Commons Sitting of 14 May 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GARSTON AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRIC SUPPLY (TRANSFER) RILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  BUXTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [LORDS].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Drogheda, Wexford, and Wicklow, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Brownies Taing and St. Margaret's Hope, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Burley-in-Wharfedale and Menston, the Hanley, Stoke, and Fenton, the North Staffordshire, the Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge, and Southborough, and the Waltham United Districts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Drogheda, Wexford, and Wicklow," presented, and read the first
  170
  time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Brownies Taing and St. Margaret's Hope," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Burley-in-Wharfedale and Menston, the Hanley, Stoke, and Fenton, the North Staffordshire, the Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge, and Southborough, and the Waltham United Districts," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]
  DEAL AND WALMER GAS BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. Bill to be read the third time.
PETITIONS.
  CLUBS REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: Prom Heyworth; Worsley; Sunderland; and Ashby; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Whitby and Leeds; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Bristol, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Hay; Pendlebury; and Urmston; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOT-LAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: From East Grafton and Clapham; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Poplar, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Montrose, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Eastbourne and Duns; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition from London, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Crook, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPOUTS, ETC.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Judicial Statistics for England and Wales, 1900, Part II. (Civil Judicial Statistics), edited by John Macdonell, Esq., C.B., Master of the Supreme Court [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of
  172
  Northampton, altering certain Polling Districts in the Southern Parliamentary Division [by Act], to lie upon the Table.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS. (FIVE HOURS SPELL IN HOSIERY FACTORIES.)
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 12th May, 1902, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 39 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending to Hosiery Factories the exception by which a woman, young person, or child may be employed continuously for five; hours, and also directing that in the case of Hosiery Factories the exception shall not be limited to certain months of the year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
  Copy presented, of Nineteenth Report of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, with Appendices, for the year 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 178.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Model Course of Physical Training for use in the upper Departments of Public Elementary Schools, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Copy presented, of Minute sanctioning the Subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act, for the County of Buckingham (Ninth Minute) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Copy presented, of Minute sanctioning the Subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act, for the County of Dorset (Fourth Minute) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  Copy presented, of Forty fifth Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1901–2 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CABLE COMMUNICATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Inter-Departmental Committee on Cable Communications [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2,790 to 2,794 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1901 and Report to the Board of Trade thereon."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE TOTES.

  Board of Education—Senior Assistant Clerks.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there are in the Education Department certain senior assistant clerks (Abstractor Class) who are checking the work of assistant clerks recently promoted from the position of temporary clerical assistants, whose increment, in consequence of their being in receipt of less than £120, is only £2 10s., or just half that of the men whose work they check; and whether he is prepared to remove this inequality by increasing the increment of the senior assistant clerks to the same sum (£5) as that received by promoted temporary clericalassistants.
  (Answer.) My attention has more than once boon called to the differences in the scales of remuneration of the old and new classes of assistant clerks, but, after careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that there is no reason for making any further change in the scale of the former class. The distribution of work within the Education Department is, of course, a matter over which I have no control.—(Treasury.)

Limerick and Kerry Mails.
MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he
174
can state in what condition is the existing contract, if any, for the carrying of His Majesty's mails from Limerick Junction through the districts of Limerick and County Kerry; and whether it is the intention of the Government to carry the mails by car instead of by rail as heretofore.
(Answer.) No alteration has been made in the mail service between Limerick Junction and Limerick. The contract for the mail service on the Kerry line has been terminated by notice from the railway company, who have demanded such a large increase for the maintenance of the present trains that the Postmaster General had no alternative but to acquiesce in the modifications of the service which have been arranged by the company. This will necessitate the conveyance of the mails in certain cases by car instead of by railway.—(Post Office.)

Caithness Medical Officer.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the recently-appointed medical officer of health for the county of Caithness is the holder of a diploma in sanitary science, public health, or state medicine under Section 21 of the, Medical Act, 1886.
(Answer.) I am informed by the Local Government Board that Dr. Dick is registered under Section 21 of the Medical Act, 1886, as holder of the Edinburgh University diploma of B.Sc. (Public Health).—(Scottish Office.)

Interments in Crofting Counties-Death Certificates.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of interments which took place in each of the six crofting counties last year without the production of a medical certificate of death.
(Answer.) On the 26th April, 1901, in reply to a similar Question, I pointed out to the hon. Member that a medical certificate of death is not a necessary condition of burial in any part of Scotland. There is no information in the Registrar's Office as to the number of interments without the production of a medical certificate.—(Scottish Office.)

Stockholm Sea Fisheries Conference—Report.
SIR JOHN TUKE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish the Reports of the British delegates sent to the Stockholm and Christiania Conference on North Sea Fishery Investigations, and the correspondence bearing on these Reports between His Majesty's Government and the various Continental Governments concerned; if he can state the cost of the investigations which are to be undertaken, and the proportion which will be borne by the several Governments.
(Answer.) I will consider whether any of the Reports referred to can properly be published, and I will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject. The amount proposed to be expended in three years by Great Britain on fishery investigations, including the share of the cost of the central bureau, is £42,000, but I have no information as to the amount proposed to be expended by other countries.—(Board of Trade.)

Light Railways Bill.
MR. BILL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to introduce a Light Railways Bill during the present session; and, if so, when.
(Answer.) A Bill is in draft, but I am not yet in a position to say whether it will be possible to introduce it this session.—(Board of Trade.)

Convict Prisons—Civil and Military Prisoners.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any distinction in the treatment in convict and local prisons between soldiers sentenced to penal servitude for military offences and criminals sentenced by a civil court for the worst offences.
(Answer.) The rules for carrying out sentences of penal servitude do not differentiate between different classes of convicts except in so far as a convict may be placed in the star class.—(Home Office.)

India—Government Purchases of Silver.
MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that during the past financial year an unusual amount of silver was purchased by the Indian. Government, whether he can state the exact sum so purchased; and, having regard to the fact that during the present financial year no silver was bought, whether he will consider the advisability of adopting a policy which will prevent any disturbance of the world's silver market and the exchange currency of Asia.
(Answer.) 1. The amount paid for the purchase of silver during the past financial, year was £2,885; but the hon. Member's Question is probably intended to refer to the year 1900–1, when silver was bought in England for the Government of India to the value of £5,649,924, besides about £400,000 bought in India. 2. The Government cannot undertake to buy silver for the coinage of rupees except when there is reason to believe that such coinage will soon be needed in India.—(India Office.)

Lucknow Military Hospital—Special Wards.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that the hospital for the native troops at Lucknow is unprovided with a ward or room of any kind for serious ophthalmic or other cases of a special character, will he take such steps as may be necessary to ensure the provision of suitable accommodation for such cases.
(Answer.) I have no special information as to the details of the accommodation provided at this hospital, but I am confident that the matter may safely be left to the discretion of the Government of India, who, aided by their professional advisers, are always anxious to make the best arrangements that are practicable for the treatment of soldiers who are on the sick list or in hospital.—(India Office.)

Darjeeling Municipal Council—Exclusion of Reporters.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware

177
that reporters are excluded from all meetings of the Darjeeling Municipal Council unless they are ratepayers; and will he cause inquiry to be made into the matter.
(Answer.) I have no special information on the subject to which the hon. Member refers; but the law requires that the minute book of the Municipal Council shall be open to the inspection of ratepayers. I have no doubt but that this provision is complied with, and I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the local Government as regards the class of reporters to be admitted.—(India Office.)

Diplomatic Service—Appointments.
MR. MURRAY: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to recent appointments to missions abroad of persons not belonging to the regular diplomatic service; whether, with the view of preventing discouragement to men who have little interest, but who have given good service in distant quarters of the world, and stagnation in the ranks, he will, in the event of any immediate vacancy occurring at a secondary European post, give an assurance that the claims of members of the diplomatic service will be kept in view.
(Answer.) The claims of members of the diplomatic service are always con sidered when selections are made for appointment to missions abroad, but in the exercise of the discretion which is reserved to him under the regulations for the diplomatic service, the' Secretary of State cannot agree to any limitation which might prevent him from making such recommendations as may seem to him best for the public interest.—(Foreign Office.)

Education Code—Omission of Schedule VII.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will explain why Schedule VII. (Rules for Building), in the table of contents of the Code of Regulations for day schools, which
178
is stated to be found on page 56, has been omitted; and if such omission is accidental, or has been decided upon by the Education Office.
(Answer.) I answered this Question on 8th May last as follows:—" It was considered by the Board of Education that building regulations did not properly form part of the Code, and such regulations will be issued shortly as a separate Paper."—(Board of Education.)

Tetbury Union Workhouse.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that it is proposed to build a new workhouse for the Tetbury Union; and if he will consider the desirability of incorporating the Wiltshire parishes of the union with the Malmesbury Union in that county, and of Gloucestershire parishes with other Gloucestershire unions, so as to avoid the expense of building a new workhouse; and if he will state the average number of indoor poor in the Tetbury Union during the past three years; the present rateable value, and the population by the census of 1901; and the estimated cost of the new workhouse.
(Answer.) For many years the workhouse of the Tetbury Union has been unsatisfactory, and the guardians have from time to time had before them the question of building a new one. On the 6th March last the Local Government Board wrote to the guardians, referring to objections to the present building, particularly as regards the risk from fire, and urged them again to consider seriously the whole subject. No communication has since been received from the guardians. I should be willing to consider any application which might be made with regard to the dissolution of the union, but I am informed that the guardians are opposed to any such proposal. During the past three years the mean number of indoor paupers, including vagrants, was forty-seven, forty-three, and forty-seven respectively. The rateable value of the union at Lady Day, 1901, was £31,117, and the population, according to the last census,

179
6,146. I am not in a position to say what would be the cost of building a new workhouse, but I am informed that it has been estimated at £15,000.—(Loral Government Board.)

Irish Land Commission—Enniskillen Union Cases.
MR. M'GOVERN: To ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, having regard to the fact that a portion of the Enniskillen Union is in the county of Cavan, and that it would be a convenience for the tenants who have land cases for hearing before the Chief Commission if cases from Enniskillen Union were put in the County Fermanagh list for hearing at Enniskillen instead of at Cavan, whether he will communicate with the Irish Land Commission with the view of having the hearing of these cases so arranged.
(Answer.) Seven cases from the County Cavan portion of the Enniskillen Union will be heard at Cavan on the 17th of June. It is usual for cases of holdings situated in the county of Cavan to be heard at Cavan; but if the parties desire that these cases should be held over until the next sitting of the Land Commission for the hearing of appeals at Enniskillen, they should make such application as they may be advised to the Court, and the Court will decide the matter according to what they consider to be the most convenient course.—(Irish Office.)

Army Contracts in Bermuda—American Flour.
GENEKAL LAURIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the specification, in the Army contracts for Bermuda, that bread shall be made of the best American white flour implies that it shall be of flour produced in the United States of America only, or whether flour produced in British America would be accepted; and, if British American (Canadian) flour is not admissible, will he state by whoso orders a discrimination was made in the Army contracts against the products of the British dominions and in favour of foreign products.
(Answer.) The existing contract is for flour produced in the United States; the contract was made with the approval of the War Office. The House has been already informed that for future contracts
180
the question of widening the specification for bread is under consideration. I may add that Canadian flour is dearer than that from the United States.—(War Office.)

Volunteers at the Coronation.
COLONEL LUCAS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in addition to the twenty-five officers and men from each Volunteer battalion that will be present at the Coronation procession on the 27th June, he will arrange that a certain proportion of Volunteers from each corps who served in South Africa should also be present.
(Answer.) There is no space available for any more men, but there seems no reason to suppose that commanding officers of Volunteer corps will fail to secure the attendance of men who served in South Africa.—(War Office.)

Education in Bedford—Harper's Charity.
MR. PYM: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether that part of the income of the endowment known as Harper's Charity which at present is expended upon public elementary schools in Bedford, can, under the Education Bill, be hereafter similarly applied.
(Answer.) The answer is in the affirmative.—(Treasury.)

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IX THE HOUSE.

  South Africa Company—Mr. Beit's Appointment as Director.
  MR. SWIFT MACXEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether be is aware that Herr Beit, one of the original petitioners for the charter of the South Africa Committee who helped with monetary aid the Rhodes-Jameson plot against the Transvaal, and who was declared by the Report of the South Africa Committee to have been generally conversant with the objects and proceedings of Mr. Rhodes in the series of circumstances whichled to the Jameson Laid, has been re-appointed to the position of director of the South Africa Company; will he state what

  181
  communications passed between the Chartered Company, or any representative of that Company, and the Colonial Office with reference to the re-appointment of Herr Beit on the Board of that Company; and had that appointment the sanction of the Colonial Office; and, if so, on what grounds was that sanction based.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I have no information as to the alleged re-appointment of Mr. Beit as a director of the British South Africa Company. The appointment of directors of the British South Africa Company is not subject to my approval, unless they are not British subjects.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is Mr. Beit a British subject?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Extension of Natal Boundaries.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether certain portions of the Transvaal, including the districts of Utrecht, Vryheid, and part of Wakkerstroom, have been taken away from its territory and added to that of Natal; and, if so, by what authority this has been done; and whether the fact of this alteration of boundaries has been communicated to the Boer leader and forms part of the terms to which they are called upon to submit; and what opportunity will be given to Parliament to discuss the matter.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The proposed transfer has not yet been carried out, but the necessary legal steps for authorising it are being taken. No special communication has been made to the Boer leaders on the subject, but the matter is now one of common knowledge throughout South Africa. The First Lord of the Treasury has already stated that it is not proposed to ask the House of Commons to come to a formal decision on the subject, but there will be the usual opportunities for discussion upon the Colonial Office Vote.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: Do I understand that the alteration of boundaries, whenever it
  182
  takes place, will be made by the exercise of the Crown prerogative, and not by Act of Parliament?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not by Act of Parliament.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so far back as 1883——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not the Question on the Paper.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I will put another Question later.

  Mrs. Steyn.
  MR. SWIFT MACNE1LL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mrs. Steyn, the wife of President Steyn, of the Orange Free State, after her capture by the British forces, was taken to Bloemfontein; and detained as a prisoner of war; whether this lady is still detained as a prisoner of war; and, if so, will he say on what grounds her detention is based.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): I have no information in regard to this lady.

  Mrs. Christian De Wet.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mrs. Christian De Wet, the wife of the Boer General, was on the 30th March last still detained in the concentration camp at Pieter-maritzburg, and prohibited from leaving that camp; and whether, having regard to the state of this lady's health and increasing physical weakness, the War Office has any, and, if so, what explanation to give for the treatment to which she has been subjected.
  MR. DILLON: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mrs. De Wet is still detained in the concentration camp at Pieter-maritzburg, and, if so will he explain why she is not set at liberty, and on what grounds there was any interference with the liberty of Mrs. De Wet; whether he has sent any answer to the

  183
  letter received by him from Mrs. De Wet last month, and, if he has done so, will he say to what effect.
  MR. BRODRICK: I know nothing of Mrs. De Wet's detention. As I stated to the House in February, Mrs. De Wet can go to Holland or any place out of South Africa she prefers. I have received no letter from Mrs. De Wet.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us some approximation of the time when the persecution of women will cease?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: Has Mrs. De Wet been informed that she may leave South Africa?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have not the slightest doubt about it. I think the telegram from Lord Kitchener stated that she had been informed that she could go where she pleased.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will see that she is so informed.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; I think an exaggerated importance has been attached to Mrs. De Wet's position.

  Mr. Cartwright.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War at what decision the Government have arrived as to the detention of Mr. Cartwright in Cape Town.
  MR. BRODRICK: The last information I have as to Mr. Cartwright is dated 6th May, when Lord Kitchener telegraphed that he wishes to remain at Cape Town pending further communications from England.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: Is Mr. Cartwright at liberty to communicate with this country?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no reason to suppose that Mr. Cartwright is prohibited in any way from communicating.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Cartwright may leave if he likes?
  MR. BRODRICK: I gather from the telegram that Mr. Cartwright has elected for the present to remain at Cape Town. So far as the Government are concerned, unless there is some objection on the part of Lord Kitchener, they do not object.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Then he is not free?
  MR. BRODKICK: I have read the telegram, which says he has elected to remain in Cape Town pending communications from this country.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is no answer at all.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has ascertained if Mr. Cartwright was refused permission to leave Cape Colony for England by the order of Lord Kitchener; or, if not, by whose authority was he thus prevented from making his contemplated journey.
  MR. BRODRICK: The reply is in the affirmative.

  Treatment of Military Prisoners.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers sentenced for military offences to a term of imprisonment and to be discharged the Army are committed to civil prisons in which the worst of civil criminals are undergoing punishment; and whether, under powers conferred upon him under the Army Act, he will direct that all soldiers sentenced to imprisonment for military offences shall be sent to military prisons; and, if not, will he explain why this course should not be taken.
  MR. BRODRICK: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the rest of the Question, there is every intention of sending military prisoners to military prisons only when sufficient accommodation in the latter is available.

  Imperial Yeomanry and Subscription Balls.
  COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a ball is to be held on the 16th May in aid of the funds of the 2nd County of London Imperial Yeomanry, for which tickets are being sold by the Adjutant and at the theatre ticket offices; whether the sanction of the general officer commanding has been obtained; whether the sum of £585,000, provided for the Imperial Yeomanry in the Army Estimates for 1902–3 has been found to be insufficient; and whether this method of raising additional money meets with the sanction of the War Office.
  MR. BRODRICK: A ball was arranged, but it will not take place. There is no Regulation to prevent a Yeomanry Regiment from giving a subscription ball, and the Commander-in-Chief has no objection to the ball in question. The Regulations recognise the private funds of Yeomanry Regiments.

  War Department Employees and the Coronation.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether all the workmen employed under his Department will be paid their wages for the two days holiday at the Coronation; and whether he can do anything to induce the contractors employed by the War Office to observe the same rule.
  MR. BRODRICK: Workmen in establishments under the War Department will receive wages for the two days holiday at the Coronation. The War Department exercises no control over workmen employed by contractors, and it is a matter for their employers to decide whether they will pay wages, as suggested, for the two days. They have full notice that the Government Establishments will be closed on those days

  Admiralty Transport Agreements.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Admiralty from time to time renew the charter or employment for South African transport purposes of
  186
  tonnage, which, though nominally British, is American-owned, in preference to British-owned tonnage, and also take up fresh foreign tonnage in preference to British tonnage; and will the Admiralty consider the advisability of reversing this procedure, and, other things being equal, of giving the preference to British-owned tonnage.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): Under the Transport Regulations no ship is engaged for any purpose which does not sail under the British flag. All vessels sailing under the British flag are legally British ships, and it is difficult and in many cases impracticable for the Transport Department of the Admiralty to make full inquiries into the actual ownership of any particular ship or ships. At the same time I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member that it is desirable, wherever possible, to give a preference to British-owned tonnage for the performance of national services. The Transport Department is alive to the point, and will, I trust, be able to give greater effect in the future to the principle to which I have referred.

  Admiralty Workmen and the Coronation Holiday.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether all workmen employed under his Department will be paid their wages for the two days holiday at the Coronation; and whether he can do anything to induce the con tractors employed by the Admiralty to observe the same rule.
  MR. ARXOLD-FORSTER: As previously stated, workmen in establishments under the Admiralty will receive wages for the two days holiday at the Coronation. The Admiralty exercises no control over workmen employed by contractors, and it is a matter for their employers to decide whether they will pay wages, as suggested, for the two days. They have full notice that the Government Establishments will be closed on those days.

  New Hebrides—Naval Commission.
  MR. BARKER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangement has been come to between England

  187
  and France to enlarge the powers of the Naval Commission appointed in 1888 for the protection of persons and property in the New, Hebrides; and whether this mixed Commission is to be supplemented by an authority appointed to adjudicate upon private ownership of land.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAN-BORNE, Rochester): The two Governments have each appointed a Resident Deputy Commissioner in the New Hebrides to watch over the interests of their nationals, and to maintain order and exercise jurisdiction over them. These Deputy Commissioners, however, will not have authority to determine disputes as to the ownership of land. For this purpose it is proposed to make other arrangements, which are still the subject of negotiation.

  Foreign Criminals in London.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the number of foreigners convicted on serious charges, especially in the North London sessions, he has taken, or proposes to take, any steps to bring the facts to the notice of the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, in order that the Commissioners may consider whether these convictions have any connection, and, if so, to what extent, with the immigration of aliens.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I have no doubt that the Commission will consider that aspect of the question to which the hon. Member refers, and I do not think that there is any necessity for action on my part in the direction suggested.

  Public Houses and the Coronation.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proposed proclamations as to closing places of business on Coronation Day will include the closing of public houses on that day.
  MR. RITCHIE: The answer is in the negative.

  Boys in the Mercantile Marine.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether sufficient time has now elapsed since the, 27th July, 1898, for him to give an estimate of the total number of boys who will be carried under the Reduced Lights Dues Clause of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act of 1898 as compared with the estimated number of 16,150; and whether he can make a statement to enable Parliament to judge if the operation of the clause is likely to be sufficient to prevent the continued decline in the number of British sailors, especially among the younger men.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): 16,150 Was mentioned in the course of the debate on the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Bill by my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, who was then President of the Board of Trade, as being the maximum number of boys which would be carried if advantage to the full were taken of the proposal contained in Section 6 of the Bill. Since the scheme came into force 1,523 boys have been enrolled, and the numbers show a steady tendency to increase. It is impossible for me to give an estimate of what number of boy sailors will be enrolled up to March, 1905, when under Section 6 of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act the scheme will cease to be in force, unless otherwise enacted by Parliament; and it is consequently also-impossible for me to state how far the operation of the scheme will have an effect on the number of British seamen in the Mercantile Marine.

