Commons Sitting of 11 June 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LEEDS CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. PAULTONsaid that in connection with this Bill he desired to make one or two observations, especially on the question of common lands, in regard to which Parliament had adopted a universal policy, having kept a jealous eye on the proceedings of public bodies in taking such lands. As that Bill was originally introduced, it contained provisions under which the Leeds Corporation were to take over a very large tract of land for the purposes of their water supply. He understood that in the House of Lords those provisions were altered, and that the corporation were now taking only a comparatively small quantity of land. Had the Bill remained unaltered, there would have been a strong case for asking that what was known as the Birmingham Clause should be inserted. It would be remembered that some time ago, when the Birmingham Corporation came to Parliament for power to acquire very large tracts of land in Wales for their water supply, Parliament insisted that they should give the public access over the common lands they proposed to acquire. If the Leeds Corporation had
  66
  adhered to their original proposal, the House would have been asked to insert a like clause, but, in view of the change effected before the House of Lords Committee, although he would have liked, in view of their Report on the subject, to have heard the views of the representative of the Board of Agriculture, he did not feel justified in opposing the Second Reading. He wished it to be borne in mind, however, that it must not be supposed the House would overlook any proposal which would be contrary to its settled practice in regard to common lands. Under the circumstances, he would defer until a future stage any remarks he wished to make. His sole object was to safeguard the interests of those who cared to preserve the rights of the public over common lands, and he did not wish it to be supposed that the House of Commons in any way shirked its responsibility on that question.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDSsaid he would like to have obtained from some hon. Member whose name was on the back of the Bill some satisfactory assurance on the subject. He thought it was a case in which the Birmingham Clause ought to be inserted.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is a Bill from the other House, and there are no names on the back of it.
  MR. PAULTONsaid he understood it was important that the Bill should be read a second time that day in order that it might go at once before a Committee. He did not therefore feel justified in moving its rejection.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders

  67
  which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Barnes, &c.) Bill [Lords].

  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL (SPECIAL REPORT).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of the 9th July, they have made the following Special Report:
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.—If this Bill is intended by the Order of the House of the 9th July to be treated as a Private Bill in respect of the Amendments introduced in Committee in the Confirmation Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, inasmuch as no notice has been given of the powers sought by Clause 2 of the said Bill, as amended in Committee.
  But the Standing Orders do not contemplate the examination of Confirmation Bills by the Examiners in regard to any requirements other than those contained in Standing Orders 38 and 39, compliance with which has been already proved.
  C. W. CAMPION.
  J. F. SYMONS JEUNE.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  STROUD GAS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  SOUTH WESTERN AND ISLE OF WIGHT JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
  King's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  HANDSWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  HARPENDEN DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords].
    BOLTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

      SMETHWICK CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
      GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
      Reported with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

      ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].
      Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
      LYNTON AND BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
      Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

      MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
      That they have agreed to:—
      Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill;
      Military Lands Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill;
      Pembroke Urban District Council (County of Dublin) Bill—
      Without amendment.
      That they have agreed to:—
      Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill;
      Great Central Railway Bill;
      Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill;
      Dublin Corporation (Markets, Etc.) Bill;
      Bury Corporation Bill—
      With Amendments.
      That they have agreed to:—
      Amendments to—
      Cowes Ferry Bill [Lords]
      Without amendment.

PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES CONGESTED DISTRICTS AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1896.
  Petition from Glasgow, against re-enactment; to lie upon the Table.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Liverpool, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, and West Ham; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES).
  Petition from Sligo, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Sileby; Chipping Norton; Edgbaston, and Wigan; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petition from Castletown, against; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE BILL.
  Petition of Mining Association of Great Britain, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Portland, K.G., preserved at Welbeck Abbey (Vols. VI. and VII), and the Manuscripts of Berwick-upon-Tweed and Burford Corporations, the counties of Wilts and Worcester, and of the Deans and Chapters of Chichester and Salisbury [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Copy presented, of Forty-third Report of the Board of Superintendence, with
  70
  Appendices, for the year 1900–1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVY (EXCEPTIONS TO KING'S REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of List of Exceptions to the King's Regulations as to Pay, Non-effective Pay, and Allowances during the year 1900–1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS).
  Return ordered, "of the Accounts, as they are respectively made up, of the Metropolitan Water Companies and of the Staines Reservoirs Joint Committee to the 30th day of September and the 31st day of December, 1900 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 308, of Session 1900)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy ordered, "of Extracts from Minutes of the Proceedings of the Commissioners of National Education (Ireland), and other Documents, in relation to recent action taken by the Most Reverend W. J. Walsh, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin, respecting alleged irregularities in the transaction of business in the office of the Commissioners, and to the withdrawal or amendment of letters alleged to have been incorrect."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 261.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC—STATE DEBTS.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the

  71
  Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Kitchener's communication to General Botha to the effect that the British Government could not undertake to pay the debts of the late Transvaal Republic applied to the State loans issued previous to the war.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Lord Kitchener's communication to General Botha had special reference to General Botha's inquiry whether debts contracted since the war began and notes issued since that date would be recognised. His Majesty's Government, while declining to undertake liability for debts contracted since the commencement of the war, do not propose to repudiate the State loans issued previous to the war, so far as they can be provided out of the Transvaal, but the terms are still under consideration.

  CENSORSHIP—DIAMOND FIELDS ADVERTISER—MR. RHODES AND COL. KEKEWICH.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 10th February, 1900, the military censor during the siege of Kimberley informed the editor of the Diamond Fields Advertiser, a paper under the control of Mr. Rhodes, that he had on two occasions printed articles on the military situation injurious to the interests of the Army and the defence of the town, and had committed offences dealt with by the Army Act, and informed him that proofs must be submitted to the censor before publication, and that in consequence the publication of the Diamond Fields Advertiser was suspended; and, seeing that, after raising the siege of Kimberley, Mr. Rhodes, in presence of General French and of Colonel Kekewich, took on himself the responsibility of those articles and ordered Colonel Kekewich out of his house when this interview took place, what notice, if any, is it intended to take of this matter; whether these matters were brought to the notice of Lord Roberts while in command in South Africa, and what notice, if any, did he take or recommend in reference to these matters.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am not aware of the circumstances alluded to in the question, nor was any report made to Lord Roberts.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter was brought under the notice of the late Secretary for War and—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: NOW, Mr. Speaker—
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman was asked if attention had been called to a specific fact, and his answer was in the negative.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Arising out of that answer, and having regard to the fact I have now specifically directed his attention to, and seeing also that Mr. Rhodes has grossly insulted Colonel Kekewich, will inquiry be made?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. BRODRICK: The whole occurrence dates back fifteen or eighteen months. I certainly shall make no inquiry.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: YOU dare not. You are under the control of Rhodes.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  CENSORSHIP—MR. WALLACE'S CHARGES.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the charges made by Mr. Edgar Wallace, a newspaper correspondent in South Africa, that the military censor struck out from a telegram handed in at Drisselfontein on 23rd February many passages descriptive of the action in which General De Wet was routed by the force under Colonel Plumer, including all references to the work of the Australian troops and the Yeomanry, and inserted a number of passages,

  73
  some of which were inaccurate; and whether he is making inquiries into these charges.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have telegraphed to inquire.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire what are the rules under which the censorship is now being carried on in South Africa?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir, I will ask for a statement.

  CENSORSHIP—REUTER'S CORRESPONDENT.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State fox War whether he has made inquiry into the circumstances under which Lord Kitchener described as without foundation a despatch of Reuter's correspondent in South Africa which Lord Kitchener now admits to have been accurate with the exception of the name of the Boer officer commanding and whether, if his inquiries show that no blame attaches to Reuter's correspondent in the matter, he will cause some official expression of regret to be conveyed to him for the charge inadvertently made against him.
  MR. BRODRICK: I will read out the telegrams despatched to, and received from, Lord Kitchener on this matter:—
  From the Secretary of State for War to Lord Kitchener.
  War Office, 8th June, 1901.
  Is there any truth in discomfiture of Beyer's commando reported in press?
  From Lord Kitchener to the Secretary of State for War.
  Pretoria, 9th June, 1901.
  Referring to your telegram 8th June, re Beyer's, no truth in report.
  From the Secretary of State for War to Lord Kitchener.
  War Office, 10th June, 1901.
  Reuter's correspondent has seriously misled the public respecting Beyer's defeat. What steps do you propose to take?
  From Lord Kitchener to the Secretary of State for War.
  Pretoria, 1lth June, 1901.
  I have warned Press Censor to be more careful. I think it would be as well if you
  74
  would publish fact that we are not responsible in any way for correctness of correspondent's news. Many misleading telegrams are sent from different parts of the country that do injure military operations, but are distinctly inaccurate.
  In consequence of recent mail letters received, however, it is suggested that an action did take place which was in favour of the Boers on that date, but it did not relate to Beyer's commando. I telegraphed on the 10th asking whether there was any truth in that suggestion. I have not yet received Lord Kitchener's reply.
  MR. NORMAN: The point is whether Reuter's correspondent sent a message which was without foundation or not.
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not think that the hon. Member would be justified in reading anything into my reply. My reply is that I am at present under the impression that there was no special action which Lord Kitchener thought it worth while to report on that date. If that be so, then the correspondent is in error; but if there was an action in which the Boers suffered heavily on that date there would be some foundation for the belief in the correspondent's report, and that it was only a difference in the name of the Boer commander which was wrong.

  VLAKFONTEIN ENGAGEMENT—ALLEGED SHOOTING BY BOERS OF BRITISH WOUNDED.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I desire to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any official information to give the House with regard to the alleged Boer atrocities at Vlakfontein.
  MR. BRODRICK: The following telegrams have passed between the War Office and Lord Kitchener on this subject—
  War Office, June 6, 1901.
  Reuter's correspondent telegraphs that Lieutenant McDougal and Sergeant-Major, 28th Battery, were shot in cold blood because they refused to show the working of the guns captured. If this is corroborated, please have sworn evidence taken and send copy home.
  Lord Kitchener to Secretary of State for War.
  Pretoria, June 7, 1901.
  In reference to the alleged murder of Lieutenant McDougal and a Sergeant-Major of

  75
  28th Battery, when I heard of the case I caused inquiries to be made among all wounded. Report unfounded. Will ask correspondents for their authority for statement.
  Lord Kitchener to Secretary of State for War.
  Pretoria, June 11.
  An Imperial Yeomanry officer, Lieutenant Hern, who was wounded at Vlakfontein, has made a statement that he saw one of the enemy shoot some of our wounded on the ground.
  From Secretary of State for War to Lord Kitchener.
  War Office, July 8, 1901.
  Detailed statements have been made by mail letters in press re shooting of our wounded by the Boers at Vlakfontein, have you any information beyond your telegram of June 11?
  Lord Kitchener to Secretary of State for War
  Pretoria, July 9, 1901.
  In reply to your telegram of yesterday, it has been testified by seven men that they saw Boers shoot wounded men at Vlakfontein. The statements they made were sent to you by last mail. I have ordered evidence on oath to be taken.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: May I ask my right hon. friend if, when the evidence arrives, he will communicate it to the House, or the purport of it?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir.

  CIVIL EMPLOYMENT IN THE TRANSVAAL—CASE OF MR. HENDERSON.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Henderson, who has been ordered to leave the Transvaal; is he aware that this man at the outbreak of the war was in a position in the Hay Consolidation Gold Mine, at Germiston, and then served in Thorneycroft's Mounted Infantry; was wounded, and served again until 31st March, 1901, when he went back to Germiston, where he was appointed surveyor, but was ordered by the British authorities to leave the Transvaal, and consequently has since been without employment; whether he has knowledge of any orders by which British subjects and soldiers who have served are compelled to leave their employment in the Transvaal and go either to Natal or Cape Colony; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into Henderson's case, in order that he may be allowed to return to Germiston, and whether any compensation can be given
  76
  in such cases. In putting the question I should like to mention two facts, namely, that this man had an appointment of £50 a month, and now he is out of employment at Durban.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of the case referred to. Under the arrangements made by the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, no officers, non-commissioned officers, or men of irregular corps are, at present, allowed to remain in the Transvaal or Orange River Colony on discharge, except under the following conditions: (1) In Government employ; (2) as part of the establishment of the Mines Guard, as approved by Lord Kitchener, and raised by the Chamber of Mines; (3) under special circumstances to be decided by army headquarters, South Africa. If the hon. Member will send me the information at his disposal bearing on this particular case, I will consider whether inquiries should be made.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: Then am I to understand that, in a case like this, where a man has served 1½ years at the front, has been wounded, and in hospital, and gets his discharge, the British authorities claim the right to drive him out of the employment he had before the war commenced?
  MR. BRODRICK: The district is under martial law, and discharged men must either take service in the way mentioned or come under the clause as to special circumstances. However, I will inquire into this case.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the post out of which this man has been driven has been filled by an American?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does martial law supersede Christianity?
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it not the fact that a great many men have been allowed to return to their places in South Africa who have done nothing to support the Government during the war, but loafed in Cape Town or visited England?
  MR. SEELY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there are

  77
  not a considerable number of Transvaal Boers employed by the Government, and what reason there is for not employing our own people?
  [No reply was given.]

  TELEGRAMS BETWEEN GENERAL BOTHA AND MR. KRUGER.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Kitchener did transmit any telegram from General L. Botha to President Kruger; and, if so, why no Papers connected with such transmission are included in the South African Papers circulated on 9th July.
  MR. BRODRICK: Lord Kitchener did transmit a telegram from General Louis Botha to ex-President Kruger, and a reply was permitted. The only correspondence on the subject is contained in some brief telegrams as to the cipher which should be employed, which it was not necessary to publish.
  MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that in the Papers that have been published there is no reference to Lord Kitchener's transmitting this telegram? There is a note of interrogation inserted in Louis Botha's proclamation that a telegram was transmitted.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have explained that the only correspondence which took place was as to the cipher in which this telegram should be sent. There were no telegrams from Lord Kitchener to the Government.
  MR. DILLON: My argument is founded on this. What objection is there to including in the Papers all that passed between Lord Kitchener and Botha with reference to this telegram? There need be no secret about the cipher.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not desirable that correspondence on so private a question as to what cipher should be employed should be given to the public.

  PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH GENERAL BOTHA.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies
  78
  whether, in the written communications received by the Government from Lord Kitchener dealing with his interview with Botha on 28th February and with the subsequent communications passing betwixt them, Lord Kitchener has stated that he regarded the independence of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies as the point upon which these negotiations failed
  MR. BRODRICK: I have published the only despatches received from Lord Kitchener. They do not contain this allegation.

  CONCENTRATION CAMPS—STATISTICS.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will grant a Return showing, monthly, the number of white men, women, and children in each of the concentration camps in South Africa, and the death rate in each; and if he can now give these particulars for the months of May and June.
  MR. BRODRICK: I hope to be able to give a monthly Return of the white persons in these camps and the deaths. I am daily expecting the figures for June. I have already stated the total figures for May in the Transvaal camps on the 17th June, and in the Orange River Colony, Cape Colony, and Natal camps on the 20th June.

  SECOND WORCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT—ENTERIC FEVER.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many men of the 2nd Worcestershire Regiment were on the sick list when the regiment reached Bloemfontein in May, 1900; how many men of the regiment suffered from enteric fever during the stay of the regiment at Bloemfontein, and the number of deaths; how many of the men were left sick of enteric fever when the regiment left Bloemfontein; and how many died of enteric fever in the two months after the regiment had left.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The regi-

  79
  ment reached Bloemfontein in the week ending the 6th April, 1900, and had nineteen admissions to hospital from all causes during the march thither from Norvals Pont, of these twelve were discharged to duty soon after arrival. During their stay at Bloemfontein up to the 25th May there were fourteen deaths from enteric fever, and from the 25th May to the 27th July there were fifteen deaths from enteric fever. No further statistics are available.

  MILITIA FORCE IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the total number of the Militia forces sent to South Africa, the number of casualties among officers and men that have occurred, specifying killed, wounded, and invalided.
  LORD STANLEY: The total Militia sent to South Africa amounted to 28,039. I cannot give a list of the casualties, as it has not been found possible to keep up separate returns of the casualties of the various branches of the service.
  MR. LAMBERT: Can the noble Lord give the numbers approximately?
  LORD STANLEY: I am afraid not. I do not know whether I can obtain them.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Can the noble Lord relieve our anxiety by stating what has become of the military press censors? Are they safe?

  DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED SOLDIERS.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give the number of widows and orphans of officers and men who have been killed in action, died of wounds or disease, or invalided home, and who have since died, from the commencement of the war in South Africa up to the present date.
  LORD STANLEY: The numbers approximately are as follows:—Officers: 145 widows, 216 children; Men: 3,138 widows, 4,300 children.

  RETURN OF THE SEAFORTH MILITIA.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  80
  War whether he is aware that, in consequence of the steamer "Lovedale" being unable to carry more than 370 of the Seaforth Militia from Kyle of Lochalsh to Stornoway on the evening of 11th June, 230 of the men were left at Kyle, where, owing to the insufficiency of the accommodation, they had to spend the night on the platform and await the sailing of another steamer at 2 p.m. the following afternoon. And, seeing that the regiment had just returned from a hot climate, and that the weather at the time was cold, wet, and stormy, will he explain why instructions were not issued for some of the men to be detained and accommodated for the night at Dingwall, as soon as it was known that the steamer originally secured to convey the men to Stornoway was not available.
  LORD STANLEY: I have nothing to add to the very full explanation which has been already given to the hon. Member.*
  MR. WEIR: The noble Lord has not given me any information in answer to the question on the Paper. One of the men subjected to exposure has since died in consequence, and many of them are seriously ill. I think this matter should be inquired into, and I will take another opportunity of raising it.

  THIRD BATTALION CONNAUGHT RANGERS.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the men of the 3rd Battalion Connaught Rangers, before being sent from Gravesend to Castlebar to be disbanded, were taken to a clothing establishment in the former place to purchase clothes by the quartermaster of the battalion, and that the amounts of the purchases were stopped from the bounty to which the men were entitled. Whether he will state the arrangement made between the Gravesend clothier and the quartermaster; whether he is aware that the men have been complaining of the manner in which they were treated in their purchases; whether there is any precedent
  *See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xcv., page 1057; Vol. xcvi., page 75.

  81
  for the proceeding, and can he explain why the men were not allowed to purchase the clothing wherever they wished.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of the matters alluded to. On embodiment militiamen can dispose of their plain clothes or arrange for their safe custody, and on disembodiment can either take plain clothes or 13s. 6d. in lieu; in the latter case they are absolutely free to make their own arrangements as to purchasing plain clothes. If any man of this corps has any complaint to make he should refer it to the local military authorities.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: But will the noble Lord inquire into cases which I can bring under his notice?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir; this is a question entirely in the discretion of the general officer commanding, and if the men have any complaints I am certain they will be looked carefully into by officers on the spot.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS IN MILITARY EMPLOYMENT—PROVISION FOR DEPENDENTS.
  MR. HARRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what pensions are being provided for the widows and families of railway servants in military employment who have lost their lives in pursuance of their duty in South Africa, more particularly with regard to engine-drivers and firemen; and whether any provision has been made for the distribution of medals to this branch of the service; if so, whether of equal class to those distributed to men enlisted in the Regular Army, Yeomanry, and Volunteers.
  MR. BRODRICK: The families of railway employees come within the scope of the Patriotic Fund, and in some cases are already in receipt of pensions. As regards medals, Lord Kitchener will forward his recommendations in due course.

  HAULBOWLINE ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT—LABOURERS' WAGES.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the
  82
  War Office whether, in view of the increase in wages granted by the Admiralty to the dockyard labourers at Haul-bowline, the War Office will favourably consider the case of the labourers in the Ordnance Department at Haulbowline, whose scale of pay still remains at 16s. a week.
  LORD STANLEY: The pay of the labourers in the Army Ordnance Department in the Cork district has been already raised to 17s. a week with effect from the 1st April, 1901.

  ARMY REMOUNTS—GLASGOW TRAMWAY HORSES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a letter from the corporation of Glasgow with reference to the sale of tramway horses, and whether he has any information in connection with this matter which he desires to communicate to the House.
  LORD STANLEY: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to the reply which I gave to a question put by the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Lanarkshire on Monday last.†
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Arising out of that reply, I hope, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I may make a personal statement. In a recent debate I made a certain assertion of fact, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury traversed it and completely denied it. Immediately afterwards those concerned sent a letter to the Secretary for War—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This does not seem to me to be a personal explanation. A personal explanation must relate to a matter which in some way affects the character or reputation of an hon. Member, and it does not appear to me that it does so in this case. The hon. Member cannot enter into an argument on the subject.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I wish to point out that I made a statement on my own responsibility, and it was denied from the Treasury Bench. I have now proof
  † See preceding volume, page 1144.

  83
  positive that my statement was absolutely correct, although the hon. Gentleman said it was false.
  MR. SPEAKER: That cannot be dealt with as a question of personal explanation. It was not imputed against the hon. Member that he had made a statement which he did not believe to be true, and mere want of accuracy does not amount to a personal reflection upon him.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: My only object in rising was to prove that I was accurate in my statement.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now putting himself out of court. He cannot proceed to argue that he is right.

  HOSPITAL SHIP FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN—THE "MAINE."
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to supply the Mediterranean Fleet with an hospital ship, and, if so, can he state when this will be done.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): It is proposed to send the hospital ship "Maine" to the Mediterranean at an early date.

  MEDITERRANEAN FLEET—MR. ARNOLD WHITE'S LETTER.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the information in reference to the condition of the Mediterranean Fleet published by Mr. Arnold White was obtained by him by use of the letter which he obtained from the Secretary to the Admiralty, and why that information was withheld from the House of Commons.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am not aware of what action Mr. Arnold White may have taken, but I am confident that no naval officer gave information to Mr. White which he would not otherwise have given, in consequence of the letter referred to. I have no reason
  84
  to believe that any attempt was ever made to use the letter for the purpose of obtaining such information. No information with respect to the ships in the Mediterranean has been withheld from the House of Commons.
  MR. DILLON: But Mr. Arnold White's own language is that if the members of the Navy League have obtained any information it is due primarily to the action of the Admiralty itself.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: He refers in his letter to an answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. Neither question nor answer had anything whatever to do with the point raised by the hon. Member.
  MR. DILLON: I am quoting the language of Mr. Arnold White's own letter.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no such statement in the letter.

  VICTUALLING IN THE NAVY.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Board of Admiralty to improve the quality and increase the quantity of the rations issued to the bluejackets and stokers of the Royal Navy.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Report of the Victualling Committee, which has dealt with the subject referred to in the question, will shortly be presented to Parliament. The Report makes various recommendations with respect to the point raised by the hon. Member, but I am not yet in a position to state what are the exact steps which the Admiralty will think it desirable to take upon such recommendations.

  MODERNISATION OF DOCKYARD MACHINERY.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any steps are being taken to modernise the machinery in His Majesty's dockyards, and, if so, to what extent.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The great importance of modernising all the machinery in the Royal dockyards is fully appreciated at the Admiralty. An average of £67,000 a year has been spent for this purpose during the last ten years. A sum of £215,000 for machinery for establishments on shore is included in the current year's Estimates—of which a large portion is for the dockyards.

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS—H.M.S. "DREADNOUGHT."
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that the "Dreadnought" originally had in her turrets four 12.5 38-ton, Mark I. muzzle-loading guns, which have been replaced by other muzzle-loading guns, and that the change involved great alterations, such as cutting away a portion of the armour, can he state what expense was entailed, and in what respects the fighting efficiency of the ship has been increased.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In 1897 the Mark I. muzzle-loading guns of the "Dreadnought" were replaced by similar guns of a later pattern, having lower pressures and an increased muzzle velocity. It was not necessary to cut away the armour, the only alteration involved being that which was necessary to strengthen the gun slides. The total cost involved in the alteration to the guns and gun mountings was £3,250.
  MR. PAULTON: Then are vessels still being armed with muzzle-loading guns?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No; for a long time past no ships have been armed with them.
  MR. PAULTON: But did not the hon. Gentleman say the guns were replaced in 1897?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes; the old guns were then replaced by newer guns of the same kind.

  ROYAL NAVY—TURBINE ENGINES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admi-
  86
  ralty whether the Board of Admiralty have now come to any conclusion as to the adoption of the turbine system of propulsion for vessels of His Majesty's Fleet; has it been found from the experience of the "Viper" that this system, besides giving greater speed, enables all the engines to be placed below the water-line, that it entirely gets rid of all vibration, and thus greatly diminishes the risk of breakdowns, as well as the discomfort caused by vibration, that the turbine engines occupy little more than half the space required for corresponding engines of the usual type, thus affording more space for stowage of fuel or ammunition, and that fewer men are needed in the engine room; do the Admiralty propose to adopt this system in any of the battleships, cruisers, or destroyers included in this year's programme of new construction; and, if not, why not.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No conclusion has yet been reached as to the adoption of the turbine system of propulsion for vessels of His Majesty's fleet. Trials are now in progress with the "Viper" under service conditions, and in comparison with other destroyers. Much valuable information, which will assist in reaching a decision as to further applications of the turbine system, will thus be obtained. Experience with the "Viper" has shown that a higher speed can be realised with her turbo-motors than can be obtained in a destroyer of similar dimensions and form fitted with ordinary engines. Vibration is practically avoided. It does not appear correct to say that the turbo-motor engines necessarily occupy less space than the ordinary reciprocating engines, but they require less vertical height and therefore can, as the hon. Member suggests, be more easily kept below the water-line—an undoubted advantage. The total engine room and boiler room complement of the "Viper" is larger than that required in the 30-knot destroyers fitted with the ordinary engines, but the horse-power developed at her maximum speed is greatly in excess in the former ship. Proposals with outline designs for fitting turbo-motors in third class cruisers and new types of destroyers are now under consideration. No decision has been reached respecting vessels

  87
  included in this year's programme. It is not contemplated at present to adopt the system on battleships or large cruisers.

  NAVAL WORKS—DESIGNS AND PLANS—SUGGESTED OPEN COMPETITION.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with regard to the system of contracting pursued by the Admiralty in respect of naval works for which an expenditure has been authorised of £23,636,922, under which system the Admiralty settles in its own Works Department the design and plans of these works and all the details of their construction, and puts up to competition the price alone at which the works thus conditioned will be executed, will His Majesty's Government consider the desirability of putting up to competition the design and plan of any future works, as well as their price; and, if not, will he state the reasons for adhering to the present system.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The practice usually followed at the Admiralty is correctly described by the hon. Member. The design and plan of works, and details of their construction, are settled in the Works Department, and the price of carrying out the works is alone made a matter of competition. This practice is in conformity with that ordinarily followed by dock and railway companies and harbour boards which possess an adequate engineering staff. The system under which the design and plan of works are made the subject of competition would, however, be adopted in any case in which, in the opinion of the Admiralty, it offered distinct advantages.

  NAVAL CONTRACTS—PUBLICATION OF TENDERS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty is it the practice of the Admiralty, when they have made contracts based on the acceptance of one of several competitive tenders, not to publish the amounts of the tenders received with the names of those who have made them; and, if so, will the Admiralty consider the desira-
  88
  bility of publishing these particulars, as is done by local authorities in similar cases.
  MR. PRETYMAN: This question was fully inquired into in 1888 by the Directors of Army and Navy Contracts, and the conclusion arrived at, as the result of experience and after obtaining the opinions of manufacturers, was that it was to the interest of the country that the practice of treating tenders as strictly confidential should be continued. The Report of the Directors of Army and Navy Contracts upon the subject was presented to Parliament in March, 1888.

  INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has recently received a despatch from the Government of India having reference to the complaints of the Indian Staff Corps officers in respect of their supersession by officers of the British Service; whether the Government of India are aware of the urgency of the grievance, and have made recommendations for remedying it; and whether any decision has yet been arrived at; and if not, can he state when he will be in a position to make a definite announcement on the subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G.): This matter has been for some time under consideration, but within the last few days, on the recommendation of the Government of India, I have sanctioned a reduction of the periods qualifying for promotion to the ranks of captain and major in the Indian Staff Corps from eleven to nine years and from twenty to eighteen years respectively.

  BAROTZELAND.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an expedition has been despatched to Barotzeland, whether the natives have risen, and whether another small native war is in progress.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: A statement appeared in the Buluwayo Chronicle of 6th February that the

  89
  natives in Barotzeland were in an unsettled condition. On the 2nd of April the acting administrator reported that this statement was without the slightest foundation. If the hon. Member has later information, I will inquire as to its truth by telegraph.

  CAPE TO AUSTRALIA CABLE CONTRACT.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a contract has now been signed in connection with the establishment of the Cape to Australia cable; whether he will state the nature of the landing privileges accorded to the contracting company, more especially with regard to the Cocos Islands; and whether, in view of modern precedents and considering the appeals made by Canada, Australia, and Cape Colony, he will obtain the insertion of an expropriation clause reserving to the State the right of purchase on equitable terms.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No general contract will be signed between His Majesty's Government and the Eastern Telegraph Company in regard to this Cape-Australia cable, but the conditions by which the company will be bound will be embodied in landing licences, shortly to be issued for this cable at Mauritius, Rodrigues, and Cocos Islands, on the lines indicated in my answer to the question of the hon. Member of the 11th March last. † I have not received any appeals from Canada, Australia, and the Cape that an expropriation clause should be inserted in these licences.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Is my right hon. friend aware that responsible bodies in these colonies, such as chambers of commerce and boards of trade, have repeatedly passed resolutions urging the adoption of this clause by the Government.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the question on the Paper. I was asked if appeals had been made by Canada, Australia, and Cape Colony, and my reply to that is in the negative.
  † See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xc., page 1157.

  SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the decision of the Provincial Court of Mombasa, in the slave case which was heard before Mohammedan assessors, in which judgment was delivered by the judge of that court on 25th April, 1898, to the effect that all slaves imported into the coast territories of the Sultan of Zanzibar since the decree of 18th April, 1876, are illegally held and should be confiscated; and whether, having regard to this judgment, the Government will accelerate the process of ending slavery in the British Protectorate of Zanzibar, situated on the mainland, by issuing a proclamation to make the decision known and effective throughout that portion of the Sultanate.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): His Majesty's Government are aware of the decision referred to. The Proclamation issued by the Sultan of Zanzibar on the 18th of April, 1876, is no doubt perfectly familiar to the inhabitants of the mainland dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, but His Majesty's Commissioner in East Africa will be consulted in regard to the suggestion that further steps should be taken to give publicity to the decision referred to in the question.

  INCOME TAX STATISTICS.
  MR. DAVID MACIVER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state how many persons in Great Britain and Ireland pay income tax, and, approximately, what proportion the total number of income-tax payers bears to the total adult population of the United Kingdom.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): There are no actual statistics on this point, and I must decline to give figures which could be no more than a guess at the truth.

  TOTTENHAM MORTUARY SCANDAL.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case last Wednesday at the Tottenham police court, when it came to light that the body of a child had been lying for ten days in the Tottenham mortuary owing to a dispute between the local authorities as to who was liable for the expense of burying it, and whether he will cause a strict inquiry into this case to be held.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am informed by the police that the child died on 24th June. The father applied for a burial order on the 29th, but the relieving officer did not feel justified in giving the order, because he thought the father could afford to bury the child himself. He was told, however, that the application would be referred to the guardians at their meeting on 3rd July, and on that day the guardians granted an order for the burial, the expenses to be advanced on loan. The delay in burying is most regrettable. Such a state of things ought not, in my opinion, to have been allowed to arise, but I have no power to intervene.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that this body remained in the mortuary for nine or ten days? Will his department take steps to prevent such a thing occurring again?
  MR. RITCHIE: The body no doubt did remain in the mortuary the time named. I have expressed my views on the question. I have no power of interference.

  THE PENRHYN QUARRY DISPUTE.
  MR. WILLIAM JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the acting under-sheriff for the county of Carnarvon is solicitor to Lord Penrhyn, and, with his partner, a prosecutor in cases arising out of the Penrhyn Quarry dispute, which will come before Mr. Justice Grantham at the
  92
  Carnarvon Summer Assizes on Friday, 12th July, and whether, under these circumstances, the acting under-sheriff has summoned and empanelled the jurors who will try the said cases; if so, whether this is in accordance with the usual practice, and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have no authority to take any action with regard to the facts as stated in the question—as to which facts I have no official information. The only remedy in such a case would be the legal one of challenge.
  MR. WILLIAM JONES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will ascertain whether this same acting under sheriff is also an informant in one or more of the cases to be tried, as the matter is urgent and the cases are to come before the Assizes to-morrow.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have told the hon. Gentleman that, assuming the facts to be true—and I have no doubt he has made inquiry as to that—I have no power to intervene. The only remedy I know of is the remedy of challenge. Every man on the whole panel can be challenged.

  PROHIBITED PLAYS—"SECRETS OF THE HAREM."
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state on what grounds the presentation of the play styled "Secrets of the Harem," which has already run for over four years, has been recently prohibited at the Shakespeare Theatre, Clapham Junction, and if he will see that this inhibition, which is causing loss to the various persons engaged in the enterprise, is promptly removed.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): The Secretary of State has been asked by the Secretary to the Treasury to answer this question. Representations having been made to the Lord Chamberlain that this play, as recently presented and advertised, was offensive to the sovereign of a friendly state, the

  93
  licence was withdrawn. While regretting any loss that the inhibition may entail upon the persons engaged in the enterprise, the Lord Chamberlain sees no reason to alter his decision, though he will be happy to consider any revised version under a different title and with all objectionable matter eliminated.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: How was it that this play ran for four years without being interfered with?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I understand that it did not run consecutively for four years in the present theatre, but it has been revived this year at the Shakespeare Theatre, and, objection having been made, the Lord Chamberlain intervened.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—MANNING REGULATIONS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether ships flying the British flag and trading between foreign ports are subject to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act in reference to certificated officers, or whether these ships may proceed to sea without a single certificated officer on board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No, Sir. British vessels trading between foreign ports are not required by the Merchant Shipping Act to carry certificated officers.

  LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNICATION.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is in contemplation to adopt wireless telegraphy for communication between lighthouses and lightships and the coastguard and lifeboat stations on the shores of the United Kingdom.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question of the establishment of electrical communication, including wireless telegraphy, between lighthouses, lightships, and the shores of the United Kingdom is under the consideration of a Departmental Committee, appointed in 1899,
  94
  but I cannot say at present that wireless telegraphy will be selected as the best method of communication in any particular case.

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY'S CHARGES.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. J. S. Rubinstein, a gas consumer in the district of the Gas Light and Coke Company, who disputed his account on the ground of overcharge, arising from the fact that his meter did not register correctly; whether he has observed that the Gas Company, although admitting a certain overcharge, insist on taking the case before a London police magistrate instead of into a civil court, the company claiming the right to so proceed under an Act of 1868 that is out of print; and whether, in the interests of the consumers of London, he can do anything to oblige the company to take cases where there is a bona fide dispute before a civil instead of a criminal tribunal.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention had not been called to this matter until I received particulars of it from the hon. Member. I am informed by the Gas Light and Coke Company that they took proceedings in the police court under the provisions of their special Act as being the cheapest and most expeditious way of having the question settled. The Board of Trade have no power to act as suggested in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question.
  MR. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it more desirable that such matters as these should be dealt with in a civil instead of a criminal court?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot answer that question. The company are acting under their statutory powers.

  RAILWAY RACE NORTHWARDS.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the racing between the trains of the various railway companies

  95
  running between London and Scotland, and to the fact that on the 1st instant the east coast train arrived in Edinburgh thirteen minutes before schedule time, and on the 5th instant the west coast train arrived at Edinburgh thirty-five minutes before schedule time; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent the continuation of such practice, in the interest of the public safety.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Railway companies are fully aware of the heavy responsibility which rests upon them to ensure the safety of the travelling public, and I do not think it expedient to interfere with that responsibility as suggested in the question.

  MERCHANT VESSELS' CARGOES.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what steps, if any, the Board of Trade intend to take to secure that foreign vessels leaving British ports shall not carry more cargo than the amount indicated by the load-line of British ships.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: When foreign ships take cargo at ports in the United Kingdom, the question whether they are overladen is determined on the same principles under which the load-line is applied to British ships. If necessary the foreign ships are detained under the provisions of Section 462, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the case of any foreign ship that has been detained?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

  PAUPER CHILDREN—BOARDING-OUT REGULATIONS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether children adopted by the guardians under the Poor Law Act, 1899, can be boarded out under the regulations of the Local Government Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The children referred to in the question are not necessarily amongst those who can be boarded out by the guardians under the boarding-out Order. This can only be done where the children are orphan or deserted within the definition given by the Order.

  EPIDEMIC AMONG AMERICAN HORSES—PRECAUTIONS AGAINST IMPORTATION INTO GREAT BRITAIN.
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that an epidemic of infectious fever, resembling influenza, is prevalent amongst horses in New York; and whether, in view of the fact that more than one-half of the horses imported into this country come from the United States of America, he can inform the House what steps are being taken at our ports to discover, and, if possible, to check, the importation of infected animals.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): In answer to inquiries through the Foreign Office as to the reported epidemic amongst horses in New York I have received the following telegram—
  "Mild and local epizootic laryngeal influenza prevalent in New York and Brooklyn. Horses for export to United Kingdom, which are chiefly drawn from Western and Middle States, appear to be unaffected. All horses are examined before shipment by Government inspectors, and as yet none are reported to have been rejected; they are kept in Government stock yards, and have little chance of infection."
  The local authorities at most of the principal ports are continuing to inspect imported horses as they arrive. At the port of London we are taking steps to supplement the information obtained at the other principal ports by inspection on the part of our own officers. Upon the results of this inspection will depend the question whether there is sufficient evidence of disease to require further administrative action. In reply to a further Question, which was very indistinctly heard—
  MR. HANBURYsaid the Government inspectors so far had only been at work in the port of London three or four days.

  CANADIAN CATTLE TRADE.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can now lay upon the Table of the House representations received by him from the Minister of Agriculture in the Dominion of Canada respecting the prohibition of the sale of live Canadian cattle in the United Kingdom, although upwards of 800,000 have been slaughtered without any trace of disease, and also any reply which has been made to these representations.
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member does not seem to be aware that the prohibition of the sale of live cattle imported from abroad, except at the foreign wharves for slaughter there, is not limited by any means to Canada, and that it is not due to any regulation of the Board of Agriculture, but to an Act passed so recently as 1896. I shall be glad to show the hon. Member a copy of the correspondence.

  TRAVELLING POST OFFICES—COMPENSATION TO INJURED OFFICERS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the conditions of service under which officers of the Post Office are employed in the travelling Post Office; whether, in case of railway accidents causing loss of life or injury to these officials, the Department is responsible; and, if so, what are the scales of compensation.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The conditions of service under which officers of the Post Office are employed in the travelling Post Office are the same as those in force in other sections of the Post Office, except that, when travelling, the officers are granted a trip allowance in addition to their ordinary salaries. In case of accidents on the railway causing loss of life or injury the officers of the Post Office are in the same position as ordinary passengers, and have the same remedy against the railway companies.

  TELEGRAPHS IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state when the telegraph offices at Kerse and Gravir, in the Park District of the Island of Lewis, will be open for the transaction of telegraph business.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General hopes to have the extension of the telegraph to Kerse and Gravir completed about the end of August.

  MALLAIG MAIL DELAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state on how many occasions between 1st April, 1901, and the 22nd June, inclusive, the Stornoway mail steamer has been late in her arrival at Stornoway and Mallaig respectively, and will he say how often the delay exceeded half an hour.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The mail steamer from Kyle during the period in question has frequently reached Stornoway a few minutes late, but this has been often due to the late arrival of the train at Kyle. During the same period the boat was more than half an hour late on twenty-nine occasions. In the reverse direction the contract service ends at Kyle, and the steamer reached that port late on four occasions only during the period in question, on three of which the lateness exceeded half an hour.
  MR. WEIR: The hon. Gentleman has not told me how many times the steamer has been late.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give the exact number of times, but she has frequently been a few minutes late, and on twenty-nine occasions, as I have said, she was more than half an hour late.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ON BRITISH STEAMSHIPS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as represent-

  99
  ing the Postmaster General, whether any agreement has been arrived at between the Post Office and the Admiralty to facilitate the use of Marconi's wireless telegraphy by British steamships for postal telegraphs and news messages.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; no agreement has yet been come to.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask how this matter stands? It is one of great importance. Is anything being done, or are the negotiations at an end?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; the negotiations are proceeding.

  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether an intimation recently made to the proprietors of the Sheffield newspaper that the main roads of Post Office telegraphs throughout the country have become so crowded that it is necessary to reserve the remaining space for the public wires, which will be required in the immediate future, has been made in view of the recent augmentation in the number of wires by the underground cable to Birmingham and the North; whether the further intimation of the Postmaster General that his inability to undertake the work will not prevent newspapers obtaining private wires through some other agency than the Post Office means that the Post Office has finally abandoned its claim to a monopoly of the telegraph service, and that it is now open to promoters to establish a special telegraph service for the newspaper press; and whether the statement in the "Post Office Guide," dated 1st July, that the Postmaster General undertakes the construction and maintenance, on rental terms, of private telegraph and telephone wires for firms or private individuals is now annulled, and firms or individuals connected with the press will be excluded from the rights or privileges common to all others.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: Before the hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him whether he is aware that newspapers in Manchester and Leeds,
  100
  which compete with the Sheffield paper referred to already, enjoy the concession, asked for?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In the communication referred to the Postmaster General did take account of the fact that there is now an underground telegraph line between London and Birmingham, but the difficulty of finding routes for new wires has been only slightly lessened by this addition to the Post Office system. The Postmaster General has never claimed any monopoly of telegraphic communication, except that which was granted to him by Parliament in 1869, and the use of a private wire connecting premises belonging to the same person or firm for the transmission of telegrams relating to the business of the owner was not included in the monopoly. There is, therefore, no special reason why the Postmaster General should provide such telegraphs. A newspaper proprietor is at liberty to erect a telegraph of this kind for himself, or to have it erected and maintained by a private contractor; but he is not allowed to establish a telegraphic system for the general distribution of telegrams to the press. The statement in the "Post Office Guide" to the effect that the Postmaster General undertakes the construction and maintenance on rental terms of private telegraph and telephone wires is not to be regarded as annulled. It is expressly stated in the Guide that the rates quoted apply to wires of short length only. What the Postmaster General finds is that his power to provide long wires is limited by the physical difficulty of obtaining routes; and, in view of this difficulty, he deems it expedient to reserve the available routes for the public service, rather than allow them to be absorbed for private purposes. This is of special importance in view of the requirements of the telephone service, as long telephone trunk wires must necessarily be carried above ground. The Postmaster General still unde takes to provide short private wires. His inability to provide long wires does not apply only to wires for the Press, but to all wires of this character.
  SIR JOHN LENG: Is there any limit to the extension of the underground wire?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Are the papers at liberty to make arrangements with railway companies to provide private wires, or has the Postmaster General a monopoly over the way-leaves?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to have notice of that.

  MOTOR CARS AS POST OFFICE CONVEYANCES.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the result of the recent experiments with weight-carrying motor cars has been such as to encourage the Postmaster General to continue or extend their use for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has had reports upon the recent trials of motor cars to which the hon. Member refers, but he has not come to a conclusion upon the question whether they can yet be used with advantage for the mail service.

  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the slow progress that is being made in the building of the Victoria and Albert Museum; and if he can take any steps to accelerate the completion of the museum.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS): I do not think there has been any considerable or unavoidable delay in the progress of the works. The contract for the foundations is close on completion. There has been a great amount of work done, though of necessity little can be seen of it. A second contract has been made for a further portion of the building, and everything is ready to go on with it at once.

  SKIGERSTA PIER, LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary
  102
  for Scotland, whether the Congested Districts Board have yet been able to arrange for a grant to meet the cost of the proposed additional works at Skigersta Pier, Island of Lewis, for the protection of fishing boats.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Congested Districts Board at their meeting on the 4th June made a grant of £323 for the additional works required at Skigersta under the usual conditions.

  SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will grant the Return on the Paper to-day, Secondary Schools (England), as an unopposed Return.†
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I am very sorry
  † The following is the Return referred to:—
  Return of all Secondary Schools in each borough and county in England, giving the following particulars of each School:—

  1. Name of School.

  2. Address.

  3. In what borough or county council district.

  4. Description of School, whether (a) public, private, proprietary, etc.; (b) for boys, girls, mixed, kindergarten.

  5. Accommodation (a) for boarders; (b) for day pupils.

  6. Number of pupils on books on the 1st day of June, 1901, (a) boarders; (b) day pupils.

  7. Ages of pupils on the 1st day of June, 1901, under 7, from 7 to 8, 8 to 9, 9 to 10, 10 to 11, 11 to 12, 12 to 13, 13 to 14, 14 to 15, 15 to 16, 16 to 17, 17 to 18, above 18.

  8. Name of principal or head master or mistress.

  9. Qualifications of principal or head master or mistress.

  10. Number of teachers (a) continuously employed on regular staff; (b) visiting staff and number of hours per week.

  11. Qualifications of staff.

  12. How the School is publicly examined, or in what way the education is tested.

  13. What scholarships are held by the School.

  14. The scale of fees charged.

  15. Nature of the buildings: (1) (a) number and size of class rooms; (b) laboratories; (c) gymnasium; (d) swimming bath; (e) chapel; (f) workshops; (g) other buildings; (2) playing fields, playgrounds, etc

  16. Estimated capital invested.

  17. Curriculum; subjects taught, (a) compulsory, (b) optional, (c) if optional taken by how many pupils.

  103
  that it is at present impossible to grant this Return.
  MR. BARTLEY: Are we to understand that the Government do not propose to take any steps to get this information in preparation for the comprehensive Education Bill of next session?
  SIR J. GORST: The Government cannot get in the information asked for by the hon. Member. It would cost a very large sum of money to obtain some of it, and, indeed, they have no power to obtain it.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is not some such information as this absolutely essential for the consideration of the question next year?
  [No answer was returned.]

