappy and very painful, and the most painful part of it was that in which the hon. Gentleman attacked the motives of my hon. friend the mover of the resolution.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Pardon me; I really must have explained myself very ill if I was understood to attack the motives of the hon. Gentleman. I did not intend to do anything of the sort.
MR. SOUTTAR: I certainly do not for a single moment wish to be uncharitable towards the speech of the hon.

295
Gentleman opposite; it is in the recollection of the House. I am quite certain there is not a Member in this House— and in saying that I will include the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken— who has not the very highest esteem for the hon. Member for Flint, and there is not a Member of this House who does not know that whether he speaks upon this or any other subject his motives at any rate are far above suspicion. The two hon. Members who have spoken last have twitted my hon. friend with having no knowledge of the theatre. I think perhaps my hon. friend had more knowledge of the theatre in his early days than, at any rate, they gave him credit for. ["Oh, oh!'' and laughter.] As regards that I know nothing myself, and in that I see nothing to laugh at. I freely acknowledge that for a good many years of my life I did go to the theatre, and I will not say I did not enjoy it. For the last twenty years I have not been to the theatre, but my knowledge of it for all that is perhaps on a par with the knowledge possessed by some men who have been making more to-do about it. But although I do not attend performances at the theatre, I have amongst my warmest personal friends actors and actresses upon the stage, and from my knowledge of those actors and actresses, and because of the high respect I have for them, I am able to say that the words of my hon. friend are absolutely true. I have it from the actors and actresses themselves—men and women who are trying to keep themselves straight and to keep themselves pure, men and women working like slaves sometimes for a mere pittance, and yet, although they are thus toiling, they cannot toil without very often being insulted and put into positions which are degrading and, at any rate, exceedingly painful to right - minded people. I say these things because they have been said to me by men and women whom I very much honour and respect. I know perfectly well that there is a great deal that is exceedingly good on the stage; I do not think for a moment that there are not good men and women on the stage; I know there are, because I know actors and actresses who are good men and women. But whilst there is something that is good, there is also something very bad, and Members here, who have been enjoying and perhaps laughing at the speeches which have been
296
made, know perfectly well in their hearts that there is a great deal upon the stage which is exceedingly bad. All that my hon. friend desires is that that which is bad should be made good, and that which is evil should be made right. He has made a simple suggestion, a suggestion which seems to me to be perfectly and entirely appropriate. He has pointed out that the present method of censorship is a foolish method, and nobody here can pretend that it is a good method. He has suggested a very much wiser method of censorship, a method which in Liverpool especially has been exceedingly beneficial with regard to other forms of evil, and I think that, whatever our private opinions may be, we ought to be exceedingly obliged to the hon. Member for having brought forward this motion.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I feel myself little more qualified than some of the hon. Members who have addressed the House to express an opinion upon the real merits of the case as regards the decadence or otherwise of the drama, but there are one or two points to which I should like to call the attention of the House. As the House knows, there is no censorship or check of the drama in the hands of any Government department, and I hope the day may be long distant when there will be any attempt on the part of the Government to | do anything of the kind. At the same time there is a censorship of plays and a licensing of theatres in the hands of the Lord Chamberlain. T have had some conversation with the Lord Chamberlain upon this subject, and I think his feeling is that a debate on the subject and an expression of opinion by the House generally that there were certain things that might be checked with advantage would strengthen his hands. At the same time I am not prepared to admit the words of the resolution. I do not think the House is in a position to state that there is a growing tendency to put a lower class of plays on the stage; and I think to pass a resolution stating

297
that a stricter supervision is necessary is to cast a reflection on the exercise of his duties by the Lord Chamberlain. I do not think that any mention has been made in the course of this debate of the appointment in 1891 of a Committee which reported in 1892 on this very subject. The Committee, which was appointed in consequence of a somewhat wide Bill brought in by Lord Avebury (then Sir John Lubbock), went exhaustively into the subject of the control of theatres, and came to the conclusion (inter alia) that there was no sufficient reason why the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain—which has been so long exercised, without favour or miscarriage, to the advantage of the public and all interested—should now be transferred or interfered with. That being so, I think the House should not without further consideration pass a resolution to the contrary, if, indeed, that be the meaning of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Gentleman says there is no control over theatres. In the provinces the control over theatres is absolute, and I have yet to learn that there is any complaint of the way in which the theatres in the provinces are conducted. As regards theatres in London, it is within the province of the Lord Chamberlain not only to censor plays before they are acted, but also to refuse the renewal of a licence to a theatre if a play be not conducted satisfactorily; and it is within my own know-lodge that within very recent times warnings have been given to theatre managers that, if certain things were not altered, the licence would be withdrawn. It is perfectly true that censorship of a play before it is acted cannot be a sufficient check, but I venture to think that there is no evidence that the licensing of theatres within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain is any worse than that within the jurisdiction of the Comity Council. Within the metropolis forty theatres or so are licensed by the Lord Chamberlain, and certain others by the County Council; and if hon. Members