  Zetland Lights.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the paragraph in the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland, 1902, which states-that in the cases of Rova Head and Symbister Ness, in Zetland, the Commissioners were unable to sanction the placing of lights by anyone except a properly constituted lighthouse authority,

  189
  on account of the importance of these situations as regards general navigation; and if he will, in view of the importance of these lights, grant the necessary permission to the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners to erect the same.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has not been previously called to the Report. No determination with regard to this matter has yet been made, but the Board of Trade are fully alive to the importance of the question, and hope to be able to communicate their decision to the Trinity House in the course of a few days.

  Gambling in Grain Futures.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department is aware of the legislative measures now enforced in Germany to discourage gambling in futures in grain and options in other products; and whether the Government will consider the question of introducing similar legislation to safeguard the producers and consumers of the three kingdoms.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware of the German legislation regulating produce exchanges. There is no intention to introduce similar legislation in this country.

  Butter Regulations Committee.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the paragraph in the interim Report of the Butter Regulations Committee in which it is said—
  "The Committee, moreover, understand that the vendors of this type of butter containing water in excess of the proposed official limit would he legally protected, provided that a sufficient disclosure is made to the purchaser. This consideration finally decided the Committee to recommend a single limit, and to leave it to the vendors of Irish salt firkin butter to protect themselves in the simple manner indicated."
  And whether, in view of the crisis which may be said to have arisen in the butter trade, he will say whether the legal advisers of the Department have been con sulted Upon this matter, and whether they agreed with the view of the law expressed in this paragraph of the Report of the Committee.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): I had no power under the statute to do more than state what the standard should be—and in the opinion of my legal advisers the fact of the fixing of a standard did not necessarily prevent disclosure of an excess of water being a sufficient defence—but I cannot, of course, say what view the Courts may take. In any case, the Report of the Committee was intended, I understand, to do no more than safeguard, for a reasonable period, the old-fashioned industry in which brine is used for the purpose of preserving the butter. In any steps I have to take to prevent the fraudulent addition of water—an object in which all makers and sellers of genuine butter in both countries are interested—the view taken by the Committee as to brine preserved butter will be recognised.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the opinion of the legal advisers of the Department is that disclosure is a protection?
  MR. HANBURY: That is so.

  Pauper Children in Roman Catholic Schools—Maintenance Rates.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the London County Council and the School Board for London, who support children under the Industrial Schools Act in. Roman Catholic schools, have recently raised their payments from 7s. to 8s. per week on account of increased necessities; and, if so,. whether, in view of, the in crease of expenditure in the Metropolitan schools, the Local Government Board will now sanction the increased payment for pauper children in Roman Catholic schools which many Metropolitan Boards, of Guardians are willing to make.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk): I understand that in some cases there has been an increase in the payments by local authorities in respect of children in industrial schools, but such payments are not subject to the legal limitations which" apply to payments for pauper children in certified schools. As I stated, however,

  191
  on Monday last, the question of the rate of payment for pauper children in certain Roman Catholic schools is receiving my consideration.
  MR. FLYNN: If the local authorities are willing to make the increase, will the Local Government Board sanction it?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I have said that the matter is under consideration.

  Coronation Celebration—Expenses of Local Authorities.
  MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether local authorities who decide to levy a rate for any purpose connected with the Coronation celebrations will be liable to surcharge by the auditor; and whether a rate so levied will have the same authority as a rate levied for ordinary local government purposes, and be recoverable from ratepayers like other rates.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The effect of the Order recently issued by me will be to prevent the disallowance by a district auditor of the reasonable expenses incurred in this matter by any local authority to which the Order applies. In issuing the Order, I explained that its effect will not be to legalise any such expenses, but only to prevent their disallowance by the auditor. I have no authority to determine questions as to the validity of any rate which might include a sum to meet expenditure of this kind, and I cannot express an opinion on the subject. Such questions can only be determined by a Court of Law.
  MR. CHANNING: Do I understand that the rate must be voluntary?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: That is a point of law which I cannot answer.

  Irish Local Taxation.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that inconvenience has resulted from the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, in regard to the rating powers of municipal bodies constituted under local
  192
  Acts; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing at an early date a general measure dealing with local taxation in Ireland.
  TUE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDIIAM, Dover): There are two cases (Sligo and Enniskillen) in which a question has arisen with respect to the rating power of the municipal bodies concerned under local Acts. In reply to the concluding inquiry, I must refer to my answer to the next Question.

  Grants in Aid for Irish Local Government.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention had been drawn to that portion of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation in which the Royal Commissioners recommend that new grants should be given in Ireland in aid of the maintenance of the sick and infirm, of the maintenance and education of poor law children, of the provision of asylum accommodation for pauper lunatics and imbeciles, and for the up-keep of main roads; and can he inform the House whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to give legislative effect this session to those recommendations; and, if not, can he make any statement as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government respecting legislation in the direction indicated.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The grants recommended in the case of Ireland by the majority of the Commissioners are analogous to those suggested by the same authorities for England, and the Government could only entertain consideration of these recommendations in their application to the United Kingdom as a whole. I can make no statement as to the intention of the Government, but obviously legislation would not be possible during the present session.

  Irish Main Road Maintenance.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the urgency of the question, he will take steps at an early date to give effect to the recommendation of the

  193
  Royal Commission on Local Taxation that a small Commission should be appointed to determine what roads in Ireland should be entered in the category of main roads with a view to subvention for their maintenance.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. A condition precedent to the appointment of a Commission would be the provision of a grant in aid for the purpose mentioned. No such grant has yet been provided by Parliament.

  Imprisonment for Contempt of Court.
  MR. P. A. MTIUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how long John Lavin, of Ballinaford, has been held a prisoner in Sligo Gaol; what was his offence; what was the order made in his case; and when will he be released.
  MR. TULLY: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how long John Lavin, of Corricknahorna, near Boyle, who is over seventy-three years of age has been detained as a prisoner in Sligo Gaol; on what charge was he committed to prison; and when is it proposed to release him.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This man was committed to prison on the 7th May, 1901, for an unlimited period, for contempt under a Writ of Attachment issued by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. I have called for information as to the nature of the contempt, but have not yet received it. I cannot say when he will be released. The matter is not one in which the Executive can intervene.
  MR. DILLON: Then, can a man be kept in gaol for the rest of his natural life?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The rule is that any person so committed remains in prison until he has purged his contempt.

  Richmond Asylum.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR:: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether
  194
  he will order an inquiry into the cause of the increased cost of maintaining lunatics in the Richmond Asylum.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The regulation of expenditure on the maintenance of lunatics in the asylum is placed entirely in the hands of the Committee of Management, by the 9th Section of the Local Government Act of 1898. The Executive exercises no control in the matter so long as the standard of treatment of the patients is such as to justify payment of the capitation grant. The reply to the Question is, therefore, in the negative.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: And is there no remedy against these constant increases?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Not at the hands of the Executive, to my knowledge.

  Compensation for Malicious Injury.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Mr. Carty, of Tomacork, County Wicklow, was awarded compensation for the alleged destruction of plough wheels; and, seeing that the wheels have since been found in a ditch situated within Carty's farm, whether he will order an inquiry into the case with a view to the return of the amount of the compensation to the local authorities; and whether, having regard to the increase of alleged malicious injuries under the Local Government Act, 1898, he will consider the advisability of amending the Malicious Injuries Clause in the aforesaid Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Compensation amounting to 9s. 10d. was awarded in this case by the County Court judge at Quarter Sessions on the 21st April. On the same date the wheels were found in a drain. The Statute confers upon the County Council the right of appeal to the judge of Assize, if it feels aggrieved by the award of the County Court. Whether such an appeal will be taken in the present case I am unable to say; but in any event the Government has

  195
  no power to intervene in the manner suggested. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.

  Kilkelly Dispensary Midwife.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent correspondence between the Local Government Board and the Swinford Board of Guardians in reference to the appointment of a dispensary midwife in the Kilkelly dispensary district; and, seeing that the Court of King's Bench has recently decided that midwives are officers under the Medical Charities Acts, will he explain why the Local Government Board in this case refuses to treat the midwife as a medical officer.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The decision of the Court of King's Bench, which was to the effect stated, does not in itself entitle the guardians to recoupment of any portion of the salaries of these officers. The Swinford Guardians have been so informed.
  MR. DILLON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the character of the division? I understand the law is that a midwife is a medical officer. On what legal advice, have the guardians acted in refusing the recoupment?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am advised that legally it is impossible to make the recoupment unless legislation is introduced into this House amending the law.
  MR. DILLON: I shall raise the whole question on another occasion.

  United Irish League—Shandrum Branch.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that, on the occasion of the monthly meetings of the Shandrum (County Cork) Branch of the United Irish League, two constables stood in front of the League meeting rooms taking the names of those who enterednd,; a whether, in view of the condition of the district, he will state the reason for this action of the Constabulary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has not been correctly informed. The police visit this village to prevent any breaches of the Licensing Acts, and the inference that they act in the manner suggested is due to the fact that the licensed houses and the meeting place of the League are in close proximity. The names of persons entering the latter are not taken.

  Claims arising from action of Ex Sergeant Sheridan.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what compensation has been awarded to Pat Quinn, of Ballinamore, County Leitrim, whose cattle were houghed by ex-Sergeant Sheridan; and whether it is proposed to make awards to James M'Goohan and the other claimants who suffered from the action of ex-Sergeant Sheridan while a member of the police force in the County Leitrim.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A sum of £12 has been paid to Quinn. The claim of M'Goohan was carefully investigated, but no evidence whatever was forth-coining to show that the loss sustained by him was in any way traceable to the action of Sheridan. His claim was not, therefore, admitted.

  Tottenham Estate, County Leitrim.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what progress has been made with the inspection of the Tottenham estate, County Leitrim, and when it is likely to be completed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Land Commissioners understand that the inspection of the estate, which is a very large one, is in an advanced state. They are unable, at present, to state "hen the inspection will be completed.

  Irish Land Court Administration.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can grant the

  197
  Return appearing on the Paper today in reference to estates in the Land Court of Ireland.†
  MR. WYNDHAM: The preparation of this Return would, in the opinion of the Land Judge, make such demands upon the time and labour of his staff as would seriously retard the working of the Court. I am unable, therefore, to consent to the Return.

  Belfast Protestant Association.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the President of the Belfast Protestant Association is at present serving a sentence of imprisonment for organising riots in Belfast; and whether, in view of the speeches delivered at a recent meeting of that body, he proposes to allow it to continue its operations.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no truth in the statement in the first part of the Question. The second part presumably refers to a speech to which I alluded in my reply to a previous Question on Monday last.‡
  MR. MACVEAGH: Then may I ask what position is held in this Association by Mr. Arthur Trew, who is now in prison?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no knowledge. But he is not the President.

  Limerick Land Commission Appeals.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that there is a number of cases on appeal from the decisions of the Sub-Land Commissioners to go for adjudication before the Head Commissioners in County Limerick; and, seeing that those cases involve changes in regard to the paying power of the tenants in paying first rent according
  † The return referred to was as follows:—
  "Land Commission (Ireland) (Estates)—Return of the Estates under the control of the Land Court, Ireland, the date on which they passed under the control of the Court, the name of the Receiver in each case, and the date of his appointment."
  ‡ See preceding volume, page 1363.
  198
  to judicial fixture, will he say how soon the Head Commissioners will hold Court to give decisions on those cases?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The circuit list for Michaelmas term has not yet been arranged. It is probable that a sitting at Limerick for the hearing of appeals from County Limerick and North Tipperary will be included in it.

  Irish Law Officers and Private Practice.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether there has been any instance since the passing of the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868, or the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, in which a Law Officer of the Crown appeared as counsel for one of the parties to an election petition; and whether he will state why the Irish Solicitor General appeared for the petitioners in the case of the petition in the Arran Quay Ward, Dublin, a few days ago, in which were involved charges of both corrupt and illegal practices on the part of petitioners and counter-petitioners.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): There are instances of the kind mentioned in Ireland and Scotland. I have not been able to ascertain whether or not similar instances occurred in England. The Solicitor General for Ireland did not violate any of the conditions on which he holds his appointment by appearing in the case referred to.
  MR. DILLON: In consequence of the answer, I shall raise the question on the right hon. Gentleman's salary.

  Transfer of British Ships to Foreign Flags.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that British ships are by the law of England for certain purposes held to be British territory in whatever waters they may be, His Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of proposing the legislative extension of that doctrine, so as to prevent the cession to a foreign flag of British ships that would otherwise be available for naval or military purposes.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I am not quite sure that I apprehend

  199
  the purport of the hon. Gentleman's Question, but if he suggests, as I think he does, that we should by legislative action prevent private owners of British ships from disposing of those ships when we have no lien upon them, I think that would Le a new departure in legislation so important that I could not be expected to deal with it in answer to a Question.

  Foreign Office Vote.
  MR. PARKER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Foreign Office Vote will be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid it is not in my power to fix a date for taking the Foreign Office Vote. My hon. friend is no doubt aware that, in view of unexpected events, it is usual to take it rather late in the session, so that there may be a general survey of the foreign policy of the country when it is discussed.

  Freights on British Goods.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that British shippers have entered into a combination to keep up the freights on British goods, while goods from foreign ports are subject to open competition, and that consequently freights on British produce are in excess of those charged on foreign goods; and if the Select Committee on Shipping Subsidies will not have power to inquire into these matters, whether he will enlarge their powers to enable them to do so.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are arrangements among the shipping lines trading to the East and to the Cape for the regulation of freights, and statements have been made from time to time that they have an injurious effect on British trade. I do not think it expedient to alter the terms of reference to the Select Committee on Shipping Subsidies, which I hope will be shortly re-appointed, but I note that this Committee received evidence during last session with regard to the matters to which the Question relates.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a separate Inquiry on the point?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am far from desiring to minimise the importance of the point, but I think it would be desirable to see what is the evidence collected by the Committee already appointed before we embark on another Inquiry. I do not by any means shut the door on such an Inquiry should the necessity for it be demonstrated.
  MR. GALLOWAY:. Will the right hon. Gentleman put down the Motion for the re-appointment of the Committee in Government time?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, the Committee will have to be put down in Government time, and I hope to take an early opportunity of doing so.

  Suggested International Conference on Bi-Metallism.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the currency complications arising in India and in the Chinese war indemnity payments, the Government will consider the advisability of suggesting an International Conference to confer and report upon the expediency of a general restoration of a bi-metallic currency.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite in accord with the hon. Gentleman that very grave inconvenience, and even worse than inconvenience, has been caused in connection with the Chinese indemnity by the heavy fall in the value of silver, but I do not think that any good would arise were it possible to take the step he suggests.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both in India and in Europe all interest in the bi-metallic craze has died out?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to reply in the negative.

  National Society's Schools.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state the number of public elementary schools in England and Wales which are connected with the National Society; whether he is aware that one of the conditions of affiliation with this society is that the

  201
  masters and mistresses of the schools shall be members of the Church of England; and whether, in the event of the Education Bill becoming law, this religious test will continne to be imposed upon all the teachers in these schools.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No records exist of the actual number of public elementary schools in England and Wales that are connected with the National Society. The terms of union with the society are, I believe, correctly stated in the Question, but are, I am informed, very frequently departed from in practice. Schools marked N. in the Board of Education Return are not necessarily in union with the National Society; and therefore no inferences can be drawn from the Return.

  Voluntary Schools—Special Aid Grant.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the special aid grant at present payable to voluntary schools would, on the passing of the Education Bill, become payable to new schools not established by the education authority; and whether, on the transfer of any existing voluntary school to the education authority, the special aid grant would continue to be paid to that authority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. If I rightly understand the second part, the answer to that is in the negative.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: The point in the second part of the Question is whether, if existing voluntary schools which now receive the special aid grant are handed over to the local authority, they will cease to receive it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the voluntary school is transferred by the machinery provided by the Act of 1870, the aid grant will not be paid.

  New Education Bill—Lapsing School Boards.
  MR. WILSON-TODD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the fact that between the date of the passing of the Education Bill and that of its coming into force, the term of
  202
  office of certain existing School Boards will lapse, will some arrangement be made when the said Bill reaches the Committee stage empowering such School Boards to continue in office up to the date of the Bill coming into force, in order to obviate the expense and trouble of re-elections for such a short period.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am well aware of the importance of the point raised by my hon. friend but I cannot say more than that it will not be overlooked by the Government.

  Business of the House.
  SIR H CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask a Question on a point as to which there is some doubt, as to what will happen in regard to private Bills on Friday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand there is no objection to the Motion for adjournment over the holidays being moved at twelve o'clock on Friday. I should hope that the discussion will last but a short time, and that private Members will not be deprived of their privileges. I will make a further statement tomorrow at Question time. I think it will be necessary for us to take the whole of Thursday for Supply. As a fact I do not quite know where we stand in regard to Supply. We must transact certain business before Whitsuntide.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: What business will the right hon. Gentleman take tomorrow? It is very inconvenient that we should not know where we stand.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the reproach, if there be one in the hon. Gentleman's Question, is very undeserved, for I have done my best to come to an arrangement, although so far I have failed. Indeed I have been told it was improper and disrespectful on my part—
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: We objected to your putting on the screw.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If we do not get the Second Reading of the Loan Bill today, I shall take it tomorrow.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: And limit the holidays to the following Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. CHANNING: In the event of Thursday being devoted to Supply, will that be a counted day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course not.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to tell us definitely the business to be taken on the resumption of the House? If we meet on the Thursday, will it be Supply?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: And the following day—Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is usual to put down as uncontroversial Supply as possible for the first day after the holidays, but after that we must not be taken as precluded from at once proceeding with controversial business.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: In view of the fact that we have had very few allotted days for Supply, I will suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he take Supply on Friday in next week, if we have resumed.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.)
  Sir JAMES FERGUSSONreported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Stuart Wortley to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in the place of Sir James Fergusson.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.