  EDUCATION MINUTE OF 3RD JULY.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if, under the Minute of 3rd July, children who by reason of illness have lost a year of their education in the day school will be prevented from continuing their elementary education in a public elementary evening school if they have attained the age of fifteen at the beginning of the school year.
  SIR J. GORST: They will not be prevented by the Minute of 3rd July, but by the law.
  MR. WHITLEY: Am I to understand, then, that the Minute so far as the age limit is concerned is of no effect?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  IRISH RAILWAY EXTENSIONS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps have been taken by the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland to carry out their undertaking for the extension of the Bunbridge and Ballyroney line to Castlewellan, county Down, and what steps have been taken by the Belfast and County Down Railway Company to-
  104
  wards the construction of the section from Castlewellan to Newcastle.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Information has been obtained from the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland that arrangements are in progress for carrying out the extension of their line of railway from Ballyroney to Castlewellan; also from the Belfast and County Down Railway Company to the effect that they are making arrangements for the construction of the line from Castlewellan to Newcastle, which they hope to complete well within the time provided for in the Act.

  CORK AND FERMOY RAILWAY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is yet in a position to state whether the Great Southern and Western Railway Company have made any communication in regard to the construction of the Cork and Fermoy line under the provisions of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Act of 1899, and, if not, will the Treasury communicate with the railway company as to their responsibility under the said Act.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The Fishguard and Rosslare Company have proposed that the obligation to construct a direct line from Fermoy to Dunkettle should be replaced by an obligation to construct a line at Cork connecting the systems of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company and the Great Southern and Western Company with the systems south-west of Cork. For this purpose fresh Parliamentary powers would be necessary, and in order to give time to take the sense of Parliament upon the proposal, the company have asked that they may be released from their promise to begin the Fermoy line not later than the 31st of this month. They also ask that the Treasury should agree to make the construction of the connecting line at Cork the condition of the application to Parliament for a grant of £93,000 instead of the Fermoy and Dunkettle line. On receipt of these proposals I communicated with the Irish Government, and yesterday I received their reply, which is to

  105
  the effect that in their opinion the general policy of the proposed change is sound, and that they concur in the company's proposals. Under these circumstances I think that Parliament ought to have an opportunity of considering and either approving or rejecting the suggested change, and I propose to act accordingly.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Another breach of faith.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not a fact that the Treasury gave their sanction to the passing of this Act on the express understanding that the Cork and Fermoy line should be constructed?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the people of Cork want this line to be made from Fermoy to Cork, and that they supported the proposal by evidence before the Committee? Is it not the case, too, that they do not want this connecting line?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Move the adjournment. This is a national question.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether the Treasury sanctioned this Act of Parliament on the express condition that the Cork and Fermoy line should be commenced within a given time?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite know what the hon. Member means by the Treasury sanctioning the Act of Parliament. They undertook to ask Parliament for a grant of £93,000, and one of the conditions was that the Fermoy and Dunkettle line should be made. The company now wish to exchange that obligation for an obligation to make the connection with the South Western system. The Irish Government think that is on the whole a sound proposal, and they hold that Parliament should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman has stated that Parlia-
  106
  ment ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: That is not the question. Parliament has already had three opportunities of doing so.
  MR. SPEAKER: And when the next opportunity arises it will be the proper time to discuss this matter.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by Parliament having an opportunity to consider the matter? What occasion does he propose to give it?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The company cannot be released from their existing obligation without coming to Parliament for fresh powers, and when they come next year—I suppose it must be next year before they can do so—there will then be an opportunity of discussing the matter. Unless Parliament decides that the scheme may be changed, of course, the conditions of the Treasury grant will remain exactly as they are at the present time. I think it is right, and the Treasury think it is right, that Parliament should have an opportunity of considering this question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the hon. Gentleman has stated that this has been approved by the Irish Government, I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has given his personal approval to this matter?
  MR. WYNDHAM: My personal approval has nothing to do with this case. As to the question whether this change would be more economical, and more in the interests of Ireland than the other scheme, I have taken the best advice I could, and I think it would be better on the whole.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in thus acting he is overriding the Act of Parliament and the decisions of two Committees?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what he thinks of this dirty trick?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is the work of the Dublin Castle Freemasons gang.
  [LATER.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware of the momentous statement made by the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the Bill of the Great Southern and Western Company allowing that company to depart from the obligation imposed upon it by statute and by this House when it sanctioned the amalgamation of the Waterford and Limerick Railway? Was a decision of the Cabinet taken on the question?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid I was not in the House when the question was put and answered, and therefore I am not in a position to inform the House. I will inquire of my hon. friend, and find out exactly what occurred.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will put the question to-morrow.

  LETTERKENNY RAILWAY.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that repeated complaints have been made as to the working of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway by members of the public, and that the working company complain that some of the inconvenience is caused by the want of telephonic and telegraphic communication along the said railway; and seeing that on the opening of the Letterkenny Roman Catholic Cathedral on the 16th of June passengers on their return journey were, in consequence of the want of means of communication along the railway line, delaye for five hours by the breakdown of the engine, whether he will take steps for the provision of the required communication.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that the hon. Member's question relates to the Letterkenny Railway (not the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway). The provision of telephonic communication along the line has been the subject of communications
  108
  between the Board of Works and the Lough Swilly company; but the company did not accept the Board's proposals. The Board will, however, endeavour to come to an arrangement with the company.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Letterkenny Railway is the property of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland (representing the Treasury as mortgagees in possession), that the said railway is worked by the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company, which is practically owned by two shareholders, under an agreement with the Treasury, and that for a certain percentage of the receipts the said railway company are bound to maintain in proper working order said railway; and, seeing that an engineer, as representing the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, lately inspected the line and reported adversely as to its efficiency and safety, and recommended it would require to be relaid with steel rails and new sleepers in order to give a safe and satisfactory service to the public, whether he will state what steps he proposes to take.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The first three statements are generally correct, though I am not aware of the amount of stock held by the two principal shareholders. The Board of Works, Dublin, have recently caused the line to be inspected by a competent and experienced engineer. His report did not suggest the necessity of relaying the line with steel rails or supplying new sleepers, provided that the line was worked under the existing conditions as regards speed and weight of engines. Considerable improvements have been made by the working company with regard to certain points to which he called attention.

  IRISH LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, seeing that the company which is working the Londonderry and Letterkenny Railway has been handed over by the Treasury the Buncrana and Carndonagh Railway, and also the line to Burton Port,

  109
  being the light railways constructed under the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, can he state what provisions have been made by the Treasury for safeguarding the interests of the public and for maintaining a proper and efficient train service on these railways; and whether a public inquiry will be instituted by the Government into the complaints made as to the working of the Letterkenny Railway, so as to ensure a proper service in future on all lines owned by the Government and to be worked by this company.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Provision of the character suggested has been made in Clauses 24–26 of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway (Carndonagh Extension) Order, 1898, and Clauses 14–16 of the Treasury Agreement scheduled thereto, and in Clauses 23–25 of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly (Letterkenny to Burton Port Extension) Railway Order, 1898, and Clauses 12–14 of the corresponding Treasury Agreement. Inquiry has already been made into the condition of the Letterkenny line and the Board of Works will be prepared at any time to deal with complaints as to its working.

  BELFAST ORANGEMEN—CASE OF MR. TREW.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the issue of a notice on behalf of the Protestant Association in reference to an Orange service held on Sunday last at the Steps, Belfast, to be addressed by the chaplain of Loyal Orange Lodge 1028, Brother Arthur Trew, who was recently returned for trial by the Crown, and do the Government intend to change the venue, as in the Waterford and Sligo cases.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The reply to the first question is in the negative. The notice does not contain any reference to, and apparently has no bearing upon, the pending case. The circumstances of Trew's case are mot similar to those of the other cases to which the question refers. Should they unfortunately become so in the future, his case will be dealt with on precisely the same principles as the others.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to state that his attention has not been called to the notice?
  MR. ATKINSON: It has been called.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think Belfast a fit place to try this man next week, just after the Orange Anniversary?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is Mr. Trew correctly described as the chaplain of the Lodge?
  MR. ATKINSON: The notice I have seen contains no reference to Mr. Trew.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then the right hon. Gentleman cannot have seen the notice referred to in the question, for it refers to Mr. Trew as the chaplain of the Loyal Orange Lodge.
  MR. ATKINSON: I telegraphed for, and obtained a copy of, the notice quoted in the question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then it only shows how incompetent the right hon. Gentleman's advisers are.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is Mr. Trew in holy orders?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Then can any handyman be a chaplain to an Orange Lodge?

  IRISH EDUCATION BOARD—RESIGNATION OF ARCHBISHOP WALSH.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the approaching debate on the Irish Education Estimates, he will publish all Minutes of the Education Board relating to any action that may have been taken by the Archbishop of Dublin in reference to irregularities in the transaction of business in the office; and whether he will publish notices of motions given by members of

  111
  the Board to have incorrect letters withdrawn, and to have Minutes amended, and also statements submitted by officials.
  MR. WYNDHAM: With the consent of the Board, I propose to publish all such Minutes and motions of the Board subsequent to the date of Archbishop Walsh's letter of June 1st.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Shall we have them in time for to morrow's debate?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I hope so.

  DUBLIN BOOKBINDERS' SOCIETY AND THE IRISH EDUCATION BOARD.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet received any answer to his inquiries from the Commissioners of Education to the charges made by the Bookbinders' Society of Dublin as to the manner in which Messrs. Leckie and Company carry out their contract for the supplying of school books to the Notional Board; and, if so, will he convey their replies to the House.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; the matter is still before the Commissioners. I hope to be in a position shortly to make a definite announcement on the subject, as I understand it is on the agenda paper for the next meeting of the Board.
  MR. NANNETTI: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I put a question on this matter six months ago?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I regret the delay. I am in correspondence with the Commissioners on this and other matters.

  IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION CIRCULARS.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when it became known at the National Education Office, Ireland, that misleading and unauthorised circulars were sent to managers of schools, and when this matter was reported to the Board.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The suggestion in this question can best be dealt with in debate on the Estimates to-morrow. Information upon all matters of fact will be contained in the Papers which have been prepared.

  KINDERGARTEN TRAINING FOR IRISH TEACHERS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what arrangements, if any, have been made under the new rules of the National Board of Education by which a workmistress can qualify to become a manual instructress, and whether, seeing that the teacher has to qualify in three subjects beside needlework, although the Board provides no facilities for training therein, he can say how under such circumstances the necessary certificate can be obtained.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Kindergarten is taught in many national schools and classes for instruction in hand and eye training and in elementary science, and object lessons are being formed as rapidly as possible in all parts of the country. Certificates in these subjects may be obtained in the same way as they are obtained in needlework—namely, through study and practice by the candidate under a competent instructor, the proficiency being subsequently tested by an examination.

  IRISH LAND JUDGE'S COURT.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that estates have been taken out of the Land Judge's Court to prevent the application of the 40th section, he can state by whom, and how many have been taken out of court during the last twelve months.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of petitions dismissed in the Land Judge's Court during the year ended 31st October, 1900 (the latest date to which statistics are available), was twenty-one. As the petitioners acted in the exercise of their legal rights, I fail to see that any public purpose would be served by publishing a list of their names.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Commissioners' Report, which it was hoped would be completed in June last, is yet ready for circulation; and, if so, can he say when will it be submitted to Parliament.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Final proofs of the Report are promised by the printers this week, in which case there will be no further delay in laying it upon the Table.

  KING'S ESTATE, CO. WEXFORD.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that King's estate, county Wexford, has been ordered by the Land Judge to be sold under the 40th section of the Land Act of 1896, and that, although the inspection of the estate was made by the Land Commission over a month ago, no report has been sent on yet by that Commission to the Land Judge; and if he will inquire the cause of delay, and, if possible, direct that a report be sent on at once, so that this sale may be completed before the long vacation sets in the Land Judge's Court.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The request issued by the Land Judge for an inspection under the 40th section was received by the Land Commission on the 2nd May and the inspector's report is now before the Commissioners. The cases of other estates in which requests were issued and inspections carried out prior to the 2nd May must, however, have precedence over the case of this particular estate, and the Commissioners cannot undertake to make their report upon it before the long vacation.

  IRISH AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS—PRICE RETURNS.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will furnish the names of the persons permanently or temporarily appointed by the Land Commission to report on the price of stock at fairs and markets, and also of crops and produce; residence and age at time of appointment; their experience
  114
  as agriculturists; whether they are landlords or tenants; the amount of remuneration each receives; and the; number and class of reports they make annually.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A similar Return; was refused in 1893, apparently with the assent of the hon. Member (Mr, Knox, Cavan) who had moved for it, upon the ground that if the reporters of prices at fairs were generally known the difficulty experienced in obtaining reliable information would be greatly increased. I cannot, therefore, publish the Return, but I am ready to supply it to the hon. Member for his private information. I am sure he will only use it for the purpose of argument against me.
  MR. CULLINAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men are as well known at Irish fairs as Irish policemen in plain clothes? We want to know the qualifications of these gentlemen. We know as a fact that they are no more qualified for these positions than they are to be rulers of the Navy. Is it not. The fact that, on the reports made by these gentlemen, the Land Commissioners fix the rents?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid the hon. Member does not see the force of the objection. These men have to act more or less as detectives in order to get the prices.

  MR. M'HUGH, M.P.—PRISON PRIVILEGES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been, directed to the fact that on 5th July an, article intended for insertion in this week's Sligo Champion was handed for transmission to the officer in charge by Mr. M'Hugh M.P.; whether he is aware that the article was stopped by the governor of the goal, although it contained nothing in reference to the matter in connection with which Mr. M'Hugh, was tried and convicted, and whether, in view of the pledges given, he will see that this article is allowed to pass and that similar interference with Mr. M'Hugh's liberty to write for his paper does not occur in future.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This article does not in my opinion come exactly within the wording of the condition upon which Mr. M'Hugh was granted the privileges accorded to Mr. Stead. The incident commented on is different from the incident on which Mr. M'Hugh commented in terms that made him amenable to the law. But the comment in this article seems to constitute a crime of the same kind and character. He was convicted of a criminal libel on the administration of justice. This article is also a criminal libel on the administration of justice. The governor of the prison, therefore, acted on the general principle that a prisoner cannot be permitted to repeat the crime of which he was convicted. In my opinion he acted rightly.
  MR. DILLON: Then are we to understand that the governor of the prison, in such a delicate matter as a question of an article in a newspaper, is to set up as a press censor on the South African model?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise.
  MR. DILLON: I have not come to my question yet. What I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether the Irish Government are going to keep the pledge which they made to this House, or are they going to break it, by allowing the governor of Kilmainham Goal to act as a press censor?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The pledge given was that the privileges granted to Mr. Stead should also be accorded to Mr. M'Hugh. But the grant of privileges to first-class misdemeanants does not override the authority vested in the governor of the prison, and under the rules he is authorized to prevent any objectionable or illegal communications being sent out by prisoners. It is his duty to report the matter to the Prisons Board. He did so in this case, and, of course, pending their decision the forwarding of the article had to be suspended.
  MR. DILLON: May I be permitted to ask whether it is not a fact that the privileges accorded to Mr. M'Hugh were
  116
  not accorded under the prison rules, but were accorded under a pledge given by the Chief Secretary himself to the House of Commons?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I undertook that Mr. M'Hugh should have the privileges accorded to Mr. Stead. These privileges were accorded under the authority of special rules, which, as previously stated by me, have been laid before Parliament. But this does not justify either the governor of the prison or the Prisons Board in allowing Mr. M'Hugh to commit a breach of the law. The governor has the right to prevent the committal of any renewed act of illegality.
  MR. BARTLEY: May I ask whether under these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will not consider the advisability of withdrawing this privilege from Mr. M'Hugh?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to reading to the House the portion of the article which was objected to?
  [No answer was returned.]

  BELFAST POST OFFICE—FEMALE SUPERVISORS SUSPECTED OF DISHONESTY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to Rule 74, paragraph 2, of instructions to head postmasters, which states that in the case of an officer guilty or suspected of dishonesty or any other offence against the criminal law the postmaster should report the circumstances at once to his surveyor and await instructions, and whether, seeing that the female supervisor at Belfast in a recent case of suspected dishonesty requested that two clerks should be searched and their lockers also without acquainting the postmaster or seeking his advice, and, in view of the Postmaster General's decision in this case, Rule 74, paragraph 2, may now be considered as deleted from the instructions to head postmasters as being obsolete.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The rule referred to prescribes that

  117
  when an officer is suspected of dishonesty the postmaster must report the particulars to the Secretary direct and await instructions, informing the surveyor that he has done so. In the Belfast case no individual officer was suspected, and there was therefore no occasion for the postmaster to report. The Postmaster General sees no reason to cancel the rule. It has already been explained that no instructions were given for anyone to be searched, but that the supervisor suggested that all the officers who had entered the room after the supposed loss should turn out their pockets.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: The supervisor clearly broke the rule. Is she not to be punished for the treatment of these ladies?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The person who was. Responsible for this action has apologized fully to the people who were asked to turn out their pockets, and I think that there the matter may rest. She made a mistake and apologized.
  MR. TULLY: Have the injured officials any remedy by an action for slander?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You do not know the law.

  NATIONAL HOLIDAYS—DUBLIN TELEGRAPH STAFF GRIEVANCE.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been called to the fact that the telegraph staff at Dublin who performed duty on the 2nd of February, 1901, received extra pay for that day, a circular having been issued that for staff purposes it was to be regarded as a bank holiday; and whether, seeing that hitherto it has been the rule that when a bank holiday occurred during an officer's annual leave an additional day's leave has always been granted either at the expiration of that leave or at some other period during the year, he can explain why the extra day has been refused on this occasion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General decided that,
  118
  While those of his staff who were required to perform their ordinary duties on the 2nd February, the day of her. late Majesty's funeral, should receive extra payment, the alternative of holiday at another time could not be allowed, because in his judgment that was not a suitable way of observing an occasion of public mourning.
  MR. MOONEY: Is it a fact that a member of the staff who was on holiday at the time has since applied for and obtained a day off in lieu?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If that were done it must have been an error.

  LOUTH ESTATE—BAILIFF'S PAY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, when the late Mr. O'Reilly Dease left his property to the Crown, the bailiff on the Louth Estate, Thomas Conachey, was continued in office for ten years until the lands were sold to the tenants in 1897; that Conachey several times applied for remuneration, and got no reply; and that the agent of the estate then applied for him to the Treasury Remembrance, and was refused; and, whether, as the whole of Mr. Dease's wealth went towards the discharge of the National Debt, he will provide some payment for the estate bailiff.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The facts are correctly stated in the question, except as regards the word "remuneration." What Mr. Conachey asked for, and the Treasury Remembrance refused, was a "pension or gratuity for past services." Mr. Conachey had been employed as rent Warner by Mr. O'Reilly Dease at a salary of £7 10s. a year, and, during the interval between Mr. O'Reilly Dease's death and the sale of the estate to the tenants, he was kept on to perform the same duties at the same salary. I cannot think that this gives him any claim to a "pension or gratuity" from the Crown.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the Crown pay him for the time he was in their employment?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir.

  IRISH QUIT RENT REDEMPTION MONEY.
  MR. MOONEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state how the £171,000 taken from Ireland as quit rents, the property of the Crown in Ireland, has been invested in England; and whether it is the intention of the Government to restore this money for investment in Ireland.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: This sum has not been taken from Ireland. The payers of quit rents have redeemed them, and, as I have already stated, it is impossible to ear-mark the particular investments to which the redemption money has been devoted by the Commissioners.

  IRISH LIGHTS BOARD—CASE OF HENRY WILLIAMS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he would represent to the Irish Lights Board the consideration of the case of the family of Henry Williams, a sailor drowned while serving on one of the steamers of that Board on 31st May, off Wicklow; and can he say whether the report made to the Board of Trade on the circumstances of the death led to any observations being addressed to the authorities of the Irish Lights Department.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: After correspondence the Board of Trade have, on the recommendation of the Irish Lights Commissioners, sanctioned the payment of a gratuity of £50 to the parents of Henry Williams, who was drowned while serving on a steamer belonging to the Commissioners.

  IRISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
  MR. MOONEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state the exact position of the soil (or drift) survey in Ireland; how many persons are employed; about what time it is expected to be completed; whether he can say why the Department of Agri-
  120
  culture has not been commissioned to carry out this economic work, and whether it is intended to remove it from, the Board of Education in England; and whether the former practice of publishing; maps in the Annual Reports of the Geological Survey in Ireland will be resumed.
  SIR J. GORST: As I pointed out in reply to the hon. Member on the 25th March, the question of a soil survey (strictly so called) rests with the Agricultural Department; the drift survey is a part of the geological survey with which alone the Board of Education are concerned. I stated in answer to another question on the 22nd March that the drift survey of Ireland was completed, but that it needed revision in certain particulars. That revision has been commenced and is actually in progress, but until the work is more advanced no reliable estimate can be formed as to the time required to complete it, the question of reviving the publication of index maps in the Annual Reports will be considered.
  MR. MOONEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having regard to the fact that the rock survey and soil (or drift) survey were carried on simultaneously in England, he can state when the soil (or drift) survey was discontinued in Ireland, and what was the reason for this treatment; whether it has been recently resumed, and, whether he can give the total amount of money spent on surveys in England and Ireland respectively, and. the present annual expenditure.
  SIR J. GORST: The question appears to be based on a misapprehension. The survey of England for the preparation of the one-inch general geological map was completed as regards the solid geology in 1883; since that time the re-survey (including the drift survey) on the basis. of six inches to a mile has been in progress. The solid and drift surveys of. Ireland on the six-inch basis were, as was stated on the 26th March, completed in. 1887. In answer to the last paragraph of the question, separate accounts are not

  121
  kept in respect of the survey of each portion of the United Kingdom; hence the amount expended for England and Ireland respectively cannot be stated.

  AGRICULTURAL RATING ACT.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when the Bill renewing the Agricultural Rating Act will be introduced.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think it probable that my right hon. friend will introduce this Bill within the first half of next week.
  MR. COGHILL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not wait until the war in South Africa is at an end before he proposes the renewal of this Act?
  [As the right hon. Gentleman did not rise there were Nationalist cries of "Reply, reply."]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As hon. Members are so keen for an answer, let me say that there is no relation between the question put by my hon. friend and the subject-matter of the question on the Paper.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Agricultural Rating Act is for the benefit of—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  AN HON. MEMBER: Where do the taxpayers come in?

  SCOTTISH ESTIMATES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will say when the Vote for the Fishery Board for Scotland and the remaining Scotch Votes will be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is, I am afraid, no probability of Scottish Estimates being put down as first Order on any of the remaining days allotted to Supply.
  MR. WEIR: Are we not to have another day? Do I understand that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member must understand exactly what I said.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have only had six and a half hours discussion on Scottish Votes?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state the business for next week.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Monday the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be taken. As soon as that is concluded there will be, in accordance with my promise to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, a debate on the financial relations. I cannot take that on Wednesday, because the pledge is for a full day; and I hope, therefore, we shall be able to take it on Thursday. On Friday it will probably be for the general convenience if the first Vote taken in Supply is that for the Home Office.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: There is some difficulty as to that, as we have not the Factory Inspector's Report.
MR. RITCHIE: I am sorry. We have done all we could to forward the printing, and I hope we may be able to have the first part available for Members in time.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: If we can have it two days before the Vote is taken it will make a great difference.
MR. RITCHIE: I will try.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then, if that can be done, I take it there will be no objection to discussing the Vote next Friday.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In the event of its not being possible, will the right hon. Gentleman put down the Vote for the First Lord's salary first, so that we may discuss the Gibraltar Works question, or will he name some approximate day for the introduction of the Naval Works Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it will be quite impossible to allot the first Order on any of the remaining days of Supply to a further discussion on Gibraltar, on which we have already had a motion for the adjournment of the House, and on which there must be an opportunity for debate on the Second Reading of the Naval Works Bill. That Bill will be introduced at no very distant date.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: We had not the Report at the time of the motion for adjournment.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot be blamed if that debate was taken prematurely.

FINANCE BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [10th July] on consideration of the Bill, as amended; and which Amendment was—
"In page 2, line 40, to leave out Clause 3."—(Mr. Rea).
Question again proposed, "That the words of Clause 3 to the second word 'the,' in line 43, stand part of the Bill."
Debate resumed.
MR. FENWICKsaid he had listened very carefully to the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Bolton the other evening, as he was anxious to hear what defense a Radical free-trader would be able to make for such an imposition as the coal tax. After following the arguments of the hon. Member very carefully he confessed that he was very much disappointed with them. Coal, said the hon. Member for Bolton, not being a natural product like cotton or wool, but a free gift of nature, was therefore a proper article of taxation. But on that argument it would be possible to support a tax upon all other minerals as well as coal produced in this country and sent abroad. It would apply to china-clay, copper, granite, lead ore, limestone, salt, and tin—which were all produced in this country and exported to foreign countries. His hon. friend also told the House that the opposition to the coal
124
tax was a selfish opposition. He admitted it was selfish; but it would be equally true to say that the support of the tax was selfish, for if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not get the two millions from coal these millions would have to be levied in some other way, and in all probability that would effect the hon. Gentlemen who support the coal tax and their cons ituents. His hon. friend went on to justify his argument by asking where was his share, where did he come in? He would ask the hon. Member what would be the value of the coal to anybody were it not for the labor of the miner? Coal was not worth a single sixpence until. the labor of the miner was applied to it. There was a way in which the hon. Member might have his share—he might follow his own example, enter a mine and give his labor in exchange for wages. He ventured to say that if the 669 Members of this House obtained their share of the products of the mines by working for it in the mines we should not have had this tax imposed.
He wished to say a very few words, upon what he considered the deplorable lack of information on the part of the officials who had had to deal with this matter. There was a great deal to be said in excuse for the lack of information displayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was rather inclined to commiserate than to censure the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not as other men. He was not permitted to look upon the wine when it sparkled in the cup, or as many others were, to. Enter the portals of the goddess Lady Nicotine. He might not look upon any of these things without being suspected of having some malevolent intentions towards some of our comforts and enjoyments. But that was all the more reason why those responsible for advising the right hon. Gentleman as to the effect which was likely to be produced by this tax should have been more vigilant in their endeavors to get information for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The whole history of the tax from the day it was introduced till now showed that the authorities had been woefully negligent in obtaining information as to its probable effects. The Chancellor of the

125
Exchequer had already made what were described as concessions so far as the inferior qualities of coal were concerned. He would like to call attention to two probable effects which these concessions were likely to have. First of all, there would be a considerable loss of revenue, because when the price of coal fell to the lower regions, there would be no coal sold between 6s. and 7s. per ton. In order to avoid the tax a less figure would be taken. In the second place, these concessions would very seriously affect wages. He was not ashamed to confess that he looked at this question from the point of view of the laboring miners rather than of the coal owners. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took it for granted that the coal owners had made very considerable profit, and his anxiety was to get at that profit. But the right hon. Gentleman had gone in a very clumsy way about it. Instead of taxing them directly, the right hon. Gentleman had introduced a proposal which would have a very injurious effect on the wages of working miners. In Northumberland and Durham the wages of the miners were regulated by the average selling price of coal, and if the price fell to a point between 6s. and 7s. the lower price would be taken in order to avoid the tax. That would reduce the quarterly average price, and so the miners' wages would be reduced.
The Colonial Secretary in a speech delivered at Birmingham in May said that there were two sets of people on whom the tax would fall—either upon the foreigner who bought our coal or upon the coal owner who produced it. He could well fancy that he saw the right hon. Gentleman striking a sort of devil-may-care attitude and saying, "I don't care which." But the coal industry did care, because it was a matter of vital importance to them. The right hon. Gentleman flattered the coal owners in his own district on their patriotism, and said that they did not murmur or complain of the tax. The men, he said, who complained were the men who taxed every householder, every manufacturer, and every working man last year from 5s. to 10s. a ton on his coal. But it was not the men who produced coal for the foreign market that were responsible for the increased
126
price that the consumer at home had to pay for his coal. It was the men who produced for the home market that were responsible, and they were let off free as far as the tax was concerned, although they were the men who made the greatest profit in the coal trade during the last few years. The Colonial Secretary also went on to say that the miners ought to pay their share of the war expenses just the same as any other working man. The miner did not object to pay his fair share of the war expenses; it was the unfair share he objected to. Was there a manufacturer in Birmingham engaged in the manufacture of small arms and ammunition who had not profited more through this war than manufacturers in any other town or city in the kingdom? The factories and workshops engaged in producing these things had been running night and day, and huge profits had been made by the manufacturers. But they were not touched by this taxation, nor were the workmen except by the tax imposed on, the sugar. The Government, however, not only touched the miner's sugar, but also taxed his industry. That, in his. Judgment was very unfair. If the Government wanted to tax the profits of those who had made large sums of money they ought to have introduced a measure which would have established a graduated income tax. In the most profitable year that there had been for a long time the average wage of the miner was only 35s. a week. Having regard to the fact that the miner every day he entered a mine carried his life in his hand, and was surrounded by innumerable dangers when toiling far from the light of day, could it really be said that was an excessive wage? And yet the effect of the coal tax would be the reduction of the wage he had been in a position to earn. It was because he believed that the tax was unfair, affecting as it did only one industry, and only a portion of that industry, and because he believed it to be unjust in principle and contrary to the great policy of free trade, by means of which our national prosperity had been built up, that he should take every opportunity of protesting in the House against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing the tax, was taking them back to the days of exploded ideas.

127
Over a hundred years ago Sir John Sinclair stated that the idea that, when an exported commodity was taxed, the foreigner would have to pay it was exploded. Now a free trade Chancellor of the Exchequer had revived that idea. But the foreigner was just as widea wake in commercial matters as they were, and depend on it he would not pay an extra 1s. a ton when he could get coal of equal value nearer home at a lower price. He would take every possible opportunity afforded to him by the rules of procedure to protest against the tax as unjust and unfair.
MR. CHARLES WILSONsaid the House had just listened to a speech on the coal tax from a practical Member, who spoke with great authority. He wished to speak more especially from the shipowners' point of view. He knew that this country was entirely dependent on its mercantile marine, and, as one who had been intimately connected with the mercantile marine of this country for fifty years, he declared that the tax was looked upon as most deplorable. In their commerce now almost every bulky article had disappeared. In his time their vessels were loaded with general cargo, but not now, as coals had to be taken in large quantities to complete their loading. The iron trade, which was a large one, had disappeared. The textile trade was not in a good condition, and he was told by manufacturers that they, too, were suffering from over legislation—from the interference of the Factory Acts and other legislation which they thought to a great extent unnecessary. He would take his own case as connected with shipping. His firm despatched weekly over twenty steamers to foreign ports. Excepting to America every one of those ships was dependent upon coal to enable it to continue in that trade. Several trades without free export coal would cease to exist. What were they seeing? The big Atlantic steamers had such difficulty in getting cargo from England that, in addition to water ballast, nearly all of them were being fitted with tank-holds to contain additional water, to enable them to make their voyages with safety across the Atlantic. That was because the cargoes had to a great extent dis-
128
appeared, and partly also as the outcome of the competition of other countries which were beginning to take their place. At the present time this country was living a sort of spendthrift existence, and, as was usual under those circumstances, the Government had to look about to get the money in order to carry on the enormous, wasteful expenditure which now went on. For the first time in their history what might almost be called the life-blood of the country—coal—was attacked. And what would be the result? At the present moment they were supposed to be able to bear that tax through the prosperity which the country was—he was almost going to say—suffering from, because in the end it would produce suffering. But in ordinary times what would be the effect when the export of coal began to lessen, as it must lessen? The tax not only affected the coalowner and the coal producer, but it affected almost every branch of industry in this country. He believed that the east coast of England would probably be more affected than any other part of the country. He had had no opportunity until now of protesting against this tax. His two colleagues in the representation of Hull sat on the other side of the House, and would no doubt vote in favor of that tax, which would have a disastrous effect upon the port they represented. He knew that anything he said here was perfectly hopeless. Shipowners had no power to resist this tax, but it would only be a matter of time when the country would begin to feel its disastrous effects. In his day it had not been a matter of 1s. a ton that they had had to consider when they received any orders for the export of coal to Russia, to Norway, to Sweden, and to Germany. Then it had been a matter of one or two pence per ton, the margin had been so small. Already orders coming into the port of Hull had fallen off to the extent of 21 per cent. For six months of the present year. What did that mean? Why, it affected every industry connected with the port. The two railway companies at Hull were talking of building new docks for Hull, but, if the diminution of trade continued, they would at once begin to consider whether it was

129
wise to extend their liabilities in that direction, when it must be in the end disastrous to the two companies. This tax went through almost every ramification of trade. If Northern Russia had to pay too dear, they could use their own wood, and in Southern Russia they could use petroleum. We had not the control of the markets of the world. Only in the previous day's paper he saw a notification from Knoxville, Tennessee, that an order had been given to American coal owners for 100,000 tans of coals to be exported within the next six months to Venice, in the Adriatic. This was one of the ports to which his firm sent steamers, and if they could not get coals for those steamers they would not be able to run them at all. They were already suffering, from the action of the Government, the tramps to Germany, who run out with coals and home with sugar, and would have their trade ruined if those articles were interfered with. But what was the use of talking. The Government had got into this terrible mess through spending money on a disastrous war, which would prove a terrible strain upon the resources of the country, but he could not imagine that the Government could have made a greater mistake than to have raised the money for that expenditure by a tax upon coal. He considered it his duty to make a protest against it.
MR. JOHN WILSONemphasized the remarks he made when the coal tax was introduced into the Budget, when he pointed out the entire unfairness of the incidence of the tax, the necessity for an ad valorem duty, and the effect the tax would have on the carrying trade. He was glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had seen fit, as the result of the arguments brought to bear upon the question of contracts, to meet them as fairly and freely as could be expected. As far as contracts were concerned, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had gone to a very great length. In the month of June no less than 455,000 tons had fallen off in the exports of coal; that was more than 10 per cent. upon the whole of the export trade of the country.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): What about May?
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he had given the right hon. Gentleman June; he gave the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of May. There was still a falling tendency; but most material of all, and this was the question he would like the House to consider, as they had heard a great deal about the profits on coal, the fall of 25 per cent. which he had mentioned showed how rapidly the price was falling. They could notice what a disastrous effect this tax would have on the carrying trade of the country when they found an hon. Member, who was a ship owner and whose firm was one of the largest engaged in the shipping trade, rising in his place and strongly protesting against this tax. Forty-six million tons of coal, to the value of thirty-seven millions sterling, was exported last year, and if that amount of money were put out at 3 per cent. compound interest in one hundred years it would be as large as the National Debt. Instead of endeavoring to kill the export trade, the right hon. Gentleman should do all he could to encourage and favor the export trade of this country. He again protested against the tax.
MR. ATHERLEY JONES: I am afraid that this subject has been discussed very much at large, and I only rise because, representing a mining constituency, I feel that I could not allow the Bill to pass without as shortly as possible emphasizing my views upon the coal tax. Though not a coal owner, I am bound to repudiate the imputation which has been cast upon the coal owners by the right hon. Gentleman, who said they lacked public spirit. There is no ground for such an imputation; the coal owners and the miners of this country were perfectly willing to contribute their share of the expenditure of this war if it had been asked of them through proper channels. They object to this tax because; they believe it strikes at a particular industry—a staple industry of the country-—and that the effect is not transient but permanent. Therefore the taunt of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is as ill-conceived as it is unmerited.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If the hon. Gentleman refers to me—
MR. ATHERLEY JONES: I do.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I never made such a statement.
MR. ATHERLEY JONES: I distinctly remember that the right hon. Gentleman expressed the utmost abhorrence of the whining applications addressed to him by the coal owners of this country, and he dwelt upon the fact that they had derived immense profits and had been somewhat ungenerous in not conceding this tax. The right hon. Gentleman has, however, been touched by the legitimate appeal of the coal owners, and he has given away about one-third of the tax which he at first regarded as essential to impose. But let me point out that the right hon. Gentleman, in giving away one-third of this tax, has also cast to the winds every principle for which he contended in his Budget speech when he introduced this tax. What he said then was that it would not be an unmitigated misfortune to the country if the effect of this tax were to be that it hampered the exportation of coal. The very class of coal in which there was no monopoly, the very class which the incidence of this tax presses so hardly upon—that class of coal the right hon. Gentleman has relieved. What remains? This remains—a tax has been imposed permanently which is contrary to the accepted principles of every political economist. Sir Robert Peel in 1845 abandoned the coal tax. Why? The tax produced only £118,000 in 1845, and Sir Robert Peel stated that he abandoned it because it was opposed to every sound principle of finance If you consult any political economist, theoretical or practical, you will find that the only ground upon which an export tax can be justified is that it relates to an article in which the country imposing the tax possesses an absolute monopoly. There is no condition or circumstance which entitles us to claim that coal is a monopoly. I admit that in the present condition of freights certain classes of British coal practically have a monopoly in certain parts of the world, but that is a partial monopoly which may at any time be overthrown by the growing competition of America or countries in the Far East. I do not wish to put the case in the slightest degree higher than it ought to be. I agree that, in so far as our coal trade with the Mediterranean, the north of France, and possibly Russia is concerned, this tax
132
will not, under existing circumstances, operate largely to its detriment. ["Yes."] I think not under present circumstances. ["Yes."] I bow to the superior knowledge of my hon. friends behind me, but that is the conclusion at which I had arrived from the no doubt imperfect investigation I had made. But there is a zone in which English coal comes into sharp competition with German coal—namely, north Germany. By this tax you are widening the zone within which German coal can successfully compete with English coal to the extent of about twenty-five miles, taking the railway carriage at ½d. per ton; and by reference to the map it will be seen that this covers an area which is a large coal-consuming district. Therefore, you must inevitably injure to that extent the coal trade of Northumberland, and, to some extent, that of Durham.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman imposed this tax in such a way that it affects only two classes—the coal owner and the coal miner? A very interesting report was published some years ago showing that the royalty owners of this country derived nearly £5,000,000 per annum for royalties and way leaves. Why they are not included in this tax? It may be said that they are already taxed. But so also are coal owners. This is a special tax imposed upon the coal industry, and I want to know why the right hon. Gentleman did not devise some system of adjustment by which it would have been competent for the coal owner—and, consequently, for the miner—to make in respect of the amount of this tax some deduction for the royalty he has to pay. I have it, on authority which I cannot question, that to devise such a process would not have been difficult. The royalty owner is permitted to draw an average of about 6d. per ton without in the smallest degree contributing to this tax. In continental countries, beyond the ordinary permanent charges attaching to works and maintenance, and so forth, there is no permanent charge upon the mine owner such as there has been from time immemorial in this country. The royalties in Germany are about 2d. per ton, and in France they are practically nonexistent, while in this country they average 6d. per ton. The right hon.

133
Gentleman is now imposing a permanent tax of 1s. a ton, so that the coal trade of this country will be under a permanent disability or handicap of 1s. 6d. per ton in its competition with other coal-producing countries. "Oh," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "that is a matter of no importance whatever." But such is the absence of consideration which has been given to this question that at a later stage he recognized that the tax would strike a fatal blow at the trade in the comparatively less expensive coal from Northumberland and Monmouth shire, and therefore made a concession. This is a tax, not upon ascertained profits, but upon an industry. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to impose a permanent handicap of 1s. 6d. per ton on British coal? He told us the other day that France had a tariff of 11¾d. upon English coal going to that country. If that is the case, so far as England against France is concerned, on every ton of coal we send to France there will be a permanent disability of 2s. 5¾d. This is not wise finance. It is admitted to have been ill-considered, because if it had been otherwise the right hon. Gentleman would not have thrown away one-third, or possibly more, of it for the first year. In these times of inflation the coal trade may be able to bear the tax without serious suffering, under the limitations which the right hon. Gentleman has imposed, but it is no less certain that it will come to be a very serious blow at one of our greatest industries. I will close my observations by referring to the speech of Sir Robert Peel in 1845, when in striking off the coal tax, he said that any tax upon exports is contrary to the best interests of commerce, and is calculated to inflict injury upon British industry.
MR. JOHN WILSON: I fully sympathies with the arduous task the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had since he first proposed this tax, and I do not look upon the changes and exemptions he has made as having been conceded to mollify those who were opposed to him. I believe they have been made because on further inquiry the right hon. Gentleman has found that the course he had adopted was the wrong one. We, therefore, return to the subject to-night hoping that, even at the eleventh hour,
134
we may induce the right hon. Gentleman to forego the tax altogether. He will forgive us if, so far as we are concerned, we put ourselves into the position of the importunate widow of the New Testament—not that he is the unjust judge.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There is a material difference. The importunate widow had got nothing.
MR. JOHN WILSON: No, no. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his Biblical knowledge. The widow got everything she wanted and went away satisfied, and if the right hon. Gentleman will give us all we want I will at once sit down. My hon. friend the Member for Bolton said he would be satisfied if he got his share, and I was going to suggest a method by which he might get it. If every ton of coal exported produced a shilling there would be something like 44,000,000 or 45,000,000 shillings. The total population according to the last census was about 45,000,000, so that the hon. Member's share would be one shilling, and I have not the least doubt that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, or even one of us who have been miners, would gladly give him that amount if he would then be satisfied.
The test of this subject may be very fairly stated in a homely proverb to the effect that even in a matter of taxation it can only be tested truly by its weakest point. If you test a chain, you do not test it by its strongest part. The strongest part so far as the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is concerned is that the foreigner will pay the shilling per ton. It is said that the coal-owners made very large profits last year. I do not know what profits they made, but I should think that a very high estimate has been placed upon them. Would it not have been better if the profits of the coal owner had been taxed? You might ascertain the profits in some way, and then you might tax the coal-owners upon the profits they had made. But if the coal owner had to pay a portion of his profits, and the miner had to risk his employment, why should the royalty owner not pay some portion of this tax? Without the slightest conceit or egotism, I do say that I do not believe an answer has been given to this question. I attempted the other night to put before

135
the House my idea that this question can only be tested by its weakest part. The general taxation of this Finance Bill can only be tested in the same way. We should be wrong in testing the incidence of the sugar tax by its relationship to a well-paid artisan, but we must look at the question as to how it bears upon the man earning 14s. or 15s. a week. My idea as to the proper principle of taxation is that in a nation where the wealth of the country is derived from the joint action of capital and labor, and where the wages as well as the income of the capitalist come from that joint co-operation, the man who receives the largest income and has the greatest share in the wealth produced ought to bear the largest share in a time of stress and strain. I grant to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he may be right in asserting that to some part of the coal trade will be given a monopoly. I will leave out South Wales, although I might have taken it as an illustration, and I will take the northern counties. If two-thirds of the present exportation of coal holds the market, then there is one-third with regard to the production of which the men would not be required. That is in my opinion the proper view of the question which, I think, the Chancellor of the. Exchequer should take. We have recently seen a very sorrowful sight in our mining villages; for we have seen men begging for employment, and leaving their homes in order to get a chance of work, and, in the sentiments of Burns, begging leave to toil of some lordly fellow-worm. This arose from the fact that the work could not be given because the coal owner could not sell his coal, and consequently he did not require the men. That is the position we dread. That is the specter which will arise out of the depression in trade, and if one-third of the coal required now is not required in consequence oft his tax because only the superior quality holds a monopoly, those who produce the one-third which is not required will have to go elsewhere. I have seen some of the most profound—if the word can be applied to ignorance—and the grossest ignorance shown in this House upon this question. It has been said from the Government Bench, in order to court favor with the men in the Midlands, that they would not feel this tax. The
136
man who uses this argument does not know of the migratory tendency of labor, and if there should be 4,000, 5,000, or 6,000 men in Durham and the same number in Northumberland affected. in this way, where will they go to? Where will they have to seek for labor to earn bread for themselves and their wives and families? They will have to seek employment in the Midlands. If there is an over abundant labor market we know that labor is cheapened, and therefore the Midland men will be bound to feel the effects of this taxation, because they will be overcrowded by the unemployed who will be thrown out of work by the dislocating and the destruction of trade by a tax which ought never to have been imposed. We were told that it did not apply to Ireland, in order to get the Irish Members to vote for the Government. I took the opportunity upon a former occasion of interjecting: a remark that in the north of England and the constituency which I represent there are thousands who have come from Ireland because they could not get employment in their own country, and they have come to Durham and North-umber land and other centers of industry; and if we limit the chances of employment in Durham and Northumberland, and in consequence these men are not wanted in the coal mining centers, surely they will be hurt by this tax. I think that is a logical argument.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has congratulated himself upon the fact that the foreigner will pay this tax, and if not the foreigner the employer, and if not either, then there would be an advantage by the coal remaining in the country to be sold more cheaply to the home consumer, or it could be husbanded for future consumption. I am going to show the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he makes two attacks upon the position of the workmen. A reduction in wages is not the worst thing the workman will have to fear. If this coal is not exported, the workmen's labor will not be required, and the very result which we dread and fear the most will fall upon us. There are others besides the miners who will be affected. There are villages in Durham and Northumberland where the whole community depends upon the labor of the miner, and if the miners are not at work, and pits