298
have the curiosity to look at the names of those theatres, and see whether they have in their opinion transgressed and performed plays to which objection might be taken, I think they will find that objections might be applied at least as much to the theatres licensed by the County Council as to those licensed by the Lord Chamberlain. I do not wish to argue the question, but I desire to remind the House that very recently they passed a resolution which affirmed that, while supervision was desirable by way of censorship of plays before they were acted, and by licensing, yet it was not desirable that there should be a transference of the duties from the office of the Lord Chamberlain. I think an expression of opinion by the House would strengthen the hands of the Lord Chamberlain, who, I know, desires to do his best in difficult circumstances; but the House will remember that there are two sides to this question, and that it is a very difficult thing to settle what is the kind of play which ought or ought not to be permitted, and that a play which in itself is inoffensive may be made most offensive by the manner in which it is presented, while on the other hand there may be plays which though both immoral and offensive in themselves, may if presented on the stage by clever actors and actresses be rendered by the exercise of art and by exhibition of good acting inoffensive. I am sure that we must all admire the earnestness of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, but I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman has been guilty of some exaggeration. We all admit that the hon. Gentleman is desirous of doing good in the direction he has indicated, and I trust that the bringing forward of the subject may do something. I cannot, however, assent to the resolution for the reasons I have given, but I heartily hope it may do some good in purifying the stage.
MR. MADDISON: I desire to associate myself with

299
the hon. Member for Flint, and I feel it really a duty to do so after the ungenerous manner which he was treated by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Every man in this House hesitates to speak in a debate of this kind, because he subjects himself to the charge of being a mere Pharisee, and for that reason many men are deterred from taking any part either by vote or speech in the matter. But to-night I run that risk. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division ventured to state that the hon. Member who moved this resolution had never been in a theatre in his life, and as he was not contradicted I take it that that is so. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire says that he used to go to the theatre, but that for twenty years he has not been; therefore his knowledge of theatres is not very up to date. I do not belong to either category. I go to theatres now, and probably some of the most enjoyable moments I have are —I honestly confess it—when witnessing a good stage play. Therefore, whatever may be my defects in this matter, I do not stand here as one who desires to prevent stage performances. On the contrary, it is because I have a real belief in the mission of the drama, because I believe it is not only right but it is a necessity—it is essential—that all civilised nations should have a well-informed and educational stage, that I support the motion of the hon. Member for Flint. I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division—who, as I would be the first to admit, is a great authority upon this matter—did not qualify his proposition, which up to a certain point I fully accept —namely, that the drama should hold the mirror up to nature. Is he prepared to say completely that the mirror should be held up to nature? Is he prepared to say that all the abominations which we know unfortunately exist should be portrayed on the stage? If he is not prepared to go the whole length, the difference between the hon. Member for Flint and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division is one only of degree. If that is so, I submit to this House that the question of degree is of vital importance. I do not agree with several sentences which the hon. Member for Flint read from the writings of eminent dramatic critics. I think Mr. Clement Scott was too sweeping in his statement about the inability of actors and actresses to remain
300
pure on the stage. If I really thought that no actor or actress could follow that profession and remain pure, I should consider it a solemn duty never to go to the theatre again, because by going I should be a party to that impurity. But I do not believe it, and whatever else I may say, I would emphasise my conviction that in the theatrical profession there are an abundance of pure men and pure women, while their generosity and chivalry and courtesy to each other stand beyond all doubt. I think my hon. friend will consider that his purpose has been served after the admissions made by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Lord Chamberlain has been entering his protest against certain things of which the hon. Member who moved this motion has complained, and therefore this motion has served not only the cause of purity but also the cause of the drama in a particular way. It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh at what they consider prudish and puritanical narrowness, but I stand here as a working man, and I say that the working classes have a vital interest in a pure drama, because an impure drama means the sacrifice of the purest daughters of the people to the passion of the wealthy classes. As a. democrat, I say that this question has a real importance, and the hon. Member deserves the thanks of the people, many of whose sons and daughters will go into the theatrical profession without attaining to the higher steps of the ladder, but will remain in the position referred to by my hon. friend, susceptible to temptation and always liable to go astray. While not in any sort of way desiring that theatrical representations should be abolished, and also agreeing that a nagging, petty, meddling policy would be a great mistake, I do think that the hon. Member has made a case out for interference, not so much in the text of a play but in the way that play is presented. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, who I thought knew everything, said there were no semi-nude women on the stage, but I tell him there are, for I have seen them.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Where?