  HOSPITALS (CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.
  "To empower County Councils and other local authorities to make contributions to hospitals," presented by Mr. Walter Long, under Standing Order 31;
  204
  supported by Mr. Grant Lawson; to be read a second time upon Monday, 26th May, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
  "To amend Section 10 of The Local Government Act, 1888," presented by Mr. Walter Long, under Standing Order 31; supported by Mr. Grant Lawson; to be read a second time upon Monday, 26th May, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]
  LONDON ELECTIONS BILL.
  "To provide for the making of certain alterations in electoral areas rendered expedient by the alteration of boundaries under The London Government Act, 1899, for simplifying the form of registers in London; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Walter Long, under Standing Order 31; supported by Mr. Grant Lawson; to be read a second time upon Monday, 26th May, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]
  IMMORAL TRAFFIC (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To make further provision for the punishment of persons trading in prostitution in Scotland," presented by Mr. Cameron Corbett, under Standing Order 31; supported by Mr. Parker Smith and Mr. Crombie; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 27th May, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

PRIVILEGE—LORD CHARLES BERESFORD AND THE ADMIRALTY.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: As a matter affecting the privileges of the House, I beg to bring to your notice, Sir, certain statements in the Daily Mail, accusing the Secretary to the Admiralty, as a Minister of the Crown and a Member of the House of Commons, of falsehood in a statement made by him in the House. I propose that the clerk should read those statements, and then I will, subject to your consent, move that they constitute a breach of the privileges of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: What is the date?
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The date is May 6th. If any question should arise about the lapse of time, I shall be able

205
to satisfy you, I think, that I have taken the first available opportunity in the circumstances.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that that is sufficient. If the hon. Member has anything to say about the date, he had better say it now. The Rule of the House is that a breach of privilege of this kind must be taken notice of at once. If it is a breach of privilege, it is a breach of privilege on the face of it, and it does not depend on subsequent events to justify its being brought before the House.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will read the passage complained of first, and I will then explain why I did not bring up the matter before. The Daily Mail wrote in regard to an answer given in the House—
"Mr. Arnold-Forster's reply is not satisfactory to the Daily Mail. immediately on learning its terms we despatched the following letter to Mr. Arnold White.
May 5th, 1902.
'Dear Mr. White,—I notice that Mr. Arnold-Forster, in the House of Commons this afternoon, said he informed the House on July 9th that the Admiralty understood the letter of Lord Charles Beresford was private; that it was written without any intention of being published, and that its publication was unauthorised. As this is contrary to the statement made by you to me, I shall be glad to know if yon have anything further to say on the matter.'
"We have since received the following:—
' Dear Sir,—In reply to your letter, I have to say that Mr. Arnold-Forster's answer in the House of Commons today is both contrary to facts, and also to written evidence which he knows me to possess. I await an apology from Mr. Amold-Forster for making a statement in the House on July 9th which he did not know to be true, and which was, in fact, untrue.
' Yours truly,
' ARNOLD WHITE.'"
The paper goes on—
"We await Mr. Arnold-Forster's further statement on the subject with some curiosity."
As to the reason why I did not raise the matter a week ago, I may explain I thought I was bound to wait until the gentleman first affected by it, the Secretary to the Admiralty himself, had had reasonable time to take notice of it. I submit that, the Secretary to the Admiralty having taken no notice of it, though I have done my best to bring it before him, both officially and unofficially, I am within the Rules of Order in bringing the question forward.
MR. SPEAKER: If that is the hon. Member's case, I am quite against him. It is quite clear that the breach of privilege, if breach of privilege there was, was complete on May 6th, and it is not for the hon. Member to enter into correspondence with some Minister, for whom he is apparently taking up the cudgels, and then, when he finds that the Minister himself does not propose to treat the matter as a breach of privilege, to say he will himself take it up a week or ten days afterwards, instead of raising the question at the first available moment.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I undertook to raise the question on the first available opportunity.
THE SECRETAEY TO THE ADMIR-ALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): I understand, Sir, that your ruling is that the hon. Member is not in order; but I should exceedingly regret if your ruling were to preclude me, after the allusions made to me in this House, from offering to the House a personal explanation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is quite in order in making a personal explanation.
MR. ARNOLD-FOESTER: I do not know that I particularly object to the hon. Member for South Donegal coming forward as the champion of my honour.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, no, excuse me. On a point of order, I will not allow that to pass for one moment. I am not the champion of the hon. Gentleman's honour.
MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member must not interrupt.
MR. ARNOLD-FOESTER: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue, and say that I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for directly or indirectly giving me an opportunity of making a statement in regard to this matter, which, I confess, to my mind has an exaggerated importance in the minds of some Members of this House. I will make a short statement of the whole of this transaction as far as it concerns

207
myself. The facts are these. On 21st June, last year, a letter from Lord Charles Beresford, now Member for Woolwich, appeared in one of the daily papers in regard to the Mediterranean fleet. A Question was put to me in the House, as the representative of the Admiralty, on June 24th, and in answer to that I stated, what appeared to be the fact—
"There is nothing to show that the letter was intended for publication, and it seems highly improbable that the Rear-Admiral would have taken a step so contrary to the discipline of the Navy as to make a public communication with regard to confidential reports transmitted by him in respect of the fleet in which he was serving."
On the following day Mr. Arnold White, the gentleman whose name has been introduced into this matter, wrote to me as follows:—
"I was sitting under the gallery of the House of Commons yesterday when you said, in reply to Mr. Norman's Question, that there was nothing in Lord Charles Beresford's letter to show that it was intended for publication, and it seemed highly improbable that the Rear-Admiral would take a step so contrary to the discipline of the Navy and would make public matter in regard to confidential reports transmitted by him in respect of the Fleet in which he was serving. It will be no surprise to you to know that I was the recipient of that letter, and am responsible for its publication."
That was the letter sent to me by Mr. Arnold White, with whom I have always been on most excellent terms, and it contained other matter of interest to us both. I replied on June 27th:—
"I am not surprised to know that Lord Charles's letter was sent to you. Indeed, I supposed that was the case. Whether or not he instructed you to publish it I do not know, nor do I ask. As for any steps you yourself think it right to take, that, of course, is not a matter with which I have anything to do. About the other matter with which I am concerned, I must say frankly that I have no doubt whatever as to what is right. The rights and duties of a private individual depend very largely upon the conscience and sense of duty of the individual, but the rights and duties of an officer holding a high command are, as long as he holds that command, strictly limited by the rules of the service and by the discipline which applies to every officer and man in the force alike. Granting that I were to agree with every word Lord Charles says, I should still feel that he was and must be wrong, while his flag is flying, to set an example which he would be the first to condemn if followed by any officers under his command."
208
I said to Mr. Arnold White then what was in my mind: that I did not understand—I do not quite understand now—what the relations were between that gentleman and the noble Lord, but I said that I waited for the course which he thought fit to pursue. On July 6th Mr. Arnold White did take action, and published his letter to me in The Times. This letter contained the statement that he was the recipient of the letter, and was responsible for its publication. It seemed to me then, and seems to me still, that that was a public and direct acceptance by Mr. Arnold White of responsibility for a matter for which primarily the noble Lord would be responsible. A Question was put to me in regard to the matter in the House on July 9th. I replied as follows:—
"The Admiralty understand that the letter referred to by the hon. Member was a private letter, written without any idea of its being published, and that its publication was unauthorised. In these circumstances it has not been thought necessary to call upon the Rear-Admiral for an explanation."
I added, in answer to a further Question—
"We are informed that it was published on the sole authority of Mr. White."
I admit that this was an inference, but I submit that it was a reasonable inference, and it was certainly made in perfect good faith. I submit that it was reasonable, because in the first place it seemed to me to be the obvious construction and meaning of the words. The person primarily responsible for a letter is the person who writes it. If he does not assent to its publication, it cannot be published. But if another gentleman informs me that he is responsible for its publication, it seems to me the obvious and logical inference is that the responsibility was his, and not that of the gentleman who wrote the letter. I would say in defence of the inference I formed that there were certain reasons which fortified me in thinking that my conclusion was not unreasonable. In the first place, I think the fact that for eight months no one has questioned the correctness of that inference is a relevant fact. I was on excellent terms with my noble friend; I was on terms of friendly and useful correspondence with Mr. Arnold White; and if either of those gentlemen had come to me in that period of eight months they

209
had no reason to believe that any explanation they had to make would not have been received by me. Indeed, I would have done my best to set right any wrong which might have been committed. But, at all events, no such suggestion was or ever has been made to me by Mr. Arnold White. There the matter rested until some abusive paragraphs appeared in the newspapers. But this conclusion, which was accepted by this House and by nearly all the newspapers in the country, was also accepted, strangely enough, by the noble Lord himself. If I may be allowed to go to another part of this question which is very relevant to this matter, I may say I that on the 29th April the noble Lord the Member for Woolwich wrote a letter to The Times in which he stated that my inference was wrong, that I had been mistaken in regard to Mr. Arnold White, and that he was the person solely responsible for the publication of the letter. Naturally enough, a Question was asked in this House, on May 5th, with regard to this letter, and I repeated my original statement, giving my original reasons. On that occasion the noble Lord made what appeared to me to be a very remarkable speech indeed, because, as I understood him, it endorsed the offensive charges which had been made against myself.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: No, certainly not.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I shall show that, I think. The speech endorsed the charges which had been made against the Department I have the honour to represent in this House. I was the more astonished, because I held in my hand a letter received from the noble Lord two days before, on no solicitation of mine, in which he deliberately went out of his way to acquit both my self and the Board of Admiralty of any offence in either of these two matters. I did not rise in my place, because the letter to me was marked private, and I asked the noble Lord, considering the position in which he put me, if I was at liberty to state in public what he had told me privately. The noble Lord re fused. I think the matter was of sufficient gravity——
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg your pardon. I ask you to say exactly what I wrote to you.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I propose to do so. I then wrote the noble Lord telling him that this was an intolerable position—and I think it was an intolerable position. I do not want to trouble the House with that letter in extenso, but there is one passage I should like to quote. I said—
"I have called your attention to these matters for two reasons."
—that is the discrepancy between the speech and the letter—
"In the first place, because, as you have doubtless observed, your action in the matter has made me the object of attack by Mr. Arnold White, who considers himself aggrieved. In my opinion Mr. White has no ground of complaint. My action throughout has been perfectly straightforward, and Mr. White knows well that if, at any time during the past eight months, he had given me reason to believe that I was doing him, or had done him, an injustice, he would have found me ready and anxious to make amends for it. When I find, however, that you, while sharing my view as to the reasonable character of my action, are not willing to say so publicly, I think I have some reason to be dissatisfied. I have no duty to Mr. Arnold White, to whom, consciously, at any rate, I have done no wrong; and I therefore do not feel bound, or desire to enter into any controversy with him. But as a Member of the House of Commons, I think it right to let you know, as my colleague, that I take exception to the course you have adopted."
That is a portion of the letter that I wrote. In reply, the noble Lord did accord me permission to make public a portion of the letter I had asked leave to quote from. I propose, if he desires, that I should communicate to the House the portion he himself selected. This is what he said—
"On June 25th Mr. Arnold White wrote you a letter in which he stated that he was responsible for the publication of my letter. This letter to you was published in The, Times of July 6th. On that letter you were perfectly justified in making the statement you did in the House relative to Mr. Arnold White's being responsible for the publication. As a matter of fact, I told Mr. Arnold White he could do what he liked with the letter when he asked me might he publish it; and I said there was nothing in it. Neither was there anything in it which could by any means be declared as having been a trespass on confidential reports. But I was absolutely wrong to allow it to be published at all. The Admiralty never asked me the usual question, 'whether directly or indirectly, I had caused the publication, etc., etc.' If they had done

211
so, I should naturally have told the truth, with the result that I should probably have been ordered to haul down my flag. But why should they have asked me the question after Mr. Arnold White's letter to you stating he was responsible. There is no palliation or excuse for disobeying the Service regulations. I take all the blame, and am prepared to accept the dictum of the constituted authorities with submission."
In a speech the noble Lord delivered in this House he made two statements He endorsed this accusation against the Board of Admiralty, which I represent. He said—
"The constituted authorities never wrote to me to ask me if I had written that letter. If they had, I should have told the truth."
But why should they have done so in view of Mr. Arnold White's letter? In his letter to me the noble Lord said—
"On that letter (Mr. White's), you were perfectly justified in making the statement you did in the house, relative to Mr. Arnold White being responsible for the publication."
What did he say in his speech? He said—
"When I came home the other day there were some insinuations that another gentleman was responsible for this letter; that he tried to publish a private letter which I had written."
There were no insinuations. That statement was made by me in this House in July last year, and I resent the suggestion that there was any insinuation on my part or on the part of anybody else. It was a straightforward statement, and the noble Lord has had eight months to consider whether he would repudiate it or not. He continues in his speech—
"When I came home I immediately took steps to show that I alone was responsible for the letter."
The noble Lord did not. He hauled down his flag on February 3rd; he sent his letter to The Times on April 29th. During the whole of that period of nearly three months, this accusation, which he feels so bitterly as being brought unjustly against another man, remained unanswered, and it was not until April 29th, the day following the publication of the leading article in The Times, that this gentleman was relieved of the charge which, I am told, I had unjustly put upon him. I do not understand this method of procedure, and I am very glad to have had the opportunity of stating my views with regard to it. That is all my connection with this matter. I have
212
done no injustice, consciously, to Mr. White or any other person. I have attempted to represent the views of my Department—on a matter in which I am personally perfectly indifferent—adequately and justly. I am unable to see that any apology is due from me to Mr. Arnold White. I think that the only wrong I have done him has been to accept literally, as I believe others have clone, his word, and now he says that that was a misapprehension on my part. I do not say that in blame; but it is the situation. Perhaps there is an apology due from another quarter. This is a matter which does not concern me personally, or which I desire to press. It seems to me a trivial subject with which to have occupied the time of the House so much but perhaps the House will excuse the warmth with which I have, spoken.
LORD CHARLES BEBESFORDrose and asked leave to make a personal explanation.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sure the House will be of opinion that the noble Lord also may be allowed to explain.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I must at once preface my remarks by saying that the Secretary to the Admiralty certainly was in a false position, and did get into that false position through an act of mine, which I owned to the other day. But when the Secretary to the Admiralty reads only part of the correspondence I have sent to him, it is not quite fair to myself. The Secretary to the Admiralty asked me if he might make certain extracts from a private letter which I wrote to him. I said I object to any extract being taken from a letter, because it is never done without false impressions being adduced therefrom. If you want to know anything, and you want anything made public, write to me and I answer you in any way you wish.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, no Mr. Speaker. I must correct the noble Lord. He knows perfectly well I said that I would quote any passage out of that letter or the whole of the letter. The only passage I desired to omit was one so offensive to Mr. Arnold White that I thought he would not wish me to publish
LORD CHARLES BEEESFORD: I must answer the Secretary to the Admiralty at once. The offensive phrase was that I said Mr. Arnold White was a very dangerous man. So he is a very dangerous man. Mr. Arnold White is carried away with enthusiasm, and, as I told him to his face, he is a very dangerous man. He said—
"What do you mean?"
I said—
"I am called a dangerous man because I sometimes blurt out things I regret."
That is the whole of the offensive remark. The Secretary to the Admiralty must stick to the point. I said—and he has got it in writing in a letter he has not read out—
"I refuse you permission to publish extracts, but if you write me I shall send you for publication the whole of the letter."
I did so, and left out that part referring to Mr. Arnold White because it was not to the point. Then I turn to the other point about the insinuation. I never said anything about the Secretary to the Admiralty in this House. The insinuation I referred to was the letter in The Times, and directly I saw that letter I wrote to The Times and said I was responsible. The Secretary to the Admiralty is an extremely clever man, and I acknowledge that he has put the case against me, as it appears to the House. I admit I made a mistake as far as my writing to the Press at all is concerned, although I never before confessed it to the House. I know I was wrong, but I can prove to this House that though I was wrong I did right. I shall be in the hands of the House and I think that when I sit down they will agree with me. The House does not know the whole case. The Secretary to the Admiralty does know the whole case. What is the whole case? When I went out to the Mediterranean I found the Fleet dangerously weak—
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord must confine himself to a personal explanation on the matter before the House. He is not entitled to go into the whole condition of the Fleet in the Mediterranean. That would be going beyond the limit of a personal explanation. The noble Lord wrote a letter in which he stated that he ought not to have written a letter on a certain matter. He is entitled to deal with the circumstances arising out
214
of the publication of the letter, but not to go into the merits of the question about the Fleet.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: But there are two letters. One letter is so intimately connected with the other that I cannot explain myself unless I say I had written an official letter to my Commander-in-Chief containing the strongest animadversions about the strength of the Fleet a year before. The Commander-in-Chief sent the letter to the Admiralty, and I never received a word of reprimand about it. The fighting efficiency of the Fleet was very deficient in essentials, as compared with the Fleets of other countries. After a year I consulted my brother officers as to whether I should not go home, and beg leave to haul down my flag. My brother officers said—and I agreed with them—that that it would not be loyal, that it might create a panic, that it might not be patriotic. A year afterwards I wrote this other letter to Mr. Arnold White, who has ample evidence that I wrote it for publication and that he could publish it when he liked. Why he did not publish it then, I cannot tell. I suppose he thought that it would hurt me. I said to him I did not care whether it hurt me or not. I told him that it was important that the letter should be published in order to get those things put right which were essential to the fighting efficiency of the Mediterranean fleet. Then the public knew nothing about the letter of 1900. In June, 1901, the letter appeared. Now, what was that letter, which has been made so much of, which shows how I have been so insubordinate that I ought to be cashiered or shot, which shows that I am not a loyal naval officer, that I am not loyal to my seniors, and other nonsense of that sort? This is the letter—
"H.M.S. Ramillies, at sea, June 10, 1901. My dear——It would be most improper and prejudicial to discipline if I were to give you details as to why I am so extremely anxious, when considering the want of strength and the want of proper war organisation of the British Fleet in the Mediterranean. I have communicated my views, in as strong and clear Anglo-Saxon language as I can command, to the properly constituted authorities. My duty and business out here as second in command are simply to obey any orders that I may receive to the level best of my ability, and not to offer any criticisms which might become public. The real point to be considered is not so much the necessity of expending a further sum of

215
money on the British Navy, as the necessity of allocating the money now voted in a different manner."
That is the letter that the Secretary to the Admiralty holds up to this House as grossly insubordinate, as trespassing on confidential reports to which I gained access through my position as second in command, for he said in this House—
"It seems highly improbable that the Rear-Admiral would take a step so contrary to the discipline of the Navy as to make public a matter with regard to the confidential reports transmitted by him with respect to the Navy in which he serves."
Well, Sir, I say that the charge with regard to that letter is very extravagant acknowledge fully that I was wrong to write to the Press at all, but when I wrote that letter I thought I was going to be called home. Never before has anything appeared in the Press in my name—and many things have—when I have been on active service, when I have not received the usual letter asking whether I directly or indirectly caused it to be put into the Press. It constantly happened—it happened four times before I wrote this letter. Things were put into the Press in my absence and in my name, and I had never said a single word, and I gave the natural answer that I had nothing to do with it. I was away when this letter was published, and both my Commander-in-Chief and I thought I was going to be called home. I had made my arrangements to go; but I received no letter from the Admiralty asking me about it, and, remember, I was at sea, and I had not seen these letters at the time of publication, though I saw them afterwards, for which Mr. Arnold White was responsible. I was waiting for the letter, asking me whether I was responsible for this, and that letter I never got. I quite see that the Secretary to the Admiralty, looking at it as I do now, was justified in making the statement he did. It was a fair statement. And I say before the House now I deeply regret that he found himself in the position he did through any action of mine. I do not regret writing the letter itself. I express no regret for that, and I do not confess to have made any error, because I say the Fleet was in a very dangerous position with regard to it fighting efficiency. Between June, 1900 and June, 1901, there were a few additions made to the Fleet—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The noble Lord asked leave to make a personal explanation, but he is now travelling rather beyond the limits of a personal explanation.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I have been driven into it, Sir, owing to the circumstances of the case. I did not wish to mention these things. I repudiate with considerable warmth any suggestion of the Secretary to the Admiralty that I have acted dishonourably in any sense of the word. I may have acted carelessly. He suggested I was afraid for my skin. I was perfectly ready to come out at any moment. Mr. Arnold White had several letters of mine authorising him to publish this one, and then I found myself in a false position. The only thing I regret in the whole matter is that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty should have been, by any action of mine, put into the position in which he was placed.

FINANCE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
(THIRD DAY'S DEBATE.)
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Main Question [13th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: In rising to continue the discussion on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I may perhaps be permitted to say that the notice of Motion standing in my name that this Bill be read a second time this day six months was not in the slightest degree intended as an indication on my part of my desire to withhold from the Government all proper supplies for the efficient conduct of the public services. I put down that notice on the following grounds: First, because I believe it is absolutely unfair to throw the whole cost of the war in South Africa on the British taxpayer; and second, that the incidence of the new taxation is contrary to the only true equitable principle on which taxation can be based, namely, that every man shall be taxed according to his ability to pay.