137
are stopped, then the traders and everybody else in those villages will suffer. The right hon. Gentleman makes out that if the coal is not exported at all it will be a benefit. I believe when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that remark that he was ignorant of the relations of the employers with their men on this question. I could not look upon the deprivation of thousands of men of their work, because of our coal not being required by the foreigner, who will go to his own market, as a matter for congratulation. It is to me a terror of the blackest and direst character—the throwing of men out of work on account of this policy. When you quote the figures for May you show that the exports are greater. But how about June? This thing is not to be settled by the platitudes of economics formed in the study. It is to be settled by the stern facts of everyday life, by the stern facts of our industrial occupations. These are "chiels that winna ding," and these we will have to meet as the years roll on, but I cannot, and I am confident that my colleagues cannot, look upon this policy with the smallest assurance and hope.
We are told coal will be cheaper to the people of the country. That means that the miner will have to work for fewer wages. One might think that The Times newspaper was a centre of economic truth. That journal in, I think, May this year said that the coal-owners had kept up profits, and that the miners had kept up wages. Well, it would not do for me to impugn the wisdom of a paper like The Times, but I must say that I never saw greater ignorance of how wages are managed in this country. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division has said that wages in the north of England are kept up by the price in the market. In South Wales, the Midland Federation, Durham and Northumberland and the Scotch Conciliation Board—in every case the miner has not forced wages. He follows the market. When prices went up last year we followed the prices every quarter. We have followed them down now. Wages are not merely being reduced—they are rushing down. I am reminded by my hon. friend near me that in Northumberland they have suffered a reduction of 22½ per cent. in wages this year, and
138
this is the trade the Chancellor of the Exchequer is smiting. I shall be surprised if there is not another reduction with us in three weeks. In every mining district in this country there is a tendency towards a reduction in wages. I have seen the statement that during the last twenty years, including 1900, when there was a great rush of prosperity, the selling price of coal at the pit mouth realized 5s. 7d. and some points. That would be, according to our arrangement of wages, 18¾ per cent. above the standard. I hope hon. Gentlemen will excuse me discussing this, for it is to me a very interesting and important point. What were miners' wages on the average during those twenty years? I will take the average wage of 1879, and I will put 18f per cent. to it. There are three classes of men down the pit working eight hours a day, and their average wages during the whole twenty years was 3s. 5¼d. in one class, 3s. 6¾d. in another, and 4s. 3¾d. in the third. There are other two classes working ten hours a day, and they receive 4s. 1¾d. and 4s. 4¼d. Taking the average over the whole twenty years by the same process the wage of the coal hewer would be 5s. 1¾d. per day. I repeat the question put by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division. Is there any man who thinks that too much of a wage for a miner? I do not think there is any man here who would say so. This is not a political question. It is a question of life to hundreds of people. But we have been told that this is a case where we are on the wrong side of politics, that we are rather a stiff-necked and perverse generation, and that, therefore, we ought to be punished. If we had been on the right side of politics we might have been allowed to go Scot free. We are told that the miners are adherents of the Radical party. I agree that we are. I do not think, for all that, that we should be taxed in this way. We have been told that there is no fear of a reduction of wages, because we can resist any attack the employers may make. We are told that it would be very much better to husband our resources in order to meet the employers rather than threaten to strike against the Government proposal. The Government said, "Oh! don't strike against; us strike

139
against other people." Words like these were unbecoming a statesman. They may do for a demagogue on a platform, they may do for a man who wishes to stir up the feelings of the people against the powers that be, but certainly they ought not to come from a man whose position demands that his words should be words of light and leading and clear of everything containing the very suggestion of conflict and contention with regard to the industry of this country. I could quote the words of the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for the Colonies, who said that we are in these matter cats paws for the employers. I deny it. I say here that we have never been made cats paws for any person yet. We wish in the discussion of our wage questions to introduce amicable and friendly feeling. We want reason to rule, and not brute force. I conclude by saying that we miners have no objection to pay a fair share of the taxation of the country. It is not a question of money with us, and never has been. We believe it is our bread. If anyone denies what I say I would point to the number of young miners who went into the field in South Africa never to return. I would point to the relief societies started in Durham to keep the wives and the children and the parents of the men who went to the front. Therefore that is proof positive that we are willing, much as we may hate the war, much as we feel that it could be settled by negotiation if properly conducted, and much as we abhor the epithet "pro-Boer," to bear our share and to regard the honor of the country rather more than the putting a feather in any statesman's cap. We object to this tax because we see behind it, as the result of its imposition, thousands of men begging for work.
MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid this was a tax which handicapped British coal producers to the extent of 1s. per ton in favor of the foreign producer. The hon. Member for Bolton in a speech the other night rejoiced that by the operation of this tax our exports of coal would be reduced and the coal resources of the country preserved for our future requirements. Did the country gain no benefit from
140
free trade in coal? Had the country gained no benefit during the past year from the export of 45,000,000 tons of coal? There were 800,000 men employed in this industry, and their buying power had been substantially increased with regard to food, clothing, and other articles. He did not deny that so far as Welsh smokeless steam coal was concerned the foreign consumer might be made to pay in ordinary times, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been compelled to acknowledge that in times of depression, so far as the coal of Durham and Northumberland were concerned, there was force in the contention that we would be unable to compel the consumer in the north of Europe to pay an additional 1s. per ton. One great objection to the tax was its sectional application. He said it would have been better to apply it to the whole of the coal produced in the country, whether for export or home consumption, and that 1d. per ton should have been levied upon the colliery owner and 1d. per ton on the royalty owner. The tax was popular with certain consumers of coal in this country, who thought that the coal owners had. Been fleecing them, and who desired that they also should be hit by the tax; but, unfortunately for that view, it was the owners of export collieries who would be affected, while the others would go Scot free. He thought the great blot in connection with the incidence of the tax was that it was not equitably distributed all round. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had agreed not to impose the tax on coal sold at a less price than 6s. per ton free on board. He was sorry to say that, so far as Durham was concerned, this inflicted a further inequality on the coal trade. In normal times ordinary unscreened coal from the county of Durham was sold at 6s. 6d. to 6s. 9d. per ton free on board. It was obvious that if coal above 6s. was to pay 1s. Duty it would pay the colliery owner better to sell at 6s. per ton, than with the tax charged upon it at 6s. 11d. per ton. Durham unscreened coal, which was. Largely exported for bunker and manufacturing purposes, in normal times was sold at 6s. 6d. free on board in competition with small coal from Northumberland at 4s. per ton free on board. Small coals were now being used to a much

141
greater extent for bunkering purposes. That was a nominal difference of 2s. 6d. per ton. Under the new arrangement Northumberland small coal would pay no tax whatever, while Durham unscreened coal would be subject to a duty of 1s. per ton. He thought it was somewhat unfair to the Durham unscreened coal exporters that they should be thus handicapped. With regard to the tax being permanent, he asked if they were to believe that, when the time came that many collieries were being worked at an actual out of pocket loss, the impost of the 1s. per ton duty could possibly be maintained? The tax was a fiscal departure absolutely unsound in character. It would be a serious hindrance and interference with one of the greatest industries of the colliery owners, and it would also inflict serious hardship on the miners, especially in times of depression.
MR. RANDLESsaid he thought that, so far as 75 per cent of the coal tax was concerned, it would come out of the pockets of the foreigners. We ought to look at the incidence of the tax and the effect it would have upon our own industries. There were large industrial populations in this country other than those employed in coal-mining, such as the iron and steel trades, which were very materially affected by a tax or otherwise on coal. The iron and steel trades at the present time were enduring very severe competition from across the Atlantic, and that was a point which should command very careful consideration. If he thought that the heavy mineral manufacturing trades were going to be affected by this tax, he should be very much opposed to it. But, on the contrary, if it had any effect at all, he thought it would be for the advantage of the manufacturing iron and steel trades of this country. These industries were largely affected by the question of transit. Advantageous shipping freights had enabled them to compete against the protective duties of the United States, but that advantage had been disappearing, and now unless they could have the advantage of a plentiful supply of cheap coal at home they would be unable to compete. They were going to see their railway rates increased during
142
the coming year. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had imposed a tax on an article which was of the first necessity and importance to us as a manufacturing nation, and which would have a beneficial effect if it had any effect at all in the way of preserving our coal and bringing the home manufacturer into a position of being able to compete with the manufacturer abroad who, with the co-operation of the railways, was overcoming questions affecting the conveyance of materials in a way they were not being overcome in this country. He believed that in the United States materials could be carried at a farthing per ton per mile, but in this country the railway companies charged seven-eighths of a penny per ton per mile. The tendency would be to give us a compensatory balance in our competition with foreign countries by reason of the fact that the coal instead of being exported as coal would be exported in the form of manufactured articles, such as steel and iron. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the form in which he had placed this tax. If by legislation we could retain the manufacturing industries of this country, the hon. Member opposite would find that the miners in the North would not be wanting in wages, while other industries would have cheap coal, which would enable them to exist.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he did not propose to go over the whole field of operation of this tax. He was the less disposed to take up the time of the House because, so far as the "manufactured fuel" trade of his constituents was concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been good enough to place Amendments on the Paper which carried out the undertaking which he had given a few nights ago in regard to the matter of small coal. He did not think it would be necessary for him to dilate at any length on behalf of the western portion of Glamorganshire on the very grave objections they had to this tax, but there were one or two points not touched upon by preceding speakers which ought to be brought to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and even at this eleventh hour he was not without hope that, so far as manufactured fuel was concerned, the right

143
hon. Gentleman might see his way to make further concessions. The defenders of the tax alleged that in substance coal was something entirely different from other commodities, and especially that the coal of South Wales was a kind of monopoly. It had been conceded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other speakers that of all forms of indirect taxation a tax on exports was the most objectionable, unless the duty was placed on an article which formed practically a monopoly. It was absolutely untrue to say that coal was a monopoly in any sense of the term as used by political economists. He quite admitted that the coal in certain areas in the Rhondda Valley, of a special kind, adapted for a certain class of steamers, commanded a very high price; but that did not make it a monopoly. It appeared to be assumed that because that special class of coal was held in high esteem abroad that same appreciation applied to all kinds of coal exported from South Wales. He maintained that the western Glamorganshire coal trade was always of a very precarious character. It would command a fair price for use on locomotives and stationary engines; but if the tax was imposed, it must not be assumed for a moment that they were likely to keep the export trade from Swansea to the north of France and the Mediterranean ports. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if this tax was persevered in a very great blow would be struck at the export trade from Western Glamorganshire.
It had been urged that coal was a gift of nature, not a commodity in the ordinary sense of the word. That was a fallacy. It meant that by exporting the coal the nation was wasting its resources, and that it ought to be preserved in anticipation of an attack on this country by a foreign enemy; his answer was that the Government should acquire an area in the Rhondda Valley, which would provide all the smokeless steam coal required for the Navy. Coal was as much a commodity as any other substance found under the surface of the earth. Till brought to the surface it had no more value than any other substance. It was only made valuable by the expenditure of human labour on it; and it was as truly a manufactured article as anything
144
made in Lancashire or Yorkshire. No justification whatever had been given for choosing this particular commodity on which to put an export duty. The hon. Member for Bolton had said that this was an asset of the nation in a special sense, and that we ought to use it for ourselves. But the hon. Member had entirely forgotten that we got something for the coal, and that we were thus using it for ourselves. In return for the coal we were getting money, manufactured articles, and raw materials for our own manufactures. If the observations he had made in regard to coal had any weight they had ten-fold weight in regard to manufactured fuel. He had appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give some consideration to patent fuel, and to a certain extent the right hon. Gentleman had given him a concession. But he wished to call the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to certain figures about the patent fuel trade which would prove that the effect of this tax upon patent fuel would be disastrous, and very likely remove the industry from Glamorganshire to the north of France. Patent fuel was composed of 90 per cent. of coal and 10 per cent. of pitch, and was sold at 12s. per ton. The price of the pitch was 35s. per ton, and the 10 per cent. in the patent fuel represented 3s. 6d. per ton. The price of the 90 per cent. of coal was 6s. 3d. per ton—or a total value of 9s. 9d. The rest of the 12s. represented the cost of carrying on the industry, labour, and waste of machinery. As he understood the Amendment placed on the paper, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the Amendment until it comes before the House.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not going to further exempt patent fuel.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that then the right hon. Gentleman was going to destroy the industry. The whole thing was entirely unequal. There was certainly a coal ingredient in this commodity, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer put the same tax on the Glamorgan coal as on the Rhondda coal, and surely he was in order in making a protest on behalf of the industry in which

145
those who had sent him there were greatly interested, Nobody had yet analysed the question, "Upon whom this tax was ultimately to fall?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that this was going to be a permanent tax, but when the contracts were well worked out who would pay the tax? He did not wish to lecture the House of Commons on political economy, but if anyone would follow him out he was prepared to prove that the incidence of the tax would fall on the miners. He would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that once the contracts were performed the price of coal f.o.b. at Cardiff would depend on the ordinary rules of supply and demand. They could not get away from that fact. Everybody concerned would take notice of it in making their calculations to offer to buy or to sell. So long as the conditions at Cardiff were such that the cost of production still allowed some profit, the coal produced in East Glamorganshire would still be sent to Cardiff. But if the cost of production exceeded the price obtainable by the law of demand and supply, colliery after colliery would be shut up. But before that happened the producer would say he would try to lower the cost of production. Now, what were the elements in the cost of production? The first was wages, the second was the cost of transport to the harbour rand other charges, the third was the expense of running the mine and paying the royalties and taxes connected with the industry; but the largest item was wages. The coal producer could not say to the landowner he could not pay his rent. The rent must be paid. Then as to the reducing the cost of transport, it was a long process indeed to induce the railway companies to lower their rates. The result would then be that, as wages formed the most flexible element in the cost of production, as soon as it was known that this tax was to be made permanent there would be a lowering of the rate of wages. He opposed the clause. The impatience of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was hardly justifiable.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member has no reason for saying that there has been impatience on my part at his little political economy lecture
146
He has not expressed a single new opinion or argument. They have been repeated over and over again and pressed particularly on myself. I do not think that it can be said that my conduct in these debates has been characterised by impatience. The principle of the coal duty was discussed on the Report of the resolution, again on the Second Reading of the Budget Bill, and again at great length on the coal duty clause in Committee on the Bill. Now the House is listening to a fourth discussion on precisely the same subject. I do not complain. I am not surprised that hon. Members opposed to the tax should think it necessary to make these continued protests. I have listened very carefully to these protests, but I have heard not one single argument advanced this evening against the tax which I have not heard many times before. The most exaggerated statements have been repeated. The hon. Member thinks that the manufacture of patent fuel will be ruined. I have carefully investigated the matter, and have listened both in public and in private to statements on the subject, and I believe that the industry will under the Bill be just as able to compete with similar industries abroad as it has been in the past. The House has heard most doleful prophecies as to the effect of this duty from three gentlemen rejoicing in the same name—members, presumably, of the same clan—the hon. Members for Hull, Falkirk, and Durham. They belong to a powerful clan, but their arguments really answer one another. I have often heard while I was President of the Board of Trade the hon. Member for Hull represent his views on questions connected with shipping; and I have rarely found the hon. Gentleman in accordance with the general body of shipowners. Now the hon. Member asserts that the shipowning industry will be ruined, and he talks about "draining the life-blood of the country." It might have been supposed that a rapid increase in our export of coal is more a "draining of the life-blood of the country" than the imposition of this tax. Then the hon. Member dwelt on the danger of American competition in the Mediterranean. Now, though we may see in the newspapers a great deal about what American

147
millionaires and trusts are going to do, those statements must be very largely discounted before they are believed. As to the probability of anything like real American competition with us in the Mediterranean and European markets for coal, the best opinion of the trade is that in existing circumstances American competition is impracticable. The hon. Member gave it as a terrible fact that a contract for 100,000 tons of coal for Venice had been given to America. Last year equally America supplied coal of a certain quality to Venice, and why should it not do so again? No argument can be drawn irom single contracts as to the prosperity or otherwise of the whole trade. The hon. Member for Hull believes that the tax will be borne by the shipowner. The hon. Member for Falkirk believes that it will be borne by the coalowner. They cannot both be right.
MR. JOHN WILSON: I did not say it would be borne by the coalowner.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If that is not the basis of the hon. Member's argument, why does he oppose the tax?
MR. JOHN WILSON: Because it will ruin the shipping trade of the country.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That contention is scarcely consistent with the hon. Member's attitude on former occasions. The hon. Member has pointed with alarm to the decrease of the export of coal in June as compared with the same month last year. But no argument as to the incidence or effect of the tax can be drawn from a mere comparative statement of the exports month by month. No one can tell at present or for many months to come what the effect of this tax will be upon the coal industry or trade generally. The exports of British coal to Germany in June last were larger than those of June in last year; and in May the total exports were very much larger than in May last year.
MR. JOHN WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the export from Scotland has largely decreased during the last two months?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I admit that the exports from Scotland have
148
not been so flourishing as those from South Wales and certain North of England coalfields, but it is for that very reason that I accepted the Amendment exempting the cheaper class of coal in which Scotland is very much interested from the duty. The third member of the clan, the hon. Member for Mid Durham, believes that the tax will fall, not upon the shipowner or the coalowner, but upon the miner; and that as the result of a shilling duty wages will be diminished, men thrown out of employment, and whole villages ruined. The statements which have been made seem to me to be simply absurd when we look at the history of the growth of the export trade in coal, in spite of the enormous fluctuations in the price of coal, and in the cost of freight to foreign countries. I have been told in the course of this debate by the hon. Member for Mid Durham that the coal duty was an ill-considered measure, because after hearing many deputations and considering many arguments put before me by hon. Members in the House and in other ways, I made certain modifications in the duty, and with regard to existing contracts, which have been accepted with gratitude by those on whose behalf they were made, but which I am afraid I must also say have only been made an excuse for asking for more. Hon. Members in effect say we are obliged to you, but yet we will continue to oppose you unless you take this duty off altogether.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I expressly told the right hon. Gentleman that I was altogether opposed to the tax, and that I would reserve my right to continue to oppose it.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: All I have to say in regard to the matter now is that, while I do not wish to complain of the debates on this clause, if hon. Gentlemen were to talk for the rest of the session I would still adhere to it. It is impossible for me to satisfy hon. Members. I have never contended that the effect of this duty will be to prohibit or seriously to lessen the export of coal. I have said that it was not my desire to obtain revenue at the cost of our trade, and no argument which has been placed before me, carefully as I have considered

149
them all, has led me to believe—that the duty will have anything of the effect which hon. Members suggest. On one point I was satisfied that there might be danger, namely, with regard to the cheapest kinds of coal. That I have endeavoured to meet, and, having done that, I commend the duty to the favourable consideration of the House, and I trust that, bearing in mind how thoroughly the whole subject has been discussed, we may now come to a decision on the clause.
SIR EDWARD GREY: Many old arguments have been used during this debate, and I do not wish to repeat them We have had a great deal of debate on this subject, and it does seem to me that in the course of it there have been certain new arguments or new suggestions, and new developments of old arguments, which possess a great deal of force. Grateful as we are to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for certain concessions, our objections to the tax have not diminished, but have rather strengthened the more the tax has been considered. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been some exaggeration as to the probable effect of this tax. If there has been exaggeration it has not been confined to this side of the House. The greatest exaggeration was the right hon. Gentleman's own statement in introducing the tax, in which he exaggerated the benefits likely to accrue from it. The more we have heard of it the more it seems to me that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had realised how very small the revenue would be, he would not have inflicted upon the country the controversy which has arisen. The tax might have two objects which would justify a great deal of inconvenience, but it failed in both of them. It might have the prospect of large permanent gain to the revenue. It would fail in that. If might have some effect—
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: £2,000,000 a year.
SIR EDWARD GREY: Not for the first year. As far as we can forecast the course of trade for the next four or five years, it is likely that £2,000,000, even without exemptions, will be the maximum estimate in the present state
150
of things. But even if it brought in £2,000,000, that would be no compensation for the disturbance and injury it will inflict. Another effect with which I would have some sympathy would be if the tax would tend to delay or retard the waste of some of that coal which is admitted to be a monopoly—coal which is essential to ourselves, and to foreign nations as well, for very important purposes. If this tax restricts the export of coal at all, that coal, of which we might wish to delay the rapid consumption, will be coal the export of which will be least affected. Therefore, the tax will fail in that object also. Much as we object to the tax, we object even more to some of the arguments which have been used to justify it. An hon. Member in this debate made a very frank speech, in which he admitted that, if this tax injuriously affected the trade in which he was concerned, he would oppose it; but as it would benefit that trade he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for it. Why, then, should people who think that the tax will injuriously affect their trade not oppose it? What did the hon. Member's argument come to? In his opinion he stated that perhaps 75 per cent. of the tax would fall on the foreigner, but as regards the remaining 25 per cent. some advantage might accrue to the iron and other trades of that kind; but that would be merely transferring money out of the pockets of one class for the benefit of other trades. That is the kind of argument which is used to justify this tax.
Other arguments have been used outside this House. For instance, the Secretary of State for the Colonies in a speech outside this House, which has been dealt with with great force by the hon. Member for Mid Durham, made an attack on the colliery owners, and, what was far more important, gave advice to the miners for the future. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has uttered words which will never be forgotten in the trade, and never remembered except for mischief. As to the incidence of this tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that people differ. People always differ about the incidence of a new tax, and it is very difficult to forecast it. With regard to the incidence of this tax

151
certain things are assured. Some of it, I admit, will fall on the foreigner in the case of certain classes of coal. In so far is the foreigner pays, I have no objection to raise, but even there the foreigner will not be content to pay it quietly, and if he has to pay on coal he will get it back on timber or something else he sends to this country. We have not got to the end of the matter by proving that a certain amount of the tax will come out of the pockets of the foreigner. A certain amount will also fall on the colliery owners, the ship owners, and the exporters under contracts which are not covered. A very large amount will fall on those classes, especially at first. But the tendency of the tax will be to sink lower and lower, and the ultimate incidence will be felt, I believe, by the miners. The colliery owners will suffer much more at first. The men with long contracts will also suffer at first, but in the future it is on the miner that the incidence of this tax will fall.
Then we have been told by the Secretary for the Colonies that if the miners found that this tax was descending on them they would be justified in using their funds for their protection—that is to say, the right hon. Gentleman invited the miners to embark on an industrial war. That is where the sting comes in in the arguments used to support this tax. There is one other person about whom I am not sure, and that is the royalty owner. The tax will fall on the persons I have named, but the person about whom I am least certain that any part of it will fall on is the royalty owner Even from the point of view of the Government his existence might have been remembered whn they were proposing this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he will not give up the tax or make any further concessions, and he deprecated being pressed for any more concessions. As long as we object to this tax we shall not confiine ourselves to asking for concessions this year only; that demand will also be made in subsequent years. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in all frankness, to watch very carefully what the effect of this tax will be. After all the arguments which have been used, it is facts that will in the long run decide as to who was right or wrong. We on
152
this side of the House are convinced that our case against the tax is a good one. We shall watch in the years which are near the return of the quantities of coal exported from this country, the price of coal, and the rise and fall in miners' wages; and I trust, at any rate, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to yield any more this year, he will keep an open mind; that he will with us watch those things, and if they prove that our contentions are true—if we have depression of trade, and a reduction in the quantity of coal exported—then I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be one of the first—and I think we may expect it from the openness of mind that he has shown—to admit the force of the facts. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman admits hereafter the force of the tax, and finds himself compelled to repeal it in future years, he will find a good deal of compensation in the fact that the loss to the revenue will be so small.
SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid that on the first occasion on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced his intention of making that new departure he ventured to state that he was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman had not given sufficient attention or consideration to the matter. What had transpired since clearly proved that if the right hon. Gentleman had known as much of the matter then as he did now he would not have included it in his Budget statement. Several hon. Members had spoken on the matter from their own knowledge. They had had a speech from the hon. Member for Hull, a gentleman who possessed probably more experience as a shipowner than any other gentleman in the country; they had had the views of the hon. Member for Fife, who was a large colliery owner; and a very able speech from the hon. Member for Mid Durham with regard to the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech made a reference to what took place when he was President of the Board of Trade, which would be in the recollection of the House. He had inquired of the hon. Member for Hull, and was informed that the hon. Member did not remember one single occasion which would justify the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He was afraid

153
that it was very difficult for hon. Members to discuss the tax from a practical standpoint without bringing on themselves therebukes of the right hon. Gentleman. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, and it was within his own knowledge that when he was President of the Board of Trade he never attempted to interfere with any particular trade without taking the gentlemen connected with it into his confidence. He fully recognised that when it was proposed to introduce a tax it was impossible to let the cat out of the bag; but yet a practical knowledge of the effect of the tax on coal would have shown the right hon. Gentleman that the Revenue could not possibly suffer by disclosing his intention of taxing an article which in consequence of its weight and bulk must go from the pit's mouth to the seaportdaily.
On a previous occasion when the tax was discussed the President of the Board of Trade expressed surprise that shipowners on that side of the House did not take part in the discussion, and he said that if the tax were injurious at all, it would be injurious to shipowners. But why should the shipowners take any part in the discussion, if the foreigner were going to pay the tax? Shipping was the greatest industry that Great Britain possessed, and the question of coal in connection with it was a very serious one. Professor Jevons had stated that it was the Alpha and Omega of our trade. The question of foreign competition in coal divided itself into three parts. It had been admitted during the debate that they had practically lost the trade in the ports east of Suez owing to the development of coal in Bengal, Japan, and other places. Therefore they might dismiss that part of the trade from their consideration. Then as to European countries, Germany, Sweden, France, Norway, and Russia, it was admitted that the competition was very keen, but it was claimed that they could continue that trade even though their exports were taxed. Then there was the trade with the Mediterranean ports. The Chancellor of the Exchequer disregarded altogether the question of American competition in that part of the world. Since the Budget had been introduced, he had made it his business to look into the question of the
154
possibility of American competition in the Mediterranean ports. It was claimed in America that coal could be carried from an American seaport to a Mediterranean port for 5s. or 6s. a ton; but from a practical business point of view he did not regard that as possible. It should, however, be remembered that coal could now be produced in Alabama, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other States at the pit's mouth cheaper than in England, but when the question of an export was considered, the price at the point of consumption, not at the point of production, should be taken into consideration. With reference to American coal, it should not be forgotten that the distance from the collieries to the seaports varied from 220 to 410 miles. The determination of the American people to enter into foreign competitions was, however, such that they had built special cars for coal, carrying from forty to fifty tons each, as against the three or five ton cars used in England. The consequence was that, although the collieries were a considerable distance from the seaports, coal was carried to the sea at a cost of ⅛d. per ton per mile, whereas, in England it cost in many cases eight or nine times that. Coal could be delivered at Philadephia, Baltimore, or Newport at 7s. 5d. per ton. The Americans had also coal steamers which carried very much larger cargoes of coal than English colliers. He claimed that America was producing more coal at present than England, and was increasing her facilities to such am extent that Americans were now capable of dealing with 175,000 tons per day, and on that basis they would be able to export 50,000,000 tons as soon as they had sufficiently increased their mercantile fleet. America was also determined to compete with the only strong trade left to England, namely, the shipping trade. If the Bounty Bill, by which 9,000,000 dollars a year was to be given to assist the American mercantile fleet, became law, then the coal trade in the Mediterranean would be very seriously interfered with indeed. He found that American coal could be delivered at Mediterranean ports at 15s. 11d. a ton. The export of coal from America in 1885 was 650,000 tons; in 1889 it was 2,854,000 tons; and last year it was practically 8,000,000 tons; and it

155
would continue to increase. Then, again, it seemed to him that sufficient consideration had not been given to the question of bunkering British ships abroad. At Antwerp British shipowners had the option of being supplied with Belgian steam coal; at Rotterdam and Amsterdam they had the option of being supplied with Westphalian coal; but at Naples, Genoa, and other Mediterranean ports there was no option until recently, when American coal was imported.
The hon. Member for the Cockermouth Division had stated that he was going to support the Bill because he believed the industries in which he was engaged would benefit by cheaper coal. Surely when these matters were discussed in the House of Commons a higher standpoint than private gain should be taken; but even looking at the matter from that point of view, he could not see how, if the Government put a duty on export coal, coal would be cheaper. Personally he should have thought it would have been much better to place a tax on all coal at the pits' mouth throughout the country than to select particular pits to be taxed. It appeared to him that in this matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been unable to keep his eye off the Member for Chester-le-Street—that he had determined to tax him, and he had been unable to strike at the hon. Member without striking many others. In his opinion this tax would strike a serious blow at the mercantile fleet. He remembered as a boy going down to the docks on north-east coast, which was exporting coal to America. He had seen the development of that trade, and he could trace the large shipyards that had been built and the employment of so many thousands of men as being clearly due to the service cargo steamers, which was of in itself directly traceable to the export of coal from that district. He could only hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not impose this as a permanent tax. He predicted that it would take a long time to recover from its evil effects if the tax was only imposed for a year.
MR. BLACKwho spoke amid continued cries of "Divide," was understood to say that the right hon. Gentleman, not content with taxing the women and children in this country by
156
his duty on sugar, now proposed to endeavour to get the foreigner to share our taxation. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the foreigners would pay this tax, and if the foreigners did pay, well and good; but the question he wanted answered was whether this was not the commencement of a new fiscal policy. Either the idea of getting the foreigner to pay our taxes was sound or it was unsound. If sound, then the right hon. Gentleman was bound to go on and tax hardware, textile fabrics, and all other articles which we were able to make cheaper than our neighbours, and particularly those articles produced by the industries into which coal entered as a necessary article for the production of the goods. Coal was not only exported in the form of coal, but to a certain extent in every article in which coal was used in the process of production, and the argument in favour of the export duty on coal would therefore apply equally in favour of an export duty upon everything else of the kind he had indicated. He asked therefore, was this duty to stop at coal, or was it the commencement of a new fiscal policy? If, on the other hand, the idea that the foreigner could be got to share our taxation was unsound, the tax stood self-condemned, for it then meant a tax upon industry. One argument in favour of the tax was that the export of coal was a waste of the capital of the country. That argument was 300 years old, and was used by Queen Mary of Scotland, who, however, took the right way, having regard to that view, to deal with the matter. She prohibited the export altogether. How did the Chancellor propose to deal with the matter? Even supposing that in exporting coal we were wasting the capital of the country, it was not the labourer who produced or the man who exported, but the man who sold the coal—the royalty owner—who should be taxed. If the fertile soil of the country were being sold, and we wished to stop the sale, we should tax the person who was selling it, not the labourer who dug it, nor the contractor. It was true that on a rising market they would obtain the 1s. a ton from the foreigner in the first instance, but the 1s. thus obtained would, but for the tax, have gone into the pocket of the labourer and coalowner. But if it be

157
true that in a rising market we can get this tax from the foreigner without actually lowering the labourers' wages (although at the expense of keeping them stationary) it is manifest that the converse is true that in a falling market the collier and the coalowner must pay the duty. But let us suppose that honours are easy with regard to the incidence of the duty, and that the 1s. a ton would be divided—one-third would fall upon the foreigner, one-third on the coalowner and one third on the collier, this meant that out of an average wage of 3s. 4d. a ton which the collier earned, he would have to pay 4d., which implied, so far as he was concerned, an income tax of 2s. in the pound; and on a falling market that amount would be proportion-
ately increased at a period when the unfortunate man could least afford it. Another point against the tax was that it was easily evaded. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to exempt coal of a less price than 6s. a ton; and what was to prevent somebody setting up a house on the opposite side under another name to which they might consign all their coal at a less price than 6s., and so evade the tax altogether. That in itself was an illustration of the difficulty of making this tax effectual, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to pause before he embarked on so disastrous a fiscal policy.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 154. (Division List No. 323.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hoult, Joseph

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Arkwright,—John Stanhope

Cranborne, Viscount

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Arrol, Sir William

Cust, Henry John C.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Denny, Colonel

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dewar, T. R. (T'rHaml'ts, S Geo.

Keswick, William

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Baird, John George Alexander

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Knowles, Lees

Baldwin, Alfred

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lawson, John Grant

Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christchurch

Fergusson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (M'nc'r)

Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.

Bartley, George C. T.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Finch, George H.

Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

Flower, Ernest

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Beckett, Ernest William

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Garfit, William

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

Bignold, Arthur

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bigwood, James

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Bill, Charles

Gordon, J. (L'ndonderry, South

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gordon, Maj-Evan (T'rHamlets

Maconochie, A. W.

Bousfield, William Robert

Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Bull, William James

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Majendie, James A. H.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

Cautley, Henry Strother

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Groves, James Grimble

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hall, Edward Marshall

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morrell, George Herbert

Chapman, Edward

Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

Morrison, James Archibald

Charrington, Spencer

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mount, William Arthur

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

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

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

Henderson, Alexander

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Coddington, Sir William

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Myers, William Henry

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Nicholson, William Graham

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Parker, Gilbert

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Saasoon, Sir Edward Albert

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Pierpoint, Robert

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Webb, Col. William George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Pretyman, Ernest George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Purvis, Robert

Smith, H. C. (NorthmbTyneside

Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

Randles, John S.

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

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Rankin, Sir James

Spear, John Ward

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Renwick, George

Stock, James Henry

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

Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wylie, Alexander

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

Younger, William

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Round, James

Thorburn, Sir Walter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Hayes-Fisher.

Russell, T. W.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Valentia, Viscount

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Furness, Sir Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.

Ambrose, Robert

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Bell, Richard

Hammond, John

O'Dowd, John

Black, Alexander William

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Boland, John

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

Brigg, John

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Malley, William

Broadhurst, Henry

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Mara, James

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

O'Shee, James John

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Holland, William Henry

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Burt, Thomas

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Paulton, James Mellor

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Horniman, Frederick John

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Caine, William Sproston

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

Caldwell, James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

Cameron, Robert

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pemberton, John S. G.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Joicey, Sir James

Philipps, John Wynford

Causton, Richard Knight

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cawley, Frederick

Joyce, Michael

Price, Robert John

Channing, Francis Allston

Kearley, Hudson E.

Reckitt, Harold James

Clancy, John Joseph

Lambert, George

Reddy, M.

Colville, John

Leamy, Edmund

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)>

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Redmond, William (Clare)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Leng, Sir John

Rickett, J. Compton

Crean, Eugene

Levy, Maurice

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Crombie, John William

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Cullinan, J.

Lundon, W.

Robson, William Snowdon

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Roche, John

Delany, William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Dillon, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.

Doogan, P. C.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Duffy, William J.

Minch, Matthew

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Duncan, J. Hastings

Mooney, John J.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Dunn, Sir William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Strachey, Edward

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Sullivan, Donal

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Murnaghan, George

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Murphy, John

Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, G'wer

Fenwick, Charles

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Trevelyan, Chas. Philips

Ferguson, R. C. (Monro, Leith)

Newnes, Sir George

Tully, Jasper

Ffrench, Peter

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wallace, Robert

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Norman, Henry

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Weir, James Galloway

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

160

161

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. D. A. Thomas and Mr. John Wilson (Durham).

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Young, Samuel

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Yoxall, James Henry

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

MR. SEELY MR. SEELY (Lincoln) moved, in Clause 3, page 2, to leave out "free on board" and insert "at the colliery." He said that his proposal was that, instead of giving a rebate on coal at a price less than 6s. a ton f.o.b., the quality of the coal should be settled by its price at the pit's mouth. A smaller price would have to be taken at the port in order to allow for the railway rates from inland collieries, and he would recommend that 4s. 6d. should be taken as the price at the port. This he thought was a reasonable price to carry out what he believed to be the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to charge this duty on inferior and small coal, which would be exposed to a very severe competition from fine coal, and he thought that purpose would be carried out more fairly, as between distant districts and districts near the port of embarkation, if the right hon. Gentleman made his exemption on the price at the colliery instead of at the port. There was considerable difference in the railway rates, and if the exemption was given on the price of coal at the ports, it would not give any benefit to inland collieries, between whom and Germany a considerable trade had sprung up. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept this suggestion he would advance the interests of a very considerable trade. If the right hon. Gentleman could not do it this year, he would appeal to him to consider this matter, and see whether he could not do something in this direction next year.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 44, to leave out the words 'free on board,' and insert the words 'at the colliery,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Seely.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'free on board' stand part of the Bill."
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid there would be a great practical difficulty in the acceptance of this Amendment, because the moment of shipment was the moment when the coal came in touch with the Customs officers, by whom the duty must be levied. It followed there-
162
fore that the tax should be levied at the price "free on board." because the Customs House officer would not be acquainted with the price at the pit's mouth. It would be impossible to do what was desired—namely, to equalise the position of the different colliery districts in England and Scotland as to the cost of transport to the port of shipment. The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive those districts in which the railway rates were very low of part of the exemption which he had undertaken to give them. But he promised that he would watch the working of this exemption very carefully, and if he saw any injustice he would try to remedy it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Another Amendment made.
MR. JOHN WILSON: I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept my Amendment on the Paper. He has exempted coal at 6s. a ton, and I asked him whether he would not exempt coke made with that kind of coal. That class of coal when transformed into coke is represented by coke at about 11s. per ton, and I want to know whether he will exempt that. I am not sure whether coke would come under "manufactured fuel," but it would be simpler to have it stated at a price f.o.b., and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 1, after the last Amendment, to insert the words 'and on any coke the value of which free on board is so proved not to exceed eleven shillings per ton.'"—(Mr. John Wilson, Durham Mid)
Question proposed, "That those words, be there inserted."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I expressed my wish to deal with coke, if possible, in the manner stated by the hon. Member, but I think I said also that the price was the greatest difficulty in the way of doing so, and that the great bulk of coke was made from coal of a far greater value than 6s. I agree

163
with the hon. Member so far as to say that, if anything is to be done with coke, it must be done on the lines of his Amendment, but I do not feel able to accept the Amendment at present for two reasons. I have been quite unable to ascertain in the short time at my disposal, since I saw his proposal on the Paper, how much coke would be likely in an ordinary year to come under the exemption, or how it would work. Further, I am advised that the export trade in coke of this quality is so very small that practically the matter can hardly be said to be of urgent importance, and that it might fairly be allowed to rest until we can ascertain precisely how the matter stands. I should be glad if the hon. Member would postpone the matter—I do not think any important interest would be materially affected—and then we shall be able to see exactly how the duty works in regard to coke.
MR. JOHN WILSON: After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. M'KENNA: I desire to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr in order to give an opportunity to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state to the House what are the rules which he proposes to lay down in the exemption of contracts. This does not touch the question of the date of the contracts; that will arise on the next Amendment. What I am particularly anxious about is that the right hon. Gentleman should give some assurance that certain, at any rate, of the uncovered contracts should also be allowed exemption. I understand that the present position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that bona fide covered contracts should in every case up to the date named be exempted from the tax; but with regard to uncovered contracts the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unwilling to give any exemption except in cases of special hardship. There are a great many cases in which it was quite impossible for the merchant to cover all his contracts. In the first place a merchant may make a number of large sales abroad. He does not immediately buy against each of those
164
sales at all; he buys generally, and from a number of collieries. He could not in every case state exactly that a foreign contract is covered by a particular purchase which he had made. Therefore the first exemption one would ask for is, that where there have been sales abroad and general purchases at home those general purchases should in every case be put to covering the foreign sales. The next point is that in the case of small coal it is quite impossible for the merchant immediately to cover his contracts. When I say immediately I do not mean a question of a day or two. It is often a matter of months. A merchant has to go round picking up small coal as he can get it. Sometimes he may be able to get a large amount, while at other times he can get only a small quantity—he must wait for it. Therefore not to allow the exemption on uncovered contracts in respect of small coal would inflict a very great hardship on the merchant. There is also another difficulty. Prices go up in fine weather in south Wales when the miners are not working—or in the case of agricultural shows, or Eisteddfod, or other public amusements of that character. Then, also, some delay ought to be allowed to enable the merchant to cover his contracts at a reasonable price. There are also cases in which a merchant may be concerned in a colliery company. He does not in that case immediately cover his contracts, because he knows that he can always get his coal at the current price of the day. In all these cases uncovered contracts are not in any sense speculative transactions. A merchant must often sell before he has bought the coal, and it would be only reasonable that the same exemption should be given to uncovered as to covered contracts up to the end of the year. This is the only way in which I could bring the matter forward, and I beg formally to move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 4, to leave out the words 'may if they think fit in any case,' and insert the word 'shall,' instead thereof"—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. LAW: I would not have taken any further part in this discussion if I did not feel very strongly that in the case of the exception which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to make in the exemption from the tax he is doing a great injustice. It means very little to the Treasury, but it will inflict a considerable hardship upon individuals; and, so far as I understand the question, cannot be defended on any general principles whatever. The ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman exempted contracts at all was simply that the coal tax was novel, that no amount of prudence or foresight would have enabled those interested to guard against it. If that is the principle, it applies to all bona fide contracts which have been made with the foreigner—just as much to contracts made by the coal merchants as to contracts made directly by the coal masters. As I understand it, the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman refuses to make exemptions in the former class of contracts is that he considers such transactions are gambling transactions—
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Not all of them.
MR. LAW: That they are illegitimate.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That they are speculative.
MR. LAW: That they are speculative transactions in regard to which the coal merchants should not be protected. It seems to me that this House has a perfect right to pass laws making it illegal to sell particular commodities for future delivery. That has been attempted by other countries, but never successfully; but the House has no right to inflict hardship upon individuals for conducting their business in a way which is at least legal. On that ground of principle I think all contracts made before the 19th April should be exempted from the tax. The House of Commons, like other bodies, is not influenced solely by general principles; it is influenced by sentiment, and I am afraid that even my right hon. friend is not entirely free from that influence. Let us, therefore, look at the matter from his own point of view. Are these transactions speculative in the sense
166
that they are not perfectly legitimate? What is their nature? A coal merchant devotes his thought to the consideration of the trade in which he is engaged, and when he has done so, with an informed judgment, he goes into the market and buys coal, not because he expects to sell it immediately to a particular customer, but because he hopes later on, when the rise which he expects has taken place, to make a profit out of the transaction. Is not that perfectly legitimate? In the same way the coal merchant, under exactly the same considerations, sells coal in advance because he thinks there is likely to be a fall in price, and he hopes later on to make a profit in that way. Surely that transaction is perfectly legitimate so long as it is not on a scale out of proportion to the merchant's capital—so long, that is, as he runs no risk of being unable to fulfil his obligations. It will be said that such transactions are speculative. But all business is more or less speculative. The coal master who sells his coal for six or twelve months in advance is speculating; he cannot possibly know how much it will cost him to extract that coal from the earth. He sells it because he thinks that by selling it now he will get a better price than later on. The coal merchant, who is influenced by exactly the same considerations, and has exactly the same knowledge to guide him, is punished, while the coal master is allowed to go free. That is most unfair, and it inflicts a great injustice on a particular class. Everyone must recognise that one of the strongest qualities of the right hon. Gentleman is determination; we all admire him for it, and we have never seen a better example of it than on this question. When the right hon. Gentleman first considered the question of exempting contracts, he said, "I will only exempt contracts where loss is proved." On further consideration, however, he thought that was unjust, and waived it. But here we have exactly the same principle in a modified, but far more unfair, form. As originally proposed, the coal masters would have had to pay their share, and they were much better able to pay it than the coal exporters. They made large profits from the high prices of coal in the last two years, while probably many—to my

167
certain knowledge some—coal exporters made a loss last year through selling in advance, and having to buy at the exorbitant prices then current. These men thought that this year they would get back some of the loss of last year, but now the Chancellor of the Exchequer steps in and says to them, "I am not going to tax the coal masters, because their way of doing business is perfectly legitimate; but I am going to tax you, because I do not think you do your business in a legitimate way."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No. no.
MR. LAW: That may not be the right hon. Gentleman's motive, but it is the effect. Coal exporters are a very poor class. There are rich firms engaged in the trade, but the majority of those engaged are poor men. There is no trade with which I am acquainted in which it is more difficult to make a living, and in which there is more competition. This class is poor, small, and uninfluential, and they have not a single representative in this House. The coal masters, who are well represented here, and who had made their views so distinctly felt, are most of them indifferent on this question. Why is that? Because, like my right hon. friend, they do not like the way in which these gentlemen conduct their business. But they dislike it on different grounds, not because they think it is an improper way of doing business, but because, like other people, they are influenced by self-interest, and they think that this selling in advance prevents them getting as high a price as they otherwise would obtain. They are, therefore, quite willing to see the coal exporter suffer. The very fact that this class is so uninfluential and defenceless is the greater reason why this House should be specially careful to see that no injustice is done. There is a remarkable anomaly in this matter. If a coal merchant had sold coal on the 1st January, and bought it on the 15th April, he would have been running this risk for three and a half months, would have made a good profit, and would not have had to pay the tax. But if a competitor had sold coal on the 10th April, and bought on the 10th May, he would have been speculating for a much shorter period, would not have made a profit,
168
and would have had to pay the tax. I shall be told that anomalies of this kind are inevitable when a new tax is imposed. There is something in that, but this anomaly is not due to that fact. The cause of the injustice is that the right hon. Gentleman has decided this matter in a purely arbitrary way, and without reference to any guiding principle whatever.
I have put the case as briefly and as clearly as I could. I have no personal interest in the subject; I have taken it up reluctantly, because I thought I understood the question and that a great injustice was being done. I do not ask my right hon. friend to give any promise now, or to make any alteration in the Bill itself. It is simply a question of the interpretation of the Bill. But I do ask him again to give this matter his consideration, to look at it with the impartiality of a judge and without any reference to moral considerations, which really have no bearing whatever on the question. If he will do that, and in so doing finds there is the slightest doubt as to the fairness of this mode of dealing with exemptions, I ask him to give these unfortunate men the benefit of the doubt. I ask him to do this because, although the amount gained to the country is small, the amount of loss and hardship to these men is very great, and will, I am informed, in some cases, be just the difference between solvency and bankruptcy.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My hon. friend has pleaded his case with great ability, and I shall endeavour to show that, although I have some feeling as to the nature of these contracts, my proposed method of dealing with them is not so harsh as the hon. Member supposes, and is guided by a reasonable consideration of the facts. When this question of exempting contracts was first brought before me, this case was put to me. The middle-man—the class for whom my hon. friend is pleading—contracts with the colliery owner for the purchase of coal. He at the same time, or before, or shortly afterwards, sells the coal he has agreed to buy to a foreign purchaser. He is therefore bound on both sides; he is bound by the price he has to pay the colliery owner, and by the