MR. MADDISON: It is not my place to say a libellous word here which would be unfair to the theatre which may just at

301
one particular time have put on a play to , which I am objecting. I have, however, seen what the hon. Member for King's Lynn denies exists at all, and if he went to certain theatres and plays he would see for himself what my hon. friend has described, and which nobody in this House can deny as actually existing, So far as any interference with plays upon certain grounds goes I should shrongly object—I mean plays which might promulgate doctrines opposed to the opinions of a section of the community. But my hon. friend is not seeking to-day anything of the sort. All he wants to do is to put a stop to that which any moral man would object to. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division said, "Let the public stay away, and then you have got a remedy." I notice that that remark was cheered rapturously by hon. Members opposite; but is the hon. Member prepared to carry his theory and his proposition to its logical conclusion? If he is, then his theory is a defence of those wretched lewd creatures who trade upon the depraved taste of men, and I am afraid of women, by selling lewd indecent pictures and books which are now illegal. But according to this doctrine, why make the sale of these books and pictures illegal? Why not leave it to the public taste? You do not need to go to these shops, and they do not drag you into them. Why not argue that instead of police officers running them down you ought to send out missionaries to educate public opinion, so that people will not go near these places? That is not practical, and I venture to say that all my hon. friend attempts to do—I admit the difficulty of doing it—is to enter a protest and an objection to certain scenes which occur in a certain type of play, and his protest goes no further. I venture to say that if my hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool took his daughter to see this type of play he would put his hands before his daughter's face as the play went on.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should not take her there.
MR. MADDISON: But we are not all so well informed upon these matters as
302
my hon. friend. There are a great many people go to these plays who know nothing about them. My hon. friend is simply giving us an instance of special pleading for the scum of the theatrical profession, who make the stage stink in the nostrils of all right-thinking people.
SIR MARK STEWART: I can assure my hon. friend who introduced this question that I fully appreciate the motives with which he brought this subject before the House. There are points in his proposal with which we must all agree. There can be no doubt that there are scenes witnessed in our London theatres which it would not be right to specify here to-night. If something is not done or said, these scenes will go on increasing, and we do not want to pander to an evil which is growing in this country. There is a growing tendency to put on the stage plays of an immoral character. On the other hand sometimes we have plays put upon the stage of a highly moral character, which give excellent lessons to everyone who attend them. There are some plays of a character which are certainly not very moral, and which should debar most fathers from taking their daughters to see them. Those who desire to reform this state of things suggest that we should exercise a stricter supervision, but that has been answered in some measure by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman made a gratifying speech, and showed, at all events, that he was at one with those who took a strong view upon this question. He agrees in principle with the object for which we are agitating to-night. Therefore, I think it would be well if my hon. friend the Member for Flint would withdraw his motion. We have had this exposition of the matter put before the House and the country, and we have drawn public attention to it. Therefore, in that respect we have done good, and although we do not censure the Government or the Lord Chamberlain, we simply ask that a stricter supervision will be exercised in the future. I trust my hon. friend will adopt my suggestion, but at the same time I shall vote for this motion if he goes to a division.