217
Now the financial position of this country today, in view of the alarming growth of our national expenditure, is one deserving and needing the most serious attention and consideration at our hands. When we find that for the year 1901–1902 our expenditure has risen to the unprecedented sum of nearly £213,000,000 sterling, including the expenditure on the war and grants in aid of local taxation; when we find the normal expenditure on the country has risen since 1895 £31,000,000, and when we have regard to the fact that within a comparatively few years our expenditure has gone up from £80,000,000 to £124,500,000; that our national Debt in addition to this has risen to £748,000,000, then I submit that it is of the highest importance that we should take into consideration the present financial position of this country. In all human probability we have before us a cycle of commercial depression; and the cycle of commercial inflation through which we have been passing, that has enabled this country to bear without much injury, apparently, the enormous financial burdens that have been necessary is coming to an end, and it behoves us, therefore, to consider whether we cannot in any way reduce the burden of the taxpayers of this country. I venture to submit that it is absolutely unfair that the £230,000,000 sterling, that has been expended for the South African War, should be wholly charged to the taxpayers of this country. Out of that £230,000,000 we have raised, or it is proposed to raise, £68,000,000 by taxation, and by loans £162 000,000. I submit for the consideration of this House whether the time has not come when South Africa should be made to bear, at any rate, a fair share of this enormous expenditure, which has been undertaken by this nation on her behalf. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated his opinion that at some future date it will be possible to charge on the revenues of these new colonies a £30,000,000 loan, but I was somewhat astonished that, seeing this war was undertaken owing to an invasion of Natal and Cape Colony, there should have been in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman no reference to the justice and necessity of treating all alike, and indicating that the colonies of Natal
218
and the Cape must also bear their fair share of the expenditure which has been incurred in South Africa.
The reason I put down my Motion that this Bill be read a second time this day six months is simply this, to impress on the House the fact that we have already spent £230,000,000, and that the time has now come when we ought to have charged this years 32 million loan, not on the British taxpayer, but on the Transvaal, the Orange River Colony, Cape Colony and Natal. Sacrifices have been made with much patriotism on the part of the British nation, and we should endeavour to place in this Budget no more burdens on the British taxpayer. What is the condition of affairs in South Africa now? Is it not a fact that in Cape Town, Durban, and in all towns of South Africa, even in Pretoria, Johannesburg, and Bloemfontein, they are enjoying today almost unprecedented prosperity, largely arising from the war and the large and profitable contracts in connection with it, far beyond the prosperity of the overburdened and overtaxed people in-this country. Let us take into consideration the position of the industrial undertakings of South Africa I find by a reference to the share lists that the deferred shares in the De Beers Company to-day are worth ten times their issue price, and the shares of many other companies are worth several times the price at which they were issued. That shows that the £32,000,000—
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! These observations seem to be more applicable to the Loan Bill than to the Bill now under the consideration of the House. This is a Bill dealing with taxation.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Of course I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I was making these observations under the title of the Bill, which runs—
"A Bill to grant certain duties of Customs and inland Revenue, to alter other duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue and the National Debt, and to make other provision for the financial arrangements of the year."
However, I will not pursue that point further. I shall probably be in order in dealing with the financial position in carrying on the administration of the country. The question is whether it is

219
necessary to impose fresh taxation in connection with the Budget of this year. The estimated expenditure is £174,609,000, and the estimated revenue is £147,785,000, and we are told by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that whilst the deficit would be about £27,000,000, there must be added "problematical expenditure," £18,500,000, which brings the deficit up to £45,324,000. The suspension of the sinking fund, £4,640,000, however, reduces that to £40,684,000, and that is the sum to be provided for. But seeing that we have peace negotiations now going on in South Africa and it would be undesirable that money voted expressly for war purposes should be expended for other purposes, that shows that this provision need not have been made now. Assuming that we provided by a loan £32,000,000 and by the suspension of the sinking fund, £4,620,000, this gives us £36,620,000 against a deficit of £26,824,000, and then the right hon. Gentleman reminded us that we had in anticipation £6,000,000 expended in China, which would, in the shape of the Chinese indemnity, be returned to us.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): Not this year. That is a receipt I look forward to.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: And the Exchequer balances £3,534,000 are also available. There appears therefore to be no pressing necessity for the imposition of additional taxation in this year's Budget.
Now, the question has been raised over and over again as to whether our basis of taxation is broad enough, and whether a fair burden has been placed on the masses of the people of this country or not, and whether too large a burden has not been placed on the wealthier classes. The treatment that has been given to the wealthier classes by the right hon. Gentleman is, in my opinion, most singular. He has withdrawn the cheque tax, while, on the other hand, this corn tax, which reverses the true principle of taxation, inasmuch as it places the heaviest burden on those who are least able to pay is retained. The incidence of the corn tax is unequal and inequitable, and on those
220
grounds it is not in accordance with the sound principle of finance, which is, that everybody should be taxed in accordance with their ability to pay. With regard to taxation, I have taken out the figures for 1902–3, and I find the estimated income from customs excise and posts and telegraphs amounts to no less than £84,000,000, and a very large portion of this high sum comes out of the pockets of the masses of the people. For instance, of the new taxation imposed during the last three years, I find the tax on tea, tobacco, sugar, spirits, beer, and coal has amounted to no less than £33,500,000, and if we add the corn tax of £2,600,000, £36,000,000 will be largely paid by the working classes. On the other hand for the current amount paid by the wealthier portion of the community in income tax, death duties, stamps, land and house tax, and miscellaneous taxes amounts to only £64,000,000 as compared with the £84,000,000 to which I referred just now.
I oppose the Second Reading of the Finance Bill because I believe that the figures I have given show that the masses of the people in this country have had already put upon their shoulders more than their full share of the burden the country has to bear at this moment. A great deal of heart-burning and a great deal of friction would have been avoided if this expenditure had been met by some' scheme of a graduated income tax. There is no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth-shire made in connection with his death duties scheme, the greatest and most important financial departure that has been made in this generation, at least, and it would have been wise of the Chancellor of Exchequer, if instead of this corn tax, he had taken into consideration on this occasion some new scheme of a graduated income tax which could be equitably imposed on those who could afford to pay. I am told there would be great difficulty in the collection of a graduated income tax, and I do not deny that there may be difficulties, but I believe that we could overcome those difficulties, and that this question should be approached with a view to finding a satisfactory solution of them. Then there is a means of taxation which the right hon. Gentleman might have adopted, which would have provided a considerable

221
additional income to the National Exchequer. I allude to the taxation of ground values. There is no doubt that in the populous neighbourhood unoccupied land increases in value every year by reason of public improvements, and that a perfectly fair tax on it would bring a considerable amount to the Exchequer. An ad valorem duty of 1d. on £1 certificates in connexion with the formation of new companies, and a pro rata duty on certificates of a higher value might also have been levied. Then there is the question of a substantial tax or charge for a licence on motor cars, which are multiplying rapidly, and are propelled at such a speed as to be a real danger to the public. I think we ought to impose a tax on them. This Finance Bill relates to the Customs, and making other arrangements for the financial necessities of the year. There was one tax imposed last year which the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us had not been found to work so disastrously to the commercial interests of the coal trade as had been prophesied. But the conditions under which that trade is conducted have altered very materially since last year, and there are reasonable grounds for asking that there should be added to the Finance Bill a clause reducing the amount of that burden. We have now had a little time in which to ascertain exactly the operation of the tax. There were previously in force in foreign countries certain import duties on British coal—in France, 11¾d.; in Russia (Northern ports), 1s. 11¾d.; in Spain, 2s.; in Denmark, 1s.; and in Portugal, 1s. 6¾d.—as hindrances to successful trading in British coal. Unfortunately for the coal-owning industry, prices have fallen enormously since last year. Coal which was being sold to railway companies at 16s. a ton eighteen months ago is now being sold at 9s; the same is true with regard to other classes of coal, and also of coke. The producers of coal in Belgium, Germany, and France last year and the year before had so large a demand in their own countries that they had no coal to export to neighbouring countries in competition with us. That condition of affairs has now changed. Trade is declining. The consumption of coal in
222
the different countries on the Continent has gone down, and in this country it has decreased to an even greater extent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, gave figures to show that nearly 300,000 tons more of coal had been exported from this country in the first three months of this year, as-compared with the corresponding period of last year. That is perfectly true, but, as knowing intimately the coal trade, I may explain that that is due to the fact that the demand at home was so much lessened that we were obliged to push our foreign trade. But that does not alter the fact that the price the German and French coal producers are willing to accept in certain markets naturally influences the price we can get for our coal. I do not wish to make assertions without proof. Within the last two years the shipments of a particular colliery in my district to Hamburg has decreased from 70,000 to 35,000 tons, to Holland from 15,000 tons to nothing, to Belgium from 120,000 to 50,000. The consequence is that that colliery is working only three days a week, with an increase cost of 9d. per ton, and the price realised barely covers the cost. They have certainly had the advantage of a reduction in freights to the extent of about 6d. per ton, but even then, as I say, they are barely covering cost.
As I urged in the discussions last year, this tax is unfair in its incidence. Why has the tax been imposed upon exported coal only? The collieries which do not export coal have actually made more money during the recent times of prosperity than the exporting collieries. If, as I pointed out last year, instead of this export duty, a duty of 2d.—1d. payable by the colliery owner, and 1d. by the royalty owner—were put on all coal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive practically the same amount and the burden would be nil. If, as seems likely, there is a further fall in the price of coal, the colliery to which I have referred must inevitably be closed, and at least 1,000 men will be thrown out of employment. I am aware that from certain districts in Wales there has been an increase in the export of coal, but that is not the case in South Yorkshire or Durham and Northumberland. For instance, the export of coal in 1901 as compared with 1900 decreased by 2,200,000

223
tons, but I admit that 1900 was an abnormal year, and does not constitute a fair comparison. Then we are told that the exports during the first three months of this year rose 300,000 tons as compared with the first three months of last year. That is a rise of 3·2 per cent., but at the same time the value diminished by 14·6 per cent. So far as the north-east ports are concerned in January of this year they showed a decrease in export of coal to the Continent of no less than 36,000 tons, and in February the decrease was 34,500 tons. These facts speak for themselves. What they tend to show is that, although in a time of great commercial prosperity and high prices, a burden such as this export duty on coal may be borne without serious injury if, as we anticipate, we are coming to a period of commercial depression and low prices, this tax will prove a very injurious and unfair burden. The coal trade, having been somewhat prosperous of recent years, does not receive at the hands of the general community that consideration and really fair treatment which it ought to have. Particularly is the domestic consumer up in arms against the colliery owner. But what is the fact? The collieries which supply the domestic consumer do not pay a single farthing of this tax. It is the exporting collieries, who in nine cases out of ten do not supply any coal for domestic purposes and are not getting the extravagant prices at which domestic coal has been maintained, who are hit by this tax.
In addition to that, the method On which the income tax assessments are made presses very hardly at present on colliery owners, inasmuch as they are assessed on the average of the preceding five years, with an adjustment on the average of the preceding three years. That assessment at present includes the recent years of very high prices, whereas today in some cases no profits at all are being made. I admit we gained an advantage when we were basing our assessments on previous lean years, but unfortunately that was when the income tax was 8d. in the pound, and now we are getting the disadvantage with the income tax at 1s. 3d. How it will work out on an average of years when we know the result of the next two years, I cannot say, but I think that, with trade declining, we have a fair case for pressing upon the
224
Chancellor of the Exchequer the desirability of some reduction of the export duty on coal, and I hope he will give the matter his careful consideration.
MR. CATHCART WATSON: I agree with a great deal of what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He has introduced into the debate a certain amount of practical experience of life. With the exception of the speech just delivered, and the brilliant address of my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, we have been living during this debate in an atmosphere of mysticism, an atmosphere of the past. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer almost apologised when introducing his Budget imposing this registration duty on corn, because he did not place upon posterity the same amount of taxation as was imposed during the Crimean war. But we have all to work out our own salvation, and what the people did in the past has absolutely nothing to do with us in the present day. It has been absolutely amusing to me to hear speeches delivered by right hon. Members on both sides with which the great names of Gladstone, Cobden and Peel have been reproduced time after time with wearisome persistency. I yield to no man in my admiration of these men, but they lived under totally different circumstances than those under which we are living at the present day. In this debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminds me of a nigger driver lashing an unfortunate negro who was yelling vigorously, threw down his whip, crying out, "flog high or flog low, there's no pleasing you." There is no way of pleasing us except by taking off the taxes. I much regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given way to the financiers of the city with regard to the cheque tax. I think it was a reasonable and just imposition, and one which would have been felt by no one in the country. The great argument we have had during the last two days has been as to whether this tax is of a Free Trade or Protectionist character. Hon. Members have been most careful to explain, with hardly any exception, that they are all Free Traders. That being so it is very little use explaining at further length my views upon this point. Last evening the Leader of the Opposition

225
wished to cross-examine the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether this tax had any connection with a new Canadian policy. I should like to say with regard to the Colonial view of this question, of which I know something, that we hold that this is a matter for the United Kingdom, and it is of very little consequence to the Colonies what we do here. The matter is entirely one for the people of this country and for them only.
It does not seem to be recognised that the areas which are open to our trade are growing smaller year by year and our limits are being gradually confined. In the days of Cobden we practically controlled the whole of the seas and the whole world. How different are things at the present day. In a speech delivered last autumn the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife challenged any Protectionist to point to any country which had adopted Protection with credit and profit to itself, and is reported to have said "I accept the challenge and point out to the right hon. Gentleman the United States of America." I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman did not speak in the same strain in this House, because if he will give us the Protection which the United States of America has adopted every Protectionist will be satisfied. Ours is a greater Empire than the United States, but is there not more poverty in this country than in the United States? America has succeeded beyond any other nation in the West in wealth and material prosperity. Is not the standard of living infinitely greater in the United States than here? And yet all this has been done under what hon. Gentlemen opposite call the policy of Protection, but which has proved to be a policy of self-interest and self-defence.
What has struck me about this debate is the intense unreality of the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire said that there were 1,000,000 paupers in this country out of 40,000,000, and that in London last month there were 111,000 out of 4,500,000—and how many more?—who were on the brink of starvation struggling not to become paupers. The hon. Member for Dumfries used
226
very similar words for speaking of poverty in the East End of London; he told us that—
"Upon the very poor, upon people on the verge of starvation, so numerous as one-third of the population in the East End of London, this tax was cruel and inhuman."
I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to impute motives of cruelty or inhumanity to Members on this side of the House, and it was merely a way of expressing disapproval of the policy of the Government. Do hon. Members opposite in making these speeches—does the hon. Member for East Edinburgh in using the violent language he did use in regard to this tax—seriously consider where their arguments all lead them to? After fifty years of almost absolute peace, after fifty years of good trade, and fifty years of unparalleled prosperity, and doing nothing else but making money here we are in this country in the condition described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, with an enormous proportion of the population on the vegre of starvation.
Hon. Members say that all this is due to the imposition of a farthing tax upon a loaf. Is that not a remarkable position for them to take up? Do they not see where such worthless arguments lead to. With all this poverty existing, why did hon. Members opposite not tell the House about the hundreds of thousands of people who every night have nowhere to lay their heads? And this after fifty years of Free Trade. [An HON. MEMBER: Then why-tax their bread in addition?] After ail these years of Free Trade why do not some hon. Members tell us what state of decay our village life is in, and what is the condition of the workers in our villages. Hon. Members have spoken of the rate of wages in their respective districts. I have been told that in some districts men have to keep their wives and families on the miserable pittance of 12s. a week. [Cries of "No, no!"] Is that not a scandal in a great country like this after fifty years of Free Trade and unexampled prosperity? Surely we ought to long for the days of Cobden and

227
Bright again, in order to voice the sufferings of the struggling people of this country who are evidently dissatisfied with what they see going on around them.
We see people living in luxury, and almost sensual vice going on worse than it was before, and it is this extraordinary political creed which has brought so much misery into the country. I see signs in the future of even far greater extravagance. Look at the extravagant sums now being spent in various ways by the wealthy which might as well be thrown away. The result of the policy of the past has been to drive away your manufactures into the hands of foreigners. That has been the effect of your Free Trade policy. We have a great future before us, but we can only succeed by looking facts in the face and by refusing to accept the doctrinesand principles of the past. It is nothing to us what people said in the past. We have the greatest reverence for the Free Traders of the past, but we have now to look at matters which arise from our own standpoint.
With regard to our Navy, it costs an enormous sum of money year by year. Why do we keep up this enormous Fleet and spend this enormous sum upon it? I should be sorry to see the expenditure upon the Navy reduced by one shilling, and I would rather see it increased. Why do we keep up this enormous navy? For this reason that if it were not for our navy we should be in danger of starvation. We all look at history from different points of view, and my recollection of the downfall of the Roman Empire is that Slavery and Plutocracy ruined the Empire. People ceased to work for themselves; and instead of growing corn for themselves they began to import corn to an enormous extent. The result was that on the one hand the people lived in misery, on the other hand they lived in luxury and vice. We shall have to take care that this country does not fall in the same way as the great Roman Empire, and if we do fall in this way we shall have no one to blame but ourselves, because we have not looked at matters in the manner in which they will affect the very lowest and humblest class in our midst. This tax is not a very serious one, and if we find that, as hon. Members predict, it presses
228
hardly upon the widow and orphan, there is no need to have this tax again next year. I do not know that this view will be accepted, but I have not the slightest hesitation in giving my vote in favour of this Bill.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began by pronouncing an impartial and comprehensive censure upon the whole of this debate. He told us that with one or two exceptions all the speeches appeared to be mysterious, unreal, and unpractical, and he illustrated his meaning by avowing himself as almost the only champion of Protection and absolutely the only defender of the cheque tax in this House. I am not concerned in the censure pronounced by the hon. Gentleman, because I have taken no part in the proceedings on the Budget hitherto at all. In the few observations I desire to submit to the House, I shall speak from the point of view of a great industrial constituency, upon which the enactments of this Budget will fall with peculiar severity. I am not going into the corn tax. I have refrained from speaking upon that because my objection to this Budget applies to pretty nearly all the taxes, including, I might almost say, the addition to the income tax. I ought to say, to begin with, that I accept the declaration of principle which was made last night by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, repeating in different terms the statement made by almost every Government speaker. The Secretary to the Treasury wound up a very interesting speech by saying this: He could not believe that those who approved of the policy which the Government had been carrying on would grudge their contribution to the expenditure involved, or would expect to have all the advantages of empire without bearing any portion of the expenses. I accept that statement, but I cannot accept the conclusion that has been drawn from it by every speaker on the Government side, that the working class in particular have approved of the policy of the war, and that, therefore, they ought not to grudge the imposition of the corn tax. I speak as the representative of a great many working men in this House, and I demur to the statement that the working classes

229
as a whole, or the working classes even by a majority, have expressed their approval of this war policy. The war was begun, and the policy entered upon, without their having any opportunity of being consulted at all, and when the Government dissolved Parliament, as it did in the autumn of 1900, it took care to dissolve at a time which necessarily disfranchised a large portion of the working class. In my own constituency we found that an eighth of the electorate was disfranchised by the time at which the election was held, and that eighth naturally and necessarily belonged to the working classes, and accordingly I do not accept as a defence of the corn tax or any other tax the allegation that the working classes approved of the war policy. That defence absolutely fails, for this reason: that the tax falls with the most crushing severity upon those who could never have approved of the policy of the war because they have no votes at all. Those upon whom this tax will fall with greatest severity are the voteless and the voiceless ones in this country. In my own constituency not long ago I took part in what threatened to be a great local strike. Hon. Members who are not acquainted with industrial constituencies may be surprised when I tell them that the whole matter was a dispute over 6d. a week to the employees in the jute trade. The very smallness of the sum shows how severely such an increase as is now to take place on the necessaries of life, coming on the top of the taxes on tea and sugar, must fall—on women in particular, but upon all classes of poor labourers, of whom there are many examples in the constituency I represent.
I pass now to state what appears to me to be the great blot of this financial scheme. It appears to me to be a serious criticism to make upon it, that it lays all those taxes upon the necessaries of life, and deliberately—I was going to say contumaciously—evades sources of public revenue which do not depend upon taxation at all. I will make it my business today to prove to the House and the country that there are sources of revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not touched at all, and by avoiding which he has laid upon himself the
230
necessity of taxing the bread, tea, and sugar of the people. Some of those sources of revenue have been named already, and no answer has been given to any of the suggestions which have been made. I venture to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or some member of the Government, ought to tell us why they have taxed tea, sugar, and bread, and the incomes of the people, and have avoided those sources of public revenue which would not involve any taxation at all. One obvious recourse would be to those doles which were reenacted last year for the agricultural class. I say that, rather than tax sugar, bread, and other necessaries of life, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have proposed to call back those doles, and thereby have evaded the necessity for new taxation of this kind. There is the question of ground values, to which the hon. Member behind me has referred. [An HON. MEMBER: That would be local taxation.] The taxation from ground values would go to the local communities, but the Government could take from them the Imperial subventions which they have at present, so that the taxation of ground values would necessarily go in aid of the Imperial Exchequer, and would do away with the necessity of taxing such necessaries of life as the Budget proposes to tax.
I come now to more debatable ground. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last has left the House, because I know that he takes a great interest in the suggestion that I am about, not for the first time, to make in all seriousness to the House, and I make it on the terms which I have quoted from the speech yesterday of the Secretary to the Treasury. The suggestion I make is that at this moment it is the duty of the Government to ask our great self-governing colonies to make their due contribution to the expenditure of the empire. This is no new story. I want to quote in support of that proposition no less an authority than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. This is what he said five years ago—
"As Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am bound to put before you the fact that 40,000,000 people of the United Kingdom pay £22,000,000 a year for the cost of our common Navy, while 10,000,000 people of the same race pay a few thousands a year and find but very few men.