169
price the foreign purchaser has agreed to pay him. The margin between the two prices is apt to be very small—sometimes no more than 4d. per ton. It was pointed out to me that it would be a very grave hardship on the part of the State to exact a duty of 1s. per ton from such a contractor, seeing that he could not have anticipated such a tax, and that his profit on the contract could be no more than perhaps 4d. per ton. I therefore agreed to exempt to a certain date what are called covered "contracts"—that is, contracts for sale covered by contracts for purchase. By that exemption I have deprived the Revenue of more than £650,000 this year. I think my hon. friend, therefore, will admit that, as far as the Revenue is concerned, I have not been illiberal in the matter. But now my hon. friend asks me to go further, and to extend the exemption to the middle-man's contracts for sale to purchasers abroad, which are not covered by contracts for the purchase of coal here—cases, in fact, where a person has sold coal which he has not got, and which, therefore, he can only speculate as to his power to deliver. Those are speculative contracts pure and simple. I am not saying that they are illegitimate or wrong; all I say is that they are speculative. What is the speculation? It is not a question of a difference of 4d. per ton, as in the case of covered contracts. The person making such a contract does so in the hope that he may be able to buy at a much lower price than that for which he has contracted to sell, and he deliberately postpones covering his contract in that hope. I should say that a very small proportion of the ordinary f.o.b. and c.f.i. contracts are uncovered.
MR. LAW: Is not that a reason for not pressing this?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I mean cases where the contract for sale has been of a definite quantity at a fixed price. What happens in such a case as this, where the contract for sale is not covered? We have seen a falling market for the last year. Take a contract for sale made a year ago, when prices were at their maximum, or even as lately as last October, when also prices were very high. I do not say that the contractor for sale to a foreign purchaser got a contract for a year's delivery
170
of coal at the full market rate of that time, but he must have got a high price. He waits to purchase, we will say, until now, or until January, February, or March, with a falling market all the time. If a person made a contract last October for a year's delivery of coal in instalments up to next October, he might now be buying coal at from 9s. to 5s. per ton cheaper, according to the different kinds, than he could have bought it last October, and he would have been coining money out of his speculation. What claim has such a person for exemption? None at all. I have declined, and I must decline, to give it. I must decline to treat contracts which are uncovered on the same footing as contracts which are covered, for the reason that those who make them have speculated on risks far larger than the 1s. duty, and must have succeeded in many cases. But that is not all. There is another class of contracts which I have described as gambling contracts—contracts in which a person not possessing any coal deliberately undertakes to sell an indefinite quantity of coal for a year, or perhaps longer, at a certain price to a purchaser abroad. The purchaser abroad under such a contract may take as much coal as he likes. Supposing prices rise, where is the man who has made the contract? He is half ruined. He has to supply an indefinite quantity of coal—any quantity that may be demanded of him by the purchaser abroad—at a price which perhaps is many shillings a ton less than he has to pay for it. That is a pure gambling transaction, which ought not to be exempted at all, and I do not propose that it should be. But this much I will undertake to do in answer to the hon. Member for North Monmouth. I shall carefully consider all individual cases, such as the hon. Member has referred to—ordinary f.o.b. and c.f.i. contracts for a definite quantity at a definite price which are not covered—in which there appears to be any real hardship. There may be cases in which there are elements of harshness. Take such a case as this, a case in which a man made a contract for sale on April 18. Of course, I should be willing to make some allowance of time to enable him to cover it. Take another case. Supposing that, although a man has contracted to sell a certain amount

171
of coal, he cannot show that that certain amount is covered by a particular buying contract, but still he has the coal If he has the coal, of course that would be taken into consideration. And there may be other cases. Hon. Members have no idea how various these cases are. I can assure them that I should consider all these cases in the spirit I have indicated to the House, and I hope hon. Members will feel that I am prepared to meet them wherever possible.
SIR JAMES JOICEY: I have always done my best in the course of my business experience to thwart those gentlemen who speculate in coal, and I assure the House that they have not much sympathy from me. I cannot, however take quite the same view as the right hon. Gentleman upon this point. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to exempt all contracts for exported coal up to the end of the year, I cannot see how, in reason or justice, he can consistently refuse to exempt those contracts which have been not covered. In this case the coal has been sold for export and the contractors have become liable for duty, and I fail entirely to see how the right hon. Gentleman can refuse to give to them what he has given to the contractors who have covered. It is an injustice not to treat those who have not covered in the same way as those who have covered their contracts. The middleman who desires to sell coal abroad sends out his agent, and very often the coal is bought beforehand. Supposing the coal was bought before the 18th of April, and he came back a month afterwards, he would feel very hardly dealt with if the right hon. Gentleman refused to exempt him under those conditions. I have been annoyed myself when I have given a quotation for a contract in a falling market, when the man has not actually bought his coal for three or four months, and he has been able to purchase on better terms. I think the right hon. Gentleman is losing sight of what is the real position to take up in this matter. I cannot think that he is wise in exercising his discretion in this way. If a man is entitled to exemption, I fail to see why he is not entitled to it even if his contracts are not covered. I have been informed that there have been
172
communications with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the position of these contracts, and there was a meeting on the 3rd of May between the exporters and the Board of Customs. Many gentlemen whose contracts were not covered have been under the impression that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to reserve uncovered contracts; they have telegraphed to customers abroad that all contracts would be exempted, and the customers abroad will hold them to that position. I am afraid that unless the right hon. Gentleman meets the demands which are put forward upon this subject those gentlemen will be obliged to bear the burden of the tax themselves, because there is no chance of getting it from the foreigner. Having had access to the contracts, the right hon. Gentleman may say that there are cases where they have made large profits. I am not going to deal with that question, because profit and loss should not enter into the matter at all. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands where this proposal will lead him to. It would be much wiser and more just to deal with all contracts alike, making no reservations of this kind. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fair-minded, and he is anxious to deal with this question in a just and proper manner. I take a wider view, and I say that in my opinion all contracts entered into before the 19th of April ought to be exempted, for unless that is done, it gives this tax a retrospective operation which has never existed with regard to any tax before. Upon these grounds, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider what we have said upon this point, and I trust he will see his way to put all contracts on the same footing and thus remove this injustice.
MR. M'KENNA: After the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. M'KENNA MR. M'KENNA moved an Amendment for the purpose of extending the discretion of the Treasury as to the exemption of contracts beyond 1st January, 1902, and making that discretion unlimited. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that, in the

173
case of covered contracts, there was a reasonable claim for exemption from the duty. What reason could be urged for limiting the date to the end of this year? He knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a rooted objection to speculation in business, and it might be said that contracts for a longer period were of a speculative character. He suspected that might be the objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but certainly, so far as south Wales was concerned, that argument had no validity. In south Wales there was the system of the sliding scale. If the price of coal went up, wages went up, and if the price went down, wages went down. The rise and fall were quite automatic. The colliery proprietor who had sold for a longer time than the end of the year had not made a speculative sale at all. If the price of coal went up he would make less on the individual contract, but that would be recouped from the fact that on other contracts he would sell at the higher price. The real question behind this point, to his mind, was the effect the tax would have upon labour.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
MR. M'KENNA(continuing) said it had been asserted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the Government that the tax would not and should not affect wages. If this Amendment was not accepted what would be the effect of the tax so far as South Wales was concerned? As the Bill now stood the duty on existing contracts beyond the end of the year would be put upon the colliery proprietor, and it would be held that it should come off the selling price of the coal, which was entered for the audit which took place every two months, and which settled the scale of wages. Therefore any duty on existing contracts which could not be recovered from the foreigner, and which fell upon the colliery owner, must directly affect wages. It reduced the selling price of the coal for audit, and on account of the fall in the selling price there would be a reduction made on the miners' wages. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the Government
174
had declared that this was not to be a tax on labour. He should say, therefore, that all existing covered contracts must be exempted. With regard to the future the Chancellor of the Exchequer held that the duty would not fall upon this country but upon the foreigner. While disagreeing with the right hon. Gentleman on that point he admitted that it was a question for argument, debate, and dispute. But upon existing covered contracts beyond the end of the year there could be no doubt that the duty must fall upon the colliery proprietor or exporter, and if, as the Bill now stood, it was allowed to fall on the colliery proprietor it must fall as to two-thirds on the wages of the miner. Therefore, in order to carry out the intention of the Government with regard to this tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to make no distinction as to the duty on covered contracts. There was another reason why the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment. He had down on the Paper an Amendment to carry out a distinct and definite pledge, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave that, if a form of words could be found which could carry out more appropriately the principle contained in Section 20 of the Customs Consolidation Act, he would accept those words. Section 20 of the Customs Consolidation Act was incorporated in the schedule referring to the coal duty when the Finance Bill was originally introduced, but it was struck out as a consequence of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Islington.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he had carefully considered the words of the Amendment, and he could not accept them. He did not think he had given a pledge as to the acceptance of the principle of Section 20 of the Customs Consolidation Act.
MR. M'KENNAsaid he did not say that. He begged the Chancellors' pardon if he had misunderstood him. When Section 20 of the Customs Consolidation Act was dropped out of the schedule the right hon. Gentleman agreed that if more appropriate words could be introduced into the schedule he would accept those words. He submitted that the words of the Amendment were sufficient and appropriate.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid the hon. Member's remarks were not relevant to the Amendment now under consideration.
MR. M'KENNAsaid he only referred to the other Amendment because the Amendment he was now moving, if accepted, would render it quite unnecessary to move the Amendment on the schedule. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to remove all difficulties, disputes, and discussions by accepting the Amendment which was at present under discussion. There could be no question in principle why in the case of bona fide covered contracts any distinction should be made between 31st December, 1901, and any period subsequent to that date. He knew a case where an exporter had sold for a period of three years 250,000 tons of coal under a covering contract, which gave him a profit of 1½d. per ton How could such a man pay a duty of 1s. per ton? It would cause him a loss of £10,000 or £12,000 on this single contract. He would not mention the name of the gentleman, but he believed he was correct in saying that the sum which the tax collector would compel him to pay was altogether beyond his means of meeting. He submitted there was no possible answer to the claim that such contracts should be exempted from the tax.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 5, to leave out the words 'before the first day of January nineteen hundred and two.'"—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'before the first day of' stand part of the Bill."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: When this matter was first brought under my notice the date which I subsequently adopted, 1st January, 1902, was the latest date suggested by those who argued the question on behalf of the exporters. It was because the customer abroad did not come under British law, and because Section 20 of the Customs Consolidation Act was not applicable to him, that the exemption was granted at all. I had great hesitation in adopting so forward a date. It seems to me a concession of great magnitude, because it will cost the Revenue more than £650,000—perhaps
176
£700,000—this year. It is, therefore, in comparison with the amount of the tax, a much greater concession than that which was given by Sir Robert Peel in 1842, when he allowed no more than four months to elapse from the date of the passing of his resolution till his tax came into effect. I have in this clause proposed to allow something like eight months. That seems to me to be quite as far as we ought to go, and I will tell the hon. Member why. He does not name any date at all. He limits his proposal no doubt to covered contracts, and I can conceive that there may be cases of hardship coming under covered contracts, but I do not think we ought to allow what the proposal of the hon. Member would do—namely, to permit the colliery owner who has contracted to sell his own coal for three years to escape free from the duty all that time, long after the coal produced by everybody else in the country had to pay the tax. The proposal would act unfairly, for the great bulk of long contracts were made with colliery owners rather than with merchants. I admit that the colliery owners may have to bear some part of the tax, but then they can well afford it. I am not prepared to accept the Amendment.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the right hon. Gentleman had hardly grasped at least from the point of view of those in the trade, the force of the observations made by the hon. Member for North Monmouth. At Swansea there were middlemen who were carrying on business, but not in the speculative sense, such as might be described as gambling in futures. They had certain relations with shipowners and with the coal owners in Monmouthshire, and they had friends abroad. Now, if they had made contracts last January or October with two or three colliers with whom they had relations, and if they had made other contracts which only covered half the whole amount they had contracted to supply to the Mediterranean ports, they might be ruined unless their contracts were exempted. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood firm about the question of covered and uncovered contracts, and that the right hon. Gentleman adhered to the exact

177
terms of the clause in the Bill as now amended.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: But with the addition that when they came to executive action the right hon. Gentleman was going to give favourable consideration to any case in which it was made clear that it was not a gambling transaction?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have said I was prepared to consider cases in which there would be great hardship.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid if they were going to trust the Treasury at all to exercise discretion, let them trust the Treasury absolutely. If the Customs authorities said that a certain case was a case for remission, how was that to be dealt with? Were they going to call evidence and hear counsel?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the right hon. Gentleman was afraid to hear counsel and have the matter argued out soundly. He had not heard one single word that would stand the test of any logical analysis in answer to the proposition of his hon. friend.
MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid that in addition to middlemen who made contracts for export abroad, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to consider the case of the colliery owners who had been in the habit of making direct contracts abroad for certain fixed periods. These contracts might be for one or two years, and the custom was to renew them from time to time over many years. Only in that way had the colliery owners a hope of getting a fairly reasonable average price owing to the fluctuations in the market. Contracts were in existence on the 19th April for delivery at the end of June next year, and also for the whole of next year; and it seemed only fair and reasonable that in the case of these bona fide contracts, entered into without the slightest idea that an export duty would be imposed, there should be no time limit. It would remove complications, hardships, and a great deal of the sense of injustice if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to settle the whole matter by exempting all
178
bona fide contracts for export entered into before 19th April last. The loss to the Exchequer would not be of a very serious character, and it would really allay a great deal of feeling against the tax.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not on grounds of generosity, but on grounds of justice to reconsider his decision. Parliament had always recognised that it was unfair to put a tax on a contract of this kind unless there was some method of charging the Customs dues on the consumer. He could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could exempt one contract without exempting all contracts. Surely the colliery owner was as much entitled to justice as any one else; and he maintained that the position in which the right hon. Gentleman had placed himself, was that he was not prepared to give justice in the case of particular contracts. This duty would fall heavily on a few individuals. He admitted that the bulk of the contracts had been made with the colliery owners direct, but there were others which had been made by merchants, and he knew of cases where serious injustice would be inflicted. He maintained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to have the discretion of saying that he would exempt certain contracts and not others. By adopting such a course the House would be creating a precedent which he felt sure they would regret hereafter.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question now is whether there should be a fixed date for exemption.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he felt sure, that, when the whole facts of the case came to be known in the districts which dealt with these matters, a strong sense of injustice would rankle in the mind of every man who understood the business. Undoubtedly this was a most unjust impost.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he desired to enforce the arguments used by his hon. friend the Member for North Monmouth. The effect of the Amendment was to shut out entirely from the discretion of the Treasury exemption in cases of hardship after the 1st January, 1902. The answer of

179
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that they must draw the line somewhere. After all they only asked for the application of the ordinary equitable principle of taxation, that the burden should fall equally on all. Surely it was not unreasonable that the Treasury should have the same discretion in regard to contracts after 1st January as up to that date. Was it fair that one man, because he entered into an ordinary business contract before the imposition of this tax was dreamt of, should, by its operation, lose £10,000 and be driven into the bankruptcy court?
MR. SEELYsaid that, although he saw the point which induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fix a date for exemption, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had fixed it a little too early. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman that a year's contract was a reasonable one, and contracts for such a period were not speculative, but made on purely business lines.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 172; Noes, 121. (Division List No. 324.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Flower, Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick S. W.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Galloway, William Johnson

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

Arrol, Sir William

Garfit, William

Morrell, George Herbert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Morrison, James Archibald

Bain, Col. James Robert

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Baldwin, Alfred

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Mount, William Arthur

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

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.

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

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Myers, William Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Groves, James Grimble

Nicholson, William Graham

Bartley, George C. T.

Hall-Edward Marshall

Parker, Gilbert

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

Hambro, Charles Eric

Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlingt'n

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

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midd'x

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

Percy, Earl

Bignold, Arthur

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Pierpoint, Robert

Bigwood, James

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Blundell, Col. Henry

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bousfield, Wm. Robert

Heath, Jas (Stattords, N. W.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Brassey, Albert

Helder, Augustus

Purvis, Robert

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Henderson, Alexander

Randles, John S.

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne

Bull, William James

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Carlile, Wm. Walter

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Renwick, George

Cautley, Henry Strother

Horner, Frederick Wm.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

Hoult, Joseph

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Round, James

Chamberlain J. Ansten (Worc'r

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Russell, T. W.

Chapman, Edward

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Charrington, Spencer

Kenyon, Jas. (Lancs., Bury)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Knowles, Lees

Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Laurie, Lieut. General

Seton-Karr, Henry

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lawson, John Grant

Smith, H. C. (N'rth'mb., T'neside

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

Cranborne, Viscount

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Spear, John Ward

Crossley, Sir Savile

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Dalrymple, Sir Chas.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Denny, Colonel

Lowe, Francis William

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Stock, James Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Maconochie, A. W.

Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

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

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Finch, George H.

Majendie, James A. H.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Valentia, Viscount

Warde, Col. C. E.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Younger, William

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Wolf, Gustav Wilhelm

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

Webb, Colonel Wm. George

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

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Wylie, Alexander

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Malley, William

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

O'Mara, James

Ambrose, Robert

Holland, William Henry

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Shee, James John

Bell, Richard

Horniman, Frederick John

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Black, Alexander Wm.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Philipps, John Wynford

Boland, John

Joicey, Sir James

Power, Patrick Joseph

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

Price, Robert John

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Joyce, Michael

Reddy, M.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Kearley, Hudson E.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burt, Thomas

Kitson, Sir James

Redmond, William (Clare)

Caldwell, James

Lambert, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Langley, Batty

Roche, John

Cawley, Frederick

Leamy, Edmund

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Channing, Francis Allston

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Clancy, John Joseph

Levy, Maurice

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Colville, John

Lundon, W.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Crean, Eugene

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cullinan, J.

M'Killop W. (Sligo, North)

Soares, Ernest J.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Delany, William

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Strachey, Edward

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Minch, Matthew

Sullivan, Donal

Dillon, John

Mooney, John J.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Donelan, Captain A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Doogan, P. C.

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Murnaghan, George

Tully, Jasper

Fenwick, Charles

Murphy, John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Weir, James Galloway

Ffrench, Peter

Newnes, Sir George

White, George (Norfolk)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Furness, Sir Christopher

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Young, Samuel

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

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

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Samuel Evans.

Hammond, John

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. D. A. THOMASsaid the object of the Amendment he now moved was to extend to the end of the financial year the exemption of the duty. The right hon. Gentleman had been good enough in Committee to extend the date of the exemption up to the 31st of December, and his object in so doing was that all contracts entered into for the year should be exempt. But the right hon. Gentleman was perhaps not aware when he made that concession that it was the practice of the trade in cases where balances were left over—where the contract had not been taken in the period arranged—to still carry out the contracts as if the coal had been delivered in contract time. There was another point to be considered.
182
In almost all contracts entered into there was what was known as a strike clause under which in case of a lock out, strike, or dispute at the collieries, the period of the contract was extended for the period during which the stoppage took place. It was for those reasons that he asked for the extension of the exemption to the end of the financial year. He did not think it would have much effect upon the revenue if his Amendment were accepted, whereas, if it were not, it would inflict great hardship in some cases.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 5, to leave out the word 'January,' and insert the word 'April,' instead thereof."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
Question proposed, "That the word January stand part of the Bill."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think, so far as I can tell offhand, the quantity of coal affected by the Amendment of the hon. Member is 1,500,000 tons. But I cannot accept his Amendment. I do not think it would be reasonable to grant exemption to coal owners after the date of the 31st of December. If there were a case of a middleman who had made a cover contract, and who might suffer serious loss through the cover contract not being carried out, the House would have an opportunity of having it brought before them, and it might then be considered. At present I could not accept the Amendment.
SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid that all that was asked for in the Amendment he rose to move was that the coal in the bunkers for consumption on the outward and homeward voyage should be free from the duty. It was an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman would see the reasonableness of, and he hoped be ready to accept. Assuming that a steamer was leaving a British port with a mixed cargo for Spain or Italy, or some other foreign port, from which they wished to bring a cargo in return of iron ore or some other raw material, it would be the general custom to place on board that ship a sufficient amount of bunker coal to steam the vessel out and home. If the 1s. a ton was put on the coal to be used for the homeward voyage it must be placed upon the cost of the raw material, and to that extent the price of the raw material would be increased.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 8, after the word 'coal' to insert the words 'required for consumption and use during the outward and homeward voyage.'"—(Sir Christopher Furness.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The practice of the Customs at present is to allow what I understand the hon. Member desires to effect by this Amendment, but it has to be subject to precautions against the landing of bunker coal or its transference to another ship. The whole matter is governed by regulations which
184
are administered by the Customs, and which have a material bearing on one another, and I do not think it would be well to insert this particular regulation into the section which gives general powers. I think it might lead to difficulties in the interpretation of the law.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES,in moving to leave out the sub-section which included culm, coke, and manufactured fuel in the definition of "coal," said that he objected to the extension given to the meaning of the term coal. He had on previous occasions given his reasons for that objection, and he proposed now to divide the House unless he obtained from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance which would satisfy him upon the matter. Why should culm be included? The definition of culm was that it was an impure shaley kind of coal. Why should a duty be imposed upon that? What revenue would the right hon. Gentleman derive from a 1s. duty upon such an article? Again, nobody would deny that coke was a manufactured article, but how much was exported? Was it worth while to extend the meaning of the word coal to coke? As to cinders, his knowledge was of a purely domestic character, but he would ask the same question with regard to cinders. Then he came to the most important item, "manufactured fuel," the manufacture of which was a really important industry. In the year 1899 the average sale price of manufactured fuel was 10s. 6d.; in that year the margin of profit, after the cost of manufacture, was duly 6¾d. a ton. If the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon this manufactured fuel being put under the obligation of paying the tax, he would enforce serious loss on the trade, and the result would be that, while patent fuel would still be required by France, which was the greatest consumer, the small coal now used in its manufacture at Swansea and the neighbourhood would be shipped to Dieppe, where the manufacture would be carried on instead of in this country, and in all probability the manufacturers of this country would transfer their capital to another where the taxation was imposed on wiser lines than in this.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 15, to leave out Sub-clause (5) of Clause 3."—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'For the purposes of this Act "coal" includes culm, coke,' stand part of the Bill."
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid it appeared to him that the hon. and learned Member had patent fuel on the brain.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I resent that.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid if the hon. Member resented that he withdrew it, but he had heard rather too much of patent fuel. As the hon. Gentleman said, culm was an article composed of coal dust and clay, and very little of that article was exported, but there was another kind of culm than that to which the hon. Member referred, a great deal of which was exported from this country; most of it would be under the value of 6s., but some of it was of a higher class. Culm last year went up to 12s. a ton, and therefore ought to be classed as coal. Then came coke and cinders. Cinders were exported at 18s. 6d. to 16s. 9d., and manufactured fuel was exported last year at 24s. per ton. For these reasons they had been included in the clause. He did not think the hon. Member need fear the danger to the manufactured fuel industry which he anticipated. Under Clause 7 pitch used in the manufacture of patent fuel would not be taxed at all.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESpointed out that that would be a very small concession if the value of coal used in the manufacture of patent fuel happened to be above 6s.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that the, value of a good deal of coal used for making patent fuel was below 6s. He had cases where 70 per cent. of the coal was below that value, and that would be exempted from duty. If it was above the value of 6s. it would not be exempted.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESasked where the price of 31s. was obtained; he knew of no such price. He was informed the ordinary price was about 14s. 10d.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I am wrong; it is 24s. 6d.
MR. D. A. THOMASsaid that that was the particular point upon which he had risen to correct the right hon. Gentleman, who, although he had been assiduous in getting up his facts, rarely addressed the House without exposing his lack of knowledge of the subject with what he was dealing. When the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the price of patent fuel as being higher than that of the best coal he had talked nonsense.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he had the figures of patent fuel. The only mistake he had made was that he had misquoted the price and had given the price of coke instead of patent fuel. The price of coke went up to 31s., and patent fuel to 24s. 6d. If the hon. Gentleman had had to go through this matter as he had, no doubt he might have made some mistakes.
MR. D. A. THOMASthought that had he been in the right hon. Gentleman's place there would have been no coal duty. He knew of no culm being exported from Cardiff, and he could not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman or thank him greatly for the concession he had made, which was very meagre. With regard to patent fuel, he hoped his hon. friend would withdraw the Amendment, because the concessions the right hon. Gentleman had made left the relative positions in this country and abroad very much as they were before the duty was imposed. He understood that the concessions the right hon. Gentleman had made were that he proposed to exempt pitch used in the manufacture of patent fuel, and that whenever the coal ingredient was below 6s. a ton, patent fuel would be exempt from duty.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid they had a large industry in Scotland which had arisen out of the manufacture of this class of coal, which was called there "dross." They had succeeded, after ten years trial and the institution of a great deal of expensive plant for

187
screening this "dross," in forming a large permanent market for this fuel in Germany and other parts, but owing to their having to pay 2s. 6d. a ton carriage to the port of embarkation, it could not be exported at 6s. a ton, and therefore would not get the rebate which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had conceded. He asked that the industry of Scotland should, therefore, be put on a level with that of Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon the 1s. a ton upon this fuel he would check a large growing industry in Scotland, and the result would be, as in the case of Wales, this "dross" would be sent out of the country and the industry carried on elsewhere. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman's favourable consideration of this matter. It was a most reasonable demand, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not concede it he would cause a great deal of dissatisfaction in Scotland, where a great loss of wages would result, and where a large amount of capital would be compelled to remain idle.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that what the hon. Gentleman was speaking of was simply screened coal and nothing else. He was asking him to exempt coal which was now of the value of 8s. 6d. a ton, screened out of dross.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid it was not a case of screening only, but washing and screening, and taking the shale and dirt out of the dross.
MR. DAVID MACIVERappealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not see his way to make this concession with regard to manufactured fuel.
There was no question in this case of taxing the foreigner; it was a question of taxing a manufactured article, and therefore it seemed to him that it might be left out of the Bill; otherwise they would be taxing one of their own industries.
MR. BOUSFIELDdisclaimed any intention to add to the embarrassment of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, because he had shown a desire to meet everybody fairly; but he wished to point out that this matter deserved a little more consideration than the right hon. Gentleman could be expected to give at present. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman might reserve to himself the right to give consideration to this particular matter, and if it was necessary make a reduction in the price of 6s. Two items had been referred to where 6s. was not the cost of the raw material, but of a manufactured article, with regard to which an exhaustive process had to be gone through before it was given the price value. It was obvious that where the price of a raw material was 6s. and the price of a manufactured article was 6s. they were two different things. He should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would, in a case of this kind, have reserved his right to look more fully into the matter from that particular point of view.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Certainly, I should do that.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 211; Noes, 125. (Division List No. 325.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bignold, Arthur

Chapman, Edward

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bigwood, James

Charrington, Spencer

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bill, Charles

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Arrol, Sir William

Bousfield, William Robert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brassey, Albert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Bain, Col. James Robert

Bull, William James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Cranborne, Viscount

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

Butcher, John George

Crossley, Sir Savile

Balfour, Major K. R. (Christch.)

Carlile, William Walter

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Banbury, Frederick George

Cautley, Henry Strother

Denny, Colonel

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edw.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Finch, George H.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Round, James

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Russell, T. W.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Lowe, Francis William

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Flower, Ernest

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Forster, Henry William

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Seton-Karr, Henry

Garfit, William

Majendie, James A. H.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Malcolm, Ian

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Gordon, Hn.J.E. (Elgin&Nairn

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Smith, H. C. (Northum., Tyneside

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South)

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries-sh.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Gore, Hon. GRC Ormsby-(Salop

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Spear, John Ward

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Stock, James Henry

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S. Edm'nds

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Groves, James Grimble

Morrell, George Herbert

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Hambro, Charles Eric

Morrison, James Archibald

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Thornton, Percy M.

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Mount, William Arthur

Tollemache, Henry James

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

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

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Myers, William Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nicholson, William Graham

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH. (Sheffield

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Helder, Augustus

Parkes, Ebenezer

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Helme, Norval Watson

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Webb, Colonel William George

Henderson, Alexander

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

Penn, John

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Pierpoint, Robert

Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Horner, Frederick William

Plummer, Walter R.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hoult, Joseph

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Purvis, Robert

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

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Randles, John S.

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

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Rankin, Sir James

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Kenyon, James (Lancs, Bury)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carn

Wylie, Alexander

Keswick, William

Ratcliff, R. F.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Knowles, Lees

Reid, James (Greenock)

Younger, William

Langley, Batty

Remnant, James Farquharson

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Renshaw, Charles Bine

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Hayes Fisher.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Renwick, George

Lawson, John Grant

Rickett, J. Compton

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Cawley, Frederick

Fenwick, Charles

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Channing, Francis Allston

Ffrench, Peter

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Clancy, John Joseph

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Ambrose, Robert

Colville, John

Flynn, James Christopher

Atherley-Jones, L.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Cullinan, J.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Black, Alexander William

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Boland, John

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Gilhooly, James

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Delany, William

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Brigg, John

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Broadhurst, Henry

Dillon, John

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Donelan, Captain A.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Doogan, P. C.

Hammond, John

Burke, E. Haviland-

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Hayden, John Patrick

Burt, Thomas

Dunn, Sir William

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Caine, William Sproston

Edwards, Frank

Healy, Timothy Michael

Caldwell, James

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Holland, William Henry

190

191

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Horniman, Frederick John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Soares, Ernest J.

Joicey, Sir James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'ns'a

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Strachey, Edward

Joyce, Michael

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Sullivan, Donal

Kitson, Sir James

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Lambert, George

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, Gower

Leamy, Edmund

O'Dowd, John

Tomkinson, James

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Levy, Maurice

O'Malley, William

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lundon, W.

O'Mara, James

Weir, James Galloway

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, George (Norfolk)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Shee, James John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Philipps, John Wynford

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Power, Patrick Joseph

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Mooney, John J.

Price, Robert John

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Reddy, M.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Murnaghan, George

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Young, Samuel

Murphy, John

Redmond, William (Clare)

Yoxall, James Henry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Roche, John

Newnes, Sir George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Crean and Mr. Tully.

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

MR. JOSEPH WALTON,in moving an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Shields, said that its object was to deal with questions where royalty rates were paid by coal owners upon a sliding scale. The Amendment merely provided that where coalowners exported coal at a price inclusive of the export duty, they should be entitled to deduct the 1s. tax, which they had parted with to the revenue for the purpose of arriving at the actual price received for the coal, upon which the royalty rate payable should be based. This provision was to make clear beyond all doubt that the coal owner should not have to pay 1s. tax and an extra royalty upon that shilling tax. All this was so desirable and equitable that it did not require any prolonged argument.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 16, at end, to add, '(6) In any case where the person paving the duty shall be the tenant of the mines from which the coal shall have been produced, subject to the payment of a rent or royalty, varying with the selling price of such coal, and the coal shall have been sold at a price inclusive of the duty, then the amount of such duty so paid shall be deducted in ascertaining the amount of such selling price for the purpose of determining the amount of the said rent or royalty."—(Mr. Joseph Walton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: So far as I understand it, all that this Amendment proposes to do is that where the royalty
192
consists of a variable amount depending upon the price of coal, and the colliery owner exporting the coal contracts with the foreign purchaser that he, the colliery owner, shall pay the duty as part of the price, then the duty should not be calculated as part of the price which goes into the pocket of the colliery owner for the purpose of determining the amount of royalty he should pay. I think that is a fair proposal, and I see no reason for objecting to it. I may say that I have done what I could in the short time at my disposal since I saw the Amendment on the Paper to communicate with the best authorities on the subject, and I am advised by them that the Amendment may safely be accepted.
MR. D. A. THOMASregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had been in such a hurry to accept the Amendment, as it really opened up a very much larger question, and would form a dangerous precedent to deducting the duty under the sliding scale that regulated wages in South Wales, and in that case labour as well as the royalty owner would have to bear a portion of the tax. The Government had repeatedly stated that under no circumstances were the workmen to bear any portion of this tax, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman should be very careful in accepting any such Amendment.
COLONEL BLUNDELLhaving made two or three remarks

193
which were inaudible in the Press Gallery,
SIR JAMES JOICEYpointed out that in the North of England and in other parts of the country there were a large number of leases the rents of which were fixed according to a sliding scale based on the price f.o.b. The Amendment simply provided that the export duty should not be added to the f.o.b. price. If that were not done, the 1s. would be added to the f.o.b. price, and the royalty owner would practically get an increase of his royalty rent.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that this matter seemed not to touch the revenue at all, but to be simply a matter of principle between the royalty owner and the tenant. In view of the conflicting statements which had been made he thought the Attorney General
should give the House some guidance in the matter.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.) moved to omit the word "tobacco" from line 17, clause 4. Having already fully stated his reasons in Committee, he did not desire to repeat them, and he would content himself by taking a division on the matter.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 17, to leave out the word 'tobacco.'"—(Mr. William Redmond).
Question put, "That the word 'tobacco stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes, 280; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 326)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Burt, Thomas

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Butcher, John George

Edwards, Frank

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Caldwell, James

Elibank, Master of

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Carlile, William Walter

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Arnold Forster, Hugh O.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Arroll, Sir William

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

Fergusson, Rt Hn.SirJ. (Manc'r

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cawley, Frederick

Finch, George H.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worcr'

Flower, Ernest

Balfour, Rt, Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

Channing, Francis Allston

Forster, Henry William

Balfour, Maj. KR (Christchurch

Chapman, Edward

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

Banbury, Frederick George

Charrington, Spencer

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Fuller, J. M. F.

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

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Furness, Sir Christopher

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

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Garfit, William

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Colston, Charles Edward H. A.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Bignold, Arthur

Colville, John

Gordon, Hn.J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

Bigwood, James

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Bill, Charles

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Black, Alexander William

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cranborne, Viscount

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Crossley, Sir Savile

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Bousfield, William Robert

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Brassey, Albert

Denny, Colonel

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Brigg, John

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Greene, Sir E.W(B'rySEdm'nds

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Groves, James Grimble

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hain, Edward

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hall, Edward Marshall

Bull, William James

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hambro, Charles Eric

Bullard, Sir Harry

Dunn, Sir William

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. L'dG(Middl'x

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Morrell, George Herbert

Smith, H.C.(North'mb, Tyneside

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Morrison, James Archibald

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

Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford)

Soares, Ernest J.

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.)

Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

Spear, John Ward

Helder, Augustus

Mount, William Arthur

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

Helme, Norval Watson

Murray RtHnA.Graham(Bute

Stanley,Hn.Arthur(Ormskirk

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

Myers, William Henry

Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Newnes, Sir George

Stock, James Henry

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Nicholson, William Graham

Strachey, Edward

Holland, William Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Horner, Frederick William

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Horniman, Frederick John

Parkes, Ebenezer

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

Hoult, Joseph

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

Thomas, J.A. (Glamorgan, Gower

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley

Thornton, Percy M.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Tollemache, Henry James

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

Penn, John

Tomkinson, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

Plummer, Walter R.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Valentia, Viscount

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Keswick, William

Price, Robert John

Warde, Colouel C. E.

Knowles, Lees

Purvis, Robert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Randles, John S.

Webb, Colonel William George

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Rankin, Sir James

Weir, James Galloway

Lawson, John Grant

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.

Ratcliff, R. F.

White, George (Norfolk)

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Reckitt, Harold James

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Reid, James (Greenock)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Remnant, James Farquharson

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Levy, Maurice

Renwick, George

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

Rickett, J. Compton

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lowe, Francis William

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

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

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Round, James

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

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Russell, T. W.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Wylie, Alexander

Majendie, James A. H.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Younger, William

Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Yoxall, James Henry

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Seton-Karr, Henry

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Haves Fisher.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Ambrose, Robert

Ffrench, Peter

Mooney, John J.

Boland, John

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Murnaghan, George

Burke, E. Haviland-

Flynn, James Christopher

Murphy, John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Gilhooly, James

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Carew, James Laurence

Hammond, John

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Crean, Eugene

Joyce, Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cullinan, J.

Leamy, Edmund

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lundon, W.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Delany, William

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Dillon, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

196

197

O'Dowd, John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sullivan, Donal

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Reddy, M.

Tully, Jasper

O'Malley, William

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Mara, James

Redmond, William (Clare)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Roche, John

O'Shee, James John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange) moved an Amendment to Clause 6, the net effect of which he said would be to increase the percentage of moisture allowed in the manufacture of tobacco from 30 to 32 per cent. Previous to 1898 the percentage allowed was 35, and it was then reduced to 30. That 30 per cent. was not all added moisture, as there was 14 per cent. of natural moisture in the leaf tobacco. The manufacturers, however, could not work up to the full limit of the percentage, as the moisture could not be equally distributed; they had to be prepared for an inspector pouncing upon them, and if in any part of the tobacco more than 30 per cent. of moisture was found they were liable to heavy penalties. They had, therefore, to work up to about 28 per cent. only. This fact, taken in connection with the alteration in the scale of duty, put the trade in a worse position to the extent of a penny per pound than they were in before 1898. The intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doubtless that they should be in the same position as before, but that result had not been obtained. Experience had shown that under these conditions the trade could not produce a proper article for the price. The retail price of the commoner kinds of tobacco had been fixed by long usage at 3d. per ounce, but owing to the circumstances to which he referred it was impossible to produce a proper article to sell at that price. He had in his hand memorials signed by 123 firms, representing the entire trade over the whole of the United Kingdom, setting forth these facts for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was the opinion of the trade, and this Amendment expressed that opinion. In his view it would be a reasonable alteration to make in the scale, and the effect of the Amendment would be to restore the manufacturers to the position they were in in the year 1898, and it would also make it better for the public
198
at large by giving them a better article at the same price.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 24, after the word 'one,' to insert the words 'During the continuance of the siad additional duty on tobacco, section two of The Finance Act, 1898, shall be read as if thirty-two per centum were substituted for thirty per centum."—(Mr. Charles M'Arthur.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. FLYNNsaid that surely they ought to have had a serious Amendment of this character upon the Committee stage. At first blush it seemed to him to be an Amendment entirely in favour of the manufacturers, and he thought it would be a very considerable disadvantage to the consumer. The manufacturer would be able to put more water into his tobacco, and if anybody lost by that it would be the consumer. It was highly inconvenient to bring forward an Amendment of this kind upon the Report stage, for it was never referred to in Committee, and they were now only hearing one side of the question. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not accept the Amendment unless he was able to give some very strong reasons for doing so.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman before he accepts this Amendment will consider it very carefully. If it is accepted it will effect a very considerable alteration in the tobacco trade. I do not know enough about the technicalities of the trade to say whether this Amendment is a good one or not, but it is very inconvenient that this Amendment should be introduced on the Report stage, and also without appearing on the Paper at all. If the right hon. Gentleman finds that there is some justice in the Amendment, perhaps next

199
year it would be advisable for him to consider the question upon its merits. I enter my protest against an Amendment of this kind being introduced upon the Report stage, and without being printed, for the Report stage is usually devoted to the consideration of matters which are unimportant and not controversial. I never heard before of a substantial Amendment of this kind being introduced upon the Report stage.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not my hon. friend's fault that he finds himself in a position in which he is not able to give the usual notice of his Amendment. I think, however, that there is much force in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and also in the objections of the hon. Member below the gangway. Under these circumstances I think it would be the best course if my hon. friend will not press his Amendment now.
MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. O'MARA MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.) moved to leave out Clause 6, as a protest against the duty upon Irish whisky. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no concessions at all in response to the appeals made to him from the Irish Benches.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 7, to leave out Clause 6."—(Mr. O'Mara.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. FLYNNsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer was well aware of their views with regard to the tax upon spirits. It
was well known that they would never get anything from the Chancellor of the Exchequer unless they kept pegging away. They were being taxed upon spirits out of all proportion to the value of the article. During a recent debate he had proved that spirits in Ireland were taxed to the extent of between two-thirds and three-fourths of the entire value of the article, while beer was only taxed to the extent of between one-fifth and one-sixth. Under these circumstances they had no alternative but to move the rejection of the clause. It was a matter of common knowledge that this enormous duty upon spirits placed a new, fiery, and immature spirit on the market, because it would take a large quantity of water, and there was a temptation to keep whisky under twelve months in bond, which was most deleterious to the consumer and profitable to the distiller. Whisky which was properly distilled from good malt was a wholesome beverage, but its production and sale were being severely crushed by this heavy tax. Within the last half century the tax on whisky had increased by some 400 per cent., and he protested against this tax upon whisky as being most excessive and burdensome.
MR. TULLYsaid it was evidently the idea of hon. Gentlemen opposite that beer and spirits should be taxed out of existence, although they were the national drinks of this country before foreign beverages were introduced. When the people in olden times used to live on beer and spirits and home-made bread they were a far better race of people than the race which existed at the present time, which was being fed on tea from China and food supplies from other parts of the world.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 273; Noes, 55. (Division List No. 327.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Arrol, Sir William

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Fuller, J. M. F.

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

Balfour, Maj K R. (Christchurch

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Kenna, Reginald

Banbury, Frederick George

Galloway, William Johnson

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Garfit, William

Majendie, James A. H.

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

Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John

Malcolm, Ian

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfrieshire

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Bignold, Arthur

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bigwood, James

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Bill, Charles

Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

Morgan, David J. (Walthm'w

Black, Alexander William

Gore, Hon. S.F.Ormsby-(Linc.)

Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morrell, George Herbert

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrison, James Archibald

Brassey, Albert

Greene, SirEW(B'ryS.Edm'nds

Morton, ArthurH.A.(Deptford

Brigg, John

Grenfell, William Henry

Morton, Edw.J.C.(Devonport)

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mount, Wm. Arthur

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Groves, James Grimble

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute

Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

Hain, Edward

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hambro, Charles Eric

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bull, William James

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld G.(Midd'x

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

Newnes, Sir George

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Nicholson, William Graham

Butcher, John George

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Norton, Capt. William Cecil

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Caldwell, James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Carlile, William Walter

Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N.W.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cautley, Henry Strother

Helder, Augustus

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

Helme, Norval Watson

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Cavendish, W. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

Cawley, Frederick

Hoare, Edw, Brodie (Hampstead

Pemberton, John S. G.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Plummer, Walter R.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hobhouse, Henry(Somerset, E.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Holland, William Henry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Price, Robert John

Channing, Francis Allston

Hope John Deams (Fife, W.)

Purvis, Robert

Chapman, Edward

Horniman, Frederick John

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Charrington, Spencer

Hoult, Joseph

Randles, John S.

Churchill, Winston S pencer

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Rankin, Sir James

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Colston, Chas. Ewd. H. Athole

Joicey, Sir James

Reckitt, Harold James

Colville, John

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Remnant, James Farquharson

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

Renwick, George

Cranborne, Viscount

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Crossley, Sir Savile

Keswick, William

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Knowles, Lees

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lambert, George

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Robinson, Brooke

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Round, James

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lawson, John Grant

Russell, T. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark.)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Dunn, Sir William

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Seely, Capt. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Edwards, Frank

Levy, Maurice

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Egerton, Hon. R. de Tatton

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Lough, Thomas

Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

Fieldon, Edward Brocklehurst

Lowe, Francis William

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Finch, George H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Fisher, William Hayes

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Soares, Ernest J.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Spear, John Ward

Forster, Henry William

Maconochie, A. W.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants

Foster, Phillips S. (Warwick, SW

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

202

203

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

Stock, James Henry

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Webb, Colonel William George

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

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Weir, James Galloway

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Wylie, Alexander

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

White, George (Norfolk)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Younger, William

Thornton, Percy M.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Tollemache, Henry James

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

Tomkinson, James

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Ambrose, Robert

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Boland, John

Joyce, Michael

O'Malley, William

Burke, E. Haviland-

Leamy, Edmund

O'Mara, James

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lundon, W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Carew, James Laurence

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Shee, James John

Clancy, John Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Power, Patrick Joseph

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Reddy, M.

Crean, Eugene

Mooney, John J.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cullinan, J.