MR. CHANNING: I do not wish to intervene in this debate for more than a few moments. I heartily sympathise with the views of the hon. Member for Flint. While recognising the sympathetic and wise expression of opinion given by the Home Secretary, I must say that I do regret that Her Majesty's Government have not seen their way to accept the form of words which my hon. friend has placed upon the Paper. The motion only expresses a fact which every man who speaks honestly knows to be true. It regrets that there is a
"Growing tendency to put upon the stage plays of a demoralising character."
There is no doubt about that, and nobody can deny it. The motion proceeds—
"And considers that a stricter supervision of theatrical performances is needed, alike in the interest of the public and the theatrical profession."
The Home Secretary himself has said that the Lord Chamberlain has expressed a desire to have his hands strengthened by an expression of opinion in this House, and therefore my hon. friend is entitled on the merits of the case to ask Her Majesty's Government to accept the form of words he has proposed, so that the House of Commons may register its opinion, regretting the existence of an evil which every just-minded man admits to be true. I must express the strongest dissent from the doctrine expressed by my hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. He speaks of the only alternative to these grossly indecent plays as being something of the type of the Adelphi melodrama, with its villains discomfited and its virtues rewarded. Let the hon. Member go, as I have done, to plays like " A Pair of Spectacles," "Sweet Lavender," and many other such plays, which are full of true and wholesome human nature, or to many of the amusing farces, which are full of genuine fun and spirit, and entirely free from these wretched displays of indecency and immorality which are the natural resort of men whose minds are so dull and so incapable of appreciating the finer wit of a higher imagination that they have to resort to this miserable means of stimulating the attention of the public in order to
304
find an audience at all for their productions. In the eloquent words of the Member for Sheffield, what we do wish to insist upon is that plays should be made instructive and tend to educate the people. The hon. Member for King's Lynn referred to the play of "Othello." That play deals, and deals plainly, with the passions and motives of human nature, but deals with them in a way which can do nothing but good, and we wish plays of that kind to be placed upon the stage, for we desire to encourage plays which will elevate the social tone. I hope the motion of my hon. friend will help the authorities to deal with this question, and do something to prevent the growing tendency to put plays of a demoralising character upon the stage.
MR. GEDGE: I think we are very much indebted to my hon. friend the Member for Flintshire for placing this matter before us. Nearly everyone who has spoken has admitted the evil. I do not think anyone dare stand up here and advocate the continuance of this evil, for it incites to gross vice. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division has spoken in favour of realism. The realism of which we complain is of an alluring and attractive character, and it is just on that account that it is so much objected to. Many leading journals which do not profess to be religious papers have found fault with the existing state of things, and I was very glad indeed to hear the Home Secretary say that the Lord Chamberlain felt that it would strengthen his hands in his supervision as the censor of plays if we had an expression of opinion in this House in favour of a stricter censorship. My right hon. friend seems to think that the resolution is one to censure the Lord Chamberlain, but I do not take it in that way at all, for it is simply an expression of opinion by this House—
"That a stricter supervision of theatrical performances is needed alike in the interest of the public and the theatrical profession."
I was very much disappointed when my right hon. friend said he could not accept the resolution. I thought he took that course because he seemed to think it would involve referring the matter to the London County Council or some other

305
local authority, but the resolution does not do that at all, for it simply states —
"That this House regrets the growing tendency to put upon the stage plays of a demoralising character."
The fact that these things have occurred shows that a stricter supervision is necessary, because the present supervision does not prevent them. We want not only the words of the play more strictly supervised, but also the way in which they are represented by the actors. If we go to a division I shall support this motion, and I sincerely hope the hon. Member for Flintshire will not accept the advice given by my hon. friend behind me to withdraw his motion. I hope he will go to a division, and I think we have a right to claim the votes of the Home Secretary and the members of the Government on their being assured by the mover of this resolution that he has no intention whatever to censure the Lord Chamberlain, but that he desires simply to strengthen his hands.