231
That cannot and ought not to be the permanent situation of the relations between the great self governing colonies and the United Kingdom. That cannot and ought not to be the permanent settlement of the arrangements between the great self-governing colonies and the United Kingdom."
Since these words were uttered the expenditure on the Navy has gone up from £22,000,000 to £34,000,000 at the present time, and not a single advance has been made towards a colonial contribution. Surely when the Chancellor of the Exchequer five years ago declared that, so far as the Navy was concerned, this contribution, ought to be made, he ought in this year, when he is proposing, in order to meet that expenditure, to tax the necessaries of life for the poorest of the community, to have been able I to tell us that he has made some attempts to make these contributions, or that he was going to make some attempts, or, at all events, that he has some explanation or reason why the principle laid down five years ago has never yet been put into practical effect. I will not dwell on this particular item, because I know that there is going to be a Conference of the representatives of the Colonies held soon, where I suppose that this and many other things will be discussed. I hope that we shall have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the assurance that this question has not gone back, and that, in spite of what has been said by certain eminent colonial representatives, the Chancellor, as representing the Government, will stick by his principles, and submit to them the desirability and the propriety of making some contribution, at all events, to the expenditure of the force, which does not exist alone, as the hon. Member said, to protect the food of the people of this country, but which exists in equal degree for every one of our self-governing colonies, so that whatever contribution they may pay in this respect will be nothing more than payment for services rendered.
There is another and less agreeable aspect of this question on which I should like to say a word or two. We have to meet by means of this taxation not only the normal expenditure on the Navy, but the special expenditure caused by the war, and I call in the aid again of the
232
eloquent words of my hon. friend the-Secretary to the Treasury. I agree with him, and I say that I cannot believe that those who have approved of the policy the Government have been carrying on will grudge a contribution to the expenditure involved, or will expect all the advantages of the empire without bearing any portion of the expense. Do not these words apply equally to the colonies as to the people of this country? Do they not apply more to the colonies in general than they do to the working classes of this country? The working classes of this country have authorised no man to say in their name that they approve of this policy of the war. Some of our great self-governing colonies have done so. We have been reading during the last year many declarations made by colonial statesmen, exceeding in strength even those that come from the members of the Government at home—declarations that we have shown too much leniency to the enemy, and that the war should be fought to a finish. I am going to refer to one of those statements by a gentleman who has made himself most conspicuous in the matter. The colonial statesman to whom I refer is Mr. Seddon.
MR. CATHCART WASON: The right hon. Mr. Seddon.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It was from no want of respect that I referred to him as Mr. Seddon, but simply because it is not the habit in this House to speak otherwise. I speak of him with perfect respect, and if I deal with his opinions, it is from no disrespect to the gentleman himself. Being the Premier of a great self-governing colony, his words are entitled to respectful consideration. In the name-of the colony he denounced all those in this country who were opposed to the war. I shall only quote one sentence of Mr. Seddon's. A meeting took place at Wellington, New Zealand, on April 14th, when Mr. Seddon was setting forth on his mission to this country. I believe that he is now engaged in a mission in South Africa. At that meeting the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, vouched for Mr. Seddon in this way. He said—

233
"He is leaving for England, there to express, on behalf of us as one community, our entire unanimity in regard to the justice and necessity of this unfortunate war."
That is the extra-judicial declaration of the authenticity of Mr. Seddon's credentials for coming to this country. Mr. Seddon himself said—
"We are as determined as ever that peace can only come as the result of unconditional surrender."
That is the message from New Zealand to the people of this country. Now, what I have got to say about it is that no Prime Minister would be justified in using this language unless he had the colony behind him; and no colony is justified in allowing that language to be used in its name unless it is prepared to accept its full share of the expenditure on the war, and to range itself alongside the people of this country. That is the proposition I lay down. Has any colony done that? Let me say I fully appreciate the gallantry of the colonial soldiers who have gone to the front and fought in this controversy. I fully and admiringly acknowledge their services; but I no more admit that their presence in the field absolves their country from paying a share of the expense of the war than that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should allow me to get off' the payment of the Income Tax because twenty or thirty of my Scotch constituents had gone to the front. Speeches have been made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and leaders have appeared in the papers setting forth that the colonies having declared in favour of the war we must consult them as to the terms of settlement. That being so, I hold that the Governments of the colonies ought to accept the consequences of that position, and one of the consequences of that position is that before you levy this tax upon the necessaries of subsistence of the very poorest in this country, many of whom are against the war, but who have no opportunity of voting against it, you should go to the colonies and ask them to pay some share of the great burden placed on this country.
The only source of non-taxed revenue to which I shall call the attention of the House is of a different character altogether. This, again, is no new
234
subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have in this country one of the vastest, one of the most lucrative, I was going to say one of the most corrupting, monopolies known in any civilised country. One of our reasons for going to war with the Republic of the Transvaal, a foreign State, was that a corrupt oligarchy had established there improper monopolies. Why, that is what we are doing now, and what we have been doing in this country for more than a generation. The monopoly to which I refer is a monopoly which is growing in value and mischief every day. It is in the hands of a restricted number of people who are allowed to traffic in drink—I mean the licensed victuallers. I am not attacking an actual seller across the, counter, who in many cases has nothing to do with the monopoly; but those men who own the licences, brewers and others, who largely profit by the monopoly. It is my business to show to the House how vast is that monopoly, and how that source of revenue is free almost from the suspicion of taxation. The duty on a publican's licence has been fixed for many years, and every temperance reform has only had the effect of making the publican's monopoly the more dangerous, because every licence destroyed through the influence of temperance agitation only adds to the value of those that remain. This has been the case, in a very marked degree, in London and Birmingham. I submit to the House that this is a large monopoly, the whole value of which belongs to the public, and is just as much public property as are the Crown lands; and that it is an evasion of our duty to suffer this vast, valuable property to remain in private pockets. More than that, I maintain that it is a shameful evasion of our duty that, in order to relieve the pockets of these monopolists, we go to people with 13s. a week wages, and take from them a little bread, tea, and sugar.
I will only give one crucial example of what I mean. Hon. Members are familiar with the prospectus of a new Company, calling itself The Public House Trust. It is being established in many parts of the country. The originator of that Trust is Earl Grey who was led to make this fruitful suggestion by an experience of his own,

235
which he has narrated in a letter to The Times. In his neighbourhood there had sprung up a new mining village, where it became a matter of certainty that a public house would sometime be established. Lord Grey himself applied for the licence, which was thereupon given to him. Within a week his Lordship was informed that he might have £10,000 for that licence, if he chose to transfer it, although he had not spent one single fathing in connection with it. £10,000 was the value of the monopoly handed over to Lord Grey on that occasion. Now, why was it worth anybody's while to pay £10,000 for the licence? There are two reasons. One is that the licences are restricted in number by the licensing authorities; the other is that the licence duties are so low that the monopoly is in no sense taxed at all—so low, that this would-be purchaser from Lord Grey could afford to pay £10,000, not for the freehold of the license, for it has to be annually renewed, but for the chance of its being renewed, and that the present small licence duty will be continued by a sympathetic Chancellor of the Exchequer. I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this is a satisfactory state of affairs for this country. I will not argue the question of vested rights, but I do maintain that the licensed victualler has no vested interest in the continuance of the licence duty at the ridiculously low rate at which it now stands. I submit that I have proved that there is here a source of public revenue which has not been touched, and which ought to be exhausted before the necessaries of life of the poorest people in the country are taxed. In the remarkable book published by Messrs. Rowntree and Shirwill many instances are given of the large amounts paid for a licence, one reaching to £50,000. I could give many reasons why this monopoly should be attacked. I might point to its corrupting influence, for if you took away this monopoly value from the licensed victualler by increasing the licence duties, so as to exhaust the monopoly value, all the difficulties in regard to compensation would vanish. There would be no necessity to pay compensation, except for the goodwill of the business and disturbance, which I would willingly grant. I
236
have plied the Chancellor of the Exchequer with Questions on this subject, but I have had no answer as to the value of this monopoly. I, therefore, have had to investigate the subject for myself, and make calculations as to the extent of the value of the monopoly, as far as I have been able. In my own constituency I have consulted the most experienced valuer of licences, and he tells me that fifty years ago the value of the licences in Dundee was a negligible quantity. Today he tells me that their monopoly value—not including any property, but the mere value the licences—is£50,000 per annum. It is larger in some towns, no doubt, than in others, but my own guess is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could, with perfect safety—of course, it is a mere conjecture—rely on taking £6,000,000 a year from these licences. That is a low estimate compared with the calculations I have received. At all events, I have no doubt that if he simply doubled the licences, which would not affect anybody injuriously, and would not touch the price of commodoties at all,—it is only the monopoly I want to get at—he could raise another £1,500,000. These are not duties, nor taxes. It is absurd to call by the name of a tax that which capitalists are willing to give from £10,000 to £50,000 for the privilege of paying. The time is coming when something must be done to take for public services this large source of public revenue, and which is as much public revenue as Crown lands.
I have only one word more to say. A great deal has been said about broadening the basis of taxation by way of defence of indirect taxation. It seems to me to be forgotten, especially by hon. Members opposite, that a large section of our people are not in a position to bear any taxation at all, and that they ought not to be taxed. I am accepting the principle laid down by that great economist, my friend and leader, John Stuart Mill, viz., that the State should allow a necessary margin for subsistence before taxing anybody at all, and should only tax the citizen upon the excess of his income over that margin. John Stuart Mill's margin was £50 a year, or £1 a week. I am afraid that would possibly be too high a margin. I find that that great statistician, Sir Robert Giften, states that the entire

237
income of the working classes, when he last calculated it, was just £50 a year. The whole amount paid in wages, divided by the number of workers, gave that result. Of course, there are millions of workmen who get more than that, and who ought to he taxed on their margin; but millions more—how many no man knows—get much less; to tax them at all is a cruel injustice, and to add to their taxation is, in my humble opinion, a wicked wrong. But if we are to have indirect taxation, we cannot avoid taxing these people. I object to the increase of indirect taxation, because it does increase the misery of that class; at the same time, we cannot do without some kind of indirect taxation. But I maintain that if we must take from the too small resources of those who ought not to be taxed at all, then we impose on ourselves the duty of giving it back to them in some way or other. They have it back in part in education, and that leads me to believe that we ought to pay for education out of the Imperial Exchequer altogether. Beyond that, there is another step you have to take. If you increase, as you are increasing, the amount of taxation which is not morally unjustifiable, but which is economically inevitable, then you re-visit on yourselves the demand you took up in a lightsome mood some years ago on behalf of these people—that, at all events, their closing years should be made passably comfortable by old age pensions. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] Hon. Gentlemen cheer that, but the time which is selected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for putting these additional burdens on those who ought not to bear any burden at all, is the very time when he and all his colleagues have repudiated and disowned the old age pension scheme on which they came into office seven years ago.
MR. JAMESHOPE: I had intended this afternoon to have endeavoured to convert this House to the principle of a 10 per cent. import duty on foreign manufactured goods, but I find great obstacles in my way. In the first place, I do not find evidence of a proper philosophical spirit in the House; the prevailing sprit appears to be rather to think of obtaining a long holiday than to discuss economic
238
truths. In the second place, I admit that the imposition of the corn duty raises a somewhat serious but temporary prejudice against the principle I advocate. That tax is a tax for revenue, but if I were Chancellor of the Exchequer a tax on corn would be the very last with which I would begin if I wished to initiate a Protective system. Therefore, I cannot at all share the elation which was displayed by my hon. and gallant colleague at the imposition of this tax, because I think it places a serious obstacle, in public opinion, against the realisation of the principle of other Customs duties which he and I hold. It was a taunt made against those who hold my opinion, in yesterday's debate, that we preserved deliberate silence during the discussion of the corn tax. Speaking for myself, I confess I was suffering from an acute form of what I may call oratorical constipation during that debate. I recognised that the circumstances of the moment did not enable me to obtain relief until now, but I shall certainly pursue my postulate on the next stage of this Bill.
MR. McKENNA: ft is surprising that it is not until the third day in this debate that the Protectionists have raised their voice in this House. At any rate, we have now discovered that there are a certain number of avowed Protectionists on the other side. I find a difficulty in dealing with this Budget, from the fact that we have to distinguish between temporary, or war, expenditure and permanent expenditure. Fortunately, the distinction is not one difficult to make, but it is necessary to make it if we are to form any opinion on the declared policy of the Party opposite. I find in this Budget that the estimated revenue for the current year is close on £153,000,000, and that the estimated expenditure—I refer to peace expenditure only—is £124,500,000. Subtracting one from the other, we got a surplus of £28,500,000, a sum which under ordinary circumstances, would be available for the repeal of taxation if the war were over. But we have first of all to make a heavy deduction, because in this year's Estimates the amount for the National Debt service is only £18,360,000. When the war is over, that sum will obviously have to be very

239
largely increased, proportionate to the large increase in the Debt. In 1874 Sir Stafford Northcote first established a fixed Debt charge. The National Debt was then £769,000,000, and he fixed the charge at £28,000,000. Two successive Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer reduced that charge—first to £25,000,000, and then to £23,000,000; and it stood at the latter figure when the Debt had been reduced to £627,000,000. Today the Debt is £786,000,000, and, whatever may be the difference of view as to the proper provision to be made for the repayment of the Debt, I do not think that anyone will argue that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer should take a less heroic view than was taken by Sir Stafford Northcote in 1874. I know that some reduction might be urged on the ground that the interest today is only 2 ½ per cent., as against 3 per cent in 1874; but we have to remember that we are under a duty to make greater efforts at the present time to reduce our debt, as we are in more fierce competition for the supremacy of international trade than we were in 1874, when we held the lead practically unchallenged. I do not think, therefore, that it is an over-cautious estimate that we should replace the fixed charge for the National Debt service at £28,000,00. That will compel us to add over £9,500,000 to the present estimated expenditure, and will reduce our apparent surplus from £28,500,000 to £18,750,000, available for the reduction of taxation. That is not all. After the war is over, there will not only be increased pay for the Navy, and an additional charge for education, both of which can probably be met by the natural expansion of revenue, but there will be an inevitable charge for the government of the two new colonies. I have endeavoured to put that estimate as low as I can, and to allow for no more than an occupying force of 20,000 men at the cost of the Imperial Government, and I find in the Report of Sir David Barbour that the cost of 20,000 men in South Africa would be £5,000,000 a year. Deduct that from the surplus of £18,750,000, and we have a final sum of £13,750,000 available for the reduction of taxation after the war is over.
So far, what I have stated rests upon figures which can hardly be disputed, and contains no estimate whatever, except the very moderate estimate for the government of the Orange River and Transvaal
240
Colonies. Now I come to what, in its nature, must be speculation, but a speculation which I think the House will agree is sufficiently based on obvious facts to be accurate. What will be the taxes that will be repealed when the war is over If any hon. Member will take the trouble to read the Bill we are now discussing, he will see that certain of the additional duties on tea, tobacco, beer, and spirits are for one year only, whereas the main duties on all the articles named, with the exception of tea, are permanent. It is not, therefore, much of an assumption to suppose that it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as soon as the war is over, to take oft' the additional taxes which are imposed for one year only. I am strengthened in that assumption by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's frequent reiteration that the revenue-producing power of taxation on beer and tobacco is very nearly exhausted. If these additional taxes are repealed, they will absorb nearly £6,500,000. But, acting on the declared principle of the Chancellor of the exchequer, that for every reduction of indirect taxation there must be a corresponding reduction of direct taxation in order to maintain general equality between them, we may expect that he will take 3d. off the income tax as an equivalent to the reduction in indirect taxation. That will absorb £7,500,000, which, added to the sums I have already given, will swallow up the whole of the existing surplus. My calculation is based on the terms of the Bill, and upon the declared policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some such calculation is necessary if we are to understand what is the settled financial policy of the Party opposite. We have, then, this result. We have to face an income tax of 1s. in the pound, a corn tax, a sugar tax, and a coal tax, as permanent imposts on the people of this country. If we accept this Bill, we must make up our minds for these taxes, be there peace or be there war.
That is the price we have paid for seven years of government by Lord Salisbury, assisted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am not arguing whether the price is worth it or not; no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite will think that

241
they have had value for their money, but there stands the fact that that is the price they have paid; and if they think they have had value, so lot it be. I will not take that consolation from thorn, provided they will mend their ways in future. Do not let them think, however, that that is all they have paid for seven years of Lord Salisbury's government. During the period this Government have been in office, we have had a magnificent revenue. Calculated on the basis of taxation when Lord Salisbury came into office, the natural expansion of the revenue during the last seven years, up to the end of 1901–2, has been no less than £24,000,000 a year. That means that we have had an additional £24,000,000 of increased revenue, and £20,000,000 of additional taxation to spend. Where has all the money gone? There are £44,000,000 in all to account for. We are all for a strong Navy, and since 1895 we have spent an additional £14,000,000 a year on the Navy. We are all for better education, and since 1895 we have added £3,000,000 to its annual cost. I do not think, in either case, the money has been spent to advantage. We will allow, however, that £17,000,000 has been creditably spent, and we have to allow a further £3,000,000 a year for the increased charge for the debt. Altogether that amounts to £20,000,000, out of £44,000,000 of added expenditure. Where has the other £24,000,000 gone? Where can we find in administrative improvements any justification for the expenditure of such a vast revenue as £24,000,000 a year? A large amount has gone to the War Office, but are hon. Gentlemen opposite satisfied with that expenditure? We have spent also a great deal on Foreign Office wars on the East Coast of Africa, and Colonial Office wars on the West Coast of Africa, and we shall continue to spend a great deal of money on wars of that sort so long as the self-importance of these Civil Departments is fostered by allowing them to keep armies under their control. We have thrown away £250,000 on Wei-hai-Wei to save our face. But if we want to find where the money has largely gone, we must go carefully through the Estimates. There we shall find item after item, like the notorious one of the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown, in which you will see additional expenditure, small in amount, but covering so vast a number of
242
items that the total has contributed considerably to absorb the £24,000,000 I. have named. I will not refer to another item, which has cost us millions—it has been mentioned frequently—I mean doles. The Government, which takes as its principle not to forget its friends, cannot be expected to overlook their claims in the matter of doles. All this has happened during the seven years in which we have had a declared economist at the Treasury.
If we are to have the Party opposite in power, I am bound to say that for the sake of the nation I am infinitely glad that we should have the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at the head of the Treasury, for undoubtedly he has, time after time, done his utmost to resist the extravagant tendencies to which he is subjected. But what has been his case? Year after year he has told us that he is helpless to resist this increase of expenditure. He attributes the pressure to the whole House. We, perhaps, with more justice, may attribute the pressure to the dead weight of Party habit, which inevitably ends in extravagance when a Conservative Government is in office. This is not the first experience we have had of this. It is not many years ago since Lord Randolph Churchill resigned because he could not introduce economy, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has retained his office only at the cost of surrendering position after position to the assaults made upon him from his own side of the House against what they are pleased to term the parsimony of the Treasury. If there had been a different result of seven years of Conservative government, I should certainly have been very much surprised. Hon. Gentlemen may call it a prejudice, but it is a prejudice I hold very strongly, that when a Conservative Government is in office you will have increased expenditure and increased taxation. If, after seven years of this Government, we had had reduced taxation and an annual surplus, I should be wrong in my belief or prejudice—call it which you please. But our expectations have been realised, and realised in a way which is most painful to the people, by the re-imposition of a tax on their food. If we consider this Budget in the light of recognising that the bread tax, the sugar tax, and the coal tax are to be permanent, is this House prepared to accept it? We

243
have heard very much of the cant phrase of widening the basis of taxation. There is only one basis of taxation—the taxpayer; and widening the basis of taxation, in the mouths of those who use the phrase, only means that they wish to transfer the burden of taxation from the comparatively well-to-do to the shoulders of the less well-to-do taxpayer. There is no other meaning in it. What is the prospect which this widening of the basis of taxation offers to us? When, next year, and every successive year, the Treasury gapes wider and wider, how can we not expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will build on this new basis of taxation, and that the ½d. on sugar will become 1d. and the 1s. on corn 5s? If this corn tax were in truth only to he a temporary tax, a war tax, as appeared to be suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an earlier stage in this debate, then it would be contrary to the admirable principle laid down by him in words which I will quote—
"I do not think it wise to make small changes in our system of taxation, which, even if defensible in themselves, would harass and disturb the complex and delicate fabric of our trade."
This is a small change in our system of taxation. It will harass and disturb the complex and delicate fabric of our trace, and all for the sake of bringing in £2,500,000 in a Budget of £153,000,000. Is it worth it, if the tax is to stand alone? But if this tax is to be the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman may build in the future, if it is to be the easiest and readiest means of bringing in revenue, then we have to deal with it in altogether another way. Our judgment on this Budget must depend largely on whether we recognise and believe that it is a permanent Budget, and whether this new imposition is going to be made to press in the future still more heavily on the people. I dread this tax for its present hardship; I dread it far more because of the temptation it will offer to future Chancellors of the Exchequer to increase that hardship; and I am not in the least reconciled to it by the only argument offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in its defence that thirty-three years ago another Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the approval of the nation, thought it wise to repeal it.
244
We are told that money must be found somewhere. We on this side of the House have long held the view that the Exchequer could be enriched by the retention of certain revenues now-handed over to local authorities if local finance were buttressed by the rating of ground values, and as my hon. friend the Member for Dundee has suggested a profitable revenue might be raised from the sale, instead of the free grant, of licences. These are two sources of revenue which would supply our immediate wants, but the one permanent remedy for taxation lies in economy of administration. We shall never get that as long as the present Government remains in office, let the Chancellor of the Exchequer strive as he may. Experience, the best of all guides, has shown us during the last century that when that Party is in office we get increased taxation and extravagant expenditure. If we are to make our finances balance, and be in a position to repeal taxation, we must revert to the principles which still survive on this side of the House—the principles of economy in finance and efficiency in administration—which do not mean "running the Empire on the cheap." They have made this great Empire, with its magnificent resources, resources now, unhappily, so rapidly squandered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which were inherited from the great work done by the Liberal administrators of the past.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member has favoured us with a general review of the past expenditure of the country and a prophecy of the future of our finances. He has taken a view which is very common on his side as to the causes of our expenditure. He is good enough to credit me with a desire for economy, and with so much, at any rate, of usefulness in my present position that he would sooner see me Chancellor of the Exchequer than anybody else on this side of the House. But he considers that I am overborne by my colleagues and political friends, and that in spite of myself the expenditure has grown to its present proportions. I will only say that the views of the hon. Member on this subject are entirely unfounded. If