Murnaghan, George

Redmond, William (Clare)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Murphy, John

Roche, John

Delany, William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Dillon, John

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

Sullivan, Donal

Doogan, P. C.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Tully, Jasper

Duffy, William J.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

White,Patrick (Meath, North)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Gilhooly, James

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Hammond, John

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Other Amendments made on Clause 12—
MR. CHANNING*MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.) moved the Amendment of which he had given notice. His desire was to give a moderate relief to all the smaller classes of income-tax payers, who, it seemed to him, had a claim on the attention of the House, as well as those other classes whose interests had been so strongly and reasonably advocated in the course of the debate upon the coal and the sugar taxes. In 1894, in his Budget speech, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth put the reasons for the present Amendment in the strongest possible way. He then said—
"I have always felt, and it is a universal sentiment, that if the income tax is to be maintained at a high figure, and the present rate of expenditure holds out little hope of reduction, we should make some attempt to adjust its pressure so as to make it less intolerable to those who are less able to bear it. Everybody must agree that the pressure of the income tax is most severe upon the class of men of small means and very moderate incomes."
204
At that time the income tax stood at 7d., and was increased to 8d., and out of the yield of that extra penny no less than £840,000 were given back to the smaller income-tax payers in the extension of the abatements. The principle of abatements was further extended in 1898 by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that this was no new principle. The principle had already been twice adopted by the House, and it was the only method by which relief could be given to this particular class. But when the remissions to which he had referred were made, the tax stood at only 7d. or 8d., whereas it had now reached 1s. 2d., with a possibility of it going to 1s. 4d. or even 1s. 6d., and a certainty that it would remain for a number of years at this high rate. If therefore the arguments held good when the tax stood at the lower figure, they were greatly strengthened now that the tax was nearly twice the amount. Every penny added to the income tax meant a greater pressure on the small man,

205
and a relatively increasing pressure on the small man as compared with the wealthier taxpayers. He admitted that it was impossible to arrive at any equitable and exact adjustment of the burdens of taxation, but the further graduations of incomes which he now proposed would afford a fair opportunity of giving some small relief. Doubtless some classes of small income-tax payers had benefited to some extent by the great expenditure in connection with the war, but at the same time they had to meet heavy expenditure in other directions, and in a short time their position would be as disastrous as that of others. For ordinary cases of small professional and trading incomes dependent upon personal effort, and endurance of health and mental powers, the sudden and vast increase had become a tremendous burden. The increase fell on these small incomes under £1,000 a year in almost geometric proportion as compared with the effect on large incomes. Then, again, there were a vast number of persons with small incomes—ladies, retired officers, professional men, and others—for whom a feeling of consideration ought to be shown, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by accepting this Amendment, would be doing to them a just and kindly action. The change would not be of an exceedingly costly character. The alterations of 1894, which were of a much more extensive nature, cost £840,000, but those of 1898 cost the revenue only £100,000. He did not adopt the theory that people should be taxed according to their opinions. Some of his hon. friends were anxious to tax everyone who had expressed opinions in favour of the war. Such opinions, however, had nothing whatever to do with the question of taxation. If the burdens of the country increased, it was the duty of the House to consider the incidence of taxation absolutely on its merits, and to have a considerate regard for those on whom the taxation fell with the greatest severity. He had not the official figures before him as to the loss which the Revenue would sustain by the abatements he suggested. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to regard the suggestions he had made with favour. If the right hon. Gentleman was unable to do anything in this direction at the
206
present moment he trusted that he would consider his suggestions favourably in the coming session.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 31, after the word 'two-pence,' to insert the words—
'(2) Any individual who having been assessed or charged to income tax or having paid income tax either by deduction or otherwise claims and proves in manner prescribed by the Income Tax Acts that his total income from all sources, although exceeding two hundred pounds, does not exceed eight hundred and seventy-five pounds, shall be entitled to relief from income tax equal—

(a) if his total income does not exceed five hundred pounds, to the amount of income tax upon two hundred pounds; and

(b) if his total income exceeds five hundred pounds and does not exceed six hundred and twenty-five pounds, to the amount of the income tax upon one hundred and eighty pounds; and

(c) if his total income exceeds six hundred and twenty-five pounds and does not exceed seven hundred and fifty pounds, to the amount of the income tax upon one hundred and fifty pounds; and

(d) if his total income exceeds seven hundred and fifty pounds and does not exceed eight hundred and seventy-five pounds, to the amount of income tax upon eighty-seven pounds;

and such relief shall be given either by reduction of the assessment or by repayment of the excess which has been paid, or by both of those means, as the case may require.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: When this clause was in Committee we discussed fully the proposals made by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, and I expressed my views upon the general question, and I will not repeat them to-night. I find it quite impossible to attempt any dealing with the income tax in this direction in the present year. It may be that in future consideration would have to be given to the position of the poorer persons who were subject to the income tax, but I do not care to enter into that matter to-night. There is, however, one point in the proposed Amendment which I trust the House of Commons will never agree to. The hon. Member proposes to extend the limit of total exemption from £160 to £200. If I

207
had my way I would much sooner lower the limit of exemption than increase it, for taxation is far harder on the persons who are just above the limit than upon those who are just below it. The hon. Member proposes to raise the amount of abatement upon smaller incomes by twenty-five per cent. throughout until he reaches £870. I can only say in regard to this proposal that I do not think the hon. Member has worked out a scheme which is even theoretically perfect, and I cannot agree to the Amendment.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not intend to discuss the general question, which was fully considered in Committee, but I think this proposal is one simply to extend the principle of abatements, which this House has on many occasions assented to. The original abatement was allowed upon incomes of £100 and £150. But that has been extended to incomes of £700, and it is perfectly clear that there is no reason why the incomes of £700 should be assisted, while larger amounts have to pay the full tax. Upon the general principle of abatements I agree with my hon. friend. As a general principle, I am in favour of the increase of these abatements, because it appears to anybody who has
given the matter any consideration that it is the small class of income-tax payers who suffer the most. I agree with what the Chancellor has said in regard to the extension of the limit of exemption.
MR. FLYNNthought that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not accept this Amendment he might at least give them some indication that he would take into account an increase in the income tax. As regarded abatements, he did not think the hon. Member had gone far enough. It was much to be regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not promised to do something in this direction, if not this year at any rate in future years. The income tax was a great burden upon small traders and struggling, professional men, who had to maintain their families and keep up a good appearance, and if the income tax was increased it would be intolerable to those people with small incomes. If his hon. friend went to a division he should support his Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 184. (Division List No. 328.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Black, Alexander William

Hammond, John

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Boland, John

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Brigg, John

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)>

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)

O'Dowd, John

Caldwell, James

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

O'Malley, William

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jones, William Carnarvonshire

O'Mara, James

Carew, James Laurence

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Clancy, John Joseph

Lambert, George

O'Shee, James John

Colville, John

Leamy, Edmund

Pease, J. A. (Saflron Walden)>

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Power, Patrick Joseph

Crean, Eugene

Levy, Maurice

Price, Robert John

Cullinan, J.

Lough, Thomas

Reckitt, Harold James

Delany, William

Lundon, W.

Reddy, M.

Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)>

Dillon, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Redmond, William (Clare)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Rigg, Richard

Doogan, P. C.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Duffy, William J.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Edwards, Frank

Mooney, John J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Murnaghan, George

Soares, Ernest J.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Murphy, J.

Sullivan, Donal

Ffrench, Peter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Tully, Jasper

Weir, James Galloway

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Channing and Mr. Edward Morton.

White, George (Norfolk)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gordon, Maj Evans. (T'rH'mlets

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gore, Hn. G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Arroll Sir William

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Plummer, Walter R.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S. Edm'nds

Pretyman, Ernest George

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Grenfell, William Henry

Purvis, Robert

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Randles, John S.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Groves, James Grimble

Ratcliff, R. F.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Hain, Edward

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Hambro, Charles Eric

Renwick, George

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen)

Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Banbury, Frederick George

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

Helder, Augustus

Robinson, Brooke

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

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Round, James

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

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Russell, T. W.

Bignold, Arthur

Hoult, Joseph

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Brassey, Albert

Joicey, Sir James

Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Bull, William James

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh.

Seton-Karr, Henry

Butcher, John George

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Keswick, William

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Carlile, William Walter

Knowles, Lees

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Smith, H. C. (Northumb., Tynesd

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

Lawson, John Grant

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Spear, John Ward

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Leveson Gower, Frederick N. S

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r)

Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Chapman, Edward

Lowe, Francis William

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Charrington, Spencer

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Stock, James Henry

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Compton, Lord Alwyne

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Thornton, Percy M.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Maconochie, A. W.

Tollemache, Henry James

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Valentia, Viscount

Crossley, Sir Savile

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Majendie, James A. E.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Malcolm, Ian

Webb, Colonel Wiliiam George

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

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

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

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

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Morrell, George Herbert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Morrison, James Archibald

Wylie, Alexander

Finch, George H.

Mount, William Arthur

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Forster, Henry William

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Galloway, William Johnson

Nicholson, William Graham

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn

Parker, Gilbert

MR. O'MARA MR. O'MARA moved to omit Clause 14. He believed that the suspension of the Sinking Fund was little short of a national calamity. When a similar Amendment was moved on a previous occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Consols fell in value for two reasons. One was that all other securities had also fallen in value. That, however, was not the case, because a reference to the financial columns of any newspaper would have shown that American railway securities, for instance, had not fallen in value, and that the securities of such doubtful States as Brazil, the Argentine, and others had actually risen. The French and English securities had not fallen to any such extent as English Consols. That was a very important thing to Ireland, because when the Irish land question came to be settled next year the value of Consols would have a great deal to do with it. It made the settlement of the land question much more difficult if Consols were at 80 instead of at 114. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the fall in Consols was due to the fact that the public had begun to appreciate that they would only pay 2½ per cent. interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer showed a very poor appreciation of those who invested in Consols. The real reason for the fall was because the suspension of the Sinking Fund had depreciated the price of Consols. By suspending the Sinking Fund the Chancellor of the Exchequer had departed from a well-established practice. During the French war at the beginning of the century whilst this country was piling up hundreds of millions of debt the Sinking Fund was kept in constant operation for thirty-five years. During the Crimean War the Sinking Fund was suspended for only two years. He could not understand how it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had departed from the traditional methods of finance in this country in time of war. It was stated the other night that it was a fallacy not to suspend the Sinking.
Fund whilst the country was borrowing money. All he had to ask in regard to this fallacy was that it had been tried successfully for thirty-five years. While the Chancellor was borrowing the operation of the Sinking Fund was of momentous importance, because it showed that the country was prepared to meet its indebtedness. If the Sinking Fund had not been suspended it would have added greatly to the credit of this country, and it would have produced a feeling of security in the public mind, and it would have prevented Consols falling to their present low price. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would put the Sinking Fund into operation again as soon as possible.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 24, to leave out Clause 14." (Mr. O'Mara.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: When the subject was considered in the Committee stage of the Bill the hon. Member opposite addressed the Committee at considerable length upon this question, and he used precisely the same arguments as he has placed before the House to night. Those hon. Members who sit below the gangway have confined their objections at this stage to my proposals in very short speeches and to divisions. I hope, therefore, that we shall not now be asked to debate this matter again, and I trust that if hon. Members opposite object to the suspension of the Sinking Fund they will content themselves by allowing us now to proceed to a division.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 174; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 329.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bain, Col. James Robert

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Arrol, Sir William

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

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Banbury, Frederick George

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Plummer, Walter R.

Bignold, Arthur

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Pretyman, Ernest George

Blundell, Col. Henry

Heath, Jas.(Staffords., N.W.)

Purvis, Robert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Helder, Augustus

Brassey, Albert

Helme, Norval Watson

Randles, John S.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Hope, J. F. (Sheflield, Brightsd.

Reckitt, Harold James

Carlile, William Walter

Hoult, Joseph

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Renwick, George

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Ridley, Hn.M.W.(Stalybridge)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

Rigg, Richard

Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

Keswick, William

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Charles T.

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

Knowles, Lees

Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Round, James

Chapman, Edward

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Russell, T. W.

Charrington, Spencer

Lawson, John Grant

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. A.

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Seely, Capt. J.E.B.(I. of Wight)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lowe, Francis William

Smith, H. C. (North'mb., Tynes.

Cranborne, Viscount

Lucas, Col.Francis(Lowestoft)

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Spear John Ward

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Maconochie, A. W.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Dorington, Sir John Edward

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

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Kenna, Reginald

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Majendie, James A. H.

Malcolm, Ian

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Edwards, Frank

Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Thornton, Percy M.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Tollemache, Henry James

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Morgan, David J.(Walthams'w

Finch, George H.

Morgan, Hn. Fred(Monmth'sh.

Valentia, Viscount

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morrell, George Herbert

Fisher, William Hayes

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Warde, Col. C. E.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Morrison, James Archibald

Webb, Col. William George

Forster, Henry William

Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

Mount, Wm. Arthur

Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

Wilson, A. S. (Yorks, E. R.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Gordon, J.(Londonderry, South

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

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Gore, Hn GRC Ormsby-(Salop)

Nicholson, William Graham

Wylie, Alexander

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Goschen, Hon. George J.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds

Groves, James Grimble

Parker, Gilbert

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Hain, Edward

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

NOES.

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Crean, Eugene

Caldwell, James

Cullinan, J.

Black, Alexander William

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

Boland, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Delany, William

Brigg, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Dillon, John

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Colville, John

Doogan, P. C.

214

215

Duffy, William J.

Levy, Maurice

Power, Patrick Joseph

Lundon, W.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Reddy, M.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Ffrench, Peter

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Flynn, James Christopher

Murnaghan, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Murphy, J.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Gilhooly, James

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Hammond, John

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Tully, Jasper

Hope, John Deans(Fife, West)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Weir, James Galloway

Joicey, Sir James

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jones, David Brynmor(Swan'sa

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Douelan.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Lambert, George

O'Malley, William

Leamy, Edmund

O'Mara, James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

O'Shee, James John

MR. M'KENNAsaid he desired to move the Amendment of which he had given notice in an altered form in order to meet the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Through the addition of the last proviso the Amendment did not go quite so far as he would have wished, but at that late hour of the sitting he would not detain the House by going further into the matter. He begged formally to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 16, to add the words, '6. In the event of coal duty being paid by a colliery proprietor upon coal sold by him free on board to a purchaser in pursuance of a contract made before the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and one, the seller may, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, recover as an addition to the contract price of the coal a sum equal to the amount of duty so paid, unless the purchaser shows that the coal has been applied for the purpose of fulfilling a contract made by him before the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and one, for the sale of the coal at a specified price.'"—Mr. M'Kenna.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment in this form.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that the objections which at an earlier stage he had urged against the whole of the fourth schedule had not been met. The schedule incorporated clauses of an Act
216
of Parliament obviously directed to the question of import duties, whereas the House was now dealing with export duties. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly said that if he (the hon. Member) would bring up certain words in regard to the clauses in question he would consider them. The matter, however, had been so hurriedly pushed forward that he had had really no opportunity for consideration. At that late hour he could only enter his protest against the manner in which this schedule was being rushed through by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As he had already pointed out, the schedule gave the Treasury power to say that no coal should be exported from Leith or Port Talbot, under Section 16 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876. The responsibility, however was not his, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer's.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid the clauses were perfectly capable of being worked. In fact, they were being worked at the present moment. As the hon. Member knew, the export from Neath or Port Talbot had not been stopped, and was not likely to be.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Adjourned at twenty minutes after One of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Third Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. LOUGHsaid he was sorry to intervene at this stage, but he thought a very important principle was involved in the point he was about to raise, and felt bound to call the attention of the House to it. This Bill contained a proposal by the South Metropolitan Gas Company to raise additional
  † See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxv., p. 592.
  10
  capital, and the Committee had varied one of the Standing Orders of the House with regard to the conditions under which the capital was to be raised. The Standing Order was perfectly clear and definite with regard to what should be done by every gas company and every water company when it wanted additional capital. It said that in every Bill to authorise the raising of additional capital provision should be made for the offering of such capital by public auction or tender at the best price at which it could be bought, and if the Committee recommended any variation from that condition it was bound to state its reasons. That Standing Order imposed upon the House fundamental principles with regard to gas and water legislation. It provided that whenever any additional capital was issued it should not be offered to any favoured class of stockholders or consumers, but should be offered to the public, and should be sold to the highest bidder. That was known as the Auction Clause, and it was embodied in every Act dealing with this matter. Before the Auction Clause was introduced scandals arose with regard to the allotment of capital in these companies. The shareholders had had a right, whatever capital was required, to claim that it should be allotted to them at par price; and this scandal had been found so serious that the House of Commons in 1876 adopted the Standing Order which was embodied in the Auction Clause. The Standing Order constituted no hardship to the companies, because it gave them the very thing which a company wanted; it gave them their capital at the lowest prices at which it could be obtained; but this Committee had been induced by the company to allow its stock to be offered to the employees of the company, or consumers of the company's gas, at £5 below the market price. That was a very extraordinary clause, and, if the House would look into it, it would be seen that it was not even provided that all the consumers, or all the employees, should lave an opportunity of taking the stock. £5 was a compromise. The first proposal had been that it should be offered at £7 10s., and it was only on the inducement of a friend of his, who was a member of the Committee, that the figure of £5 was decided upon. This was a very

  11
  serious matter, because if £5 was to be adopted in this Bill why should not £10 be inserted in any other Bill? It constituted a most serious infringement of the principle laid down with regard to this legislation during the last twenty-five years. The Committee were supposed to give reasons for making a change in the Standing Order. What were their reasons in the present case? The Committee said that evidence was laid before them that the proposed variation would be such as to carry out very effectually the object of the Auction Clause; namely, to obtain for all capital issued by the company the highest possible price. But that, he submitted, was not a good reason for a variation of the Standing Orders of the House. The Report said that the object of the Standing Order was to secure that capital should be allotted at the highest price obtainable at the time. The idea was to prevent any hole-and-corner work—to prevent any favoured class from securing the stock which a public company under Act of Parliament had to offer. They ought to look at the effect which this proposal would have upon the public. This was a very large company, which had a big capital held by the public, and he believed the Committee were induced to allow the capital to be offered in this manner by the idea that the company was to be converted into a sort of co-operative undertaking. But, as a matter of fact, this was not a co-operative undertaking, because, although there were some two hundred thousand consumers of the gas, the stock-holders only numbered about ten thousand. There was indeed no intention of converting the company into a true co-operative company. The effect of the proposal of the Committee would be that the large bulk of the capital of the company held by the public would be depreciated by the fact that the allotment of the capital had been made at a lower price to a favoured circle. He believed the Committee were induced to pass the clause by the most able gas-manager of the South Metropolitan Company, for whose ability he had the, highest respect. He told the Committee that sometimes the auction was not a success. As a matter of fact, of course, the market was sometimes "sick." There might be war rumours about, and consequently
  12
  it was not always possible to get a good price for this stock. But he was quite willing to meet the company on that point. He would agree that they should be allowed to dispose of the stock in the way they proposed when the auction had taken place. The object which the Committee had in view might have been secured in a better way without the infringement of the Standing Orders of the House, and he therefore begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the question, in order to add the words 'the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Clause 5 (Sale of unissued stock), and that the Committee have leave to-sit and proceed forthwith.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BANBURYsaid this was one of those matters which were extremely awkward, because the House could not possibly understand it unless they had before them the evidence which was laid before the Committee dealing with the Bill. But he hoped to be able to show the House in a very few moments that the argument of the hon. Member opposite was quite illusory. What was really the reason for introducing what the hon. Member called the Auction Clause? It was found in the old days that when the stock of a company was at £150, and new stock had to be issued, it was issued to the shareholders at £100, and the consequence was that they had to issue a larger amount of stock than was actually necessary in order to obtain the money that was required. That was a great disadvantage to those who were permanent shareholders in the company, because it compelled it to pay smaller dividends. It was, in fact, an advantage to no one except to those few people who, having some knowledge of what was being done, would buy up a certain amount of stock in order to obtain the premium which resulted from the allotment. Therefore the Auction Clause-was very excellent in its way. Its object

  13
  really was that the stock when issued should be sold at the highest price obtainable, and he would like it to be borne in mind that, although it was called an auction, the practice was to issue advertisements for tenders for the stock. It was a very excellent arrangement as long as it secured the end of obtaining the highest possible price, and at a time-when there were great demands for this class of stock, and when, so to speak, the people were tumbling over one another in order to obtain it, it resulted satisfactorily. But that was not always the case, and he could mention instances where a parson, a widow, or a foolish person had paid as much as 5, 6, or 7 per cent. over the market value in order to get this class of stock. The London County Council now issued their stock at fixed prices and not by tender, and the only object of the proposal in this Bill was to give the alternative to the company to follow that example. It seemed to have been forgotten that under the Bill, before the company could issue its stock at fixed prices it would have to obtain the sanction of the Board of Trade. He thought that the £5 which had been fixed upon in the Bill was a rather larger margin than was actually necessary. An absolute margin was difficult to fix, but the issue at 5 per cent. below the market price when they wanted to get their money readily was not too much, while, on the other hand, when the Bank rate was 2 per cent., 5 per cent. was too much. But that was subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, which would take into consideration all the facts, and before they gave their consent would have regard to these facts. All that the clauses did was to give the company an alternative in issuing their stock to put it in such a way as would give them the largest price. The hon. Member said that he would be quite content if the company issued the stock at a fixed price after instead of before the auction sale, or before tenders were invited. But supposing tenders were advertised for and nobody tendered. So long as human nature was what it was people would say, "Oh, you offered your stock by public tender and nobody would take it. We do not want it now." That would be the very worst possible manner in which to
  14
  issue stock. When they wanted to offer a thing to a person expecting to have it accepted they must not offer it to somebody else beforehand. For the reasons which he had given, and which had been well considered by the Committee upstairs, the proposal could not easily result in injury to any person, but would probably result in advantage to the public, inasmuch as it gave the company an alternative method of issuing their stock; and therefore he hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
  *MR. TAYLORsaid the hon. Member for West Islington had declared that this most important variation on the Standing Order had been made for no reason whatever, and that the result would be that the stock would go at a lower price. But what interest had the company to take steps to lower the price of their own holding? The very direct contrary was the case. Their desire was to get the very best possible price for their stock, and they would take their own time to realise it. They had found out from recent experience that the best way to get a good price was to offer a chance of obtaining the stock to their customers, to shareholders, and to the servants of the company. The company had already been doing splendid work in the way of profit-sharing with its employees, with the result that they had an interest in the capital of the company to the extent of £100,000, derived from their share of the company's profits. That was a feature which was worthy of the attention of the House. He did not wonder that the Committee had encouraged the company to share profits with their employees, for the price of their gas was lower than that of other companies, and they paid their employees higher wages. Why? Through the business capacity of the manager, Mr. Livesey, and their adoption of the profit-sharing principle on his recommendation. The facts had amply justified the Committee upstairs in making the exception they had done as to the rules and the issue of stock. There was no doubt that in issuing the stock they would depress the value of the stock as little as possible. They all knew that the first effect of the issue of fresh stock was to depress the value

  15
  of the rest of the shares, but they might safely leave such a company as this, under such able management, with such privileges as the Bill provided.
  *SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid that as Chairman of the Committee which had considered this Bill, he might be allowed a few words in reply to the hon. Member for West Islington. He had had the honour of sitting on Committees upstairs for over twenty years, and for many years past he had been a Chairman of Committees, and he was free to admit that the decision come to on this question was one which, perhaps, had never been adopted before in regard to the Standing Orders. But still, times varied, and matters varied in regard to company legislation in many respects. The evidence which was put before the Committee as to the very able manner in which this company has been managed by Mr. Livesey was overwhelming. Many hon. Members of the House knew how this energetic gentleman had done more for gas companies than any man living. On the evidence the Committee were perfectly justified in adopting the course they had done The hon. Member for West Islington had read a portion of the evidence given upstairs, but the effect of another part of the evidence was that the object of the auction sales was to ensure the issue of new capital at market price. It was put before the Committee in the most conclusive manner by Mr. Livesey that raising money by tender or through auction sales had not been in any way a success. In fact, during last winter and the winter before the South Metropolitan Company had very great difficulty in raising money by tender. It was necessary to fix a reserve price, and if this was done, a large proportion of the stock was not sold. The number of buyers attending the sales by auction was very limited, and it was found that investors preferred dealing at a fixed price. That had also been the experience of the Government and the London County Council. It was the desire of the South Metropolitan Company to place a large number of their shares in the hands of their consumers, who numbered 200,000, the shareholders, who numbered 9,000, and the employees, who numbered 2,000.
  16
  The Committee were well aware that this was to a certain extent a novel clause which had been inserted in the Bill, but taking everything into consideration they were of opinion that they did right in allowing the clause; and he hoped the House would sustain the Committee in the decision they had come to, reject the Amendment, and read the Bill a third time.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was afraid that the speeches of the Chairman of the Committee and the hon. Member for Radcliffe had only convinced him that the Bill ought not to pass the Third Reading. These hon. Gentlemen placed their arguments solely on the ground of the particular merits of the chairman of the company. He did not deny the merits of Mr. Livesey, who had conducted the company to the great advantage of the shareholders and the consumers. He saw no great objection to the issue of capital at a fixed price if the public were allowed to participate in the issue; because there was no doubt the tender system had become very difficult in working. He was afraid that if the House allowed the proposal in the Bill it would be extended to other cases, and the object of the Standing Order, which was that the best price obtainable should be got, would disappear.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith)said that the question debated had resolved itself into the consideration of whether the Standing Order had been set aside or evaded. He was sure the House would insist upon its Standing Orders being respected; and if he had thought that in this case the Standing Order referred to had been distinctly set aside by the Committee he would have taken upon himself the duty of bringing the matter before the attention of the House. But that was not his opinion on this occasion. The hon. Member for West Islington, who introduced the discussion, cited a recent case, but hon. Members would remember that in that case he took upon himself the duty of bringing before the House the fact that he thought that one of the Standing Orders had been evaded. What

  17
  was the Standing Order in point? It said—
  "In every Bill by which an existing gas or water company is authorised to raise additional capital, provision shall be made for the offer of such capital by public auction or tender at the best price which can be obtained."
  If the Standing Order had stopped there the case of the hon. Member would have been complete; but it went on—
  "Unless the Committee of the Bill shall report that such provision ought not to be required, with the reasons on which their opinion is founded."
  It would be seen that a dispensing power was given by the Standing Order to the Committee; and the Committee, whether wisely or not he was not prepared at present to argue, for he had not heard all the evidence, had on this occasion exercised that dispensing power. They might have been convinced by the admirable way in which Mr. Livesey gave his evidence as to the past history of the gas market, or as to the present state of the market. There might be a number of other matters which might have induced the Committee to conceive that, in this instance, it was not necessary to insist upon the Auction and Tender Clause. That being so, and the Committee having exercised their discretion after hearing the evidence, he could not ask the House to set aside their decision. Seeing that the Standing Order of the House had not been violated, he ventured to suggest that the motion of the hon. Member for West Islington be rejected, and that the Bill be read a third time. With regard to the point which the hon. Member for West Islington made, that under the clause as it now stood the stock might be offered to certain gas consumers and other persons, Mr. Livesey yesterday informed him that he was perfectly prepared to insert the word "all," so that there was no possibility of the stock being offered to particular individuals or sets of individuals.
  MR. STEACHEYsaid he would not have intervened were it not that he thought it right that the House should be made aware that the Committee was not unanimous in the matter. He himself, as a member of
  18

  the Committee, divided it on practically the matter now before the House. The Committee went very carefully into the evidence, and he had not the slightest doubt that the majority of the Committee were influenced by the able and clever evidence of Mr. Livesey, the chairman of the South Metropolitan Gas Company. He would venture to point out to the Committee that a Select Committee had been appointed by the House especially to consider this question, and he believed it unanimously reported against the proposal in the Bill. Then the question had come on previous occasions before various Committees of the House, and on every such occasion the Committee had refused to abrogate auction clauses. He thought also the House ought to consider the question of price. The hon. Member for Peckham, who was a great authority on financial questions, said that a £5 discount seemed to be too high, yet the company actually asked for £7 10s. discount, showing that their real object was to give the consumers stock under the market price, to give them an opportunity of buying stock and then selling it at a profit. In his evidence Mr. Livesey said that he made no secret of the fact that he had purposely evaded the auction clauses, and that the company managed to advertise the auction in such a way that as Mr. Livesey very fairly said, nobody would be aware that stock was being offered. He thought the present was neither the time nor the occasion to go back on previous decisions of Committees, and also the Report of the Select Committee, and to abrogate the, auction clause. In his opinion the South Metropolitan Gas Company were anxious to form themselves into a great society composed of shareholders who were also consumers. No doubt such societies might be very desirable and proper, but they should also consider the interests of the working man who was not able to invest money, and who perhaps was only a temporary consumer. The House should not make gas dearer for the poor consumer, even though it made it cheaper for the rich consumer who was also a shareholder. He therefore very strongly supported the motion of his hon. friend to recommit the Bill, and he thought the House ought to pause

  19
  before departing from previous decisions, and also from the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the matter.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 252; Noes, 112. (Division List No. 242.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Denny, Colonel

  Joicey, Sir James

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Aird, Sir John

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Arrol, Sir William

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Ellis, John Edward

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Austin, Sir John

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Leng, Sir John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Finch, George H.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Balfour, Maj. K. R (Christchurch.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bigwood, James

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Bill, Charles

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Black, Alexander William

  Flower, Ernest

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum., Penr.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bond, Edward

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Galloway, William Johnson

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

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Garfit, William

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

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Brassey, Albert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Malcolm, Ian

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Middlemore, John T.

  Burt, Thomas

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds

  Milton, Viscount

  Caldwell, James

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gretton, John

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Carlile, William Walter

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hain, Edward

  Moss, Samuel

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Mxrray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Myers, William Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Coddington, Sir William

  Helder, Augustus

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H

  Peace, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

  Colston, Charles Edward H. A.

  Holland, William Henry

  Penn, John

  Colville, John

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Crombie, John William

  Hozier, Hon. James Herny C.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Purvis, Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Randles, John S.

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Spear, John Ward

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Robinson, Brooke

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Stroyan, John

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  TELLERS FOR THE Ayes.—Mr. Banbury and Mr. Renshaw.

  Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  O'Mara, James

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Labouchere, Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Boland, John

  Lambert, George

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Brigg, John

  Langley, Batty

  Reddy, M.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Burns, John

  Leamy, Edmund

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lundon, W.

  Russell, T. W.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Dillon, John

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Strachey, Edward

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Morley, Rt. Hn John (Montrose

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dunn, Sir William

  Murnaghan, George

  Wallace, Robert

  Edwards, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Field, William

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lough and Captain Norton.

  Harwood, George

  O'Dowd, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALErose to move that the Bill should be read a second time upon this day six months.

  23
  He said that the promoters desired to carry out improvements which would give them facilities for the further development of their passenger, goods, and mineral traffic. Clause 23 enabled the two companies, or either of them, to apply for the whole or any purposes of the Act any money they had now in their hands, or which they had power to raise by shares or mortgage, and which might not be required for the purposes for which the same were authorised to be raised. While it was proposed to develop the line, there was no attempt, there was not even a suggestion for enlarging the London stations, where the accommodation was already in some respects inadequate to meet the expected increase in the traffic. It appeared to him that the companies wanted to enlarge their bottle to the size of a magnum or Jeroboam, leaving the neck at its original diameter. The contention of the Corporation of London was that, while these improvements might be necessary, they could very well wait until the companies fulfilled their far more serious obligations to the public by making their London termini adequate to their requirements. He could name a station, a timber structure, badly lighted, which had rather the appearance of a neglected temporary building than of a station of considerable importance. The approaches to the station and the platforms were badly arranged and quite inadequate, and, altogether, the station was not only inconvenient and inadequate for its requirements, but absolutely unsafe for the public. The attention of the Corporation of London was called to this and another station as far back as 1898, and they called the attention of the railway companies to these defects, but up to this moment nothing whatever had been done except to provide a few extra lamps. The Corporation of London endeavoured to bring pressure to bear upon the railway companies, and only withdrew their opposition to the company's Bill of last session on the understanding that these important and serious matters were to have the immediate attention of the directors. But the company, having got the Second Reading of their Bill, practically told the Corporation that they had gained their
  24
  object and that the Corporation had no locus standi, and in consequence the undertaking of the railway companies was nugatory. Another Bill was now before them, but there was no proposal in it to do anything to further the interests and the safety of the community. The attention of the Board of Trade had been called to the matters of which he had been speaking, but the company had held the Department, as it had held the Corporation, at arm's length for over two years, and now he did not think it was too much to say that they seemed very much disposed to flout the House of Commons. All the Corporation desired was to have a locus standi before the Committee upstairs to which the Bill would be referred, but, as the company refused to meet them in any way, he had no alternative but to move that the Bill be read that day six months.
  DR. MACNAMARA,in seconding the Amendment, said he did not speak on behalf of any municipality, but on behalf of the working class community of South London who used the surburban line of the company. The Bill was one to extend the operations of the company, and to extend the time for the completion of certain works and widening its lines, and by Clause 23 to use the money the company had in hand for the purpose. He should vote against giving this company any extension of power, against giving it any further concession, until it had fulfilled the obligations into which it had entered in respect of previous Acts of Parliament. Its station at Ludgate Hill was a filthy and foul-smelling rabbit hutch, which, being in the very centre of the greatest city in the world, was a scandal to those who allowed it to remain there, was a comment on the happy-go-lucky conduct of the cockney in all things, and ought to be swept away as an insanitary area at the earliest possible date. There were other considerations which applied to those who used the line every day. The rolling-stock of the company was filthy and dirty to the last degree, the carriages were ill-lighted, and the whole machinery was of the most slovenly and slipshod character. He had sat in a compartment in one of the trains

  25
  of this company at Victoria, and within five minutes of the departure of the train an official came and swabbed the windows of the compartment while the passengers were in it. At one station he had seen the carriages being swept while the people were in them. The dirty and filthy character of the second and third class carriages and their overcrowded condition was well known. At Herne Hill Station, if a passenger took a first-class ticket and afterwards managed to get a seat upon a fish-box in the guard's van he was very lucky indeed. On behalf of the working-people of South London, who were bitterly opposed to any extension of the powers of this company, he objected to this Bill being passed until they had carried out their obligations contained in former Acts of Parliament.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir Joseph Dimsdale.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  *MR. HAYsaid he desired to endorse all that had been said by his hon. friend the Member for the City of London in regard to the insufficient accommodation provided by this company. They had been told that this was an innocent Bill, and that it would be unfair for the House to punish the company in respect of this Bill because of its shortcomings in other respects. Though this might be a small Bill, to buy a portion of a biscuit factory, it had underlying it grave questions of public policy. When they came to discuss those questions they were met by the reply of the company that unless they gave them the Bills as they presented them to the House they would withdraw them. In other words, the House of Commons was to be reduced to being the obsequious servant of the directors of this company. His main objection to the Bill was that it was a tinkering Bill. Those who had studied the system of the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway would agree that the only remedy for what were evils so far as the public were
  26
  concerned was a statesmanlike reform in the affairs of the company, and in its service to the public. Year after year fresh powers were sought in order that a little bit of land here or there might be added to the property of the company, but nothing was done in the true sense to secure for the two millions-of South Londoners adequate and cheap access from their homes to the scene of their labours. He would refer very briefly to the clauses of the Bill. Clauses 15 to 21 by no means showed or justified the allegation of the supporters of this Bill that it was simply a measure to purchase a portion of a biscuit factory. Those clauses altered the time limit in respect of previous Acts of the company, and when they came to consider how far the company had exercised the powers from which it now sought exemption, they would find that even the facilities given on the South Eastern railway for lads to attend cricket matches had been withdrawn. A very large section of people known as the lower middle class, who had to be punctual in their attendance at their work if they were not to lose their means of livelihood, had been absolutely precluded from any possibility of living upon the line of this company owing to the disgraceful unpunctuality in the train service, and which would continue unless the House of Commons pulled up this company sharply, and made it behave itself. This condition of things would be made far graver and more intolerable if they allowed those clauses to pass than would appear at first sight. The company was persistently defeating the efforts of Parliament to promote the industrial and physical well-being of the people, by forcing vast numbers of the industrial classes to reside in crowded inner London owing to the lack of trains to and from the outskirts and the excessive fares demanded. The company thus actively promoted all the evils to the physique and morals of the urban population which are inseparable from overcrowding and unsalubrious surroundings. In proof of this he referred to Clause 19. The company pulled down houses in Bermondsey, and, when the Home Secretary remonstrated with it for evading its statutory obligations, the company made a hasty temporary ar-

  27
  rangement with the Guinness trustees, who had erected a block of buildings near, to relieve the terrible destitution of the population. This was not only a mischievous evasion by the company of the law of the land, but an injury inflicted upon a densely-crowded area, because the company did not build houses in the neighbourhood, and because it appropriated sorely-needed house room which had been provided for that neighbourhood by a philanthropic body. A further injury which this company had inflicted upon the labouring classes of the community was that caused by a sudden, unjustifiable, and an illegal reduction in the housing accommodation of the district, which had the effect of increasing the already prohibitive rents. An appeal against this state of things was made to the Home Secretary, and then the company bought the site dealt with under Clause 19 of this Bill. The company boasted that it had spent £80,000 in Bermondsey to satisfy the requirements of this House, but the company forgot to say that after having procured that site, and after having obtained all the necessary powers required to deal with it, ever since October last that land had been vacant. He had been told that this land had remained vacant because the company were waiting the approval of the Secretary of State to the whole scheme of which this land formed a part. He thought those who had given any attention to this subject would be very much surprised if his right hon. friend announced to the House that he had been the agency by which for something like nine months this site for the housing of the working classes of London had remained vacant when that site was specifically devoted by him, as the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to rehousing those who had been found to have been neglected by the railway company under its legal powers. He hoped that they would be told why the piece of vacant land had been allowed to remain vacant; he believed it was due entirely to the mischievous evasion on the part of the company of its statutory obligations. The efforts of the directorate and the officials of this company seemed to be directed to trying both in spirit and letter to evade the laws of
  28
  Parliament whenever the housing of the poor was concerned. The population of Bermondsey was a wharfside population. It had to live within hail of its work, which was casual and ill paid, and it was in such a district that this company reduced valuable house room. This district was becoming more and more overcrowded, and the public health of the inhabitants was, consequently, being more and more endangered. The district had been aptly described as a wilderness of poverty, and the reduction of house room there had resulted from the acquisition of property by this company.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is now entering on the general question of the housing of the working classes in London, which on this Bill he cannot do.
  *MR. HAYsaid that in deference to that ruling he would not pursue the argument he was endeavouring to elaborate. It was obvious, however, that if the land was allowed to remain vacant there would be overcrowding in the neighbourhood. The powers which had been conferred on the company in the immediate past had not been exercised properly or with a due regard to the real intention of Parliament.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he was rather surprised that the extreme strength of the language used against the Bill had not been accompanied by an equal strength of argument. He was afraid they had become accustomed in this House to denunciations of these two railway companies. He was not in any way connected with the railways, but he thought the House ought to pause before taking the extreme step of rejecting the Bill, which carried out the understanding arrived at when the amalgamation was sanctioned two years ago. One of the principal conditions was that the access to London should be improved, so that Kent especially should have the facilities for traffic which it deserved. The widening proposed had nothing to do with Ludgate Hill Station, but it was an essential feature of any improvement in the line. The supporters of the Bill pleaded for it because they believed these two companies could never have a chance

  29
  of improving themselves unless they were given the powers which were asked for in the Bill. It was on that ground alone that he would ask the House to send the Bill in the usual way to a Committee upstairs for consideration. He did not think this was the time to consider the condition of the stock of the Chatham Company, upon which many Members, perhaps, would have something to say. They had been spending a large amount of money in trying to bring up the arrears of very inefficient management in the past. The question of the housing of the working classes had been raised, and he thought he ought, in fairness to the House, to state how that was affected by the Bill. Although the model clause had been put into the Bill the company need not have put it in, because the powers sought in the Bill only affected six houses, making eleven tenements; therefore they had not the limit of twenty required for the clause. That was the sole interference contemplated in consequence of the arrangements that came under this Bill. Delay had been caused in carrying out part of the work owing entirely, he believed, to protracted negotiations with the County Council in connection with the southern approach to London Bridge. These negotiations were now concluded and the plans had been submitted to the Home Secretary. There was no reason why that statement should not go forth. The provisions of the Bill were of vast importance to the great mass of the public who used these lines, and on that ground he with confidence asked the House to pass the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that two years ago he had the pleasure of opposing the amalgamation of the South Eastern and the Chatham and Dover Railways. On that occasion the opponents of the scheme were beaten. Mr. Cosmo Bonsor told them that everything would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds if the amalgamation took place. Since that time things had not changed. The Chatham and Dover was as bad as it was before the amalgamation, and the South Eastern did not appear to have made it any better. The amalgamation of these undesirables seemed to have produced the worst rail-
  30
  way in the United Kingdom. It had been stated that the object of the Bill two years ago was to improve the London termini. What attempt had been made to do that? Absolutely none at all. Everyone who knew Kent would admit that the way in which these two railways had treated the county was a disgrace to the companies and damaging to the interests of agriculture. The hon. Member for the Ashford Division had spoken about the inefficient management in the past, but in this Bill there was no evidence that the management was going to be rectified. It was a very difficult and, from many points of view, a dangerous thing to throw out a railway Bill. Personally he did not think a railway Bill or a private Bill should be thrown out unless serious reasons were advanced and great causes were stated. The slowness of locomotion, the inconvenience of our railway stations, and the difficulty of housing the poor were serious problems with which the railway companies generally had not grappled as they ought to have done.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is aware that he cannot enter now into these general questions, which are common to all the railways of London.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: continuing, said that the South Eastern and Chatham Company had taken no special steps to deal with this problem, but nevertheless they now came to Parliament to seek power to divert the money which they got by previous Bills for the purpose to carry out other enterprises. It was because there was no evidence that the companies were likely to improve their stations that the City Corporation interfered. The Corporation of the City was not in the habit of worrying capital. It had hitherto been a friend of these particular companies, and had given them special facilities, but now the Corporation had taken up a different attitude. It saw that the Ludgate Hill Station was very dark and dangerous, and contended that the money which ought to be spent upon its improvement should not be devoted to other uses. Now, the City Corporation was the statutory authority and guardian of the public welfare in this respect; but the London County Council, although it had no

  31
  locus standi, joined with the City Corporation in this matter. It would interest the hon. Member who last spoke to know that no less than thirty local authorities outside of London, and the Mayors of Canterbury, Hastings, Maidstone, and Tunbridge Wells, had approached the companies and asked them to carry out the obligations of their previous Bills, to improve their traffic, reduce fares, and grant further facilities to the trade and commerce of the county of Kent, but without result. When he found the City Corporation and the mayors of those towns and cities making a recommendation in favour of pulling the companies up to a proper appreciation of their responsibilities, he could not help believing that there was a strong case made out for action against the companies. Was it fair, he asked, that Ludgate Hill Station should be left as it was? It was the original terminus of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, and it ought to have at least £100,000 spent on it. The company had power to spend that sum, but if the present Bill were passed the money would be devoted to other purposes. The station as it now was was frequently overcrowded, dirty, and dangerous. So overcrowded was it that the usual waiting-rooms and lavatories could not be placed upon the platforms, while the platforms themselves were so narrow that people frequently ran the risk of being forced upon the line by the crowds going up or down. It was true that the Chatham Company said the public had no necessity to go to Ludgate Hill Station. The directors admitted that the station was narrow and inconvenient, but they turned round and said "There is a station at St. Paul's." That was the mischief of the thing. Instead of spending their money on St. Paul's Station the Chatham Company ought to have used the money upon Ludgate Hill Station and enlarged it, thus making one complete and adequate terminus.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not understand that there is any money for the improvement of Ludgate Hill Station which by this Bill will be taken and diverted to any other purpose. The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the policy of the railway company in building another station.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he had no intention to evade any ruling that the Speaker might have made, but there was no schedule to the Bill, or any conditions as to how the money was to be spent. But by sections of previous Acts the company was empowered to raise money for the purposes specified, and his contention was that the companies now had in their hands the unexpended money which they were seeking to divert by this Bill to extra-metropolitan purposes which should be spent upon the improvement of their stations.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is the point which I have previously informed the hon. Member is not in order.
  MR. JOHN BURNSadmitted that it would be inadvisable and inconvenient to argue the matter any further, but he hoped the House would, at any rate, see that the Chatham Company carried out their promise of two years ago, and would recognise that it was an abuse of private Bill legislation for the company to divert money that they have for other purposes to extra-metropolitan enterprises. The management of the company had, he said, always been bad, and he did not believe that with the present management the company would be enabled to do better in the future than in the past. The company had abused its power and misused its parliamentary privileges, and he saw no hope but compulsory liquidation. An official receiver ought to be appointed, and then the company should be sold to the London and North Western Company or some other capable company, so that the people dependent upon the line might be sure of proper railway facilities. So long as Mr. Cosmo Bonsor and the other directors were at the head of affairs this valuable railway property would be reduced to sterility simply by the incompetence of its directors.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I do not propose to address the House except for a very few minutes, because I think the consideration of this proposal can be reduced to a very narrow compass indeed. However much I may sympathise with the

  33
  object of my right hon. friend, I cannot approve or admire the method by which he proposes to attain that object. It is undoubted that the condition of Ludgate Hill Station leaves a very great deal to be desired. That has been proved by the reports of the inspectors of the Board of Trade. But that is not the question which the House has to decide. Because there is an improvement which admittedly ought at some time or other to be made—the sooner the better—is the House to throw out a Bill to the actual provisions of which no objection is or can be made? That is the real issue. It appears to me that if it is to become the established practice of this House to throw out this or any other omnibus Bill on the ground that the clauses of the Bill do not contain something which somebody wants in it, such an alteration of the procedure of the House is not only contrary to the public interests, but is gravely detrimental to those interests. This is not merely a question of the locus standi of the City Corporation before the Committee. My hon. friend must know that, even if the company were willing to grant locus standi to the London Corporation, the question of the condition of the Ludgate Hill Station could not be raised before the Committee. It would be entirely out of order. The question is simply the rejection or the passing of the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member for Camberwell stated he was opposed to any extension of powers to the company, and the hon. Member for Hoxton very strongly complained of the general inefficiency of the company concerned. But these omnibus Bills are not merely for the benefit and convenience of the companies promoting them. They are for the convenience and advantage of the public. They are almost invariably to increase accommodation and promote efficiency, and if the House of Commons is to throw them out simply on account of reasons such as have been adduced this afternoon, it is not the railway companies so much as the public that will suffer. In regard to the question of the housing of the working classes, I may say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we do not concur in the view that the various railway companies have not properly fulfilled their obligations in this
  34
  respect. But, however that may be, I think the House of Commons must look not upon a point of detail, but upon the general principle. The House has already thrown out one omnibus Bill on a similar ground, and if this is also to be thrown out it will be set up as a precedent, and whenever a particular complaint is set up against a railway company it will be considered legitimate to throw out any proposal which they may make, irrespective of its importance. Nothing could be more objectionable. The companies would not then come to Parliament. They would remain inefficient and imperfect, and when complaint was made they would say, "It is not our fault, but the fault of the House of Commons." If we establish this practice—that an omnibus Bill can be thrown out on a question not germane to the Bill itself—it will be the greatest discouragement possible to any company to bring forward proposals to improve the working of their line. It is on this ground, and not on a question of detail, that I earnestly hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  CAPTAIN NORTONobserved that the Bill was exactly similar to the Bill thrown out by the House a short time ago, and for precisely the same reason. This company had failed in its responsibilities to Parliament and the public. As the hon. Member for the City had remarked, the company by the Bill was coming into conflict with the local authorities. The local authorities by the Bill of 1891 were responsible for the housing of the working classes, but as regarded this company they were absolutely helpless to interfere. Ten thousand people, taking the metropolis as a whole, had been dishoused by the various railway companies. If any large landlord, either in the metropolis or in the provinces, had attempted to dishouse such a large number of people Parliament would have interfered and prevented the project being carried out.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the general question of the housing of the working classes. I have several times ruled that that is out of order.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he only wished to point out that the company had avoided its responsibilities in this respect. In his own district several families had been dishoused, though he did not mean to suggest that this very railway company was to blame.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is again discussing a matter which I have ruled out of order.
  CAPTAIN NORTON, concluding, said the President of the Board of Trade had pointed out that if the House were to reject every omnibus Bill it would inconvenience the public, but he would remind hon. Members, on the contrary, that this was the only means whereby the House could protect the public. This was a matter of supreme moment, and he contended that the railway company should be forced to act up to their responsibilities, and he had great pleasure, therefore, in opposing the Bill.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEonly intervened to point out the absurdity of the argument of hon. Members opposite when they contended that they were acting in the interests of the working classes. Under this Bill the railway company was trying to do its best to widen the lines and increase the number of trains and their speed. That was in the interests of the working men, who would thereby have cheap trains and rapid transit, and it was nonsense to oppose it. Everyone knew that the great thing that was wanted nowadays was wider railway lines and more trains. If the Bill were sent to a Committee upstairs, and it was thought advisable, new clauses could be introduced. He only hoped that the Bill would be passed, and by a large majority.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 166. (Division List No. 243.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir E. H.