MR. BIRRELL: I quite agree with the hon. Baronet opposite in expressing the hope that my hon. friend the Member for Flint will be satisfied with the moral outburst to which he has listened, and which I am quite sure is perfectly sincere. I think the hon. Member will be mistaken if he imagines that the country looks to this House for an expression of opinion as to the character of theatrical performances, or that it will attach any importance whatever to this debate or scan the division list, or attach any serious meaning to whatever the House may do in this matter. As a matter of fact we have not had the materials put before us to express an opinion as to whether there is a growing tendency to put upon the stage plays of a demoralising character, which are more indecent and objectionable than our theatrical history shows has been the case in the past. We have been told that we must not refer to theatres where these objectionable things go on. The mere fact that we must not mention them, that our lips are so delicate and our sensibilities so keen, prevents us from forming an opinion on the subject. So far as I attend theatres I may say that I have seen things which I
306
deplore, and I have heard jokes which made me very melancholy, but which made the audience laugh. Nothing that this House can say or do will prevent people laughing at a questionable joke. Our nature has fallen, and it so happens that people like these things. I regret it, but who can say, looking at the dramatic literature of this country and the books we keep upon our shelves, that public opinion would now tolerate things upon the stage which in our libraries we consider classical? The mere fact that this is so proves that public taste has, to some extent, advanced in this matter; but it has not advanced through resolutions in this House, and whatever estimation of this House may be formed in the country, no one attaches much importance or much value to its expression of opinion on literature or art. I do not think we are qualified to express that opinion—at all events, not in our representative capacity. Of course, nobody will deny that there are plays which would much better not be put upon the stage at all; but I think we had much better keep pounding away at our own moral sense. Let us reform ourselves; let us form the determination that the next time we are in a theatre and a joke is made of a doubtful character we will not laugh at it. This House is a moral assembly, and never laughs at anything that is improper; but there is something about the tradition of the theatre which prevents people from exercising that control over themselves which they do exercise in church and in other places, and there is great occasion for us to regret these things. But yet they have existed, and they will exist until we have altered our whole character, and unless this House is convinced that things are becoming every day worse—I contend that they are becoming a little better every day—I hope we shall leave this question alone. I am glad my hon. friend has introduced this question. The Home Secretary has said that the Lord Chamberlain is waiting for some expression of public opinion. I must confess that I think very little of public officials whose hands are strengthened by these sporadic expressions of opinion by public assemblies in this country. Let the Lord Chamberlain exercise the powers he has, and let him be satisfied that nobody will call those powers into question if they are honestly

307
exercised. I am dead against a literary censor. When a literary censor does interfere it is usually with the play which has a distinctly moral tendency, while he often allows silly and frivolous plays, which are made worse in the acting than on paper, to pass through without alteration. All persons who are acquainted with the stage will affirm that the ablest censor sometimes refuses to sanction plays which are very much less objectionable than many of those which he passes. Let the Lord Chamberlain exercise the powers which belong to his great office, but for Heaven's sake do not make this House ridiculous by pretending that it is an authority upon a subject on which it knows next to nothing.
MR. BANBUEY: I desire to move an Amendment to leave out all the words after "that," and the motion will then read—
"To call attention to the low class of plays now exhibited in some of the theatres of this country."
That would leave out altogether the question as to whether there is or is not a growing tendency to put upon the stage plays of a demoralising character.
MR. STEADMAN: I cannot spend my leisure in the South of France or in any other part of the Continent, and the only recreation I do enjoy is going to a theatre. I have been a theatre-goer now for over thirty years, and I have spent many pleasant hours in a theatre. On Wednesday evening last I went to the Adelphi
308
Theatre, and saw a drama which, from a religious point of view, gave me good moral instruction. Two plays have been referred to—"The Gay Lord Quex" and "The Belle of New York." I fail to see that there is anything immoral in the former play; and so far as "The Belle of New York" is concerned, I so enjoyed that comic opera that I went to see it three times.
LORD HUGH CECIL: In my opinion it is very undesirable that the House should divide upon this question. I find myself in rather a difficult position. I am very well satisfied with the resolution which has been submitted, but it is not a judiciously framed one, and it is not a resolution which I could support as a matter of fact. I do not think the statement of facts contained in it is accurate. At the same time I warmly admire the spirit which induced the hon. Member to make this motion, and—
It being Midnight, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business—
Whereupon Mr. SAMUEL SMITH rose in his place, and claimed to move " That the Question be now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
Debate adjourned.
Adjourned at Five minutes after Twelve of the clock.