245
I had not concurred in the expenditure, I should not now be standing at this Table. I concurred in it because I believed it to be necessary. I have resisted many proposals of which the hon. Gentleman says nothing, but those proposals have not by any means always come from my colleagues or from those on this side of the House. Time after time in the course of the past six years proposals of various kinds for increased expenditure have been made by hon. Members sitting on the opposite side—proposals for additional pay or pensions for Civil servants, for Post Office and Dockyard employees, as well as additional grants for education of all kinds; and even today we have heard it suggested that the whole cost of education ought to be defrayed by the Exchequer. In the course of the last few weeks my hon. friend representing the Post Office in this House has had to resist the claim, urged with almost complete unanimity, for some great expenditure on the telegraphic service to Scotland, which would have been another addition to the Budget of the present year. We are blamed by the hon. Member for all the expenditure of the country, as if it were entirely our fault. He admits that the country has had a magnificent revenue; he admits that the revenue has largely increased in the past few years. But that, of course, is not to our credit; that is to the credit of those who sit on the Benches opposite. I will not detain the House by going further into that argument, because I know they are anxious to conclude this debate. But this I may say with regard to the future. The hon. Member has been good enough to sketch out for me, or for some one else, a Budget when the war is over and the time for a reduction of taxation has come; and he has propounded a theory that I have made up my mind to reduce certain taxes, to retain others, and, in fact, that I have practically settled now what the Budget will be next year. I can assure the hon. Member that I have not been guilty of such a foolish anticipation. When the war is over—and we hope it may soon be over—and when the time comes for a reduction of taxation, then also will come the time for a full consideration of the whole financial position of the
246
country, and the burden on the taxpayers generally, what shall be decreased and what shall remain.
There are two speeches in regard to which I will venture to say a few words. The hon. Member for Barnsley hovered over any number of subjects in connection with taxation. He began by dealing with the whole fiscal system of the country, and suggested that we ought to impose a charge on the Cape and Natal by way of contribution to the expenses of the war. Then he went on to discuss a graduated income tax, a penny on share certificates, finally settling down on what I think was the real object of his speech—the coal tax. He asked me to reduce the coal tax in the present Budget. I cannot consider the reduction of taxation, and I am certain that another year ought to elapse before any one can tell what the effect of the coal tax may be. I was glad to find that the hon. Member did not suggest the abolition of the tax. He suggested that the shilling export duty on coal had rather stimulated the export of coal in the first three months of the present year, and, that being so, it should be altered——
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: What I said was that the increased export of coal to foreign countries was due to the fact that the demand had so decreased at home that we were driven to push our foreign trade, in spite of having to accept 1s. less than we would otherwise have obtained in consequence of the coal tax, in order to keep the collieries going.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: He went on to suggest that I had better increase the home demand by putting 2d. a ton on all coal extracted from collieries in this country. I am glad to receive such a suggestion from one who is closely connected with the coal industry with regard to the possibilities of the future.
The hon. Member for Dundee raised important questions connected with our general system of taxation. The hon. Member objects, I think I may say, to all indirect taxation except—
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I made no such discrimination.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: He objects to indirect taxation altogether.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I did not say that.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The whole purport of his speech was that he objected not only to the tax on corn, but also to the taxes on tea and sugar, and the income tax. He would largely lower these by adopting certain other proposals which he explained. What were those proposals? In the first place, he called attention to the position of our self-governing colonies, and suggested that we should obtain a contribution from them towards the expenses of the defence of the Empire. I should be glad to see some arrangement of that kind made. I think the House generally are aware that this will form one of the subjects of discussion at the forthcoming conference in the present year. But I do not think the hon. Member seriously meant that it rested with me, as Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, to attempt to tax the self-governing colonies. Then the hon. Member went on to talk about the "doles," and suggested that we should deprive the occupiers of agricultural land of the relief of rates which they enjoy, in order to devote the money to the national expenditure. That is not a matter on which I shall dwell today, for I am sure it will be a long time before any Government will attempt to make such a proposal. He then suggested that we might obtain a considerable revenue from ground values, entirely ignoring the minority Report of the Local Taxation Commission, which certainly pointed out most plainly that, although you might alter the incidence of rating on ground values and houses, so as to make the owner pay more, and the occupier less, whatever you gained must practically go towards the relief of local taxation. The hon. Member further suggested that a large revenue might be derived for Imperial purposes from the licence duties, forgetting again that these duties under one form or another, are now handed over to the local authorities, and that they certainly would not give them up.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The existing duties are handed over, but the additional duties need not be.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: You cannot have two systems of licence duties, part going to the Exchequer and part to the local authorities. It is possible, I admit, that you might take the proceeds of all the licences and put them in the Exchequer, giving a grant to the local authorities in their place, and increasing the licence duty. The amount of the duties might be increased as far as the larger public houses are concerned, but I do not believe that the hon. Member or any one else would obtain a large increase of revenue on the licence duties from the smaller public houses, which form the vast majority—I think 98 per cent. in Ireland under, £100 a year valuation—of all the public houses. Therefore, as those increased duties would be levied on the comparatively few, there would not be anything like the amount of gain in the whole process, which was anticipated by the hon. Member. My feeling, however, is that more revenue might be derived in this way, but if it is derived it ought to go to local taxation rather than to the Imperial Exchequer. Further, I am certain that the subject could not be dealt with without complete consideration of the effect an increased charge might have upon the position of licence holders with regard to their interest in their licences, because if you impose a fine, as I think the hon. Member would, on the granting of fresh licences, it is perfectly clear that you would create a greater vested interest than antyhing that now exists.
MR. EDM UND ROBERTSON: I would impose an additional duty, not only on new licences but on all existing licences.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I quite admit that something might be done in that matter; but I feel that looking to the precedent that Parliament has already made, it is a matter that could not be properly dealt with except in connection with a general adjustment of local taxation. I hope I may be pardoned if I do not dwell at any greater length on the subjects that have been raised, but ask the House now to assent to the Second Reading of the Bill.
(5.33.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 170.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algeron

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Flower, Ernest

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Foster, Philips. (Warwick, S. W

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Galloway, William Johnson

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Garfit, William

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Arrol, Sir William

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

Morgan, David J. (W'lthamstow

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H' mlets

Morrell, George Herbert

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Baird, John George Alexander

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Mount, William Arthur

Balcarres, Lord

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

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

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

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewbury)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Balfour, Capt. C. B.

Gretton, John

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Groves, James Grimble

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Nicholson, William Graham

Banbury, Frederick George

Hain, Edward

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bartley, George G T.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nerry)

Parker, Gilbert

Bignold, Arthur

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Boulnois, Edmund

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Penn, John

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Percy, Earl

Brassey, Albert

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hehler, Augustus

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Henderson, Alexander

Plummer, Walter R.

Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Burdett-Coutis, W.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

Purvis, Robert

Carlile, William Walter

Hogg, Lindsay

Randles, John S.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hoult, Joseph

Renwiek, George

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

Richards, Henry Charles

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Charrington, Spencer

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Coddington, Sir William

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Round, James

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Rutherford, John

Collings, Rt. hon. Jesse

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Kimber, Henry

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Knowles, Lees

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Shaw-Stewart. H. M. (Renfrew)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cranborne, Viscount

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lawson, John Grant

Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lecky, Rt. Hn. Willam Edw.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Legge, Cul. Hon. Hcneage

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stroyan, John

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lonsdale, Joan Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowe, Francis William

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Faber, George Denison (York.)

Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

Valentia, Viscount

Fardell, Sir T. George

Macdona, John Cumming

Walker, Col. William Hall

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Warde, Col. C. E.

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Finch, George H.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Fisher, William Hayes

Malcolm, Ian

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Manners, Lord Cecil

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne

250

251

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

Younger, William

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Wills, Sir Frederick

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Sir William Walrond and

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Mara, James

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Partington, Oswald

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Holland, William Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Atherley-Jones, L.

Horniman, Frederick John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Austin, Sir John

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Priestley, Arthur

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rea, Russell

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Joicey, Sir James

Reckitt, Harold James

Blake, Edward

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

Reddy, M.

Boland, John

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Brigg, John

Kitson, Sir James

Rickett, J. Compton

Broadhurst, Henry

Labouchere, Henry

Rigg, Richard

Burns, John

Langley, Batty

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Caine, William Sproston

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Leamy, Edmund

Roche, John

Carew, James Laurence

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Roe, Sir Thomas

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Leng, Sir John

Runciman, Walter

Charming, Francis Allston

Levy, Maurice

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Clancy, John Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Cogan, Derris J.

Logan, John William

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lough, Thomas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lundon, W.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Crean, Eugene

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cremer, William Randal

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Nortlrants

Delany, William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal

Dillon, John

M'Crae, George

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Fadden, Edward

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Kenna, Reginald

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

Dunn, Sir William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Tomkinson, James

Edwards, Frank

Markham, Arthur Basil

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Elibank, Master of

Mather, William

Tully, Jasper

Ellis, John Edward

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Wallace, Robert

Emmott, Alfred

Murnaghan, George

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Fenwick, Charles

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Ffrench, Peter

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Field, William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whiteley, George (york, W. R.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Mr. Patrick O'Brien and

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Mr. Haviland-Burke.

MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Mr. Speaker, I got into the wrong Lobby. May it be corrected?
Mr. Speaker did not reply.

LOAN BILL.
[SECOND BEADING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHPerhaps in moving the Second Reading
252
of this Bill I may express the hope that the House may., be willing to pass the Second Reading today, although the time before us is comparatively short, on the understanding that a proper opportunity will be given for debate on the Third Reading. The House is aware that a Bill of this sort is merely carrying out the Resolution of the House, and raises no question which is likely to involve any alteration in Committee. It is important, as I have already explained to the House, that we

253
should make progress with this Bill, and that it should become law in order to meet our requirements.
Motion made and Question proposed—" That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr M. Hicks Beach.)
MR. DILLON: I think the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very fair and reasonable one. Of course, a Bill like this ought to be fully discussed, but I do not see myself, inasmuch as the loan has already been resolved upon, and that the money is in the Exchequer, that it makes much difference whether the discussion takes place on the Second or Third Reading or partially on the one and partially on the other. I think, as the Chancellor has offered a fair opportunity for discussion on the Third Reading, that we might very fairly give him the Second Reading today and conclude the discussion on the Third Reading.
I now propose to move the Amendment which I have put down on the Paper. I desire to say, first of all, that I believe the course we are asked to adopt in regard to this Loan Bill is entirely with out precedent. Certainly such course has not been taken within my experience. A Loan Bill is according to all precedent to provide the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the means of discharging liabilities either voted by the House or laid before the House by way of Estimates for the current year, but on the present occasion we are asked to place at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a sum estimated by himself at £18,500,000 as a provision for contingencies. I consider that proposal to be one of the most extraordinary character, and in order to emphasise that point I turn to the balance sheet issued by the Secretary to the Treasury after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his Budget statement. I find there on the expenditure side the following item: £17,750,000 "supplementary provision to meet contingencies." Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer produce at any time a balance sheet of a similar character with the sum of £17,000,000, or a sum approaching that amount, inserted as the amount to meet contingencies? At the outset I want to remind the House of the figures and of the method by which the
254
deficit to meet which the loan has been issued is made up. The deficit on the Estimates for the year was £26,824,000, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a magnificent disregard for trifles, announced that he would, if necessary, ask the permission of the House to add to that deficit a sum mentioned by him as between £16,000,000 and £17,000,000 in respect of additional charges for the war or other circumstances in South Africa to provide for the Estimates of the Year. I put that down at £16,500,000. He explained that 4,000 of the 10,000 constabulary would have to be provided for by the Imperial Government, and put the cost of that down at £750,000 for half of the South African financial year. The interest on fresh Debt will amount to £1,000,000, and the grant in aid to the Colonies in the "West Indies will amount to, say, £250,000. The total deficit therefore was £45,324,000, from which has to be deducted the sinking fund £4,500,000, leaving the total net deficit £40,824,000. When he deducted from that sum the total of £5,150,000, estimated to be received from new taxation, there remained a deficit of £35,654,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls £35,000,000.
I wish first of all to direct attention to the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with the deficit. He says it is to be met first by a loan of £32,000,000, and then by drafts on the Exchequer balances, which have been increased by £4,000,000. A small balance remains from the£60,000,000 of last year. The wording of the statement would give one to understand that he was going to raise £32,000,000 by way of loan, but we all know that that would not be the result if the loan be asked for. As a matter of fact, the proceeds of the £32,000,000 stock which has been issued, is £29,920,000. In other words, we have lost £2,080,000 in placing the loan on the market. Therefore, the balance of deficit being £35,500,000 and the amount raised by the loan £29,920,000, the balance of £5,600,000 will have to be taken from the Exchequer balances. That is an enormous loss which is to come about by the depreciation of the credit of this country through the prolongation of the war, and owing to the stupid and preposterous

255
policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reducing the sinking fund. Last year we lost £3,500,000 on the £60,000,000 loan, and in the previous year on the £30,000,000 we lost only £500,000, so that the process of loss in this way is rapidly increasing. I would point out this remarkable fact, that whereas the £30,000,000 loan issued on 5th April, 1900, at the same percentage of interest as the consolidated stock was insured at, produced £29,519,000, the £32,000,000 issued this year produced £29,920,000. That is only about £400 more than the £30,000,000 loan produced. The result of that on the three loans is that the Government have lost £6,000,000 on the issues below par. Before the war broke out the same amount of stock issued, would have brought in something like £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 above par. In other words that amount of stocks has been deteriorated in value not less than £25,000,000. That is an element of loss which many are apt to forget. It is one of the disasters of the war. I have no doubt that that element of loss has been greatly increased by the foolish action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in cutting down the old sinking fund, on the ground, that consols stood too high on the market. The result is that they do not stand too high now, and are not likely to stand too high for many a long year to come.
I come now to the first item in this additional expenditure. To the astonishment of the House, when he was making his speech introducing the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he had been compelled to ask permission to add a sum of £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 in respect of war charges in South Africa, It will be in the recollection of the House, that when the Vote for South African War charges was introduced, only six weeks before the Budget statement was made, some of us on this side of the House criticised the £40,000,000, which was put in the Estimate as being an absurd sum to put down for the charges of the campaign. But how were we met? We were met by the Secretary of State for War, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who declared that they had gone over the Estimates together, with more than
256
ordinary care, and that this was a most correct and trustworthy Estimate on which they might rely, and that the great economy was due to Lord Kitchener himself. I say that is not dealing fairly with the House of Commons it is another instance of the policy pursued throughout this war of endeavouring to lure and lead on the country by from time to time presenting a flattering picture based on too optimistic an estimate of the expenses and liabilities of the war. I ask, what occurred, between the date on which the Estimate for the year was submitted to the House of Commons and that on which the Budget statement was made, to justify so gigantic a change in the Estimate for South African operations as to involve an addition of £16,000,000? Nothing has occurred, and, therefore, I say that the Secretary of State for War was not dealing frankly with the House of Commons when he put down in the Estimates £40,000,000 as the full expenses of the war for the year.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: When the £40,000,000 was placed in the Estimate, as the hon. Member will find if he will look at the memorandum circulated with the Estimate, it was stated that the amount was inserted as sufficing for the prosecution of the war at the current rate for eight or nine months. But it did not provide for terminal charges of various kinds. When I introduced the Budget I stated that in our opinion it was necessary to provide for the possible cost of the war throughout the year, and therefore, I proposed to add a sum of nearly £17,000,000 to the Estimate which was laid on the Table, but which never purported to cover the total cost of the war for the year.
MR. DILLON: That is my point. I remember that perfectly well; but why should not an Estimate be laid on the Table? My point is that the Government had evidently calculated that the war would end at that period; but is it in accordance with precedent, or is it dealing frankly with the House to put down Estimates not intended to cover the expenses of the whole financial year? That is why I contend that this £17,000,000 asked for in

257
the Budget is not to meet current expenses, but to meet contingencies. When the Estimates were being drawn up this year that must have been done in view of two possible events—either that the war would go on to the end of the financial year, in which case provision should have been made for it; or, on the other hand, that peace would be made, as I hope it soon may be. The essence of my argument is that whether the war went on, or that peace was made this money is required. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say—
Perhaps I may be asked what is to happen if peace should come in a few weeks, and if the large sum of £58,000,000 or £57,000,000 I have suggested should not all be required for the purposes of the war. Well, I would remind the committee that, in the first place, though war is a very costly thing to wage, it is also a very costly thing to terminate. We shall have to provide for gratuities and bounties to our soldiers who have served in the war. We shall have to provide large sums for their disembodiment; considerable sums, I hope, for transport of reservists and others home; and for the maintenance no doubt of a considerable force in South Africa.
Yes, but all that ought to have been foreseen; and in making up the Estimates of last year all that was foreseen, and was provided for in the Estimates, The Government must have known, taking the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that £40,000,000 would fall enormously short of the necessities of the case. I maintain that the Government were not acting frankly with the House of Commons and were pursuing the policy with which they began the war by asking for £10,000,000 and by luring on the country from time to time by presenting a flattering picture based on too optimistic an estimation as to the expenses which the war would involve. Therefore, in asking us to vote this £17,000,000 or £18,000,000 to be raised by way of a loan, for contingences, before any Estimate is laid on the Table giving us detail of how these millions are to be expended, we are asked to do what has never been done before in the House of Commons in my experience. It is bad finance. We hear a good deal about economy, but so long as the Chancellor of the Exchequer sets such a bad example to the spending Departments in his Budget there will be no economy. The Departments know that
258
the money is there; and it is a direct incentive to them to get rid of all these millions. I contend that this is a system of finance which is absolutely destructive of all economy.
But on what is this money to be spent? We are told that in the case of the war being continued it will be spent, of course, in warlike operations; but in the event of peace, the Chancellor went on to say—
"Means would have to be provided for something more—something which I am sure would be more agreeable to all of us than expenditure on war. Means will have to be provided for the resettlement of the two Colonies which have been so terribly devastated by the war. Means will have to be provided for rebuilding and re-stocking farms—farms, I should hope not only of those who have been our friends in the war, and have fought on our side, but also of those "who boldly and honestly have been our enemies in the war and whom we hope to make our friends in the future. I think the House of Commons, if peace is made on terms, which in our belief will be satisfactory, enduring, and safe, will be generous in these matters.
That is new language coming from the Treasury Bench, and I rejoiced to listen to it. Speaking in behalf of the Irish party, we will vote unstintingly and with a whole heart any money to be devoted for that purpose. If the feeling of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be carried into practice, if there is to be a settlement in which no distinction will be made between those who fought on the side of the British, and those, who fought against them, of course that will take a very largo sum of money. I think if that had been stated early last year, instead of a niggardly offer of a loan of a million and the virulent temper in which the Boers were treated, the war would probably have been ended last year and the country would have been spared the loss of 10,000 lives and the expenditure of 60 millions of money. I trust that the negotiations that are now going on will be carried out in the spirit displayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I confess that I am not altogether hopeful of it.
Now I come to another portion of the Budget about which I must say a word or two; and that is the £750,000 which is to be expended for maintaining for half a year 4,000 mounted constabulary in the Transvaal and the Orange State. I think that is a most monstrous expense. I resist it as a portion

259
of this loan on two grounds. In the first place, I think it is wasteful; and in the second place I think it is highly mischievous. I believe that the foundation of this constabulary force is one of the greatest blunders of the whole of this unhappy business. When I raised this point some weeks ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply said "how absurd it was for the hon. Gentleman to object to the formation of a constabulary force in the annexed territories? He forgot that there had been a similar mounted force in Cape Colony for years." But could anything be more ridiculous than to compare the two? The mounted force in Cape Colony is a military force; is very small; and is chiefly used in dealing with native troubles. Practically it is not used against white men. But the essential difference between the Capo mounted police and the proposed mounted constabulary in the Transvaal and Orange State is that the former are under the control of a Minister responsible to the Cape Parliament, and therefore cannot lead to same evils as I foresee will arise in the case of the new constabulary in the Transvaal and Orange State. The proposal is to organise a mounted force which will owe no allegiance to the people of the country, which will be like the constabulary in Ireland, a centralised force with its headquarters in Pretoria, and which will be hated and detested throughout South Africa. I do not want to say anything offensive to the new force, but it will consist of daredevils, gentlemen drawn from all parts of the world by a love of an adventurous life, unacquainted with police duties and strangers to the country. The creation of such a force will not tend to anything like a peaceable or amicable settlement in South Africa. If peace is established it will be an unreal peace. For that reason, I am most irreconcilably opposed to the provision of any money for the formation of such a constabulary.
I go on to examine the promises held out to the House in regard to these various loans. We have been told, over and over again, from that fatal morning in October, 1889, and on every other occasion when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has risen to propose to raise a loan, that we should get back a great portion of it from South Africa. I think it must be becoming apparent, even to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the chances of getting
260
back any portion are now further off than ever; and yet this unfailing hope is held out to us, that we need not be alarmed, because the Transvaal is rapidly flourishing, that it is quite able to pay its way, that next year it will be able to pay for its constabulary, for improving the country, re-building the farm-houses, and re-stocking the farms. And it is also to contribute a very large sum towards the expenses of the war, although we have never been able to get the figures of these very large sums to be contributed towards the expense of the war. On what basis is this fallacious hope held out to us? It is a ludicrous delusion to suppose we shall get any money back from the Transvaal for this war. Last year, in addition to the enormous expenditure on the war, we were called on to vote at short notice £6,700,000 for a grant in aid for the Civil administration of the Transvaal, and in addition £700,000 for the constabulary. Therefore, before we get repaid a penny for the war, these two devastated and ruined countries will be asked to make up that £9,000,000. But, putting that on one side, I do not believe there is the slightest ground for believing that in the next two or three years they will be able to pay this money. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a delusion in this matter. I would remind the House of what Sir David Barbour said when he was sent out to report on the resources of these colonies with a view of their paying part of the cost of the war. In 1901, at a time when the devastation of these countries bad only commenced, when they were in a very-different position to what they are now, He states it as his opinion, that for some years these colonies will not be able to pay their way. Since then these colonies have been devastated, many towns burnt to the ground, all the farms destroyed, and all the cattle wiped out; therefore the position of these colonies, from the point of view of producing revenue, is infinitely worse than last year. If you give these countries nine or ten years, in that time they might make some progress towards paying the expenditure of the war, but before then to expect anything is absurd. Now that peace is within the limits of possibility, the Chamber of Commerce in Johannesburg has been called together to implore the