  Firbank, Joseph Thorn as

  Agg Gardner, James Tynte

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Aird, Sir John

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

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Arrol, Sir William

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Garfit, William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Goschen, Hon. George J.

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

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

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gretton, John

  Bill, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Bond, Edward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hain, Edward

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd.)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middl'x)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W

  Bowles, Capt. T. B. (King's Lynn

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Brassey, Albert

  Ellis, John Edward

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Brigg, John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

  Brown, Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Faber, George Denison

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N. W)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Finch, George H.

  Helder, Augustus

  Carlile, William Walter

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Hill, Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)

  Milton, Viscount

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Homer, Frederick William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

  Morgan, Hon. Fred. (Monmths.

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, H C (North'mb, T'neside

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Spear, John Ward

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stanley, Hn Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bath

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Myers, William Henry

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Kenyon, Jas. (Lanes., Bury)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stroyan, John

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Kitson, Sir James

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Knowles, Lees

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lambert, George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Partington, Oswald

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm

  Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Penn, John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Leng, Sir John

  Percy, Earl

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

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Purvis, Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr.

  Randles, John S.

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Reed, Sir Edw. Jas. (Cardiff)

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

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

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (St'lybridge

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Robinson, Brooke

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

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfd.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Rollit, Sir Albeit Kaye

  Wortley, Rt Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Mather, William

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Richards.

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  NOES.

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

  Caine, William Sproston

  Dillon, John

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Caldwell, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Cameron, Robert

  Doogan, P. C.

  Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Austin, Sir John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dunn, Sir William

  Balfour, Maj K R (Christch'rch)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Edwards, Frank

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Crean, Eugene

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bigwood, James

  Crombie, John William

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Black, Alexander William

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Cullinan, J.

  Flower, Ernest

  Boland, John

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Delany, William

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

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

  Burns, John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Gilhooly, James

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Grant, Corrie

  Mooney, John J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Hammond, John

  Moss, Samuel

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murnaghan, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Harwood, George

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants-

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Strachey, Edward

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Norman, Henry

  Sullivan, Donal

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Tennant, Harold John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.).

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Labouchere, Henry

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

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Langley, Batty

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Laurie, Lt.-General

  O'Dowd, John

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Malley, William

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Mara, James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lloyd-George, David

  Philipps, John Wynford

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pickard, Benjamin

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Power, Patrick, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Lundon, W.

  Price, Robert John

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Priestley, Arthur

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  M'Crae, George

  Reddy, M.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  M'Govern, T.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Joseph Dimsdale and Mr. Hay.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Minch, Matthew

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Resolutions agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
(BY ORDER.)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. FLAVINasked the Attorney General for Ireland how this Bill affected the town of Tralee and the county Kerry.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)was understood to say that he did not know how it affected them.
MR. FLAVINasked if the Bill did not refer to an inquiry that had been made as to the relations between the Tralee Urban Council and the county of Kerry at large.
MR. DILLONsaid that one of the chief items in the Bill referred to the financial relations between the Tralee Urban Council and the County Council of Kerry, and yet the Attorney General, for Ireland, who was responsible for the Bill, did not know that it had anything, to do with that dispute.
MR. ATKINSONsaid that there were three Provisional Orders made by the Local Government Board under Section 77 of the Act of 1898, and he did not know exactly to what the hon. Member referred. These Provisional Orders related to the town of Dundalk, the city of Sligo, and the town of Tralee, and they adjusted the respective liabilities between the counties and the urban district councils.
MR. FLAVINasked how the county of Kerry and the Urban District Council, of Tralee were affected by the Bill, and if the latter was aware that this Provisional Order had been introduced.
MR. ATKINSONsaid that, of course, the Provisional Order affected both the

41
County Council of Kerry and the Urban District Council of Tralee. The Local Government Board sent down an inspector, who made an inquiry into the financial relations of the two councils, and the result was that this Provisional Order was made.
MR. DILLONpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland did not seem to know that the Bill dealt with not three, but four Provisional Orders, as one relating to the city of Waterloo was also included.

ARIZONA COPPER COMPANY, LIMITED, ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
(BY ORDER.)
[UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. DILLONsaid that this was one of the most extraordinary Bills that had ever been brought before the House of Commons within his memory. They had been given to understand by the hon. Member for Partick that he was going to move that the Bill should be referred to the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, and in support of that motion a very interesting document had been circulated to all the Members of the House of Commons yesterday.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he found it was not competent to move his motion that day, but he intended to move it on Thursday.
MR. DILLONsaid the Bill ought to be challenged at once, and they ought not to be asked to read it a second time without at least some explanation being given as to its extraordinary nature. They had had an example of the way in which business was transacted in respect to Irish Provisional Orders, and he thought that members of the Government
42
who introduced those Provisional Orders ought to inform themselves as to what was in them. He ventured to say that not for twenty years had a Bill analogous to this been introduced into the House of Commons. It was of enormous complexity and length, and the purport of it would take any man a very long time to understand. It was introduced under the new Scotch Private Legislation Procedure Act and, being of a novel character, it ought to be challenged. The object of the Bill appeared to him to be to pass an Act of Indemnity for a number of gentlemen engaged in a private mining company in Arizona, who had violated for many years past a number of the provisions of the Companies Acts. The Bill dealt with a number of complicated transactions, most certainly unsuitable to be dealt with in a Private Bill in the House of Commons. What he chiefly complained of was that there was no brief statement of its purpose and effects. Surely that ought to have been done, when, as he saw, from the names on the back of it, those of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland, that it was a Government Bill. He had the strongest possible objection to passing an Indemnity Bill to protect company directors who had broken the law. But he had another ground of objection. From the statement circulated it appeared that this Arizona Copper Company was owned largely in Germany, France, and America, and the Bill would affect the interests of these shareholders to a large extent, and that litigation was pending. In fact, the House of Commons was asked to override the courts, and to destroy private rights, without any notice being given to the French, German, or American shareholders. That might or might not be a truthful statement, but it was monstrous to ask the House of Commons to give approval to such a Bill in the dark.
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)said he remembered very well when the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill was passing through the House there was nobody who, in an unobtrusive way, opposed and obstructed it more obstinately than the hon. Member for Mayo, although he had often heard

43
the hon. Member express great anxiety to have the Private Bill Legislation system extended to Ireland as well as to Scotland. He could only say that, if the first results of the Private Bill Legislation system were to be heralded by such statements as they had heard, it would be absolutely impossible to extend it to Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER from the Irish Benches: Why?] Because the whole idea of the Private Bill Procedure system was that of devolution, and the whole spirit of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that the local inquiry was to be overruled by the House of Commons. Every sentence of the speech of the hon. Gentleman showed his utter ignorance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act which now stood on the Statute-book.
MR. DILLONsaid he thought the right hon. and learned the Lord Advocate had stated that he had shown activity in opposing the Bill.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that that showed that there might be activity combined with ignorance. The hon. Member had drawn attention to the fact that his name and that of the Solicitor General for Scotland were on the back of the Bill. But the Arizona Bill was of the ordinary Provisional Order character; and this was a Confirmation Bill, hence the names of the Ministers of the Department were on the back of the Bill. He knew nothing of the Arizona Company; he was not a director of it, and he did not consider he was in any way concerned with the provisions of this particular Provisional Order, which the hon. Member rightly said were very complicated. It was the ordinary, at least not unusual, case of a company finding it necessary to ask for special powers to go to foreign courts. What was done under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act of 1899 was that a petition was presented to the Secretary for Scotland for a Provisional Order. That petition was examined by the Chairmen of Committees of both Houses, and they decided whether the legislation should be by way of Private Bill or by way of Provisional Order. Next, the Secretary for Scotland decided whether there was or was not to be an inquiry if there were no opponents of the
44
Bill. At that time there were no opponents to this Bill, but the Secretary for Scotland, looking to its complicated provisions, decided that although there was no opposition there ought to be an inquiry, and that the company ought so to speak, to prove the preamble. Accordingly there was an inquiry, held by two hon. Members of the House of Commons and two noble Members of the other House. That inquiry was held in Edinburgh, and at the last moment certain opponents came forward and, under the powers contained in the Act, they were given, on special grounds, a locus standi, and were heard. The opponents wanted certain alterations in the Provisional Order, but the Commission did not give effect to their wishes. That being so the Provisional Order was issued by the Secretary for Scotland, who was bound forthwith to bring it before this House in the position of a Confirmation Bill. That Confirmation, Bill now came up for Second Reading. The hon. Member had declaimed on what he understood were points against the merits of the Bill, founded on a statement which he had received. The points in that statement might or might not be true, but what was the position the hon. Member had taken up? If he were successful in blocking the Second Reading he would bar inquiry as to the truth of the statement. The hon. Member for the Partick Division proposed to make a motion that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, and that motion he (the Lord Advocate) would heartily support. It was a procedure provided for in the Act, which, said that an appeal might be made to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. That was the simple and ordinary working of the Act, which the hon. Member for East Mayo could not possibly have mistaken had he taken the trouble to read the Act.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he might perhaps say a word or two on this question, because he was even more extreme in his view than the hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Together with the great majority of the Scottish Members he, when the House was engaged in the manufacture of this new system of dealing with private Bills,

45
strongly objected to having any appeal to either or both the Houses after there had been a full parliamentary inquiry on the spot into the merits of the case. Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he knew nothing whatever of the merits of the case. Beyond the mere name of the Bill he knew nothing of it, but he knew that it had been fully considered by a most competent tribunal in Edinburgh, composed of Members of the two Houses. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would support the proposal for a further stage—namely, that of sending the Bill to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. That was where he parted company with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He objected to it, because it seemed to him that that course would be ruinous to the success of the new system which had been introduced. If, on some plausible excuse, the whole thing had to be gone over again in London after it had been thoroughly threshed out in Edinburgh, let them go back to the old system, with an inquiry in the Lords and in the Commons. He was surprised that his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo should raise an objection to what was merely a formal and necessary stage in a Bill, in charge of a Minister, in order to confirm the decision of a tribunal which sat in the locality of the Bill—which he understood was a procedure his hon. friend wished to apply to Ireland.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had taken his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo to task for his alleged inconsistency in this matter, inasmuch as the Irish Members wished to have Irish private Bills inquired into in Ireland. The Lord Advocate had pointed out that if his hon. friend proceeded to have a discussion at this stage of the Bill, that would destroy the possibility of any form of Home Rule for Ireland. But look at the inconsistency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman! In the next breath he spoke favourably of the proposal which had been made to send the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and thus to re-open and re-try the whole case. He would respectfully recommend the Lord Advocate not to speak with such an assumption of omniscience on such matters, and not to
46
lecture hon. Members from Ireland as if he were the only Member in the House who understood the provisions of the Private Legislation (Scotland) Act. Horn Members on the Irish benches thoroughly understood, as they thought, the provisions of that Bill, and what had happened confirmed him in the belief that he was absolutely right when, on a recent Wednesday afternoon, to the astonishment of some hon. Members, he objected to the Second Reading of a Bill moved by his right hon. friend the Member for North Tyrone, which proposed to extend bodily to Ireland the Scotch system. He believed that that system would be found to be illusory and useless. He took the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, that if there were to be a devolution of work from the House of Commons to local tribunals, was it worth having, if matters were to be reopened in the House? He thought his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo had rendered a service to Ireland in pointing out how futile the Private Bill system in Scotland was, and how ill-suited it would be to the special demand which Ireland made for the management in Ireland of purely Irish affairs.
MR. CAINEsaid he knew nothing about the merits of the Bill, but if this was devolution it was strange devolution indeed, and he protested against it. On previous occasions schemes affecting the company were settled without the intervention of the House, and he did not understand now why the time of the House should be wasted on the present Bill.
MR. DILLONsaid he might be permitted to say that he would not put the House to the trouble of a division in view of the discussion which would take place on Thursday.

ARIZONA COPPER COMPANY, LIMITED, ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.
  WEST CUMBERLAND ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  King's consent signified; read the third time, and passed.
  NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  HAMILTON BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords] (UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899).
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ARDROSSAN GAS AND WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered under Section 9, Sub-section (4) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899; to be read the third time upon Thursday.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL [Lords].
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  NAVAL WORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Read a second time and committed.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Gateshead and District Tramways Bill, without amendment; Falkirk and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill, with an Amendment; London Bridge Widening Bill, with Amendments; Amendment to Sheffield District Railway Bill [Lords], without amendment.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

  1. "That, in the case of the Handsworth Urban District Council Bill [Lords], Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of the Birmingham Corporation' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

  2. "That, in the case of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway (New Ross and Waterford Extension), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought
  48
  to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY (NEW ROSS AND WATERFORD EXTENSION).
  Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read;
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Redmond, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Viscount Milton, and Mr. Ffrench.

  YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
  Mr. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.

  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Falkirk, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  BURIAL PLACES (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  CHINA WAR 1856–1861 (PRIZE MONEY AND SEYMOUR FUND).
  Petition from Portsmouth, for inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petition from Seaforth, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Granville; Church Gresley; Reservoir; and Brentby Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Cardiff; and Spalding; to lie upon the Table.
  HOSPITALS (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  Petition from Gloucester, in favour to lie upon the Table.
  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHTS ON VEHICLES BILL.
  Petition from Dundee in, favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Oakengates; Dawley; Donnington Wood; Donisthorpe; Rawdon; Nethaerseal; Granville; Church Gresley; Reservoir; and Brentby Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (No. 4) BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment, from Crieff; West Calder; and Mid Calder; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Attercliffe; and Eccleshall; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions against, from Swindon; Horncastle; North Somerset; Newbury; and Bury; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Hull (two); Hatfield; Hendon (five); Birmingham (two); Carlisle (three); Salisbury; Nuneaton; Brades; Five Oak Green; Southsea; Farningham; Sheffield (two); Kingston upon Hull (two); Dudley; Wingate; Victoria Park; Leeds (three); Primrose Hill; Blackheath; Deptford; Carlisle Cross; Westminster; West Ham; West Hendon; Cardiff; Maesteg (eleven); Chatham (four); Sunderland (ten); Silksworth; New Seaham; Pallion; Stanford le Hope (two); Worthing; Hackney (two); Belvedere; Hoxton; Holywood; Maidstone; Reigate; Hereford; Shotts; Manchester; Motherwell; Midsomer Norton; Hebden Bridge; Barrowford; Stocksbridge (two); South Tottenham; Enfield (three); Nelson; Mildmay Park; Bethnal Green; and Loughborough; to lie upon the Table

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Monimail; Largs; Forgan; Wamphray; and West Linton; to lie upon the Table.
  SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON (SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED SITE OF SCHOOL BETWEEN BROMLEY AND PORTLAND STREETS, STEPNEY).
  Petition from Stepney, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petitions against, from Watton; East Newport; and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ROYAL OBSERVATORY (EDINBURGH).
  Copy presented, of Eleventh Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (STANDARDS OF EXEMPTION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th May; Mr. Ernest Gray]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 202].
  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S REPORT.)
  Copy presented, of Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Astronomer to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty for the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1901–1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 203].
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No 2623 and 2625 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—FARM BURNING.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state when he proposes to lay on the Table of the House Lord Roberts's reports
  52
  on the burning of the villages of Bothaville, Ventersburg, Dylstroom, and Wilport.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford)The information is contained in the Return of buildings burnt in South Africa recently presented to Parliament. I have no further information.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Return does not give the information in the case of two villages named in the question Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for the information, which was promised some months ago?
  MR. BRODRICK: We have asked for it, and it is in the Return.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: But not with regard to these two villages.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say when he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Correspondence between Lord Roberta and General Botha as to farm burning.
  MR. BRODRICK: The correspondence is in type, and will be shortly issued.

  MEDICAL OFFICERS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has now received any answer to his telegram to Lord Kitchener with regard to the possibility of setting free and conveying home the medical officers who volunteered for service in South Africa, many of whom have been out from home much more than a year, exposed to heavy work and risk from contagion and otherwise.
  MR. BRODRICK: Lord Kitchener has not yet been able to release civil medical officers apart from those whose engagements have terminated. If circumstances admit of it, all possible consideration will be shown.

  GOVERNMENT STOCK FARMS.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of

  53
  State for War if he will state the number approximately of cattle at present in the Government stock farms in South Africa, the number, and locality of such stock farms.
  MR. BRODRICK: In response to a telegram Lord Kitchener informs me that with the exception of one Government stock farm at Stellenbosch, our stock farms are temporarily hired for grazing horses and cattle, and continually change. No statistics can be given.

  WAR OFFICE ORGANISATION.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the reason why the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into War Office Organisation, signed on 9th May, did not reach members until 7th June.
  MR. BRODRICK: Some time was necessarily occupied in printing and indexing the evidence of this Committee, but no delay took place in publication. I would, in addition, remind the hon. Member that the Committee was a Departmental Committee appointed by myself, and I should in any case have required a reasonable time to consider the Report before publication.
  MR. NORMAN: Is it not the fact that the members of the Committee expedited the Report in order that hon. Gentlemen might have it before the discussion of the right hon. Gentleman's resolution?
  MR. BRODRICK: It only reached me two days before the discussion of my resolution. It was impossible for me to allow it to be published until I had considered it.
  MR. NORMANwas proceeding to put another question when—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he must seek another opportunity of arguing the matter.

  RESERVE OF SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is
  54
  aware that regiments of Yeomanry keep twenty rounds per man of small arms ammunition in reserve at their squadron headquarters for use on mobilisation if called out in aid of the civil power; and whether after the outbreak of the war in South Africa the War Office ordered any of these reserves of ammunition to be returned to Government store; if so, whether the date of this order for the return of the reserve ammunition of the Volunteer forces was before or after the date on which the total reserve of small arms ammunition, in the country stood at 3,300 rounds.
  MR. BRODRICK: Twenty rounds per man is allowed to Yeomanry regiments as a reserve. This reserve was called in after the outbreak of war and before the date alluded to.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
  MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, as many of the Imperial Yeomanry now returning from active service in South Africa are not members of any Yeomanry force at home, can he state what arrangements are being made to induce these men to join regiments of. Yeomanry, so that their future services, may not be lost to the country.
  MR. BRODRICK: The recruiting for the Imperial Yeomanry rests with the various commanding officers, who may be confidently relied upon to make every effort to secure those men who have seen service in South Africa. In many cases the measures necessary have already been taken.

  HORSES OBTAINED IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Report called for as to the number of horses obtained in South Africa has yet been received.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY Lancashire, Westhoughton): This Report has not yet been received from South Africa.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: May I ask whether, seeing that this Report was called for four months ago, the noble Lord will hurry the officials up.
  LORD STANLEY: Everything possible is done to hurry them up, but the collection of Returns in South Africa is a more difficult task than at home.

  MILITARY CRIMES—STATISTICS.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a Return showing the number of cases of soldiers committed whilst serving in South Africa to terms of imprisonment since the opening of the war, the Return to show in each case the rank of the offender, his offence, the nature of the court before which he was tried, the penalty inflicted, how far, if at all, the sentence was subsequently commuted, and whether the prisoner was confined in a civil or a military prison.
  LORD STANLEY: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question put on the 14th March† by the hon. Member for North Louth.

  GUERNSEY MILITIA.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has now been come to as to the future of the Guernsey Militia.
  MR. BRODRICK: The proposals of the States for the re-organisation of the Guernsey Militia have been approved, and the necessary alterations in the regulations will be carried out in due course.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will anything be published in regard to this matter?
  MR. BRODRICK: I had not thought of doing so, but I will consider it.

  FINANCIAL CONDITION OF ANNEXED REPUBLICS—SIR DAVID BARBOUR'S REPORT.
  MR. M'DERMOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
  † See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xc, page 1546.
  56
  Colonies whether he has yet received the Report of Sir David Barbour on the financial condition of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report has been laid.

  NEW CONSTITUTION FOR THE ANNEXED REPUBLICS.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to furnish the House with particulars as to the constitution of the Legislative Councils of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, the powers to be conferred and the restrictions to be imposed upon these bodies, and the official who is to preside over each; if he is not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject will the Government, before issue of the Royal Letters Patent, inform the House upon these particulars and afford opportunities for discussion thereon, and will he give approximately the date fixed for Lord Milner's return to South Africa and for the issue of the Royal Letters Patent relating to the constitution of the Colonies.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The House is already in possession of the general outline given by me in debate on 7th December, * and I have explained to the hon. Member in answer to a question on 6th May† that it would not be in accordance with precedent to submit the instruments themselves to Parliament before they are issued. Lord Milner will probably return in August. I am unable at present to fix a date for the issue of the Letters Patent.
  MR. BLACK: Is it according to the right hon. Gentleman's view of the Constitution that these questions should be excluded from Parliament, or is it only his policy which is unfitted for Parliamentary discussion?

  VICTUALLING IN THE NAVY.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he
  *See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxviii., page 259.
  † See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xciii., page 734.

  57
  can state when Vice-Admiral Rice's Committee upon victualling in His Majesty's Navy presented its Report; whether this Report will be published; whether any action has been taken in consequence of its recommendations; and, if not, why no steps have been taken.
  MR. KEARLEY: At the same time may I ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state the recommendations of the Departmental Committee appointed last year to inquire into the victualling of the Navy, and what reforms it is proposed to introduce; also whether it is proposed to present the Report, with evidence taken, to the House.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): In reply to the question of the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton, and also to that of my hon. friend the Member for Devonport, I beg to say that the Report of Vice-Admiral Rice's Committee will be presented to Parliament at an early date. The question as to whether the evidence will be presented with the Report can only be decided when the Board of Admiralty have had sufficient time to examine it. No decision has yet been arrived at with regard to any action to be taken in pursuance of the recommendations made in the Report. There has not yet been sufficient time to deal with a matter of so much complexity and importance as the whole scheme of the victualling of the Navy.

  EXPLOSION ON H.M.S. "DARING."
  MR. LAMBTON: May I ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give the House any information as to the boiler explosion on board the ship "Daring" at Portsmouth.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The following telegram, dated to-day, has been received—
  "Regret to report, owing to bursting of a tube in boiler of 'Daring,' tender to 'Excellent,' last evening, the following man was killed—Alfred E. Reed, stoker, O.N. 278027, and following injured, severely burnt: Fred Paffet, chief stoker; H. Elliott, stoker; Thos. O. Parks, stoker; George Gammon, stoker. All doing well except Parks. Court of inquiry sits this morning."
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Was the full pressure on the boilers at the time the explosion occurred?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Before receiving the Report of the court of inquiry I cannot possibly answer that question.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Was this a water-tube boiler?
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Yes.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not know with what motive that question is asked. My hon. friend knows as well as anyone in the House that all the destroyers have water-tube boilers. This was a Thorneycroft boiler of a peculiarly safe type. I ask leave to answer the question, because evidently there was a motive in asking it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Not at all
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It was at Thorneycroft type of boiler, which is in use in hundreds of vessels, and, as my hon. friend knows, all destroyers are fitted with water-tube boilers, and there is no possible alternative boiler at, present before us.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I desire, with the permission of the House, absolutely to repudiate any motive save that of obtaining the information I asked for.

  H.M.S. "EURYALUS."
  MR. RICHARD CAVENDISH: Can the Secretary to the Admiralty give the House any information as to the fire on the "Euryalus"?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A telegram has been received at the Admiralty to the following effect—
  "The Ramsden basin jetty against which 'Euryalus' is berthed took fire about 10 a.m. to-day. Subsequently attacked ship, involving; sheathing from 19 ft. 6 in. water-marks aft, and 17 ft. forward, and plating to top height above this, extending from the after casemates, on starboard side to stem; sheathing very much damaged and plating buckled. Eire under control at present and no fire on board ship. Further report will follow."

  INDIAN FAMINE COMMISSION REPORT.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Report of the Indian Famine Commission was signed at Naini Tal on 8th May; and, if so, whether he will undertake to present it to Parliament without delay.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): There will be no undue delay in publishing the Report when finished, but I have not yet received it, nor am I aware that it is complete.

  FRANCE AND MOROCCO.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has consented to any extension of French influence in Morocco.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): The answer is in the negative.
  MR. NORMAN: May I ask whether the noble Lord can say, without notice, whether this brief but very welcome answer also applies to the desert behind Morocco.
  [No answer was given.

  CHINA—GERMAN GARRISON AT SHANGHAI.
  MR. NORMAN: Is the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in a position to give any information or explanation as to the statement that Germany proposes to retain her military force at Shanghai?
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: In September last the German Government landed a certain number of troops at Shanghai for the purpose of assisting to keep order in that region. We understand that the Germans intend to continue the maintenance of a garrison there, at any rate, for the present.. I am not aware that any explanation has been furnished to us of this intention.

  INSPECTORS OF MINES.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary
  60
  of State for the Home Department whether, in the event of a mines inspector, permanent or temporary, being appointed for a district including any part of Wales or Monmouthshire, regard will be had to the provision of the Coal Mines Act, 1887, according to which persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): The answer is, certainly.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: Is it not the fact that a new inspector has already been appointed to succeed Dr. Foster who does not understand Welsh?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I do not see how that arises out of the question. I think the hon. Gentleman is misinformed, however.

  DISPOSAL OF BODIES OF DECEASED INFANTS.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the report of the coroner's inquest, held at Birmingham on 3rd June, on the bodies of thirty-one infants found in a cellar at the house of Mrs. Knowles; and seeing that a Select Committee reported in 1894 that the state of the law with respect to the disposal of the bodies of deceased infants and children is unsatisfactory, and made recommendations in regard to its amendment, whether he can hold out hopes of introducing early legislation to deal with the abuses shown to exist.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The matter reported on by the Select Committee referred to is receiving my careful attention. I should be very glad to be able to deal with it, but I fear I cannot hold out any expectation of legislation on the subject during the present session.

  RATE COLLECTORS AND DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of

  61
  State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in some districts (for instance, in the parish of Terrington St. Clement, and elsewhere, in the county of Norfolk) the rate collector for the district is accustomed to collect along with the poor rate and other district rates sums of money for denominational schools by placing them upon the rate ticket in the same way as the properly levied rates are placed; and, seeing that money is obtained from the ratepayers without their having been first informed that such payments are voluntary, whether, having seen examples of such rate tickets, he will request that these practices be discontinued.
  *MR. WALTER LONG: I have made inquiry as regards the particular parish mentioned, and I find that the facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph of the question. The practice complained of is, I think, open to much objection, and I have informed the collector accordingly, and requested him to discontinue it.

  COLONIAL STOCK AND TRUST INVESTMENT—JAMAICA GOVERNMENT STOCK.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to the conditions prescribed by the Treasury for the security of Colonial Stock, in which a trustee may invest under the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, whether he will say in what respect the Jamaica Government Inscribed Stock issued in exchange for the First Mortgage Bonds of the Jamaica Railway Company falls short of those conditions and when and by what means it will be brought within them; and whether there exists any, and, if so, what reason why the Treasury should not further prescribe under that Act such conditions as will at once render available for investment by trustees any Colonial Stock which like the Jamaica Government Inscribed Stock referred to, is charged on the general revenues and assets of the colony in priority to advances from the Treasury secured thereon to the satisfaction of the Treasury and the Secretary of State under the Colonial Loans Act, 1899.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBER LAIN, Worcestershire, E.): It rests with the Government of the colony to take the necessary steps to comply with the Treasury conditions. I am not aware of anything which need prevent them from doing so.

  LOANS FOR PUBLIC WORKS.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say upon what grounds the application of the Newtown Urban District Council was refused for a loan of between £30,000 and £40,000 from the Public Works Loan Board to enable that body to purchase the existing gas works, and can he state when such application may be renewed with a prospect of success, what was the balance standing to the account of such Public Works Loan Board at the end of the past financial year, and what are its commitments for the present year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not anticipated that the money (£7,000,000) placed at the disposal of the Public Works Loan Board by the Public Works Loans Act, 1900, will be more than sufficient to meet the applications. during the period covered by the Act, for the classes of loans which have the first claim on the Board—namely, loans for works which Parliament has expressly intended to be encouraged, and loans to those local authorities whose powers of borrowing in the open market are comparatively limited. In these circumstances, the Commissioners are obliged to refuse applications for loans for commercial undertakings, such as gas-works. The Commissioners will probably find it necessary to maintain this refusal until the conditions become more favourable for the raising by the State of large sums of money for the purpose of local loans. On the 31st March last the amount still unissued of the £7,000,000 sanctioned for the Board's loans by last year's Loans Act was £2,531,206. The amount now unissued is £1,303,114. The Board's commitments in respect of loans which they have granted but not yet issued amount to £4,764,627, the bulk of which, however, will not fall to be issued during the currency of the present Act.

  POSTAGE STAMP PERFORATION.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the sheets of postage stamps at present issued to the public display a tendency to tear anywhere but along the lines of perforation, and whether he will take steps to have this peculiarity corrected.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is undesirable to adopt a system of perforating with larger holes than those at present employed, because the sheets of stamps at the various post offices would not keep entire. The stamps would be liable to become separated whenever the sheets were handled. The dividing of the sheets is greatly facilitated by tearing them first in the long direction and afterwards across.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: May I point out that the stamps of foreign countries do not tear in the same way, so that the difficulty could be easily overcome.

  WELSH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that letters addressed to Llannwchllyn are now conveyed by car from Bala, a distance of over four miles, and that a postman on foot follows the car along the same route to within a mile of Llannwchllyn, when he branches off and works a district, which is also worked or overlapped by two postmen from Llannwchllyn; and, as the train that delivers letters at Bala passes through Llannwchllyn Station on its way to Dolgelly, and in view of the saving to the Post Office Department and the convenience to the parish of Llannwchllyn, would he arrange for the letters for that place to be dropped at the station as the train passes through.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The postal service to Llannwchllyn is arranged very much in the way described by the hon. Member, but no more satisfactory arrangement can be devised, except at an increased expenditure, which would not be justified. With regard to the suggestion that the mail train for Dolgelly
  64
  should stop at Llannwchllyn to leave mails, the Postmaster General would remind the hon. Member that this question was considered only a few weeks ago. As the result, he was informed that, according to a letter from the railway company, an additional stop at Llannwchllyn would make the arrival at Dolgelly ten minutes later than at present. It would be impracticable for the mails for Llannwchllyn to be put out at that station, as suggested, from the train as it passes through. The Postmaster General regrets that, in view of the inconvenience to the public which would thus be caused, he is unable to adopt the suggestion.

  MARAIG BURIAL GROUND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the burial ground at Maraig, North Harris, is so overcrowded that the average depth of earth surmounting the coffins is only nine inches; and, in view of similar conditions which prevail in burial grounds in many parts of the Hebrides, will the Local Government Board for Scotland take such steps as may be necessary in the interest of the public health.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The burial ground of Maraig was closed against all interments by Order in Council made in November last on the representation of the Secretary for Scotland. The Local Government Board for Scotland require every sanitary inspector to report to them annually on the condition of the burial grounds within his district, and, where necessary, action is taken on such reports.

  SCOTTISH MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of medical men holding appointments as medical officers of health in Scotland; and will he say how many of these medical officers possess a public health diploma.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: There are 278 medical men holding appoint-

  65
  ments as medical officers of health in Scotland, and of these 61 possess a diploma in sanitary science, public health, or state medicine.

  SCOTCH BURGH AUDITORS.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in the event of any burgh in Scotland having a local Act of its own, the Secretary for Scotland has any power to appoint an auditor.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Town Councils Act of last year requires the Secretary for Scotland to appoint an auditor for every burgh, except the five large burghs. I am of opinion that this duty, which is an affirmative one, must be exercised notwithstanding the provisions of any local Act.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  MR. LODER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to a report recently made by Mr. W. F. Sherman on the danger from fire to which the National Gallery is exposed; and whether he can see his way to so amend the Bill dealing with the subject which he has introduced into the House, so as to include in it powers to secure a sufficient isolation of the Gallery to protect it effectually from all risk of destruction by fire.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent. St. Augustine's): Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this opinion, and it is now under the consideration of my Department. With regard to the second paragraph of my hon. friend's question, I do not see my way to an extension of the provisions of the Bill which has this session been introduced.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: When do the Government intend to make some reasonable attempt to pass the National Gallery Bill, which appears on the Orders of the Day?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I shall be glad to take the first opportunity of passing it, but I cannot ask my right hon. friend to give it a first place.

  VISITORS TO KILLARNEY—ACTION OF POLICE.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an international boat race between Pennsylvania University and Dublin University will take place next July on the Lakes of Killarney, and if, in view of the fact that this event will cause a number of visitors from America and other countries to visit Killarney, he will give directions to the police authorities at Queenstown and elsewhere to desist from asking the names and examining the persons and luggage of such visitors under the pretext of searching for arms.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): Passengers arriving at Queenstown are politely invited by a member of the constabulary to give their names and destination. The practice has existed for many years, and the information has invariably been freely and cheerfully given by passengers. The action of the police causes no inconvenience to visitors. The police do not examine the persons or luggage of passengers.
  MR. FLAVIN: Are tourists in Ireland bound to give their names? I hope they will not.

  POLICE AND UNITED IRISH LEAGUE MEETINGS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that for some time past police constables from Castle Martyr, county Cork, have made a practice of attending meetings of the United Irish League held in the neighbouring villages of Dungourney and Mogeely, and posting themselves as sentries at the doors of the premises in which the meetings are held; and, inasmuch as English Members are not subjected to police supervision when addressing their constituents, will he state why and by what authority, when the Member for East Cork attended a meeting at Mogeely, in his own constituency, on the 2nd of this month, two police constables stationed themselves at the door of the building in which the

  67
  meeting took place throughout the proceedings, and declined to inform the Member for East Cork by whose authority they thus acted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The practice referred to was enjoined in respect only of branches which had distinctly committed themselves to acts of intimidation. In such cases the police have been directed to attend in close proximity to meetings with the twofold object of inspiring confidence in the victims of intimidation and of collecting evidence in the event of an attempt being made to renew it.
  MR. POWER: Is not the objectionable practice complained of permanent throughout Munster, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police attend meetings of the divisional executive and try to hear what is going on?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question refers to two or three specific cases, which have been answered.
  MR. POWER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give specific directions that in the case mentioned and in other cases brought to his notice the police shall discontinue conduct which would not be tolerated in England?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply is in the negative.
  MR. FLAVIN: What act of intimidation was committed by the O'Dorney branch that the police should stand outside the doors and windows of the house where the meetings were held?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: What charge, if any, has been brought against the two branches mentioned in the question?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think that arises from the answer, but I may say that reports have been presented stating that resolutions have been passed by the particular branches referred to, which are aimed at individuals, and that is, in my opinion, a sufficient reason for the attendance of the police.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the police attend meetings of the Orange Lodges from now up to 12th July?

  DUBLIN POLICE AND MUSKETRY INSTRUCTION.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is intended to send members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to Hythe to undergo a course of musketry drill; and, if so, is there any intention to arm the force with rifles; and, if not, will he state what is the object of having them trained in musketry drill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has been misinformed. It is not intended to send members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to Hythe to undergo a course of drill in musketry, and it has never been contemplated to arm that force with rifles.

  BALTIMORE (CORK) POSTAL DELIVERY.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can now state if an improved postal delivery for Baltimore, County Cork, has been decided on.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General regrets to find that in view of the heavy cost of the present postal service to Baltimore, as compared with the revenue from the correspondence, he would not be justified in incurring further expense for the purpose of improving the service.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Cork and Bandon Railway Company offered to convey the mails from Skibbereen to Baltimore at the same rate of remuneration?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of that, but I will inquire.

  PUBLIC SERVICE EXAMINATIONS-MODERN LANGUAGES.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with a view to the encouragement of the study of modern languages, he will appoint a Parliamentary or Departmental Committee to inquire whether fuller recognition should be given to these subjects in university scholarships and in the Indian Civil Service, the Navy, and other examina-

  69
  tions, which mainly determine the curricula of secondary schools.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the Government have no control over the subjects selected for the examination for scholarships in the universities, but no doubt in regard to the other examinations the subjects are chosen with a view to the particular duties which have to be performed, and the importance of the knowledge of foreign languages is recognised by the award of a high rate of marks. I do not think the suggestion of a Committee is at all necessary under the circumstances.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. EDWARD MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now able to state when the remaining Naval Votes in Supply will be taken, and what is the order in which they will be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to take the Navy Estimates on Friday.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When will the Vote for the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid there is not much chance of reaching it on Friday night, but we shall go on with the Estimates in the following week, unless there is a general desire to take some other Vote.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to put it down first on Friday week?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: What business will be taken on Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the main business will be Supply, and I shall put down the Board of Trade Vote first, after possibly some uncontroversial Votes.
  MR. LUCAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of putting Vote 14 down early—the one dealing with naval pensions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Questions of naval policy must, of course, have precedence.
  MR. LODER: May I ask who is responsible for the unprecedented arrangement of the Order Paper to-day? By whose authority have the Government Orders been put down first? Has such a course ever been followed before on a Tuesday?
  MR. SPEAKER: The first Government Orders are put down in italics in view of the probability that the Government resolution giving precedence to Government business would be carried. I think the hon. Member will agree that that was a convenient course, and I believe it is usual.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend certain provisions of the Solicitors Acts, 1839 to 1894." [Solicitors Bill [Lords].
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  That they have given leave to Viscount Esher to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on Public Accounts, his Lordship consenting.
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD.
  That they concur with the Commons in their resolution, "That it is expedient that a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the constitution of Queen Anne's Bounty Board, and to report whether any economy and efficiency of administration would be promoted by any change in its constitution or by its amalgamation with any other body."
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 24th June, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): Sir, there are two occasions after the Whitsuntide holidays on which, according to the almost immemorial

  71
  practice of the House, it has been found necessary by successive Governments to ask for privileges in the matter of time. The second of these occasions has been baptised by an irreverent public as "the massacre of the innocents." That occurs, as a rule, at the latter end of July, when the business of the session is, at all events, approaching a conclusion, and I do not propose anything in the nature of a massacre on this occasion, nor is it usual when the Government, about the middle of June, asks the House for further time and facilities for Government business. As regards the general programme of Government legislation, I have not much to tell the House that every Member of the House is not already perfectly familiar with. I have no unexpected or startling statement to make in respect of the Government Orders of the Day. We must, of course, get through the measures which embody our financial policy—the Budget Bill and the Loan Bill. We must pass the Rating Bill, which is, I fear, a controversial measure. We must pass the Education Bill, which I hope will not be a controversial measure. There is the Factory Bill, with which I trust we will make substantial progress to-night, and which I understand, from the best sources of information, is not likely in any case to occupy any very lengthened space of parliamentary time. There are, of course, in addition, the Departmental Bills, with regard to which it is not necessary or usual to make any statement at this period of the session. I ought to say, however, in addition to this statement, that my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Board of Education proposes to introduce a Bill on the subject of the dismissal of teachers in elementary schools. I mention that because I gave a pledge some time ago that I would state whether or not such a Bill would be introduced when I made the usual announcement with regard to Government business. I think it will be admitted that that is not an excessive programme of Government business, and that no undue drafts are being made on the time or attention of the House. But I think it will also be granted that, while that is the case, nevertheless there is no reasonable prospect of our being able to get through this amount of business unless the House will grant the
  72
  Government the facilities which have been invariably granted to our predecessors when they came at this period of the session to ask for them. It may be that some private Members will object to even this moderate draft on their time; but I may perhaps be allowed to say with regard to the present session that such inroads as have been made upon the time of unofficial Members have not, so far at all events, been made by the legislative programme of the Government as distinguished from their financial proposals, because, as the House is perfectly well aware, practically the whole time at the disposal of the Government has hitherto been taken up either by Supply, or by the Civil List Bill, or by the Finance Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: Questions.] My hon. friend says "Questions," but that is not time at the disposal of the Government. All the time at the disposal of the Government has been taken up in the way I have described. Under these circumstances, I do not think that, even apart from what I am about to say upon the subject of private Members' legislation, there is any substantial grievance this year, at all events, in connection with the claims which we now make upon this House. Two Wednesdays are left by my resolution to be dealt with under the Standing Orders for those Bills which have made most progress, though, in a manner which I shall describe, I propose to retain a third Wednesday for private Members' Bills. The two Wednesdays which are embodied in the resolution carry out the precedents with which the House is familiar, and probably two Wednesdays are, roughly speaking, all that ought to be, or as a rule can be, granted for this particular purpose.
  So far I have said nothing the House will not have anticipated, and I hope I have said nothing which gentlemen in any part of the House can raise objections to. So far the demands of the Government are extremely reasonable, and are not in any sense straining the patience of the House or asking for undue or exceptional privileges. I now come to that part of the statement, which has been long promised, with reference to certain legislation which is in the hands of private Members. I have been bombarded by questions

  73
  from time to time from both sides of the House with regard to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill and the Beer Bill. It is, as the House knows, the custom for the Government at the end of the session to "star," as it is technically called, those private Bills which are really uncontroversial—uncontroversial in the sense that no Gentleman in any part of the House seriously desires to defeat them—and give them privileges in regard to order and time. In the treatment of those Bills there never is any difficulty on the part of the Government. But when you come to Bills like those I have mentioned, which cannot, at all events at present, be described as wholly uncontroversial in the full sense in which I have used that term, a much more difficult and embarrassing problem is necessarily raised for those responsible for the arrangement of the business of the House. What does the difficulty in dealing with these Bills arise from? It arises chiefly from the fact that we have an entirely different measure of time when we are dealing with private Members' legislation than we have when we are dealing with Government legislation. It is the established practice, dating long before you, Sir, presided over this Assembly, that on Wednesdays a private Member's Bill, the discussion on which begins at twelve o'clock, is practically closured at half-past five. The Bill may be of a most complicated and far-reaching description, it may deal with the fundamental Constitution of this country, it may affect the interests of a vast class, it may have consequences of the most far-reaching description; but the discussion, beginning at halfpast twelve, and sometimes later, is, by the usages of this House, thought to have run its appropriate time when it arrives at half-past five. And these are Bills which have not been introduced under what is commonly, though inaccurately, described as the ten minutes rule; they have not been discussed on the First Reading, and they have been introduced without a word of explanation on the part of the hon. Members in charge of them. If anybody will compare the fate of a private Bill in these preliminary stages with the fate of a corresponding measure introduced by the Government, he will see that we have a
  74
  fundamentally different measure for what is considered appropriate discussion on a Bill which emanates from a private source as compared with the discussion on a Bill which emanates from the Government Bench. That system may be a good system or a bad system; on that I should be out of order in commenting. But it has this consequence, which I beg the House to consider—it would enable the Government, unless the House were watchful, to introduce some far-reaching measure as a private Member's Bill, take it over after it had passed the critical stage of a Wednesday afternoon's debate, make it their own, and give it all the privileges of a Government Bill. [A laugh.] I do not quite know why that statement excites a smile. I am giving an account of parliamentary business; it is not meant in a controversial sense. I am speaking as the Minister who for the time being is responsible for the business of this House; and the peculiarity I have adverted to in the different treatment of Government and private legislation is one the public outside do not understand, and, I venture to say, never can be made to understand. It is one of those esoteric secrets which all Members of this House comprehend and practically all who are not Members of this House do not understand. I think it would be a grave abuse if any Government were to allow a really controversial or party measure to be brought in by a private Member, to pass through an often perfunctory discussion on a Wednesday, to be divided upon in the perfunctory manner in which Wednesday Bills are divided upon, and then, after it has passed a First and Second Reading in that manner, to allow it to become part of the Government programme and to have all the privileges of a Government measure—to have in its infancy all the privileges of being the offspring of a private Member, and in its mature growth all the advantages of being under Government patronage.
  This argumentative preface, Sir, brings me to the conclusion which I want the House fully to realise, that it is really a most difficult and delicate matter to deal with the class of private Bills which is not of the wholly uncontroversial type to which I adverted a few moments ago. I have done my best to

  75
  consider whether I should be in any way infringing upon the broad principles I have just laid down by giving some further privileges, at all events, to the two Bills in regard to which I have been so often questioned in this House—the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill and the Beer Bill. I propose on Wednesday, the 26th of this month, to put down as the two first Orders of the Day the motions for sending the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill and the Beer Bill respectively to Grand Committees. When those motions are disposed of, which, I think, ought not to take long, the remainder of the day will be devoted to those private Members' Bills which still remain on the Paper, to be dealt with in the order in which they would have been dealt with if Wednesdays had remained in the uncontrolled possession of private Members. That being the proposal, I have to ask myself and the House whether in doing so I have infringed upon the broad principles which I have ventured to lay down, and which, I think, ought to govern the conduct of the business of this House. I hope and believe that I have not. I think, from what I can learn, that the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill is one of those Bills the feeling in favour of which is not simply to be estimated by the magnitude of the majority in favour of it on the Second Reading, and is still less to be estimated by the number of petitions which have been brought up in countless multitudes, and no doubt could be brought up if it were desired, and have been brought up, on the other side. We all know—we have had painful and personal experience of it—the facility with which petitions can be got up, especially when there is any great organised body interested in the legislation affected. Therefore I do not pretend to judge the support which this Bill has in the House or out of it by the majority on its Second Reading on a Wednesday, which is a fallacious test, or by the number of petitions in its favour, which is even still more fallacious. I have done my best to make myself acquainted with the current of feeling in the country and in the House, and to forecast as well as I could the kind of modifications which might be made in Grand Committee on the. Bill which, I
  76
  believe, would go very far to bring back this measure into the category of really uncontroversial measures with which the House would be able to deal without occupying parliamentary time at all. I hope I am right in that. With regard to the Beer Bill, to which, so far as the Grand Committee is concerned, I think similar privileges should be granted, I cannot forecast with the same assurance what course is likely to be pursued in Grand Committee. I do not know exactly what Amendments are likely to be proposed or adopted. If those in charge of the Bill and responsible for it were fortunate enough—and I trust they may be—to make that Bill also something very like an uncontroversial measure—I do not say a measure commanding assent in every part of the House, still, having behind it a general body of opinion irrespective of party in the House—I hope that Bill also will in its later stages run a favourable course and be transferred to the Statute-book. But I can give no pledge as to further time as regards either of these Bills. I am giving them every advantage; I am giving them what, of course, they could not have had without the intervention of the Government—namely, the advantage of going to a Grand Committee. I have every reason to believe that as regards one of these Bills there can be little doubt that its course will be prosperous and successful, and I entertain similar hopes, though not such confident expectations, with regard to the other.
  Sir, I think that I have succeeded in making the policy of the Government plain. Whether I have been equally fortunate in carrying with me the general opinion on both sides of the House I do not know. But I venture to make an appeal to the House in reference, not to the general business of the session, but to to-night's business. I hope hon. Gentlemen will second me in trying to keep the discussion on this resolution within the narrowest reasonable limits, in view of the Bill which stands first on the Order Paper to-night if I carry my resolution. On both sides of the House there is a great desire to see the Second Reading of that Bill disposed of to-night, and I trust the House will second me in carrying it out. Let unofficial Mem-

  77
  bers please bear in mind that this proposal is made in their interests. I have done more for them by this proposal than, I think, any Government has ever done—I have not only given them, practically, three Wednesdays instead of the usual two Wednesdays, but I have also indicated that the Government will in certain very probable contingencies give even further facilities for forwarding these Bills. Under these circumstances I hope I may ask in return that this resolution shall not lead to a long and exhaustive debate, in view of the Second Reading of the Factory Bill, which it is so desirable we should deal with to-night, in order that it may be sent as soon as possible to a Grand Committee. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business do have precedence on Tuesday and Wednesday (except on Wednesday, the 12th, and Wednesday, the 19th of June), and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to all the days of the week."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This motion is a motion dealing with the business of the House, and I am constrained by the very vivid recollections of the most recent parliamentary experience to say, when we speak of the business of Parliament, that we have had to-night, I think, an example as flagrant as any we have ever had of one department in which a change in the rules governing our business is certainly required—I mean what we have seen again and again in this session, as well as in previous sessions, but what, I think, is becoming more frequent, the occupation of the most valuable part of the time of the House on some important night, when the House is impatient to proceed with serious business, by private business. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman that fact as one of the most urgent and most serious with which he can deal. And I think a little light is thrown upon the practice—which is a practice, apparently, beyond anyone's control at present—by the fact, which we can easily dis-
  78
  cern, that it is always on those nights when the right hon. Gentleman is going to move some important Bill or motion of this kind, and when, therefore, there is a large attendance of Members, that the agents for Bills contrive to put private business on the Paper. I merely take the opportunity of saying that by the way, before commencing any criticism on what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  In the first place, I wish to say something on that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which concerned itself with certain private Members' Bills. Although I was glad to hear the proposals he made, I was not quite able to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the distinction which he drew between the experience of Government and private Members' Bills. He seemed to think that private Members' Bills were inadequately discussed on the stage of the Second Reading, because there were only a few hours available, and that then the opinion of the House was taken. But—I speak with due submission to your authority, Mr. Speaker—I am under the impression that that is the case only where the Bill has been before the House on several previous occasions, and that in those cases which the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman conjures up, where some great constitutional change was introduced under the auspices of a private Member on a Wednesday afternoon, the Speaker would allow the adjournment of the debate in order that the matter might be thoroughly discussed, I think the right hon. Gentleman overstated his case somewhat. He told us that there was a great danger in this practice, because the Government might surreptitiously bring forward a measure of their own under the name of a private Member and, as it were, get a start of the House. But I am not sure that we have not had cases recently of the Government taking advantage of a private Member's Bill in even a more extraordinary manner than this, because I believe in another place a Bill introduced by a harmless and unthinking spiritual lord has been taken bodily possession of by the Government and converted into, practically, a measure of their own. So that I think that the right hon. Gentleman need not be afraid

  79
  that our mode of conducting business gives undue opportunity for such a proceeding. The proposal which the right hon. Gentleman makes as to the mode of dealing with the two Bills to which he referred seems to me a perfectly wise and proper one. I agree with everything said with regard to the Children's Bill, as to the strong feeling, the strong sentiment, that pervades the country on the subject; and I earnestly hope that, by a little give and take, the Standing Committee will be able to make of that Bill such a measure as shall not only give immense satisfaction to the sentiment, but also carry with it the general approval, of Members of the House. Regarding the Beer Bill, I am somewhat in the same position as the right hon. Gentleman. I have not that familiar acquaintance with it which would enable me to measure the volume of sentiment or opinion which may be behind it. But if in that case also it would be possible to come to a harmonious conclusion it would be a very good thing. I rather think, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to be converted in the process, because I have some recollection of the fact that he lodged a very strong protest against the Bill, and I believe he recorded his vote against it, but of that I am not quite so sure.
  So much for these private Bills. Now I come to the proposals of the Government with regard to the general time of the House. No doubt it must be admitted at once to the right hon. Gentleman that it is usual at this time of the year, after the Whitsuntide holidays, to take that measure of the time of the House which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes. The only observation I would make on this occasion is this, that he has already made larger inroads on the time of private Members than I have ever seen made before in any previous session. In itself the motion, however, is in accordance with the practice of the House; but the right hon. Gentleman now, as last year, has not said anything—or has said very little—of the business which the Government propose to submit to the House of Commons for the rest of the session. He spoke of the massacre of the innocents. Unfortunately, it is the innocents that are massacred. There are one or two of his children that we should
  80
  much rather see massacred. I find a good many measures stated in the King's Speech of which we have heard nothing. There is a Bill for reconstituting a Court of Final Appeal. I think it is time to say whether that is to be carried out. We were told of it last year, but it was suddenly and mysteriously dropped. Again it appears this session. What has become of it? There is also the Sale of Land to Tenants (Ireland) Bill. What has become of that? What is to be its fate? There is a Bill dealing with the lunacy laws; and there are, further, Bills relating to water supply, stopping drunkenness in public-houses—a very good thing if it can be done, and that, I suppose, is to be engrafted upon the episcopal Bill to which I have referred. But there is another Bill, which I think is of firstrate importance—the Literary Copyright Bill, on which the right hon. Gentleman has said nothing. He has spoken only of two great measures, the Rating Bill—the Bill for continuing the grant in aid of rates—and the Education Bill. Unfortunately, these are measures which will occupy a very great deal of the time of the House. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to contemplate that the Rating Bill would be strongly opposed. I do not wish him to lay any flattering unction to his soul as to the Education Bill. It is well to speak plainly; that Bill is one which will undoubtedly require the close consideration of the House, will excite strenuous opposition, and will occupy a great deal of time. And rightly so. I know I cannot discuss that now—I should be out of order in so doing; but we must remember that this Education Bill is really a revolution of the whole educational machinery of the country. It is more than that, because it is not a complete Bill in itself. It is the prelude to something that is to follow. We have been told more or less plainly by the Vice-President, but in explicit terms by the Leader of the House himself in a letter that has been published, that it is intended by the Government that this new authority which is to be set up, and to which many of us have very strong objections, will have entrusted to it next year or at some subsequent time the whole control of the primary as well as the secondary education of the country. That makes this

  81
  Bill of unusual importance and difficulty; and whatever objections we may find to the Bill within its own limits and as it stands, those objections are very much increased and the difficulty made much greater when we remember that it is merely the first stage in the process that is to be continued further. It is natural that we should like to be quite sure of the depth of the pool of water before we step into it. I wish it, therefore, to be distinctly understood that there will certainly be a great amount of strenuous opposition to much that is in this Bill, possibly to the whole Bill. At all events, it will give rise to a prolonged and serious controversy in the House. That the right hon. Gentleman should invite the House to embark upon this task in the middle of June, almost within sight of the final recess, seems to me not to imply a proper estimate of what is demanded of the House of Commons. There are one or two other Bills, and there is one of which no mention is made—the Manoeuvres Bill. We were told that, as part of the great improvements which were to be made in our military system, there would be a Manœuvres Bill introduced this session. What I would say is that no such Bill as that, because of its importance, however urgent it may be, ought to be introduced at the end of the session and hurried through. With regard to Supply, the right hon. Gentleman is giving a day this week to the Navy Estimates. With regard to the Army Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman was asked several questions yesterday as to what he proposed to do in order to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Committee which has been considering the reorganisation of the War Office, and there is some idea of taking that opportunity on the Vote for the War Office itself. I would venture to point out that that Vote is already heavily burdened. In the first place, there is the ordinary discussion which we have in ordinary years; in the second place, there is the whole question of the conduct of the war in South Africa; and if in addition to that you are to discuss this particular question of the reorganisation of the War Office, I do not think there will be room in one day, or in two days, for the discussion of three
  82

  such large subjects. The right hon. Gentleman has, as I have said, made this motion, which is the usual motion. Those private Members and others who feel aggrieved at being deprived of their time at the usual periods of the session will, no doubt, blame this further encroachment. I can only say that, although I sympathise with them in that feeling, what the right hon. Gentleman has proposed is only in accordance with practice, and for that reason may be accepted in good faith.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The Leader of the House stated that he did not intend to enter into the task of the massacre of the innocents, but he went on to say immediately afterwards that the country and the House generally knew what was the programme of the Government, and he then proceeded to say what Bills should be proceeded with this session—the Rating Bill, the Education Bill, the Factories Bill, and so on, clearly by that method performing the task of the massacre of the innocents, and clearly indicating to the House those measures which the Government intended to proceed with, and, by exclusion, those measures it was intended to sacrifice. I noticed, not without interest, but without surprise, that the one Irish measure mentioned in the King's Speech was one with which the Government proposed not to proceed, and the result is that for the remainder of this session no more time will be given to Irish Members. For that reason I rise at once to express the view that we who sit on the Irish benches hold with regard to this motion, and to explain why we intend to give it vigorous opposition.
  The Leader of the House founded his motion, as he said, upon precedent, and the Leader of the Opposition intimated general approval of the motion, also because it was founded upon precedent. Now may I be allowed to say that the precedents of this House in dealing with Irish matters are not likely to have much weight with Irish Members. The uniform precedent with respect to Irish legislation in this House has been to ignore and neglect the interests of Ireland and suppress the voice of the Irish people, who have been brought here to this

  83
  Parliament against their will, under the pretence that this Parliament had the will, the knowledge, and the time to legislate wisely and justly for Ireland. I venture to say the experiences of this session and the circumstances with which this motion is surrounded this afternoon are conclusive proof that this Parliament has neither one nor the other of those qualifications. There may he, and I do not deny that there is, in the breasts of many Members of this House, a great amount of goodwill towards Ireland, but when it comes to neglecting English reforms in order to secure the passage of Irish reforms, that good will vanishes into thin air. The circumstances surrounding the motion proposed by the Leader of the House are a conclusive proof that this Parliament as at present constituted has neither the will nor the time to legislate wisely and justly for Ireland.
  What has been our experience this session? When we first came to this House to formulate Irish grievances we used to be met with the statement that those grievances did not exist, but this session, under the ægis of the present Chief Secretary, that policy has wholly changed. Now the Government admit the grievances and hold up their hands in despair and say, "We cannot deal with them, because we have not the time." If there is one grievance more than another which now oppresses the people of Ireland it is the slow process of the work of land purchase in Ireland under the Land Purchase Act, and a scheme was put forward in the King's Speech for dealing with the grievance. To-day we find ourselves in this position, that that Bill goes by the board, and the Government take up the position that they cannot deal with it because they have not the time. The same remark applies to the grievance of Irish education, which the First Lord of the Treasury himself admits to be a real grievance, but which for want of capacity, or will, or time on the part of this House cannot be remedied. Another grievance which affects the industrial classes of Ireland, and which is also admitted, we are told cannot be dealt with, and the suggestion for the appointment of a Vice-regal Commission cannot, we are told, be adopted this session because there is not time.
  84
  Exactly the same answer was given in the case of the Labourers Bill which we introduced; the grievance was admitted, but it could not be dealt with for the want of time. Now we are asked to give our remaining time over to the Government. If the Government proposed to use a portion of this time for grappling with Irish grievances I would be the last to refuse it to them, but after their having failed to grapple with those grievances during the whole of the session, I think the Irish Members would be very foolish if they did not resist the motion by every means in their power.
  Now, I desire to enter a protest against what I call the indecent farce of putting in the mouth of the Sovereign at the commencement of a session a solemn promise to deal with grievances of this kind when there is never the remotest hope or intention on the part of the Government of doing so. I am sure the Leader of the House is too candid a man to stand up and say that when this promise was put in the King's Speech he either hoped or intended to bring this measure forward. No, Sir. It was put in as a blind, as a piece of parliamentary humbug, because the growth of the land purchase movement in Ireland in forcing land purchase has been growing in power, and is strong enough to compel the Government to put this promise in the King's Speech; but it is not sufficiently strong, or turbulent, or menacing to compel the Government to go further than to place it in the Speech from the Throne, and compel them to introduce and push a measure through the House. I certainly hope that when the Chief Secretary comes back to Parliament next year he will find that the events in Ireland have been of such a character as to, as he says, strengthen his hand, but, as I say, to compel the Government to pass a measure through the House. Who can say it is an unreasonable thing to ask the Government to give us this time?
  But apart from Irish affairs, as the motion stands, the Government are practically asking for the whole of the time of the session. Never was a demand less justified. The experience of the session has been not merely that there has been no Irish legislative programme, but there has been no British legislative programme. At this period of

  85
  the session the Government find themselves in a worse position, so far as the necessary business of the House is concerned, than any Government of modern times. Yet there has been no Government which has taken so much time from private Members as this Government this session. There has never been a Government in office which has had so much power in this House as the present; it is not merely that they have had the closure, and have used it more relentlessly and remorselessly than any Government before, but they have forged new rules and taken away the one privilege from the House of raising questions upon Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair upon going into Committee of Ways and Means. They have added more stringent rules to push their business than any other Government in the past, and yet they have used their time with less effect than any other Government. I think altogether upon the question of the treatment of Ireland no case has been made out for this resolution. The Government now find it is impossible for them to get through what they consider the necessary business of the session, and one cannot fail to be amused to hear and read occasionally the ill-informed cry of obstruction to account for the breakdown of the Government. There has been no obstruction. [Ironical cheers.] It is very significant that those cheers come from new Members of this House. Who is the best authority upon obstruction in this House? The First Lord of the Treasury. He was one of the inventors of obstruction. For years I sat at his feet on these benches learning from the Fourth Party the art of obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman knows what obstruction is, and he has made no claim that there has been any obstruction of public business. He has not done so because he is too candid and well informed in this matter, and he knows from his experience of the last twenty years that this session there has not been anything in the nature of obstruction. What has been happening in this session has been simply the inevitable result of the system of working in this Parliament as at present constituted.
  86
  I ask, Sir, is it not time to give up the idle pretence that the House of Commons as at present constituted can ever properly fulfil the important task of attending to the great Imperial affairs of this ever increasing Empire, with its new problems arising from day to day, and from its extension from year to year, and at one and the same time deal effectively with the perhaps more humdrum, but certainly in my opinion equally important problems which arise in the local affairs of England, Scotland, and Ireland? Sir, it is not obstruction. It is the inherent difficulty—the inherent impossibility, I would say—of the situation which has arisen owing to the change, so to speak, of the character of the work which comes to this House, and owing to the enormous increase of the duties and responsibilities of Parliament. Let me take an example. Take the case of any great British reform. Or, I will put Ireland on one side altogether, and say take the case of any great English reform, for which practically the whole of the English people are clamouring, but which necessitates close and prolonged consideration in this House. Under the present system all that is necessary to postpone for years the consideration and settlement of that question is that some great Imperial question should arise, like that which has arisen in connection with South Africa, and at once all great local reforms are blocked and shelved. You are beginning to find out, and you will find it out more and more, year by year, that it is an impossible thing—a thing which has never been accomplished by any nation in history hitherto—for one and the same assembly to fulfil the duties of a great Imperial Senate and at the same time to discharge the duties of the local legislatures of three separate countries. Some foolish people—and, indeed, they are foolish people—attribute what I may call the breakdown of the House of Commons to the Irish Members. They do us too much honour. No, Sir, if Ireland had been disfranchised, if Ireland's voice had not been heard here at all, this process would have gone on just as it has gone on, and you would have found yourselves face to face with the problem, which you cannot solve

  87
  under your present system, and by the House of Commons as an instrument constituted as it is.
  I have read with infinite amusement the statement confidently made that all this can be remedied if only the Government will pluck up heart of grace and call an autumn session, in order to amend the Rules of the House. Some people have gone the length of saying that the whole evil could be remedied if, forsooth, the right of asking questions were taken away from Members, or were limited. A more futile or absurd suggestion was never made. I am one of those who value the right of putting questions. I have never approved of putting irrelevant questions, or of attempting to occupy the time of the House by asking questions. I have always thought that, from the point of view of the country, from the point of view even of the Government, it is a most valuable right, and I have always deprecated any attempt to prolong questions by unnecessary questions from time to time. But suppose that you attack this right of putting questions, suppose you eliminate it altogether—which is an impossible thing—what do you gain? At the very outside, perhaps an hour or less per day. If instead of destroying the right of questions—which you could not do—you limit it in some way, you will save perhaps half an hour per day. Is it seriously contended that this hopeless block of business of the House of Commons, this hopeless block of the business of the country, this scamping—as you say, the necessary scamping—of Supply, this, as you say, necessary postponement of great British reforms, and all these things which you have seen this session—is it seriously contended that all this can be remedied by gaining half an hour a day by depriving Members of this right of questions, or by curtailing that right? No rules which man can devise can possibly get the House of Commons out of the position in which it is. No depriving of private Members of a little more of their time here and a little more of their time there will enable the House of Commons to rehabilitate itself in the public estimation. No. What is necessary is that the House of Commons should once more be able to exercise its most legitimate and primary function of
  88
  carefully and fully discussing Supply, and of having sufficient time to deal with problems affecting the wellbeing of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland. I say that that cannot be done so long as this assembly remains at one and the same time a great Imperial Senate, and also the local Parliament of England, Ireland, and Scotland. You may go on as you are going on at present, session by session, taking more time from private Members, diminishing the right of private Members to speak or to ask questions, and so on; you may go on session by session converting this assembly more and more into an instrument for simply registering the decrees arrived at by the Cabinet; you may do that, and by doing it palliate the state of things temporarily. You will not palliate it very much, but you may palliate it temporarily; but at what cost? For the sake of a momentary lull in the agony of the patient you will be giving the patient a drug which you must know will end in the deprivation of the patient's life. The House of Commons cannot continue to exist if this system of treatment is meted out to it. I say that if hon. Members desire the House of Commons to regain the position which in my belief it has largely lost in the estimation of the people of this country, if it is desired that this House should once more emulate the usefulness and freedom of past days, that desire will be carried out, not by still further limiting the rights and privileges of Members, but by some great system of devolution, whereby there will be devolved from this assembly all those local national affairs which you have not either—I was going to say the will, but I had better not say that—but which you certainly have not the knowledge, capacity, or time to transact here, and the accumulation of which hangs like a millstone around the neck of this Parliament. In saying this I really have been speaking to a large extent more from the British than the Irish point of view. From the Irish point of view, even what I have sketched out would not go to the full length of our demands. But I say that in that direction lies the only hope of the House of Commons. I am perfectly convinced that year after year, as the House of Commons ceases more and more to be a really free deliberative

  89
  assembly, and becomes more and more an instrument for registering the decrees of the Cabinet, more and more you will be approaching to the time when it will be impossible for the House of Commons to exist at all. In my belief, the only hope is that the accumulation of these arrears of national work belonging to the three countries at home, and work arising from time to time out of these great Imperial problems—such as the one which has engrossed the entire of this session—will have the effect of awakening the minds of the people of these countries to the necessity of doing here that which has been done with success in almost every other civilised country in the world, namely, the sub-division of labour, by allowing men to have the responsibility of carrying out the government of themselves, the placing of the responsibility upon the shoulders of the men who have the knowledge.
  For the reasons I have mentioned, I take the strongest possible view against this motion. I regret the fact—but I suppose it is almost inevitable—that when these motions are made the members of the Front Opposition Bench will support the Treasury Bench. Of course they have to face facts as they are. They look forward to the date, sooner or later, when they will be called upon to take up the government of the country, and the gentlemen of the Front Opposition Bench no doubt have to think of the time when perhaps in a future Parliament they may have to make similar requests. I suppose, therefore, that it is natural that the Leader of the Opposition should express a qualified approval of this motion, and that he should not walk into the lobby against it. But I am convinced that in his heart and in his conscience he realises substantially, at any rate, the justice of what I have been saying. I am also convinced that it would be better for him and his party if he took a strong course upon matters of this kind, and, in defence not only of the right of private Members, but also, I would say, of the continued existence of the House of Commons itself, walked into the lobby against such motions as this.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: As one of those who have watched
  90
  with much interest the fortunes of the Beer Bill, I naturally listened with the greatest attention to the statement of my right hon. friend, and more particularly to that part of it in which he indicated the intentions of the Government in regard to the future progress of that measure. As I understand, my right hon. friend is willing in any case to grant facilities for the reference of this Bill to a Grand Committee. I cannot help saying that, if that concession had been made when we asked for it some weeks ago, we should have received it with the most cheerful alacrity, because our position then would have been this. The Standing Committee on Trade was at that time absolutely free from all other business. No other Bill was before it, nor was any other Bill in a position to be referred to it, and there would have been ample time to pass the Beer Bill through it before Whitsuntide. The first Wednesdays after Whitsuntide would then have been available for its further stages, and we should have had every reason to hope and believe that the passage of the Bill into law was practically assured. It is evident, therefore, that we have not got all that we asked for, or all that we hoped for.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I meant to deal with that point. The course which my right hon. friend urged us to take, and which he regrets that we did not take, would have had this fatal objection—that it would have made the Government intervene in the fortunes of the ballot, and disappoint the legitimate hopes of hon. Gentlemen concerned for other private Members' Bills. I do not think it would have been possible for us to do that.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I do not wish to press this point, nor did I raise it for the purpose of controversy, but rather for explanation. As my right hon. friend said very justly only a few minutes ago, the reasons why measures do not advance as rapidly as their supporters desire are frequently not in the least understood by the country, and I was making that statement very much for that reason. As I was saying, it is evident that we have not got all that we asked or hoped for, as people in this world—at all events in my experience—

  91
  very seldom do. What I understand is that, unless this Bill returns from the Committee more highly controversial than it is at present, we may have every reasonable expectation that in the natural course of things it will be allowed to go through its remaining stages. I am very glad to think that that probably will be the case, otherwise I should have found myself under the painful necessity of being in direct conflict with the Government upon the motion now before the House. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that at all events there was one member of the Government—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who would have to be converted. However that may be, I am encouraged by the knowledge that, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have done, many of his colleagues voted in favour of the Bill, and I am therefore somewhat more sanguine than the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the fate of the measure. I look forward with confidence to the Bill passing through Committee in a condition which will make it not more controversial than it is at present, and, on the whole, though we have not received all that we desired, I think I may say on behalf of the supporters of this movement that we are not ungrateful to my right hon. friend for the course he has taken.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think there is clearly a hope that the Beer Bill may emerge from the Committee in a less controversial form. The Committee will have the advantage of having before it the report of the committee of experts, of which I saw an account in The Times the other day, and in which they say that the more general form of arsenic in beer is due to malt rather than to sugar. If the Bill is recast from that point of view it will certainly emerge from the Committee in a less controversial form.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: It is impossible to consider this motion otherwise than in its effect on the whole machinery of unofficial Members' attempts to legislate in this House. I do not find myself very far removed from the position taken up by
  92
  the hon. Member for Waterford in the powerful speech he has just made on the very much wider aspect of devolution. I hold by the faith with which Mr. Gladstone inspired many of us in 1885 and 1886 in that matter, and I was glad to hear the point put so forcibly and clearly by the hon. Member this evening. In regard to the attempts of unofficial Members to initiate and carry through legislation, I really think it is time we made up our minds on the matter. I ventured to make a few remarks on the 8th February, 1899, when the usual motion was made at the beginning of the session with regard to the ballot for Bills, and I stated then that on examining the facts for a period of years I found that out of every hundred Bills introduced only about four ever received any discussion on a Wednesday afternoon in this House, while only two made any further progress. For the past ten or twelve years practically no Bill, unless it has been of an absolutely uncontroversial character, has passed through this House on the initiative of an unofficial Member. The reason is not far to seek. When there is put into the hands of every individual of the 670 Members who form this House the power of stopping every stage of a Bill after a specified hour, you are providing a weapon by which anyone is enabled to stop practically all legislation from unofficial sources. We all know that by tar the larger number of the Bills now appearing on the Paper, whether they he Government or other, will never receive the slightest discussion in this House. I really think that this is a matter which demands attention. The right hon. Gentleman made an announcement with regard to certain Bills being sent to a Standing Committee. I did not gather whether he promised to grant Government facilities to those Bills when they emerged from that Committee, because that after all is the vital point.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I made no promise. I thought I made it perfectly clear that that depended upon the shape in which they emerged from the Committee.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: I only wished to know the fact. I have some experience

  93
  of those Committees, and, to one who is anxious to see the machinery of this House working effectively, it is a pitiable thing to see Members coming down by the score to attend these Committees, and devoting a great deal of time to passing Bills through, conscious all the while that at the end of their labours nothing further will result. Last year the thing reached what might be described as a farce. Standing Committees met, but were unable even to form a quorum, because Members were aware that the whole of their time would be thrown away. With regard to Bills which have passed through Committee of the whole House, surely it is time some steps were taken to make effective the provision of our Standing Orders which, after Whitsuntide, places Bills in the order of their progress. I remember very well that that rule was adopted in the hope that something would come of Bills introduced by unofficial Members. But let us look facts in the face. Is there any Member who has the slightest experience of this House who will not admit that an unofficial Member, whatever his fortune in the ballot may be, has little or no chance of passing a measure through the House if it has in it the slightest element of a controversial character? We find ourselves this session in a most peculiar position. Finance dominates the whole situation. Everyone knows—the right hon. Gentleman has pointed it out—that, what with Supply, the Civil List, and the finance arising from the war, no legislation of a practical or effective character is possible if it is to have that reasonable amount of discussion which all legislation ought to have in this assembly. In The Times of yesterday the following remarks were made—
  "At the same time many people feel that the failure to pass the majority of the Bills that have figured in Speeches from the Throne during recent years would not be an irreparable and paralysing loss to the country. At a time when Parliament and the nation have to grapple with the tremendous political and financial problems involved in the South African crisis, there is no ardent desire on the part of the people to keep fiddling about what are called social reforms."
  There is a great deal more truth in that statement than might perhaps be ac-
  94
  knowledged as yet in the House. Finance and this terrible South African problem will mainly absorb the time and attention of the House of Commons, in my opinion, throughout this Parliament. I do think we are entitled to have from the right hon. Gentleman a little more specifically a statement of what he really intends to carry through the House of Commons and what he intends to drop. He spoke of the massacre of the innocents at the end of July. Why should we go on wasting our time through another six or seven weeks over matters which may not be further proceeded with? Why should he not tell us exactly the measures the Government mean to press? I regret that we have not time seriously and quietly to consider our procedure with a view to making more effective our rules with respect to legislation by unofficial Members. I recognise that the Government must have the time for the purposes of Supply and the great Finance Bill—and really the right hon. Gentleman might have given us some information with regard to that measure, because that will certainly take three or four weeks. Under these circumstances I do not feel at liberty to oppose the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do earnestly hope that he will see to it, during the remainder of the time he asks us to sit here, that the business should be so allocated that, at all events, at each week-end we may feel we have done something practical.
  MR. TRITTON: On behalf of a great many Unionist Members who are associated with me on the question of licensing reform, I desire to offer our hearty thanks to the Leader of the House for the arrangement he has made with regard to the Children's Bill. We have been somewhat troublous in that we have put many questions, had many interviews, and sent many memorials, and we now acknowledge with heart-felt gratitude the very hand some manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has met us. When the news is flashed through the country that the Government are going to help on the Bill which will protect little children from the evils of the public-house, there will be a thrill of heart-felt gratitude and joy all through the

  95
  country that the intensity of the feeling on this subject has been recognised. We thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done, and we hope that when the Bill comes out of Committee, amended as the case may be, he will give facilities that the measure, which is so strongly desired by all lovers of children and those who are interested in the sobriety of the country, may be placed on the Statute-book, and by so doing he will earn the everlasting gratitude of a large number of his fellow countrymen and countrywomen.
  *SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: May I be allowed to make a very strong protest against the action of the First Lord of the Treasury in having for the second time taken the date fixed for the Committee stage of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. The long holidays have deprived the country of a measure which would otherwise have been passed this session. I am of opinion that if the House had met at the usual time, and if we had not had extra long holidays, it would not have been necessary now to take up the time of private Members. I think some consideration is due to hon. Members of this House, and the First Lord of the Treasury might help us to get this Bill referred to the Grand Committee on Law. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House has already expressed its opinion very strongly on the Second Reading, and his remarks about the closure did not refer to the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, because when the closure was moved the discussion had practically ceased, a number of hon. Members were talking about their own private affairs, and nobody knows what the hon. Member addressing the House at the time was talking about. I believe that the general opinion of the House is that this measure should receive fair and generous treatment. This question has been before the House for at least a quarter of a century, and it has been carried both in this House and the House of Lords. I am aware that this Bill does not excite that enthusiasm which some Bills naturally give rise to. At the same time I think there is a general feeling throughout the country in favour
  96
  of it, and it is only opposed by a very small section of this House and the country. That same section also opposes the Church Discipline Bill, but the country is thoroughly Protestant and the people are determined not to be priest-ridden. I have received innumerable newspaper articles from the colonies expressing strong indignation as to the way this Bill has been treated this year. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that the under, taking given last year by the Prime Minister to the Australian representatives upon this subject has been loyally carried out by the course which the Government have now taken. I do implore the House not to trifle with the very strong feeling which exists in the colonies upon this question. Those colonies have loyally stood by us and fought for us, and they are now more especially deserving of consideration at a time when the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall are honouring ladies of high position in Australia, who, if they came to this country, would be branded as persons of immoral character and would be denied access to the Court of their Sovereign.
  *MR. PURVIS: I wish to take this opportunity of cordially expressing to the Government my indebtedness for what they propose to do. With regard to some of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman on the other side, they remind me of the old saying that that which is true is not new, and that which is new is not true. He has referred to what he calls the lately printed Report of the Commission. Now that is not an official Report, nor is it a report of the Royal Commission. A commission appointed by the brewers is certainly not a Royal Commission, and with regard to arsenic in malt the Report says that it is so infinitesimal that, practically, it need not be taken into consideration at all. I believe I am expressing the opinion of all supporters of this Bill in this House, and of a great many people in every corner of the country, when I say that we are thankful to the Government for the consideration they have shown us in regard to this measure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I now be allowed to make an appeal to hon. Members to allow the resolution to be decided upon. I make this appeal in the interests of the Bills which are to come before the House
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I want to refer to the very strong feeling which exists in the eastern counties of England in favour of this Pure Beer Bill. Farmers and agricultural labourers are united in regard to the necessity for this Bill being passed, but, so far as my experience of this House goes, referring Bills to a Grand Committee at this period of the session means that they will be massacred, and will not be passed into law. Unless we have some better assurance from the First Lord of the Treasury I feel that there will be great disappointment amongst those interested in this Bill because of the danger of its non-passage into law. The First Lord of the Treasury has said that no pledge as to the future can be given by the Government, and I am afraid that will give great dissatisfaction throughout the country not only with regard to this Bill, but also in regard to many other measures which are ripe for legislation.
  MR. CROMBIE: I cordially join with my hon. friend the Member for Norwood in thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done for the Children's Bill. I only desire to ask one question. I wish to know if the Bill to be introduced dealing with the dismissal of teachers will apply to Scotland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, it will not apply to Scotland.
  MR. KEARLEY: I would like to know if the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman involves the introduction of the Military Loans Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, that Bill will be introduced.
  MR. KEARLEY: I should like to ask when the right hon. Gentleman intends to proceed with it, because I regard it as
  98
  a pernicious system that these Bills should be introduced at the very end of the session.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he desired to make a brief statement with regard to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill. When the Bill was read a second time, he was one of those who spoke and voted against it, and in so doing he felt bound to complain that they were somewhat misrepresented. He must enter a protest against the tone of the hon. Member behind him, who asserted that those who opposed the Bill had no interest in children or in their welfare.
  MR. TRITTON: I said nothing of the sort.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASwas bound to say that that was what he gathered. He desired to add one word to explain the attitude he adopted. The First Lord of the Treasury had alluded to the habit of hon. Members of pointing out many faults in the measures which came forward on Wednesdays and then voting for the Second Reading. He preferred the doctrine laid down by the late Lord Randolph Churchill in the debate on this subject in 1886, when he said that if one felt so much objection to a measure as this the right process was to vote against it. As he imagined there would be no further opportunity of speaking in the House on this subject, he rose to say that those who voted against the Bill were not opposed to all temperance reform.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order on this occasion in discussing motives for voting on the Second Reading of a particular Bill.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: May I make the simple observation in conclusion that, while I was one of those who spoke and voted against this Bill, the course I then took must not be taken as being altogether against temperance reform or the welfare of children.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: Several hon. Members who have spoken

  99
  have expressed their gratitude that an exception has been made with respect to the Children's Bill. Although I agree with those sentiments, I cannot help feeling that the motion of the First Lord of the Treasury substantially amounts to a proposal to make private Members pay for the sins of mismanagement of the Government. The wasting of time at the disposal of this House by the Government commenced at the very beginning of the session. The present session was summoned on the 17th of February, and I know of no reason why it should not have been summoned a week earlier. We had an unusually long recess at Easter and another at Whitsuntide, and now the First Lord proposes to take all the time from private Members with the few exceptions he has made. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us clearly what he intends to do with the time of the House. There are four Bills in which I feel a very special interest—the Finance Bill, the Loan Bill, the Education Bill, and the Bill for the renewal of the Agricultural Ratings Act. I should like very much to have some indication as to the period at which these Bills will be taken, and which of them is going to be taken earliest.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Finance Bill.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me some indication as to when he is likely to take the Education Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I hope the First Lord will be good enough to give us the earliest possible information as regards the order in which these Bills are to be taken.
  *MR. DELANYmoved his Amendment to the First Lord of the Treasury's resolution, to except Tuesday, the 11th instant. He moved this because he desired to call attention to a matter which affected his constituency very much—he referred to the question of the Barrow drainage.
  100
  The Barrow Drainage Commissions of 1886 and the Royal Commission on Irish. Public Works of 1887 both reported in favour of drainage schemes in connection with the river Barrow, and in 1888 the Leader of the House introduced a Bill dealing with the subject, but he afterwards withdrew it. If in 1888 the need for this scheme was so great, why was it abandoned and never introduced again? Widespread suffering resulted from the flooding of the river Barrow. Things have been growing worse from year to year, and at present four or five of the adjacent counties were in a critical condition. The area included some four or five large towns—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in dealing with that point.
  *MR. DELANYsaid the Government were treating private Members very badly, and he thought the First Lord of the Treasury ought to have given them a month's notice in his motion. In Ireland the taxes were already heavier than they were able to bear, and this was a purely domestic question to relieve a large and important portion of the country which might very properly be brought before the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would grant them facilities for dealing with this important question, which was one of vital interest to his constituents.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 3, after the word 'on,' to insert the words 'Tuesday the 11th and.'"—(Mr. Delany.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. I do not think that in any case it is possible for anything to be done in the Barrow drainage question this session. I assure the hon. Member however that the subject is engaging the attention of the Chief Secretary.
  MR. POWERsaid he was very sorry that a more favourable

  101
  reply had not been given, and unless the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the First Lord of the Treasury, who knew the gravity of the condition of things in this part of Ireland, gave them some assurance that the question would receive attention, he should urge his hon. friends to proceed to a division.
  MR HAMMOND, said they had a right to demand from the Government an opportunity to discuss a matter of such grave importance to Ireland as the Barrow drainage scheme.
  MR. CREANthought the First Lord of the Treasury ought to respond to the appeal which had been made to him from the Irish Benches, in
  order that hon. Members might be made aware of the great defects and the destruction of property which took place in those counties. It was no use the First Lord giving them visionary promises, and it would be far more satisfactory if the Member for the Division affected (Mr. Delany) were allowed to move the motion on the Paper upon this question, which he was debarred from doing by the motion of the First Lord of the Treasury. It would be their duty to divide the House if they did not get a definite promise upon this question.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 146. (Division List No. 244.)

  AYES.

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Harwood, George

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Mara, James

  Bell, Richard

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Pease, J. A. Saffron Walden)

  Blake, Edward

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Boland, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Boyle, James

  Loamy, Edmund

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Price, Robert John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Russell

  Burt, Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Caldwell, James

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Govern, T.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Mather, William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Crean, Eugene

  Minch, Matthew

  Soares, Ernest, J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Delany, William

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Murnaghan, George

  Wallace, Robert

  Dillon, John

  Murphy, John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Nolan, Col John P. (Galway, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norman, Henry

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Austin, Sir John

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col Richard.

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Purvis, Robert

  Bull, William James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randles, John S.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Butcher, John George

  Hill, Arthur

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Houldsworth, Sir William H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Charrington, Spencer

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Spear, John Ward

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Stock, James Henry

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Crombie, John William

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Stroyan, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawson, John Grant

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

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Denny, Colonel

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Doughty, George

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Garfit, William

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Goschen, Hn. Geo. Joachim

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlingt'n

  Hain, Edward

  Pierpont, Robert

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 245.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bull, William James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Crombie, John William

  Arrol, Sir William

  Butcher, John George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Austin, Sir John

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Denny, Colonel

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets S. Geo.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (W'rc'r

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Doughty, George

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Spear, John Ward

  Flower, Ernest

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Garfit, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stock, James Henry

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Stroyan, John

  Goschen, Hon. George J.

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Groves, James Grimble

  Middlemore, John T.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hain, Edward

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Hall, Edward Marshall

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hill, Arthur

  O'Neill, Hon. Herbert Torrens

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hope, J. F. (Sh'ff'd, Brightside)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversh'm)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Randles, John S.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

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

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Ridley, S Forde (Bethnal Green

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Laurie, Lt.-General

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'er'ry, Mid

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Bell, Richard

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Black, Alexander William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Blake, Edward

  Harwood, George

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Roland, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mall'ey, William

  Boyle, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Mara, James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Leng, Sir John

  Price, Robert John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Russell

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Reddy, M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Govern, T.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cullinan, J.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Minch, Matthew

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dillon, John

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murnaghan, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duffy, William J.

  Murphy, John

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nolan, Col John P. (Galway, N.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wallace, Robert

  Field, William

  Norman, Henry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Main Question put accordingly, "That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business do have precedence on Tuesday and Wednesday (except on Wednesday the 12th and Wednesday the 19th of June), and that the provisions of
  Standing Order 56 be extended to all the days of the week."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 111. (Division List No. 246.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flower, Ernest

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Garfit, William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Arrol, Sir William

  Goschen, Hn. Geo. Joachim

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Austin, Sir John

  Groves, James Grimble

  Purvis, Robert

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hain, Edward

  Randles, John S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Hill, Arthur

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middles'x)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Bull, William James

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsd.

  Spear, John Ward

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Butcher, John George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Stock, James Henry

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Stroyan, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

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

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick W.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Valentia, Viscount

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Crombie, John William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Denny, Colonel

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mrts, S. Geo.

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Doughty, George

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Wrightsbn, Sir Thomas

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Doxford, Sir William T.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bell, Richard

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Blake, Edward

  Boland, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Boyle, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Malley, William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Mara, James

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burt, Thomas

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Leng, Sir John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cawley, Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

  Price, Robert John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Russell

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Reddy, M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Crae, George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Govern, T.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Delany, William

  Mather, William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Minch, Mathew

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Doogan, P. C.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

  Duffy, William J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Wallace, Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Murphy, John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway N.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norman, Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  Harwood, George

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Resolution agreed to.

  Ordered, That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business do have precedence on Tuesday and Wednesday (except on Wednesday the 12th and Wednesday the 19th of June), and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to all the days of the week.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): In introducing this Bill to the House for First Reading, a short statement was made as to the main provisions of the measure, and in moving the Second Reading I propose, without unduly taking up the time of the House, to enter in rather more detail into those provisions. There seems to me to be a general disposition on the part of the House to grant this Bill a
110
Second Reading to-night, and as time is somewhat limited I will endeavour to restrict my observations to a comparatively narrow limit. The Bill is largely founded on the proposals of that which was introduced by my predecessor last year, and, although there are many important modifications proposed in this Bill, I feel convinced that if my predecessor had had the opportunity of explaining some of the provisions of his Bill to the House it would have been ascertained that some of the objections to it were founded on misapprehensions as to some of its provisions. There are in this Bill a number of important though minor points involving changes, and there are several proposals that make considerable alterations in the law. In the first place, as regards ventilation, the existing law applies only to the removal of noxious gases, dust, &c. My inspectors, however, have found bad cases which do not come within this description; for instance, girls are crowded in rooms heated by gas jets and full of impurities in the air which is never practically changed. The Bill, while

111
not laying down what shall be the particular form of ventilation, requires that there shall be sufficient ventilation in all such premises. Then, in regard to machinery, the Bill prohibits the employment of children in cleaning beneath moving machinery. We propose to prevent children from cleaning beneath moving machinery because we know that children bending down under a moving machine are very liable to be caught.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: And women too.
*MR. RITCHIE: Quite so. There is an important provision relating to bakehouses. In the existing law as to bakehouses there is no definition of "underground," and there has consequently been great difficulty in enforcing the prohibition of underground bakehouses; but this Bill defines an "underground" place as a place where the floor of the room is 3 ft. below the surface of the ground. The Bill does not actually prohibit rooms being used for this purpose even if they are more underground than 3 ft., but it places on the local authority the responsibility of seeing that where there are such places they shall be sanitary and otherwise suitable, and shall require to be licensed. Further, electrical works and sundry other dangerous works are now brought within the law by the Bill.
I will say no more upon these details, but will proceed to the larger proposals of this Bill. I have been vastly impressed with the fact, as to which I think everyone will agree with me, that the present provisions as to regulations dealing with dangerous trades are of an unsatisfactory character. They would admit of separate rules for each factory and workshop in the same industry, even where the conditions are exactly similar, and one extremely weak point in the present law is that every occupier has a separate appeal to arbitration, and generally the law is unsatisfactory, though I should be sorry to say it is absolutely unworkable. In a number of cases indeed, arrangements have been
112
made by which some of the difficulties are obviated. But the difficulties are very great, and one of the worst features of the existing law is that the decision is left in the hands of an arbitrator, who has practically no responsibility, and; his decision is binding on the Secretary of State. The proposal of the Bill is that rules should in the first instance be made in draft form by the Secretary of State and for the entire trade; that all parties, both employers and employed, may make representations with regard, to them; and that the Secretary of State shall be bound to take all objections into consideration, and may, if so advised, amend the draft rules accordingly. Before these rules become operative there will be the fullest public inquiry by a competent person on behalf of the Secretary of State. I attach myself considerable importance to this public inquiry, because it is most desirable that, before such important rules as can be made with regard to dangerous trades come into force, the fullest publicity shall be given to them. The Secretary of State will not be bound by the decision of the person who presides at the inquiry, but will form his own judgment; and, after having come to a decision, will make the rules formally. Lastly, the rules will be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and be open to objection according to the rules of the House. There will, therefore, be ample public inquiry, and the fullest responsibility will rest on the Secretary of State, to which I attach the greatest, importance. I cannot dwell too strongly on the fact that in the interest of all parties the man who makes these rules should be a man who can stand up before the House of Commons, and be responsible to the House of Commons. At present he is not responsible, and that is one of the weakest parts of the existing law. There is no doubt that it will bean improvement in the law, and I hope it will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife said, I think, that this proposal was his own. I only wish to make it clear that in that case it is the product of two independent brains. I arrived at it after great consideration, and I am glad to find that both of us, having considered the subject with an

113
open mind, have arrived at the same conclusion.
Then there are important proposals with regard to laundries. People employed in laundry work are employed in an undertaking which necessitates very hard labour and much discomfort, and the existing state of the law is anything but satisfactory. The Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife in 1895 proposed to make laundries factories and subject to the provisions of the factory law. But the Committee to which the Bill was referred did not accept the proposal in its entirety, for although it was not the intention of the Committee to remove laundries from the operations of the sanitary provisions, they thought that the nature of the operations carried on in laundries required some relaxation of the law with respect to the daily distribution of the hours of labour. However, the clause embodying the regulations approved by that Committee was drawn in so hazy a fashion that it did not carry out what I believe were the intentions of the Committee, and, as a fact, it has been found practically incapable of enforcement for many reasons. Take the question of hours. Why, very often the modified provisions with regard to hours could not be enforced, because, as there were no fixed hours of employment or meal hours the inspector could never tell whether any person in a laundry at the time of his visit was legally employed or not, and hence an almost complete failure as regards the working of the Acts with respect to laundries. That state of things ought not to continue. The proposals in this Bill are to make laundries factories and workshops, as the case may be. But as there is great pressure of work in laundries on particular days of the week and practically no work on other days, our proposal is that while the total weekly number of hours of employment should not exceed sixty, there may be elasticity with respect to the daily distribution of these hours. In the order which the Secretary of State would make for this purpose there would be a further proviso that there must be fixed periods of employment and fixed hours for meals.
Laundries in religious and charitable institutions are at present outside the
114
law altogether. Neither the law as to hours nor the law as to sanitation applies to them; but it is not my intention to leave them out of this Bill. These provisions are intended to protect workers in laundries from being overworked, and to see that they work under sanitary conditions, and I cannot for the life of me see why these provisions should not apply to laundries in religious institutions of an ordinary character. I am aware, of course, that there is a difficulty in the case of these institutions with respect to inspection. For many reasons inspection is not regarded by the managers of these institutions with favour. I have made modified proposals as to them which I hoped would have met the case, but I understand that even those modifications do not meet with favour from the managers. It is represented to me that while the general provisions of the Factory Acts are applicable, and ought to be applicable, to laundries carried on by those institutions, the work in some of them is done by persons who almost approach the criminal classes—or, at any rate, who are penitents of a character which require reformation—and there is a fear that the discipline, which it is sometimes difficult to maintain in some of these laundries, would break down altogether if inspectors, however appointed, could go when they chose to inspect these institutions. I should be one of the last to do anything which would in any way militate against the charitable and useful work of these institutions, and, if I can possibly, without excluding them from the sanitary provisions of the Factory Acts, meet the objections raised I shall be glad to consider any proposals in their interest made in Committee on the Bill.
One word with regard to the exemption proposals. Under the present law fruit preserving is exempt from the provisions of the Factory Acts in the months of June, July, August, and September. I can understand that it is desirable there should be some relaxation in the hours of employment in these months, when it is essential that the work of fruit preserving should be done in order to prevent the fruit from being spoiled; but I cannot understand why the workshops should be exempt from the sanitary provisions. Therefore, while we allow

115
the exemption so far as the hours of labour are concerned, we bring the processes of fruit preserving within the sanitary provisions of the Factory Acts. The same arguments apply to fish curing. The present law exempts from the provisions of the Factory Acts fish curing immediately on the arrival of the fish from the fishing boats; but the Bill, while maintaining the exemption with regard to the hours of labour, extends the sanitary provisions to fish curing establishments. Another point which I wish to mention is that the sanitary provisions of the existing law have been found quite inadequate with respect to domestic workshops, owing to the difficulty of discovering and inspecting these workshops, and the impossibility of enforcing the requirements. The Act of 1895 no doubt strengthened the law materially by prohibiting employers from giving out work to insanitary and affected houses, but it has proved practically inoperative. This Bill proposes to throw the responsibility of seeing after the sanitary condition of these domestic workshops upon the local authorities, who, it is clear, are the proper bodies to discharge that duty. I have every confidence that the Bill will be regarded as an honest attempt to place the law affecting factories and workshops upon a sound and workmanlike foundation.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: The House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman is justified in saying that this Bill should go to the Grand Committee on Trade, and should be fully discussed there, though I am afraid that the work of the members of that unfortunate Committee and of the fifteen Members who will be added for the purposes of this Bill will be very serious indeed. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his regret that the Bill of last year was not fully discussed in order that the objections which some of us entertained might be removed. That is a very natural expression on his part, on taking the place of a former Home Secretary in what is virtually, though not strictly speaking, the same Government. But
116
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the objections to the Bill of last year were insuperable, and that we should have fought that Bill. One of the merits recognised in the present Bill is that it avoids some of the difficulties of the Bill of last year, and gives satisfaction to the demand of those who opposed it in six or seven most important ways. A great improvement in the present Bill over the Bill of last year, although it may be still open to some doubt, is contained in the first eight clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman devoted the first portion of his speech. We are all agreed that the existing system of arbitration on special rules is unsatisfactory. We objected to the remedy proposed in the Bill of last year, and we prefer the remedy which is proposed this year; but even in the present Bill the right hon. Gentleman will find that he will not carry the Committee with him as completely as he seems to expect. As regards the first eight clauses of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that on the introduction of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife said that the plan adopted was his plan. It was, however, only described on that occasion in very general language, and I very much doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife would support the Home Secretary in all the details of the first eight clauses. The fact is that Clause 1 gives us all we ask for. It gives us the Home Secretary supreme in this matter; the whole responsibility will rest upon him. But by the last sub section of Clause 2, and by Clause 3, a system of ultimate inquiry is set up which resembles in form the present arbitration under the special rules, and a great many of us are disposed to think that may in practice undo what is provided for in Clause 1. Certainly that is a matter in which I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman will carry the Committee completely with him. What we believe is that the authority of the Home Office over the inquiries which they are able to make in connection with draft rules, the hearing of both sides, and the subsequent approval of Parliament is sufficient, and we do not think that it is necessary to have the enormous complexity, cost, and delay of a local inquiry such as is proposed in this Bill.