261
Government not to destroy the great I industry of the country by taxing the mines. If you ever tax the mines, you will have both the Uitlanders and your old enemies against you. The Government have not treated the country honestly in this matter. They will not get any of this money back from the colonies, and I hold they have no right to get it; and if tomorrow proposals were made to saddle on the Transvaal a part of the cost of this war, if I were alone I would vote against it. In my opinion, the people of the Transvaal have an unanswerable case to any such proposal. They can say this is an Imperial war, undertaken by you in the interests of the Empire, and as you have always paid the cost in past cases, you can pay this.
There is one matter on which I would make a further appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he drew so rosy a view of the extraordinary development of the finances of the Transvaal, he did not say much about the Orange River Colony—he said it was paying its way in civil administration, and that the Transvaal had a surplus. I ask him to communicate a balance-sheet, as it were, showing the real financial position of these countries. We are absolutely in the dark. We do not know the sources of revenue, or to what extent it is due to the luxuries and stores supplied to our troops. What is the present condition of the railways? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me they were in the hands of the military, which was actually making a profit on them. Whether the receipts are derived from military or civilian sources, we do not know. We ought to know what the sources of revenue are. They ought to be checked and corrected, so that this House may know, when it comes to form a judgment on these colonies, how they are going on, and whether there is a shadow of hope that they will pay their way. I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman to lay on the Table of the House such a Budget statement, so that we can see how the figures are made out. I now come to my last point—a point more serious than all the others. In this Bill we are asked to raise this sum of £17,500,000 for contingencies. The destination of this sum of £17,500,000 would be affected by a favourable issue
262
of the peace negotiations. We are told if peace is concluded it will be spent with a generous hand in re stocking the land and re-building the houses and the farms. My attitude would be different if I thought peace was at hand, but the Government has kept us so long in the dark on that subject. The House was told some time ago that it would be three weeks before any news was received of those negotiations; five weeks have now elapsed without a word of information being imparted on the subject. Never in modern history was a nation so kept in the dark on a matter of such supreme interest. I saw in a newspaper, in a published telegram, that the Premier of Natal had declared to his Legislative Assembly that he had been consulted by the British Government on the terms of peace, and The Times, in its well-known fashion, made a semi-official announcement as to the negotiations, clearly indicating the existence of a peace and a war party in the conduct of negotiations. It is, therefore, time for the House of Commons to press for information. In an article published on May 12th, The Times, in scarcely veiled language, intimated a threat of Lord Milner's resignation. These were the words—
"Upon no one of these matters can we give way without adding enormously to the difficulties of the future civil rulers of South Africa. Those difficulties will, in any circumstances, be such as to tax the statesmanship and administrative ability of Lord Milner to the uttermost. If from any false desire to patch up peace, or any yet more foolish feeling of false sentiment, we yield to the importunities of Mr. Steyn, it may well be that we should make Lord Milner's position untenable."
This was evidently inspired by high official authority, and it is an unfortunate thing that the House should be without information accessible to the editor of a newspaper. It is no secret that The Times has moans of obtaining such information, and the type and character of publication indicate an official source. It will be a deplorable thing that the House should separate for the holidays without being placed in possession of information that is open to the Premier of Natal and the Editor of The Times. It will be a disaster, a crime, and an outrage on humanity if, owing to some miserable quibble of Lord Milner's, or threat of resignation, the attempts to conclude peace should break down, and the House meet again with the country still engaged in this miserable war. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words this House disapproves of the raising of so large a sum by way of loan, in the absence of fuller and more detailed information than has been given to the House, as to the manner in which the money is to be expended and the grounds on which it is expected that large contributions towards the expenses of the war will be recovered from the annexed territories.' "—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question,"
MR. LOUGH: No one from the empty appearance of the House would believe we were engaged in such a serious business as we are. I quite agree with what has been said, that it would be ridiculous to suppose that a matter of such gravity could be disposed of In so short a time as we have at our disposal; but there are a few business matters on which some discussion might be had, and I will address myself to them in the briefest possible manner; the larger matters that arise may well be left for the occasion which the Government has promised to give us. We are making now provision for the services of the year, but not out of the revenue as we ought to do. We are borrowing' a vast amount for the requirements of the country. This is the fourth session that the House has been driven to adopt that course. In the first year of the right hon. Gentleman's adminstration, eight years ago, we enjoyed a surplus of £40,000,000; in the fourth year the surplus had dwindled to £200,000 and then in the fifth year there was a deficit. This year the deficit is £36,000,000. It is a matter of the greatest gravity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explains the position, in my opinion, far too readily. He says "We are at war, and when we are at war the cost must be found," but when it is remembered that we were told by a responsible member of the Government a year ago that we were only carrying on "a sort of war," if that is so we ought surely to find the money out of revenue.
Let us look at this Bill in the simplest way. We sanction the raising of a loan of £32,000,000—an immense sum. That has only produced £29,000,000 odd, but this amount is made up at the last
264
moment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer adding to the Estimates of the year £18,000,000. Now there has never been sufficient explanation given to the House of the addition at the last moment of that £18,000,000. What the Government will beheld to account for one of these days and what they have been called to account at Bury for, is this—that the amount of money, whether it be by loan or taxation, which the people have got to provide, has been doubled during the period that the Government have been in office. We have not the facts of the total expenditure put before us. We speak of the expenditure as if it were only £29,000,000 or £30,000,000, but during the last year the expenditure has been £180,000,000 or £190,000,000. The total expenditure is £210,000,000, that is, £4,000,000 a week have to be found in cash, whether by loan or taxation, for the requirements of the country under the present Government. Just one half of that sum was sufficient when they came into office! The effects of this bad finance are apparent; I will refer to one only. The national credit has declined. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought out his first loan, he was able to get £98 10s. per £100 stock; for his second he obtained £94 10s.; while the third was issued at £93 10s. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take this opportunity of telling us why that third loan was issued so cheaply and at such great cost to the nation. He told us in his Budget speech that he would take an early opportunity of explaining the provisions under which this money would be raised. The House has never had that explanation, and from a business point of view we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to defend the course he has adopted.
As I have said, the third loan was issued at £93 10s. The House would naturally assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer received that sum. Not at all; a far less amount was received. The particulars require some explanation. The success of the loan was secured at a, terrible cost. In the first place, a full quarter's interest is to be paid on July 5th. On that date the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have received only £18 10s. per cent. of the money, the interest on which would be simply 1s. 5d., but the right hon. Gentleman will pay 13s. 9d., a premium of 12s. 4d. The same thing is

265
true of the second quarter. In that quarter 7s. 3d. would pay the interest on the money the Chancellor will have received, but again he will pay 13s. 9d., a further premium of 6s. 6d. My figures may be wrong, but I make it that there was a premium of 18s. 10d. in the £100, in addition to the loan being issued at the low price of £93 10s. We want some explanation of that. A large sum of the taxpayers' money was given away quite unnecessarily by these too favourable terms.
Then there was another arrangement which needs some defence. The loan was for £32,000,000, but only £16,000,000 were issued to the public. The Bank of England issued a circular urging every bank to send in applications to make the loan a success, and they did so. But when the public, in a patriotic spirit, sent in their applications, only one half the loan was given them. £16,000,000, I believe, were issued to two or three banking houses.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Oh no—much more than two or three.
MR. LOUGH: I understand there were some favoured banking houses. Why was not the full amount offered to the public?
There is only one other point. The disposition the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown ought to satisfy the House that for some reason or another he has been borrowing too freely. This £18,000,000 sticks in my mind; I do not know why it was put in; we have never had it explained; the House ought to have a full explanation. Once you begin to borrow you borrow too much. There are always people willing to lend; they are the rich minority, who have to be well-paid for lending; but it is the great bulk of the people who become creditors and have to repay. The House would do well, even this afternoon, to express its criticism of the freedom with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has borrowed such large sums of money. To put the amount of the expenditure in another way, the total expenditure of the nation twenty-five years ago was only eleven per cent. on the total imports and exports of the country. That was a large amount on
266
trade, but it is now twenty-two per cent. It is a burden which even this great commercial people will not be able to stand, but there is no way in which the Government will be able to reduce it except by adopting a policy of economy, and being less ready to raise money by loan than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown himself to be under the circumstances I have described.
MR. CREMER: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what time he proposes to allow for the discussion of this subject on the Third Reading? Are we to understand that a morning or evening sitting after Whitsuntide will be allowed for that purpose?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That is a question I cannot answer, because the allocation of the time of the House rests with my right hon. friend the Leader of the House. But what I understand to be his desire is that an evening sitting should be allotted after Whitsuntide to the discussion of the Third Reading of the Bill.
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment travelled over much the same ground that he travelled over last year in the discussion on the Loan Bill, 1901, and I do not think the House will desire me to follow him at any length into the many topics that he has raised. For example, he takes exception to this loan on the ground that in his belief the hopes which I held out of the possibility of the Transvaal providing something in the course of time towards the expenses of the war, were a ludicrous illusion. I have been cautious in this matter, and I have not said one whit more than I believe to be the fact. What I said to this House on a previous occasion was this—
"After the termination of hostilities we believe it will be practicable to earmark certain sources of revenue and apply them from time to time to the service of some portion of the loans raised by us for the war. We anticipate that these specially indicated sources of revenue will be sufficient within a few years of the close of the war to provide for the annual charge on a capital sum of £30,000,000 in the first instance. Subsequent additions will be made on the prospective increases of these sources of revenue. "
The hon. Member seems to think that the present condition of the Transvaal, which,

267
of course, has suffered considerably by the war is an indication of what it will be for a long time to come. I can assure him that all the information we have received from Lord Milner, and much of the information which has appeared in the public newspapers, as to the re-starting of the industries in the Transvaal, and the increase of the revenue of the Transvaal, leads me to believe that what I have stated to the House already on this subject is by no means too favourable a view. But, however that may be, the objection raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo to the Second Reading of this Bill is. I am bound to say, a curious one. If I had proposed a loan for the war, the interest to be charged on the Transvaal—and the hon. Member had objected that the Transvaal would never be able to pay the interest—that I could understand. But this is a loan, of course, for which we are ourselves responsible—it is raised on the credit of this country—and that the hon. Member should have raised this objection, of all others, to that loan seems to me to be remarkable. Then the hon. Member asked me to say why I propose a loan when estimates for about £17,000,000 of the amount which will be covered by it have not yet been placed before the House and opposes it as intended to meet purely contingent expenses. I may explain to the House how the financial position stands. Of course, it is clear to every one that, should the war unhappily continue all this money will be required, and then Estimates will be laid on the Table for the Amount which put roughly at £17,000,000—showing precisely how it will be expended. Again, if part of that money is required, as it may be required, for the purposes which I referred to in my Budget speech of relief and resettlement, of which the hon. Member was good enough to approve, of course, then again estimates would be laid before the House, and they would be asked to sanction that expenditure.
But, quite apart from this £17,000,000, the position is this. The Estimates already laid on the Table for the Consolidated Fund services of the year, after allowing for the suspension of the Sinking Fund, but including interest on this new loan, amount to £25,560,000. The Estimates for the Supply services laid on the Table amount to £145,159,000.
268
There is an additional estimate of £750,000 for the South African Constabulary, and, roughly, another £250,000 for the West Indian grant, making altogether £171,7 19,000. The revenue as estimated in the Budget is £152,935,000, and the estimated deficit is £18,78 1,000. That, deducted from the proceeds of the loan, £29,920,000, leaves a balance of £11,136,000 beyond the Estimates already laid on the Table.
Let me explain what the hon. Member for East Mayo does not seem to appreciate. On introducing the Budget, I referred not only to the necessity for these borrowing powers of £32,000,000, but also the necessity, if the war expenditure went on, of an application to the House for further borrowing powers to the extent of £12,000,000 for temporary purposes, in order to finance the Exchequer during the first months of this year. It is well known that the bulk of the revenue comes into the Exchequer in the fourth quarter of the year, especially when the income taxis at so high a point as it is at present, and so large a part of the revenue is, therefore, derived from income tax. The first three quarters of the financial year are the loan quarters, and, if the expenditure is greater in those quarters than in the fourth quarter—as it may prove to be this year even if the war expenditure is to cease then the Exchequer must be financed during that period beyond the receipts from taxation. I have powers under the law to do that to a certain extent by borrowing on Ways and Means, and, in an ordinary year, that is sufficient. But it is impossible to borrow so beyond a certain point, because it would greatly interfere with the money market. Therefore, I slated to the House that I should have to ask for this additional borrowing power of £12,000,000, to be used merely for the temporary purposes of financing the Exchequer, and to be devoted in the last quarter of the year to paying off Treasury bills. As it is, I have to provide means for that purpose; and the £11,136,000 which I have just referred to as the surplus raised by this loan beyond the Estimates on the Table will be used for that purpose if the money is not required for the prolongation of the war. As revenue comes in at the latter part of the year it will be devoted to the redemption of floating debt in the shape of Treasury bills, or of the Exchequer bonds issued

269
nearly three years ago. I hope I have made it clear to the House that really in this matter I am not providing for contingencies such as the hon. Member for East Mayo has supposed.
MR. McCRAE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has included the balance of the £19,000,000 from last year?
SIR M. HTCKS BEACH: That balance is £4,000,000. It will also be required for the purpose of financing the Exchequer. It is included in the Exchequer balances, which amounted at the end of last year to nearly £10,000,000.
MR. McCRAE: Is that in addition to the sums already mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Certainly. The hon. Member must not suppose that I can finance the Exchequer for three-quarters of a year with £10,000,000. We require that balance and other advances on Ways and Means. I come to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Mayo on the question of peace and war. No question can be of greater interest to every man in this House than the events which are now pending. But I do not think that we can be fairly charged with keeping the House in the dark in the matter, because the hon. Member happens to have seen in one newspaper or another a statement as to what is or is not going on, or as to what may be or may not be the state of affairs in the future. What has happened is this. There has been a consultation between the Boer leaders and Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner, as to which we are not at liberty to say anything further than what has already been stated to the House, but the result of which was that some weeks ago the Boer leaders separated in order to consult their commandoes and adherents generally as to the course which they should take with regard to the future. Those consultations have been going on and are not yet completed, and we know no more than the hon. Member himself as to the course which they have taken. But throughout this matter I hone the hon. Members and the public will be cautious how they believe all the immature rumours which gain currency. The hon. Member seems to think that it was a great
270
grievance that the Prime Minister of Natal had been consulted in this matter. I think that His Majesty's Government would have failed in their duty if they had not considered the views of the Prime Ministers of colonies so closely affected by the struggle in South Africa as to the settlement in the future. We are responsible here. We shall form our own opinions as to what should be done in the negotiations which we hope will soon begin again; but it is right that we should consult those who have so loyally acted with us.
With regard to the mode in which the loan was issued, the hon. Member for West Islington accuses me of being responsible for the fall in the price of Consols. Is he not aware that every kind of high-class security besides Consols has fallen heavily in the last two years? Some of them—such as railway securities—have fallen more than Consols.
MR. LOUGH: It is our borrowing.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am open to blame for many things, but I do not think I can be accused of making railway securities go down. The hon. Member said that I had issued one loan at 98½, the next at 94½, and the third at 93½. But the first loan was one bearing for a number of years interest higher by a ¼ per cent. than the loan now issued; and if the bon. Member thinks that you can get the same price for a loan, irrespective of the interest it bears, I cannot convince him to the contrary. It is true that I was able to issue Consols 1 per cent. higher last year than the present year. Last year Consols had a very steady market just before the issue, and the price was considerably higher than it was this year. Four or five days before it was known that the loan would be issued, Consols stood at 93⅞, and in getting 93½ for the loan, I do not think I made a bad bargain for the country. I am sure that last year no one made very much out of the issue of Consols, and this year there was a desire for a loan bearing a higher rate of interest—a loan guaranteed by the Imperial Government on the revenues of the Transvaal. There was not a desire in the Money Market generally for a

271
further issue of Consols. I have not been unfavourably criticised, so far as I have heard, for the way in which this year's loan was issued, or for the price at which it was issued. It was taken up by a considerable number of the leading financial houses and Banks in London. Part of it was taken by large houses having establishments both in London and New York. There were a number of banks who joined, and I can assure the hon. Member that the part first issued was far
more widely spread than he supposed. With regard to the part issued to the public, all subscribers were treated as they have always been treated, and a great many came forward for the loan. As there will be a further opportunity for debating the Bill, I hope the House will now come to a decision.
(7.14.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 171.)

Parker, Gilbert

Rutherford, John

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Sackville, Col. G. S. Stopford-

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Pemberton, John S. G.

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

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

Penn, John

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Percy, Earl

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Plummer, Walter R.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Pretyman, Ernest George

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Purvis, Robert

Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pym, C. Guy

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Spear, John Ward

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

Handles, John S.

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Rankin, Sir James

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

Ratcliff, R. F.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart

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

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Renwick, (George

Stroyan, John

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

Richards, Henry Charles

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

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon George

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Younger, William

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Valentia, Viscount

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Walker, Col. William Hall

Round, James

Warde, Colonel C. E.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hayden, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Malley, William

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Mara, James

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Partington, Oswald

Bell, Richard

Joyce, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Blake, Edward

Kearley, Hudson E.

Priestley, Arthur

Boland, John

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Reddy, M.

Broadhurst, Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burns, John

Leamy, Edmund

Rickett, J. Compton

Came, William Sproston

Leng, Sir John

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Logan, John William

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Carew, James Laurence

Lough, Thomas

Roche, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Lundon, W.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Clancy, John Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Schwann, Charles E.

Cogan, Denis J.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Craig, Robert Hunter

M'Crae, George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crean, Eugene

M'Fadden, Edward

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cremer, William Randal

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Dillon, John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Doogan, P. C.

Mooney, John J.

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

Duncan, J. Hastings

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Tully, Jasper

Dunn, Sir William

Moss, Samuel

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Edwards, Frank

Murnaghan, George

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Weir, James Galloway

Ffrench, Peter-

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Field, William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Yoxall, James Henry

Gilhooly, James

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Mr. Patrick O'Brien and

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Dowd, John

Mr. Haviland Burke

Hardie, J. Keir (Methyr Tydvil)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

(7.26.) Main Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The House divided:—Ayes, 224 Noes, 102. (Division List No. 172).

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Finlay, Sir Robert Banuatyne

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fisher, William Hayes

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Aird, Sir John

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Morrell, George Herbert

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, St. W

Mount, William Arthur

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Galloway, William Johnson

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Arrol, Sir William

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Austin, Sir John

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Baird, John George Alexander

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balcarres, Lord

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

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

Groves, James Grimble

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Banbury, Frederick George

Gunter, Sir Robert

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bartley, George C. T.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Plummer, Walter R.

Beach, Bt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Hain, Edward

Pretyman, Ernest George

Beckett, Ernest William

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Priestley, Arthur

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd' nderry

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward.

Bignold, Arthur

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Bill, Charles

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pym, C. Guy

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Bond, Edward

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Randles, John S.

Boulnois, Edmund

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ratcliff, R. F.

Brassey, Albert

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Henderson, Alexander

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Renwick, George

Butcher, John George

Hogg, Lindsay

Richards, Henry Charles

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

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

Carlile, William Walter

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hoult, Joseph

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Cavendish, R. F. (V. Lancs)

Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cavendish, V. C W. (Derbyshire

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Round, James

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Rutherford, John

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Charrington, Spencer

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. (Denbigh)

Samuel, Harry S-(Limehouse)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Knowles, Lees

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

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Seton-Karr, Henry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Smith-Abel H. (Hertford, East

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Lawson, John rant

Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Spear, John Ward

Cranborne, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Cust, Henry John C.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Stroyan, John

Denny, Colonel

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets, St. Geo.

Lowe, Francis William

Thornton, Percy M.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Valentia, Viscount

Duke, Henry Edward

Macdona, John Gumming

Walker, Col. William Hall

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Maconochie, A. W.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Elibank, Master of

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

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

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

Faber, George Denison (York i

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Fardell, Sir T. George

Malcolm, Ian

Whiteley, George York, W. R.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Manners, Lord Cecil

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

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

Meysey-Thomson. Sir H. M.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset.)

Finch, George H.

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Birm.

276

277

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

Younger, William

Wills, Sir Frederick

Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

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

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Sir William Walrond and

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Mr. Anstruther

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Shaughnessy, R. J.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hayden, John Patrick

Partington, Oswald

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Russell

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Reddy, M.

Bell, Richard

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Blake, Edward

Leamy, Edmund

Rickett, J. Compton

Boland, John

Leng, Sir John

Rigg, Richard

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Levy, Maurice

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Logan, John William

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

Burns, John

Lough, Thomas

Robson, William Snowdon

Caldwell, James

Lundon, W.

Roche, John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Carew, James Lawrence

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Schwann, Charles E.

Charming, Francis Allston

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Clancy, John Joseph

M'Fadden, Edward

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cogan, Denis J.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Craig, Robert Hunter

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sullivan, Donal

Crean, Eugene

Moss, Samuel

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Cremer, William Randal

Murnaghan, George

Thomas, J A (Clamorgan, Gower

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Delany, William

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Toulmin, George

Dillon, John

Norman, Henry

Tully, Jasper

Doogan, P. C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Duncan, J. Hastings

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

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Dunn, Sir William

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ffrench, Peter

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Field, William

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Yoxhall, James Henry

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, T. R. (Liverpool)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Dowd, John

Gilhooly, James

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Mr. Broadhurst and Mr.

Griffiths, Ellis J.