117
The right hon. Gentleman will gather that the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Congress and many others authorised to speak on these matters are on the whole, of opinion that the Bill is a great advance on the Bill of last year and in some matters an advance on the present law. But there are great omissions in the Bill which we regret, and which we shall endeavour to remedy, and there are also certain clauses which are specially open to objection. We must remember that it is our duty to supervise this Bill on the present occasion. That supervision will take place in Committee, but it is our duty to make it very thorough and not to scamp our work. The Bill is intended to consolidate the law, and we must remember that we shall not get another Bill with reference to factories and workshops for perhaps a period of ten or fifteen years. There were many points on which we carried the Committee with us in 1895, but which remain untouched in this Bill. There were other points which were rejected by the Committee of 1895 by only one or two votes, but which are dealt with in this Bill in a wholly new and different direction. I allude in this connection to the sweating clause, and also to the group of clauses which immediately follow the first eight clauses. The right hon. Gentleman sang the praises of local authorities in connection with sanitation. I am the last person in the world to run down local authorities. I am a fanatic for local authorities, and I would trust them with almost all powers. But this is a case where two sets of persons must take part in the transaction, and there are large portions of the factory laws which cannot fall on the local authorities, but which must remain with the factory inspectors. We cannot solve the question as between what the right hon. Gentleman calls two conflicting authorities by deciding in favour of the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that it was a fact that the principal section with reference to home work was spoiled in 1895 in passing through Committee by the insertion of Sub-section 3 in Section 5, against which I ventured to divide the House on Report. That nullified the section. No prosecution has ever taken place under it, and the Home Office has been advised by the law officers
118
that the section cannot be acted on. This Bill proposes in this particular respect—and I think it is the one respect in which it is inferior to the Bill of last year—in four different clauses to substitute local authorities for the factory inspectors. Now, I am in favour of local authorities, but there is a great difference between the local authorities of great cities and the local authorities of small rural districts, and the latter have to deal with factories, because, as everyone knows, there is an increasing tendency to plant down factories, especially for certain trades, such as printing and stationery, in small rural places, and therefore the local authorities in these places must deal with the factories within their areas. The local authorities do not already in certain districts properly discharge duties of a similar description to those which would be thrown upon them by this Bill even in sanitary matters. We have only to look at the Annual Report of the Local Government Board to see an appalling example which is held up to public reprobation. There is a special Report by the Local Government Board on the municipal authority of the city of Chichester as regards sanitary matters. They had actually forgotten the existence of their own bye-laws, and not only had never acted on them, but were unaware of their existence. If these things can happen in connection with public health, which is particularly the business of the local authority, what would happen in regard to labour which local authorities consider to be still less their business? I do not often agree with Mr. Justice Grantham, but he made some remarks in a recent case—Tracy v. Pretty—in which he stated the view, which many of us hold with reference to this matter, in most trenchant language. The Inspector of the Home Office, if this Bill passes as it stands, will still have charge of large duties in connection with outwork. Many of the provisions with reference to outwork will have to be enforced by him, and both as regards the existing powers and also as regards the powers to be conferred by this Bill, the factory inspector must continue to be brought into the outworker's home. What we ask is that the factory inspector should have power to do the work where the

119
local authorities fail. The matter arises in Clauses 9, 10, 11, and 13. By Clause 9 the inspector will be hampered. He will have to obtain under that clause a list of outworkers from the local authority, and I confess I think it would have been far better not to go through that form. Clause 10 gives power which it is right that the local authorities should have, but it should also be possessed by the factory inspector. New powers should be given concurrently to the inspectors and to the authorities. Take an example which applies both to Clause 10 and Clause 11. A London tailor gives out work to be done in a rural district. The London inspector becomes aware in London of a very serious breakdown in the case of the work given out to these local tailors. If there is not an active local authority in the district it is important that the factory inspector should have power to prosecute in such cases. Under Clause 13 the abstracts are handed over to the local authorities. The Home Office makes them up, and is responsible for their being an accurate statement of the law, but by giving them to the local authorities we are increasing the difficulties of the inspector's work, because when he conies to prosecute he will have to show that the work has been done locally. There, again, we have thrown a fresh difficulty in the inspector's way. These are the grounds which have induced me to place my Amendment on the Paper, which I hope will induce the right hon. Gentleman to admit that there is something to be said on the other side, as regards these four clauses at all events.
Now, Sir, I should like, briefly, to mention the points in which we still think this Bill falls short of the requirements of the time. The matter which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned earliest in his speech referred to laundries, which I should like to leave to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, who has done such good work in connection with the matter. With reference to what fell from the Secretary of State as to a special proviso for charitable institutions I should like to say a word. Roman Catholics Members of this House, and certain Members connected with High Church institutions, are anxious to have
120
some special provision to meet their particular needs. If I thought that a special clause would be confined to the very painful case stated by the right hon. Gentleman I should agree, but to extend it to all so-called charitable institutions would be very dangerous. I am speaking without prejudice, but there are a great number of laundries in the suburbs of great towns which have charitable names, but which are entirely commercial institutions, and just as Irish Roman Catholic factories managed by sisters freely admit factory inspectors, so I think that these institutions ought to accept inspection also. No doubt where the inmates are all of one sex, an arrangement might be made for a woman inspector in such cases, but I am not myself satisfied with a general exception in the case of charitable institutions, or that they should be allowed to name their own inspectors. Some of the establishments connected with various churches in London have been thoroughly unsatisfactory from the point of view of inspection, and they cannot in all cases be trusted to name their own inspectors. I should hope on the lines of these general views that we might come to some agreement. I am sure there is no prejudice in the mind of any hon. Member. Certainly there is no prejudice in the minds of those who are taking the most active part in these matters. We may have a different view as to what is quite safe, but we must try to keep up the general standard of inspection.
There is one matter which excites great attention in the textile districts, and regarding which the right hon. Gentleman has greatly improved last year's clause. He confines his Particulars Clause to the extension to outworkers. The extension which he has given is a valuable extension, and is not accompanied with the portion of the clause to which we had great objection last year. But what the working classes have always asked for, and what the Trades Congress has pressed for for many years, is the general extension of the principle to all piece work trades, and we shall certainly press on the Standing Committee that the power which the Home Secretary now has of extending the clause from the textile to other trades is a dila-

121
tory process, and that instead of that it should be extended to all trades by law, with special power to the Home Office to except trades. Then there is a clause which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention, and to which many of us very strongly object. That is the notice of Accidents Clause. I will not say more than a word on it, because I admit that it is a matter for the Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman did not explain or defend it, I should, however, like to say that we have the strongest objection to the clause as it stands. If there is no other reason for altering the present law than that the Home Office is embarrassed by the large number of accidents now reported, the mere fact that any change must vitiate the whole of our statistics is enough to condemn it. If that is the reason, the Home Office should induce the Treasury to increase their clerical staff, so as to be able to cope with the accidents reported to them. The right hon. Gentleman did mention the exemptions portion of this Bill, but I do not think he made it perfectly clear to the House that the proposal in this Bill is a great improvement on that of 1898. Even now I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite grasps our position. With regard to the special exemption in the case of fish, his words are not acceptable to us. Our objection is that the present law as regards fish has not been applied for many years by the Home Office, and that they have allowed a view to be taken up which is not in fact the law. That exemption was most carefully considered, and was most limited, but it has been allowed in practice to cover cases never intended to be within its terms, and we shall try to re-introduce, in fresh words perhaps, what we believe to be the present law. With regard to the jam exemption, the hon. Member for the University of Oxford has made that question his own, and it will be brought before the Standing Committee. The other exemption is also one which is open to abuse. It is called the "khaki" clause, and it extends to Government contracts the principle which is now law with regard to Government works themselves, which are exempted from the Factory Acts in circumstances of national emergency. There is great danger in this exemption,
122
and the clause in the Bill is open to objection from that point of view.
As to complete omissions from the Bill, there seem to be three things which were expected. Hitherto in every Factory Bill we have had some reduction of the overtime principle. There has been some cutting down of the very large amount of overtime allowed in every previous Bill, but in this Bill there is no proposal as regards overtime. In 1895 Mr. Byles, who was then Member for the Shipley Division, divided the Committee twice upon the question of a complete stoppage in the textile trade from Saturday to Monday morning. It is usual in the trade, but it is not the law, and in the West Riding of Yorkshire a practice has grown up of employing a fresh staff on Saturday afternoon. We tried to avoid that by proposing a complete stop from Saturday to Monday morning, and were defeated by only a small majority in the Committee of 1895. Since that time many hon. Members representing Lancashire constituencies have pledged themselves to that principle, and I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might have seen his way to have introduced into this Bill such an Amendment. The only other matter which seems to me of sufficient importance to mention now is that the dock labourers expected that some attempt would have been made by the Government to deal with the great difficulties of their situation, which have led to much painful conflict and a large amount of litigation. I know the difficulties in the matter, and I do not wonder—we are all human beings—that the Secretary of State failed to take upon himself the embarrassment of this very dangerous and difficult task, but still the omission is one of which we must complain. Sir, I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice, because I think it is necessary to direct attention to the substitution for the factory inspectors of local authorities in many cases where many of us think that substitution would be dangerous.
*MR. TENNANT: In rising to second the Amendment, I am reminded of a period six years ago when I had the honour of first addressing this House. It was upon the Second Reading of the Factory Bill of 1895, and

123
it was the first day upon which we were privileged, Mr. Speaker, to use a Scottish ecclesiastical phrase, to sit under you. You, Sir, will not have failed to notice the difference between your case and that of the Scottish divine: that whereas it is our privilege to listen to the divine, it is your melancholy duty to sit through our discourses. In making a Second Reading speech on a Bill of this character it is difficult to give a general survey without straying into details which should rather be left to the Committee stage of the Bill; but in dealing with a measure affecting diverse subjects, such as the age at which children should be employed, the amount of time during which they should be employed, the nature of their work, the sanitary and other conditions, and the hundred and one other minutiae, I think the House will agree that, although it may be a difficult task, some survey of existing legislation is necessary, useful, and indeed inevitable. The main features of the Bill we are now discussing divide themselves under three heads. There are the proposals relating to arbitration and dangerous trades, the proposals for the transference of responsibility from the Home Office to the local authority, and the proposals with regard to laundries. To those and the omissions from the Bill I propose to direct my observations.
With regard to the district council clauses, to which this Amendment relates, there seem to be certain considerations which one ought to take into review in any scheme of administration by local authorities. I agree that the local authority has certain advantages. In the first place it is on the spot for public health purposes, and being there it is familiar with local needs and circumstances. Its officers are experts upon certain subjects in regard to which it is very likely the Home Office officials have not had special training Many of the local authorities are extremely active and zealous; they have displayed an activity and zeal which might well be copied even by such an admirable department as the Home Office. It might well be said that when such authorities have had to deal with nine matters connected with the public health, when a tenth arises which is closely allied to questions of public health it should also
124
be put in the charge of those authorities. Local authorities may help the central authority in the discharge of such duties; they may be the right people to take the tenth particular subject into their charge; and a recognition of these facts ought to lead to a healthier co-operation between the local and the central authority. But there are certain disadvantages. This ideal co-operation is not always possible. Indeed, in the majority of cases, it is not possible at all. Local authorities are subject to local influences. Although you may give some of these matters connected with factories and workshops into the charge of the local authorities, you ought to lay down an absolute rule that supervisory power—that is, the ultimate power—should be retained by the Home Office, and that, above all, there should be no derogation of existing powers. I remember that when I had a humble position at the Home Office as private secretary, it used to be our pride that we would not give away any of our responsibilities. No doubt the officials of the Home Office have had an enormous amount of detail work cast upon them, and they have discharged it in a manner deserving the highest praise. But if you meet this difficulty by a delegation of duties from the Home Office, you will be making a mistake. You ought rather to increase the staff of inspectors, and especially you should increase the clerical staff. To take one example: it would surely be a disadvantage to the Home Office Inspectors to have to ask leave of the local authorities to consult their lists of outworkers. It is very important that the local authorities should have the lists, but they should keep them in addition to and not instead of the Home Office.
Coming to the clauses dealing with the question of arbitration, I must confess I approach the subject with somewhat mixed feelings. There are two things we have always hoped and clamoured for, namely, uniformity and the abolition of what has been called "the man in the street." The outsider who has been brought in to arbitrate upon the questions ought in my judgment to be abolished. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean has

125
stated, we are somewhat doubtful whether these two objects will be achieved. So far as the man in the street, the arbitrator, is concerned, you get rid of him only partially, because you are going to put in his place a "competent person"—
*MR. RITCHIE: He will not have the decision.
*MR. TENNANT: I am very grateful that the right hon. Gentleman is going to take the decision into his own hands. That is a distinct step in advance, but I am afraid that that portion of the Bill must meet with a great deal of criticism. As regards uniformity, there is a clause in which it is stated that there should be power of exemption of any specified class of factory. What is the reason for this? I can understand that there are certain classes of factories in which there is a modification of the dangerous process. Take a white lead factory, for instance. Some people are so advanced in the manufacture of white lead that they do not use white-beds or stoves, two of the most dangerous parts of the process. The rules governing these parts will, automatically, not apply to those factories, and therefore it is not necessary to have such a clause as this. I cannot help thinking that such a clause will lead to all the delay and confusion against which we have been inveighing so long. There are two other points in connection with the arbitration. One is that the Home Office is going to take power upon itself to prohibit the use of any substance or any process. I personally rejoice that it is going to take that power. Some people will say that it is a monstrous thing to put such a power into the hands of any official. But if they will look at the Act of 1895 they will see that by Section 28 the Home Secretary has power now to prohibit the employment of all or any classes of persons in any particular handicraft or process which he schedules as dangerous. Therefore, you are really only doing the same thing in another way. The other point is the power to discuss these rules. You may remember, Sir, that a year or two ago we had some rules laid upon the table of the House,
126
and we were anxious to discuss them. You laid down a ruling which, owing to the complexity of the subject, was very difficult for most Members to carry in their heads. I cannot help thinking that if these rules are to lie upon the Table of the House it is of the utmost importance that Members should be able to raise the subject after 12 o'clock, and not only to raise it for the purpose of rejecting the rules en bloc, but to be able to discuss them individually. At present we have no such power, and I think it is important both for the manufacturers and the workpeople that that power should be given.
The third division is in regard to the laundry proposals. I am glad the Home Office has now recognised that the present position is, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman, far from satisfactory. We welcome the proposal in Sub-section 1 of Clause 26, but the right hon. Gentleman has said nothing about Sub-section 2. Sub-section 2 appears to take away a good deal of what Sub-section 1 gives. The right hon. Genleman says he takes power to make special exceptions. These special exceptions creep too often into our factory law, and I should like to see a great many of them swept away. In this case these special exceptions are wholly unnecessary, because under Section 39 of the Act of 1895 the Home Office has power to make certain departments of the same factory separate Factories for the purposes of the Act. Therefore the Home Secretary could, if he would, make the separate departments in laundries into separate factories, so that under a certificate subject to conditions prescribed by himself there would be a separate period of employment, separate abstracts and separate rooms; these rooms would be under separate management, and there would be separate workpeople. For example, the washers would begin, say, on Monday morning; the ironers would begin after the washers have prepared their work; then the sorters and packers could begin at other hours. I believe that if that were done it would be quite unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to take this power to give special exceptions, which have been a bugbear to the whole of our factory legislation. I would like to

127
emphasise the point that in laundries young persons and children must be certified as fit for employment by the certifying surgeon. Also, in my opinion, the meals, which are now taken at any hour, at ten o'clock in the morning or at four o'clock in the afternoon, should be taken at some specified hour before three o'clock, and the time allowed should be a whole hour. With regard to religious institutions, I have had letters from the managers of these institutions saying not only that they would welcome, but that they absolutely desire Home Office inspection. There are certain other details which I am quite ready to admit require some give and take on both sides, but which are not fitted for a Second Reading discussion.
With regard to the omissions, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean has mentioned the question of overtime. That was one of the things most of us thought would be brought into this Bill. Then the Secretary of State has said nothing at all about docks or wharves; they are in an extremely unsatisfactory condition. I may also point out that, with regard to the use of inflammable paint, the Committee over which I had the honour to preside reported that it only required the introduction of a very short clause to protect the lives of a certain number of people who are constantly dealing with this most dangerous article. There is another point omitted from the Bill which I wish the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with. I have suggested in speeches and in letters that it would be a great advantage if the deaths of all persons known to have been employed within three or six months of their death in any trade scheduled as dangerous were reported to the coroner, and the coroner were thereupon to order an inquest. I am persuaded that an enormous number of deaths take place the initial cause of which is the industrial employment in which the persons have been engaged, though this is not the cause certified. I believe that if such a clause were inserted it would lead to a great saving of life. With regard to the reporting of accidents, I believe the present position to be eminently satisfactory. Here, again, I seem to see that the Home Office is overburdened with labour. Too many accidents have been
128
reported. Accidents which the Home Office really considers not to be worth reporting have been reported, and the Department is swamped with work. If that be so, again I say, let the Home Office increase its staff, especially the clerical staff. Let us take care lest in altering the standard the statistics may not be rendered absolutely useless. If the proposal of the Bill is carried out, all the valuable information which we have obtained during the last five or six years will go for nothing.
I said six years ago, and I still hold the opinion, that a subject such as this is one of the best to which any Member of Parliament can devote his attention and his energies. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having produced these proposals—proposals such as too rarely come before Parliament. I think these proposals are largely in advance of anything we have had before us, certainly during the last six years. I hope that if, and when they have been subjected to free discussion upstairs, and to the Amendments which we shall move, and, I trust, in many instances carry, this Bill will go to augment that code of legislation to which a large and ever-increasing class of the wage-earners of this country are looking and have looked for support and protection.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'while welcoming many of the changes introduced into the present Bill, this House regrets the tendency displayed in the outwork clauses to transfer power from the factory inspectors to the inspectors of local authorities.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
*MR. RITCHIEI should like to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and his seconder. They have expressed general approval of the Bill, and as their criticisms are criticisms which I will undertake shall be fairly considered in Grand Committee, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment, because the effect of that Amendment being before the House will be to confine the discussion to the particular

129
point raised therein, whereas the House, in the short time at its disposal, would like rather to say what it has to say upon many other points. I will not attempt now to answer the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, or to explain why I think this great responsibility must be thrown upon the local authorities. I would simply ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment now, but to allow the discussion to proceed on general lines.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he so strongly felt the force of the appeal of the Home Secretary that he was prepared to go even beyond his request. If the Amendment were withdrawn it would leave the way open for another Amendment to be moved. ["No."] If it was understood that no other Amendment would be moved, he was prepared to withdraw his Amendment; otherwise it was better that it should be negatived.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I agree with the hon. Member for Berwickshire that no more important question could be brought before the House than the one covered by this Bill. It seems to me that the Bill contains wise and moderate proposals for dealing with a question which is so large that only those who are concerned in industrial operations can appreciate its importance. With regard to the discretion of the Home Office, tempered as it is by this Bill, I think the House would well believe that it might safely be left in the hands of the present Home Secretary; but in future Home Secretaries the House may not have the same confidence. The public inquiry to which objection has been taken has been likened to the old arbitration inquiry. It is not of the same character at all, because whilst the arbitrator under the existing clause, has the decision entirely in his own hands as to any question between employer and employed, the officer or inspector who makes the inquiry under the present proposal will have the duty
130
only of receiving evidence and reporting to the Home Secretary, with whom alone the decision will lie. There is a weakness in that portion of the Bill. The Home Secretary must lay upon the Table of this and the other House any new regulations before they become operative, and he must direct an inquiry if one is demanded by either employer or employed affected. The initiative rests with the Home Office, and the Home Office alone. No matter how widely it may be recognised by any particular trade that a change of rules for the benefit of the employer or the employed or the whole trade is necessary, there is no power according to this Bill by which any new rules or regulations can be brought forward unless the inititative is taken by the Home Office. New legislation might be initiated, but under the Bill as it stands the initiative lies solely with the Home Secretary, and I cannot help thinking that that power might be tempered by enabling either the employer or the employed, or both, to move the Home Office towards the formulation of rules which it might be thought desirable should at all events be laid upon the Table of the House for consideration.
With regard to the proposed delegation of authority to the local authorities, it appears to me that the local authorities are the only persons capable of forming the lists of persons employed and so on. The main duty which is positively cast upon the local authorities is to record and publish those places where work is carried on and where the workpeople reside. The medical officer, through the local authority, has to report to the Home Office every case that he meets with, and he has to keep the Home Office fully in touch with all he does under the section, and under the authority of this Act. The factory inspector will have power to supervise the local authorities and see that they are not lax in carrying out the duties delegated to them under this Bill. The Home Office has practically accepted the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the last Parliament. There is one operation which I think will be necessary, and that is the examination of boilers by competent persons once a year. Who is "a competent person"?

131
There are instances on record of men of the most ignorant character having been employed to examine boilers. I think the person who examines boilers ought to be a competent engineer of some particular standard of knowledge and competency. Perhaps upon this matter my right hon. friend the Home Secretary may see his way to make some Provision in Committee. There is no doubt that this Bill is an enormous step in advance of other measures of its kind, because it includes laundries within the scope of the Factory Acts, although small domestic laundries are excluded. The Act will only apply to those large laundries where enormous abuses with regard to sanitation and extended hours of work are rampant at the present time. There is one little defect, I think, in that portion of the Bill which refers to bakehouses. The first matter in the Bill referred to by my right hon. friend was the question of bakehouses. There is a provision which enables local authorities within certain limits to deal with bakehouses which are underground, and here in this Bill we have what seems to me to be a retrograde step; for this provision will enable the local authority to pass any bakehouse just as they may please. We shall have one local authority passing a bakehouse which is much deeper underground than another, and thus we shall get a want of uniformity throughout the country. I think that the powers of local authorities should be considerably reduced in regard to this clause. As regards the provision for purer air, there is no doubt that it is a wise one, and it is an enormous advance. I think the provision providing for separate places for meals is also a wise one, and will bring up to the level hitherto adopted by good employers those employers who have never come up to that level, and who employ their working people unfairly. I have followed with great interest the statement of the right hon. Baronet opposite, but there was one point in connection with the Bill which I think he failed to grasp. The Bill provides that an exception may be made with regard to the fish trade, where it is necessary that the fish upon the arrival of the fishing boats must be dealt with
132
immediately in order to preserve it. There is a safeguard against any abuse of this by unscrupulous employers. If the employer immediately the fish arrives deals with the matter, then it is proper that he should be allowed to employ his workers for longer hours.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: Those words are in the present law.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: There is a clause here under which an employer can extend overtime in these necessary circumstances as regards fish. With regard to fruit, I find that there is no safeguard of a corresponding character, and the practice which exists at the present time of jam-makers waiting until the fruit is almost ready for dissolution, so that they may get a favourable market for themselves, and then go in for extensive overtime, is not guarded against by the Bill as it stands. Just as the employer in the fish trade can only obtain extensive overtime if he proceeds at once immediately the fish arrives, so the employer in the jam factory should be allowed an extension of overtime if he proceeds at once when the fruit arrives from the place where it is grown. I think that, whatever safeguards are introduced to prevent an abuse in the fish trade, the same safeguard should also be introduced to prevent any abuse in the fruit trade. I welcome this Bill as one who is most anxious for progress in social legislation. I welcome this measure as a moderate and, on the whole, a satisfactory contribution to a very wide and difficult subject. I believe the Bill will pass readily into law, and no doubt it will have its Second Reading to-night. There will probably be a very large number of Amendments, but I am inclined to think that a very large amount of the work which my right hon. friend suggests will have to be done in Grand Committee will prove considerably more easy than he anticipates. I have no doubt that, whatever the record of this Parliament may be, we shall in this Bill place upon the Statute Book a measure which will advance the cause of working men, and which will be an example of the advanced policy of my right hon. friend, and a worthy record of his businesslike capacity for dealing with difficult subjects.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: With the general principles of this Bill I am in cordial agreement, and I should be very sorry if anything occurred which prevented me from giving it my support. I have not, however, risen to take part in the general considerations raised by the Bill, I have risen to occupy a very few moments of the time of the House, in order to put before it a claim which we desire to urge, and which was alluded to in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill to-night. We desire to make a claim for the exemption from the operation of this Bill of a certain limited class of charitable institutions in Great Britain and Ireland. I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean, because I know by the record of 1895 that upon this point he was not in agreement with us. I gather from the speech he made to-night that he is practically in agreement with the claim we now put forward. When I speak of a certain limited class of charitable institutions, I refer to the Refuge Laundries These are laundries conducted by charitable institutions, really for the purpose of saving and reforming a certain class of the community, where the labour employed is the labour drawn from this particular class, and where the laundry is not in the ordinary sense of the word a real factory at all. I find that there is a common misunderstanding upon this point amongst some hon. Members of the House. Within the last few days I have made it my business to elicit the views of many hon. Members upon this subject, and I have been met by the statement that they could not agree to our claim, because they imagined it was one put forward on behalf of conventual institutions in Ireland, which we desired to put above the law, and above the provisions of the Factory Acts. That is not so. In the first place I desire to point out that the charitable institutions to which I allude are not entirely conducted by convents, and not entirely conducted by Catholics. Some are conducted by charitable ladies of the Protestant religion, and both in Great Britain and Ireland there are at this moment a considerable number of these institutions which are Protestant in their character, and not connected with the convents at all, and
134
we make this claim equally for them. I have reason to know that these Protestant institutions to which I am alluding have just as great objections to being put under the provisions of this Bill as those conducted by convents and by Catholics. But more than that, we have never put forward the claim that conventual institutions should be placed above the law, or should be atempt from the provisions of the Factory Acts, or any extension of them. What is actually taking place at this moment is an answer to that, because the industrial schools conducted by convents and the laundries connected with these industrial schools are at this moment subject to the provisions of the Factory Acts, and are subject to inspection. Moreover, other institutions, such as the Foxford woollen factories, to which my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo called attention, are also subject to the provisions of the Factory Acts, and this, too, without any objection on their part to inspection.
Therefore, I make this double statement. We are not putting forward a claim simply on behalf of Catholics or convents, and, in the second place, we are not making this claim because they are conventual institutions. The claim we put forward is of an entirely different character, and it is based upon entirely different grounds. It is based entirely upon the character of the labour employed. The claim we make is confined to those institutions, reformatory in their character, in which the labour employed is the labour of fallen women who have been taken by these charitable ladies, who have brought them into these institutions and provided them with work and with means of salvation from continuing in their evil courses. We limit our claim strictly to these institutions, and I think I am right in interpreting the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean that so far he is with us, and so far as we limit our claim to these institutions he has no objection to an exception being made in their favour. I am sure that it is quite unnecessary for me to emphasise the fact that the kind of charity which is exercised by the ladies in these institutions is probably the noblest charity which anybody could possibly engage in. I do not think it is necessary for me to go another

135
step further and say that this particular charity is not only the noblest that the wit of man can conceive, but it is also the most difficult of all charities to conduct. The great object of these ladies is to keep these girls in those institutions. The organisations I refer to are great societies like the Society of the Good Shepherd, which exists in every country in the world, has been employed for years and generations, and perhaps centuries, in carrying on this work, and it has, therefore, the most experience in the carrying on of this work. The members of this Society of the Good Shepherd are unanimously of opinion that the introduction into their institutions of an outside authority in the shape of Government inspectors would completely destroy the discipline of their institutions, and make their already almost impossible task absolutely impossible. When that is remembered, I think the House ought to hesitate before it forces upon these institutions provisions which, however necessary they may be in ordinary factories, are not suitable for, and ought not to be forced upon institutions of this kind. It is not as if any case had ever been made out in support of the inspection of these institutions. No one urges that they are insanitary, or that an improper number of hours is imposed upon the inmates. We all know that in these institutions there is inspection, although not Government inspection. There is an inspection by the superiors of the religious orders to which they belong, which makes it impossible either for insanitary arrangements to exist or improper hours of labour to be enforced.
I do not understand why the Home Secretary has introduced the clause which stands in the Bill at this moment. Perhaps I may be allowed for one moment to refer to what occurred in 1895. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife was then Home Secretary, and in the Bill which he introduced there was a clause which applied the Factory Acts to these institutions. The matter was discussed in this House, and on the Second Reading of the Bill Mr. Henry Matthews, who subsequently was Home Secretary in a Conservative Government, raised the question, and he said—
"He felt bound to say a word in reference to convent laundries, a considerable number of
136
which would come under the Bill. They were kept going by ladies whose lives were devoted to works of the noblest charity, and who eked out their want of fortune by the small assistance which they could derive from these laundries. He would take, for instance, the Order of the Good Shepherd, the members of which devoted their efforts to the reformation of fallen women. The ladies of these institutions viewed the intrusion by the Government inspector with feelings of pain and almost horror, and he thought they certainly ought not to be subjected to such treatment unless some strong case was made out. But what case had been made out? Again, when he referred to the Home Office Report, he found nothing whatever in it in condemnation of the convent laundries. In no case was it stated that the factory hours were exceeded, and he knew this from his own experience. In none of them, moreover, was there any night labour. To apply the Factory Acts to such institutions as those of the Order of the Good Shepherd—to require, for instance, that on certain days holidays should be given to the inmates whether they deserved them or not—would, it seemed to him, be a wanton interference with the work of charity."*
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, did not precisely take that view on the Second Reading of the Bill. He rather took the view that it was impossible to make an exception in those cases. When the Bill went before the Grand Committee, and when a real opportunity was given for thoroughly discussing all the aspects of this case, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife changed his mind, and in that Grand Committee on the Amendment which was moved by Mr. Sexton, after a very long discussion, it was finally decided to exclude those institutions from the Bill—to exclude, in the words of the Amendment, "the inmates of institutions conducted in good faith for religious or charitable purposes." These words were accepted by the Standing Committee by an enormous majority. At that time the right hon. Gentleman had become converted to the view which was pressed upon him at the end of the Second Reading. The Amendment was accepted by the Grand Committee by thirty-eight to ten. In the thirty-eight votes there were leading representatives of every section in this House—Mr. Gerald Balfour, Sir J. Gorst, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Wyndham, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. The minority, which was ex-
*See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xxxii., page 1484.

137
ceedingly small, included the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, and I am glad to find that the view which caused him to vote against that Amendment was that the words were too general, and that, if words can now be devised to limit the exception to the class of institutions I refer to, even the right hon. Baronet will be in favour of it. I confess that I cannot see how the question has been raised at all in this Bill. In 1895 a settlement was arrived at after the most mature consideration with practical unanimity. Since 1895 what case has arisen to cause you to reopen this question? I want to know whether since 1895 there has been the slightest evidence—
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: There was a very bad case in a woman's home for the cure of drunkenness in London.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not understand that at all. I am not talking of places shut up for drunkenness at all. Surely I have made myself plain. I am not talking of any institutions except the particular kind of institutions I have described, and with reference to those institutions I want to know what case since 1895 has been made, or what case can be made either from the point of view of the sanitary appointments or from the point of view of the work the girls are called upon to do, to necessitate the reopening of this question, I say there has been absolutely no case made, and I think it is regrettable that this clause has been introduced in the Bill at all. But my colleagues and myself have had some opportunity of discussing this matter with the Home Secretary and, owing to his kindness, of meeting also the Leader of the House, and I am bound to say that we have found both of them thoroughly sympathetic with the object we have in view, and I am convinced that, if no definite arrangement has been come to for the omission of this clause, they desire to exempt these institutions. What I would urge upon them very strongly is that they ought not to attempt to exempt these institutions by a side wind. I think it would be a misfortune, from the point of view of the Factory Acts as a whole, if by any device they applied nominally a system of inspection to these institu-
138
tions under such circumstances, and that this inspection should be a mockery and deliberately made a nullity. It would be far better to exempt the institutions from inspection than to apply a system of inspection on the understanding that it would be merely a nominal one.
*MR. RITCHIE: I understand the hon. Member is referring only to laundries connected with charitable institutions.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am speaking entirely of that class of laundry, conducted as a charitable institution, which is, so to speak, reformatory in its character. It is very hard to get a word to describe exactly what I mean. They are Magdalene asylums, such as those which are conducted by the Order of the Good Shepherd in Ireland, and other orders in this country. If you exempt these refuge laundries I believe you will have dealt with every case of a laundry conducted by a charitable institution except those connected with industrial schools, where you have already inspection. The points I desire to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman are these: firstly, that the exemption we ask for applies to a clearly-defined and very limited class; secondly, that it is strongly desirable not to upset the arrangement which was come to with reference to these laundries in the Bill of 1895, after full deliberation and practical unanimity; and, thirdly, in the very exceptional circumstances of these institutions you ought, in my opinion, to exempt them from the provisions of this Act. I have endeavoured, as shortly as I could, to make this claim, and I do not desire to labour it. This Bill will come before the Grand Committee, and I would most earnestly urge upon the Home Secretary and those who are responsible for the Bill that between now and the assembling of the Grand Committee they should carefully consider this matter, and that, being, as I believe they are, almost entirely in agreement with us, they ought to be able to frame words which would meet our view. Finally, let me again impress upon them that the way to meet it is not by providing a nominal inspection, which will be a mockery, and which will reflect upon the whole system of the Factory Acts, but by exempting these laundries from the operation of the Bill.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The Government are very anxious to meet any legitimate case which can be made out on the subject so eloquently dealt with by the hon. Member for Waterford. There will be no attempt to finish the case to-night against the will of any important section of the House. I quite agree that if the House desire, or if any important section of the House desire, that the debate should go over to another day, it would be impossible to press the Second Reading to-night. But I would venture to say that it would be a very great advantage from the point of view of the Bill if we could get the Second Reading to-night, and send it to the Grand Committee. My idea of the business next week may be modified, but at present it is to take the Finance Bill. I leave it to the House to decide entirely what they ought to do in regard to the Bill now under consideration.
*MR. EMMOTTsaid he did not see what was the use of the inquiry suggested in Clause 3 of the Bill. If the result of the inquiry turned out unfavourably to the rules of the Home Secretary, would the opinion be worth very much more than the expert opinion on which the original rules were based? The only possible difficulty he could see in the matter was that in the future there might be some regime so favourable to the ideas of labour as to harass capital, but that was not a very likely state of affairs to happen. He did not think the power of exemption to be granted to the Home Secretary under Clause 4 was a wise one. With regard to the question of the administrative authority, he did not like the substitution of the local authority for the factory inspector. The system had been tried before, and it had failed. To his mind it would lead to great inequality of administration. In many local authorities the chairman and the members were the very individuals chiefly likely to be sinners under this Act. Clause 40 proposed to exclude magistrates from sitting in cases connected with trades in which they were engaged. He asked, if that was a right principle for justices who had to deal with infringements of the law, whether it was not a right principle for those who had to administer the law. Speak-
140
ing from the point of view of manufacturers, he ventured to say that they, as a whole, would prefer the uniformity of administration of the Home Office to the laxity of the local authority in one place, and, perhaps, the unreasonable requirements of some jack-in-office who might be appointed by the local authority in another. He hoped the local authority would be dropped out of this matter, and, if not dropped altogether, he hoped the factory inspector would have the power of intervention when called for. Clause 19, which dealt with the question of boilers, was practically, if not actually, a repetition of the clause in the Bill of last year which came before the Boiler Committee, and was approved by them. He believed if this became law it would lead to some diminution of explosions; but, as a matter of detail, it was a question whether twelve months was the right time. He believed it was the custom of many people who had no extra boilers to have boilers cleaned and inspected at Easter or Whitsuntide, and it was possible that fourteen months might be a better period than twelve. He heartily agreed with the general principle of the clause. Referring to the clause dealing with the question of escape from fire, the hon. Member said he did not see any magic in the number forty. It was possible to have death-traps in factories where less than forty persons were employed.
With regard to the question of laundries, he wished they could be treated as factories, and in reference to the question of exceptions, he confessed it was a very difficult one, but he would simply say as a general principle that it seemed to him that the onus to prove a case for exception should be on those who desired it. In reference to Clause 32, dealing with particulars, was it not time that particulars were given for all piece-work and all out-work? The fears in regard to this matter had been shown to be illusory, and it was time the principle was extended. He was told that the change proposed by Clause 34 with reference to returns of persons employed was necessary in order to save money, and also that the Factory Reports might be got out at an earlier period of the year. If these returns were only to apply to periods of three years, they would be of

141
comparatively little value. Scientific sociology was to a large extent in its infancy, and statisticians were using the figures in the annual Factory Reports for the purpose of founding on them conclusions which in a few years would be of considerable value. He believed the statisticians viewed with some dread the possibilty of these figures only being given triennially. He appealed to the Home Secretary to ascertain what was the opinion in this matter of the Royal Statistical Society. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would find that they would regret any step whereby the statistical returns were only to be given once in three years. He could not see in reference to the Accidents Clause (35) why the Secretary of State should have power to exempt certain classes of accidents from the returns. In this matter also it was unadvisable to alter the statistical basis without good reason. He could not himself interpret the legal phraseology of Clause 40, but he wished to know whether a person engaged in the same trade would include a director of a company and a shareholder in a joint stock company. The principle was perfectly right, but there were some districts in which this clause could hardly be carried out, and he asked the Home Secretary to inquire into it. In his own petty sessional division of the county of Lancashire, having looked through the list of justices, he could not see how a court could be constituted which would be unconnected with the cotton trade. He hoped the Bill would be passed with the necessary Amendments, and that it would do much good to those whom it was intended to serve.
*MR. TALBOTsupported the claim for the exemption of laundries connected with religious and charitable institutions. Such exemption might safely be allowed without detriment to the persons employed. The demand did not come from one side of the House only, or from the adherents of one religious community. The persons engaged in the fruit-preserving industry were not at all adequately protected by the Bill. This was a matter to which he had in former sessions drawn attention, and he intended to move amendments in that direction. He was sure that the defects
142
of the Bill would be remedied in the Grand Committee, and he anticipated a speedy and successful passing of the measure.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he represented a constituency which consisted largely of dockers, and he regretted that that body of labourers was not included in the provisions of the Bill. He had hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would favourably consider the request that they should be included in the Bill. There was scarcely any body in the country who were more entitled to sympathetic consideration than the dock labourers. Their work was extremely precarious, and he was told that in his constituency fifteen shillings a week was very often the average sum these men obtained. The docker at present had practically no protection under the Factory Acts. He would call the attention of the Home Secretary to a set of figures which he had received from Mr. Sexton, of the Dock Labourers' Union at Liverpool. He did not think the House was aware of the extraordinary mortality which existed amongst dock labourers. As a matter of fact, the mortality among them was far higher than that among miners, but he was bound in honesty to acknowledge that the number killed in the case of miners was far in excess of the number in the case of dockers. There was a considerable amount of insufficient, worn-out, and dangerous plant and machinery used by the dockers, and accidents were of daily occurrence. He impressed on the Home Secretary that what the docker wanted was not compensation, but prevention from danger in the performance of his work. Many suggestions could be made by which accidents could be very considerably lessened. He asked the Home Secretary to consider what could be done to protect the dock labourers.
MR. ASQUITHmoved the adjournment of the debate.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot refuse the right hon. Gentleman's request, though I confess I regret it.
Debate adjourned till Thursday.

CIVIL LIST BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. CALDWELLsaid the House should not be asked at two minutes to twelve to pass the Third Reading of this Bill without a word of discussion. He had voted in favour of the Civil List, but he thought an opportunity for making remarks upon it should be afforded on the Third Reading. He did not object to the amount given to the Duke of Cornwall, but he objected very strongly to his having the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, and to his having revenues which constituted him a landed proprietor in London. It was unfortunate that the Duke of Cornwall, or any member of the Royal Family, should be placed in the position of a landlord, because questions of non-payment of rent and eviction must necessarily arise. He could not conceive any position more injurious to the Royal Family.
It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

WAYS AND MEANS (10TH JUNE).
Resolution reported.

MOLASSES AND GLUCOSE.
"That there shall be charged on and after the eleventh day of June nineteen hundred and one the following Customs duties:—

s.

d.

Molasses and all sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be tested by the polariscope—

If containing 70 per cent. or more of sweetening matter

the cwt.

2

9

If containing less than 70 per cent. and more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter

the cwt.

2

0

If containing not more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter

the cwt.

1

0

Glucose:

Solid

the cwt.

2

9

Liquid

the cwt.

2

0

And that there shall be charged on and after the same date on glucose excise duties equivalent to the Customs duties charged on that article."
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Finance Bill that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said resolution.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

HOUSING OF THE LABOURING CLASSES.
Resolved, That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the Standing Orders relating to houses occupied by persons of the labouring class and the Clauses usually inserted in Private and Local Bills and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills in pursuance thereof; and to report whether any amendments should be made in such Standing Orders and Clauses, and especially whether any and what provision should be made for better securing the re-housing of all persons of the labouring class who may be displaced in connection with the undertakings to which the Bills relate, whether displaced under the powers given by the Bills or otherwise.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)

STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
The Select Committee on Steam Engines and Boilers (Persons in Charge) Bill was nominated of—Mr. William Allan, Mr. Baldwin, Sir John Brunner, Mr. Crean, Mr. Galloway, Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Nannetti, Lieut.-Colonel Pilkington, Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Renshaw, Colonel Royds, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), and Sir Thomas Wrightson.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)
Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.