O'Malley, William

M'Crae.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Mara, James

Bill read a second time, and committed for tomorrow.
House adjourned at 7.40.

EVENING SITTING.

  TRADE DISPUTES—LEGAL POSITION OF TRADE UNIONS.
  MR. BEAUMONT: By the fortune of the ballot, but I fear for the misfortune of the adequate treatment of the notice which I now beg to make—referring as it does to the question of serious importance to Trade Unionism and the working classes throughout the country—it has fallen to my lot to draw attention to the law, which, as interpreted by recent judgment in the courts, has thrown doubts on what, for many years, has been held to
  278
  be the status of Trades Unions as intended by Parliament. I had almost shrunk from attempting to deal with what is a very complicated question, if I had not felt its importance, and it is because I realise the importance and the complication of the question that I wish the Motion had fallen into the hands of other Gentlemen more directly connected with Trade Unions or of some learned Gentleman familiar with the law on the subject. I say so in all sincerity, because it is obvious that the cases to which I shall have to refer are full of technical and legal points with which I cannot pretend to be conversant. I shall therefore merely endeavour to point out briefly what seems to me (as an ordinary man in the street) the present position of the question without attempting to argue the legal questions, and I can assure the House

  279
  it will be with every desire to be corrected in the mistakes and omissions, which I know full well I shall make.
  I think it will be admitted that before the year 1859 the law as to picketing accompanied by peaceful persuasion was very doubtful. In that year, however, a short Act was passed which legalised picketing by peaceful persuasion. This Act begins by reciting that "different decisions having been given "on the construction of the law," then goes on to enact that no workman, "by" reason of his merely entering into an "agreement for the purpose of fixing or" endeavouring to fix the rate of wages," shall be guilty of offences within the meaning of the Act. This Act therefore may be said to have legalised picketing when peaceably conducted. The next Act, I find, is the Trade Unions Act, 1871, which legalised Unions and defined the general position, but which for the puposes of my motion tonight I do not think it necessary to refer to, although I have no doubt it will be referred to in the course of the debate this evening. In the same year—1871—there was passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which repealed all the old-trade combination laws, including the Act of 1859, to which I have just referred, without intending, as I think is admitted, to change the law with regard to picketing peaceably conducted. Amongst other things it provided that no person shall "use violence," "threaten or intimidate, "any person or his wife and children," nor" molest or obstruct "any person under certain penalties. Molesting or obstructing is thus defined—
  "If he watch or beset the house or place whore such person resides or works …or if, with two other persons, he follow such person in a disorderly manner."
  I do not think I need go any further into that Act. No doubt, in some quarters, it created much dissatisfaction, but nevertheless peaceable persuasion picketing remained legal under it. The charge of the Recorder of London—Mr. Russell Gurney—in the celebrated cabinetmakers' case, was accepted as an authoritative exposition of the law, and it was quoted with approval by Lord Chancellor Cairns in introducing the Conspiracy and Property Act in the House of Lords, in 1875. As I have referred to that Act, perhaps I may be permitted to remind the House what I believe was the origin of
  280
  it. It was drafted originally by a Liberal Government, when Mr. Lowe was Home Secretary, and was left in a pigeon-hole at the Home Office when Mr. Gladstone rather suddenly dissolved Parliament in 1874. The following year it was fished out, and was introduced by a Conservative Government by Mr. (now Lord) Cross, and no doubt the Conservative Government claimed very great credit therefrom as friends of the working man. That is what I have always understood was the origin of the Act. But however it may be, the Government of the day certainly did obtain great kudos for passing it, and they were thanked by Trade Unions for their action.
  This Act seemed to make the position clear, until the case of Lyons v. Wilkins, in 1896. I need not go at length into the details of this case. It will be remembered that men employed by Messrs. Lyons and Sons (who were in the fancy leather trade) struck. Their works were picketed, and the pickets tried to persuade men not to work for Lyons. An injunction was successfully applied for against the officials who organised the picketing. The trial came on in 1897, but as the famous case of Allen v. Flood was before the Lords at the time, the judge (Mr. Justice Byrne) awaited their decision before he gave his judgment. It will be in the memory of hon. Members that this was an action against the Boilermakers' Society for inducing the Glengall Iron Company to dismiss Flood. In the end the jury found that Allen had done so maliciously, and Mr. Justice Kennedy gave judgment with damages against the Trade Union. The decision was appealed against, and the case finally reached the House of Lords, who decided by six to three that Allen had not done any unlawful act. The three dissenting Lords were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Morris, while the majority consisted of Lords Watson, Macnaghten, Shand, Davey, James and Herschell. In the following year the reserved judgment in Lyons v. Wilkins was delivered, Mr. Justice North making the injunction permanent. The defendants appealed, but Lord Justice Lindley and two others upheld the decision. This decision

  281
  practically decided against peaceful persuasion, which up till then had been looked upon as legal.
  I have only one more, and the most recent case to mention—it is the Taff Vale Railway case, decided in the House of Lords last year, the result of which was to practically lay down that Unions could be sued in their corporate capacity, and their funds made attachable even although only peaceful persuasion had been used. The House will remember the history of this case; certain men engaged by the Railway Company to take the place of strikers being advised by the Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants to return home, an injunction was granted against the Secretary and the Society. The Society appealed and the case went up to the House of Lords, who, last July, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Lord Chancellor, in giving judgment against the society, said—
  "That if the Legislature had created a thing which can own property, which can employ servants, and which can inflict injury, it must he taken to have impliedly given the power to make it suable in a court, of law for injuries purposely done by its authority and procurement."
  I will not attempt to argue for a moment that this is bad law and I admit that it is difficult to contend that the Unions should enjoy all the advantages and have none of the liabilities of a corporate existence, but it certainly does seem to put a construction upon the law which was not intended by the Act of 1875. And, if so, it may fairly be called—with every respect to the judges—" Judge made Law." Some people may object to the phrase "Judge-made Law," but I can assure hon. Members, that, by this Motion, no reflection is intended upon the impartiality of His Majesty's judges. But be the fault that of Parliament, for not haying said clearly what it intended, or be it due to the misinterpretation of the judges as to what Parliament meant, surely it is time that the law should be clearly defined. Heaven forbid that I should say a word which would suggest that I thought that in any contingency strikes were desirable, much less that I should use such language as was used last year both by
  282
  the right hon. Gentlemen, the President of the Board of Trade and the Colonial Secretary, when for a time the question of a coal strike had hung in the balance. And if either of the right hon. Gentlemen whom I refer to had been here, I should have been glad to have reminded him of the words he used on that occasion—the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary in his speech of the 10th May, at Birmingham, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in a speech on the coal tax in this House. But, Sir, it is conceivable that a strike may sometimes be inevitable, but by the recent decisions organised persuasion by men peacefully disposed becomes an actionable, civil wrong for which Trade Unions may be severely crippled, even if the acts done were not authorised by the Executive of the Union, but were committed by irresponsible persons. This surely when Parliament legalised Trade Unions could not have been intended, and it is this which alarms Trade Unions so much at this moment. I observe that there is an Amendment on the Paper, which seems to question whether the law has been changed or not. I have no doubt that that will be dealt with later in the evening, but I believe that the Employers' Parliamentary Council admit that the law has been changed, so that the law calls for reconsideration. I should have thought that everything outside peaceful persuasion was amply covered by Section 7 of the Act in 1875, to which I have referred, but which I will not trouble the House by reading this evening. This Act was passed, as I have reminded the House, by a Conservative Government, presumably on ground, of public policy, and I cannot think that a Conservative Government today will assent to its practical repeal to the disadvantage of the Unions without proposing legislation to take its place, which my Motion calls on them to do. I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name.
  MR. BELL: I rise to second the Motion which has been so ably moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hexham, and in doing so, I may say that, although I represent a very large body of organised workmen in this country, I venture to suggest that neither

  283
  in this House nor out of it can anyone bring a charge against me that at any time I have encouraged strikes, or any such trouble as that in the labour world. Now every one knows that Trade Unions, illegal and legal, are of very long standing. Prior to being legalised by the Trade Unions Act of 1871, much mischief was done, owing to the secret conduct of the organisations. The Combination Act of 1825, which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion, conferred a certain degree of freedom upon the Unions it exempted from punishment "persons meeting together for consulting upon and determining the rate of wages which the persons present at the meeting or any of them should demand for their work, or the number of hours they should work." Meetings for strikes, or the payment of strike pay, or meetings to protest against the tyranny of foremen, to regulate apprentices, or to protest against sweatings, piecework, or insanitary condition of employment, were all illegal. The presence of any such provisions in the rules made the union an illegal association. They therefore pursued these "illegal objects" in secrecy. Goaded into anger by their secretly nurtured grievances, and the haunting sense of repression, some of the looser spirits broke away, and engaged in some acts of the most deplorable character, and committed shocking outrages. It will be remembered that before the Royal Commissioners which sat to inquire into these matters, Broadhead confessed to the mischief done at Sheffield. This led up to the Act of 1871, which made Trade Unions, previously illegal, sufficiently legal (1) to exempt men from the charge of criminal conspiracy, for merely having membership in them, and (2) to prosecute officials for dishonesty. The promoter of the Act (the then Home Secretary, Mr. Bruce) certainly did not intend to go beyond this. He referred to the discussion of the question of incorporation which had taken place at the Trade Union Commission in 1867. The majority of the Commission urged incorporation. The majority condemned it in the words which I will read—I have the the volume containing this in extenso, but I will read an extract—
  "A very serious question arises here as to whether legislation of a far more comprehensive character is not needed to place Trades Unions on a full legal footing; whether, in fact, a
  284
  complete statute should not be enacted analogous to the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act and the Joint Stock Companies Acts, and the like, by means of which uniform rules would be framed for the formation, management, and dissolution of these associations; and by which they should be enabled to sue and to be sued by their members to recover from members their contributions or lines, and to be made liable to members for the benefits assured. We are inclined to believe that the time has not yet come, if it ever will come, for any such statute. The amount of feeling which this question arouses on both sides, the great irritation of those who have suffered by Trades Unions, and the extreme jealousy on the part of their members of State interference, would, we are convinced, render the attempt to pass such a measure impracticable. We are far from seeing any certainty that such an Act is even ultimately desirable. Trade Unions are essentially clubs and not trading companies, and we think that the degree of regulation possible in the case of the latter is not possible in the case of the former. All questions of crime apart, the objects at which they aim, the rights which they claim, and the liabilities which they incur, are for the most part, it seems to us, such as courts of law should neither enforce, nor modify, nor annul. They should rest entirely on consent."
  This the Home Secretary quoted fully, and said—
  "It is in accordance with that opinion that the measure of the Government has been framed."
  It is clear, therefore, to my mind, that it was not intended that a Trade Union should be made a corporate body as the judgment of the law courts would describe it. The promoters of the Act had not the least notion of making unions legal and suable entities. Therefore, from 1871 to 1901—thirty years—during which period not less than 25,000 strikes and lock-outs must have occurred, Lords, Commons, judges, lawyers, employers, and workmen, all believe that Trades Unions were not suable for wrongs committed by there officers and members. This belief is justified by the fact that during the same period, in the progress of some of these disputes, unfortunately some cases of personal violence and injury to property have been known to occur, in connection with which the offenders have been heavily fined or imprisoned. But the unions have never before been sued, nor has it been attempted to sue them. The Conspiracy and Protection to Property Act of 1875 and the Common Law, give both employers and workmen ample protection from violence and injury to person or property.

  285
  I will read Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1872.
  "Section 7.—Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority.
  "(1) Uses violence to or intimidates such other person, or his wife and children, or injures his property; or
  "(2) Persistently follows such other person about from place to place; or
  "(3) Hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of, or hinders him in, the use thereof; or
  "(4) Watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or
  "(5) Follows such other person with two or more persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road shall, on conviction thereof by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, or an indictment, as hereinafter mentioned, be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding £20 or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour.
  "Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or plate, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this Section."
  I maintain that that Act provides sufficient protection (as it was intended that it should) for either employer or workman. But I think that the Employers' Parliamentary Council who, I believe, are responsible very largely for this reactionary attempt to put back and thwart the efforts of the Trade Unions during the last few years, suggest that this should be added to the Conspiracy Act, namely, that—
  "Every person who in any street commits any of the following offences shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s. for each offence—and for the purposes of this Section 'street' stall include any harbour, railway station, canal, depot, wharf, towing-path, public park, links, common, or open area or space, the strand and sea beach down to the low water mark)."
  And the offences which are specified, are jostling and loitering, standing or loitering on the footway, or sitting or lying, to the obstruction or annoyance of the residents or passengers on the footway or street. And I certainly think that the Employers' Parliamentary Council have been extremely modest, otherwise they would not have stopped at low-water mark on the beach. Again, I find at the Labour Commission of 1894, the question of
  286
  I incorporation was discussed, and mentioned in both the Majority and Minority Reports. The Majority said—
  "We think that the extension of liberty to bodies of workmen or employers to acquire fuller legal personality than that which they at present possess, is desirable, in order to afford, when both parties wish it, the means of securing the observance, at least for fixed periods, of the collective agreements which are now, as a matter of fact, made between them in so many cases.
  "9. In order to enable trade associations to enter into collective legally-binding agreements, with the consequence that, in case of breach of contract, they would be liable to be sued for damages payable out of their collective funds, it would not be sufficient to repeal Sub-section 4 of Section 4 of the Act of 1871. Even if that legislative incapacity were taken away, the trade associations would be prevented by that want of legal personality from entering into such agreements, or sueing or being sued, except with regard to the management of their funds and real estate. "
  "10. It would be necessary that they should require by some process of registration, a corporate character sufficient for these purposes."
  They added—
  "The evidence does not show that public opinion is as yet ripe for the changes in the legal status of trades associations which we have suggested, but we have thought it to be desirable to indicate what may, as it appears to us, ultimately prove to be, the most natural and reasonable solution, and some at least of the difficulties which have been brought to our notice."
  The members of the Committee who-appended their signatures to these recommendations were: The Duke of Devonshire, Sir Frederick Pollock, Sir M. Hicks-Beach, Mr. D. Dale, Mr. Leonard Courtney, Mr. T. H. Ismay, Mr. G. Livesey, and Mr. Tunstill. The minority, consisting of Mr. W. Abraham, M. P., Mr. Tom Mann, the late Mr. J. Maudsley, and Mr. Michael Austin, strongly opposed these recommendations and said—
  "One proposal made to the Commission by several witnesses appears to us open to the gravest objection. This suggestion is that it would be desirable to make Trade Unions liable to be sued by any person who had a grievance against the action of their officers or agents. To expose the large amalgamated societies of the country with their accumulated funds, sometimes reaching a quarter of a million sterling, to be sued for damages by any employer in any part of the country, or by any discontented member or non-unionist, for the action of some branch secretary or delegate would be a great injustice. If every Trade Union were liable to be perpetually harrassed by actions at law on account of the doings of individual members; if Trade Union funds were to be depleted by

  287
  lawyers' fees and costs, if not even by damages or fines, it would go far to make Trade Unionism impossible for any but the most prosperous and experienced artisans. The present freedom of Trade Unions from any interference by the courts of law—anomalous as it may appear to lawyers—was, after prolonged struggle and Parliamentary agitation, conceded in 1871, and finally became law in 1876. Any attempt to revoke this hardly-won charter of Trade Union freedom, or in any way to tamper with the purely voluntary character of their associations, would, in our opinion, provoke the most embittered resistance from the whole body of Trade Unionists, and would, we think, be undesirable from every point of view."
  The minority strongly opposed incorporation. They opposed what was asked for by the others. From what I have pointed out it was quite clear that up to the Lord's decision in the Taff Vale case there was no idea in authoritative quarters that unions were legal entities, or such an eminent lawyer as Sir Frederick Pollock if he thought so could not have signed the report I have quoted.
  Rightly or wrongly, the several decisions of the courts and the House of Lords are now standing laws, which have placed the Trade Unions and workmen on ground absolutely below and unfair compared with employers; and it is with a desire that they may be placed on an equality with employers that I support this Motion. If unions are to be entities to be sued, they must also have the right to sue. I do not seek either, but if we are compelled to have the one we demand the other. As things are at present they are all one-sided. It is illegal for Trade Unionists to issue lists of unfair firms with a view to preventing men from working for such firms, or preventing other people from trading with them. Whereas, on the other hand, employers can, and do, issue black lists, and through the medium of the character-note system they constantly prevent men getting employment with firms which would otherwise be willing to employ them. I know from my own experience that railway companies, as well as other employers, will not employ men until they have referred to their late employers. And we know—at any rate, we have grave suspicion and justification for it—that secret communications go on between the companies. It is illegal for Trade Unionists to strike in order to compel men to join a union, whereas employers constantly discharge men simply because they were members of Trade Unions, and it has been held
  288
  legal for employers to refrain from trading in order to compel competing traders to join them in combination. I know one or two firms, at any rate, in my own constituency who were direct employers of labour in small factories on whom the Employer's Federation in the particular trade came down and shook and showed ruin to the factory if he did not join the combination. If that is permitted to employers we demand the same right for the workmen. I have here a very concrete case. I do not know whether the hon. Gentlemen opposite will be disposed to cheer the details as I narrate them. In June of last year the men employed at the Amalgamated Rubber Works, Leyland, decided to form a branch of the Amalgamated Society of India Rubber Workers. About sixty were already members of the central organisation, so there was no difficulty in forming a branch. On hearing this, Mr. Baxter (managing director) sent for the chairman and gave him the alternative of leaving the union or being discharged from his employment. The man refused to leave the union, and was discharged along with thirteen others. Now, this is the action of the employers in this particular instance this is the notice they posted up in the watch house window:—
  "The management have been informed that clandestine meetings have been held amongst some of the workpeople for the purpose of forming a union of the society.
  "It has always been the sole desire of the management to deal fairly and honestly with all the workpeople, and the absence of complaint testifies that such object has been attained.
  "The management reserve the right to control their own works, and any employé taking active part, after this date, in promoting any action which shall have for its object interference from outside influence will be immediately dismissed."
  That was dated the 22nd June, 1901. In order that I may be perfectly correct in the matter I am bringing before the House I communicated with one of the men yesterday. I asked him to let me know if all the men had been employed by now or not, and he writes to me—
  "Six out of fourteen discharged men have thrown up the union and gone back to their work I am sorry to say that it has had a very bad effect upon our branch. Three are working at other trades …three are in Birmingham, and two have not started work yet.…"

  289
  That is since June of last year. The men have been treated like this by the employers for doing that which they had a perfectly legal right to do, namely, joining their Trade Union. I say if that is fair for the employers, it is equally fair for the workmen to refuse to work with other men unlees they join the union. And what did the managing director, Mr. J. E. Baxter, when interviewed by a Press representative, say? Why, he said that the men were only dismissed after the publication of the notice warning all who associated themselves with the movement that instant dismissal would be the penalty. Mr. Baxter declared that he was not only lighting the present battle on behalf of the company, but for the whole trade of England.
  Now, Sir, that is the action of employers, which I take it is regarded as perfectly legal, but if the workmen do anything of the kind they are "committing acts which are illegal." While the employers are allowed to dismiss men for joining a union, the workmen are not allowed to ask men to join the union. Then, we know that the mine owners and other employers in different trades when they find that the market is becoming glutted with the commodity which they are supplying from time to time place the men on short time. But when the men's union put the men to work for only five days a week in order to restrict the output and keep up the prices—I do not say whether it is right or wrong, we are not discussing the merits of the question—there is an injunction applied for. There is in this way at the present moment an injunction against the miners and a claim by the mine-owners for £70,000 damages. We, the men, have adopted exactly the same method as the employers. They said that the market was becoming glutted and that wages were coming down, and they agreed to stop a few odd days in order to restrict the output. The employers say that is illegal. The men say it is legal, but an injunction is granted, and damages are claimed from the Union for doing exactly what the employers have done times out of number. I say that what is fair for one is fair for the other. It is illegal on the part of the Trade Unions during a dispute to peacefully persuade men not to
  290
  enter the employment of the firm in conflict with the Union, give them food or lodgings, or pay their fares back whence they came; whereas employers can, and do, not only persuade men to enter such employment, but it is customary for employers on such occasions to advertise' for men and employ agents whose characters are not always above suspicion to go round amongst the slums and pick up men. I am speaking of matters within my own knowledge and experience when I say that these agents go round the slums, pick up men—often by bribing them with drink—and when they have made them half-drunk, misrepresent the facts of the case, give sums of money, pay their fares, and then get them to sign contracts to take the place of the men on strike. And not infrequently they temporarily pay these men higher rates of wages than that which was asked by the firm's own; men in the first instance and refused—the refusal leading to the strike. I say they bring them from the places where they pick them up, paying their faros to the places where they are required to work, and then, on the other hand, if the pickets of the union drop across these imported men and tell them the true facts of the case, putting a different complexion on the circumstances of the dispute to the plausible tale with which the men have been beguiled from their own districts by the employers and their agents, and if the pickets of the union pay the fares of the newcomers back again it is an offence against the law, and damages are straight way claimed against the union.
  Now, how do the employers get hold of these men? I dare say members of this House—the majority of whom are employers know very little about all this. They do not interest themselves in the details of their concerns, leaving the management to others. It is their representatives and officials who do the work. Let me read to the House a document which came into my hands illustrative of the way in which men were got by employers. During the Taff Vale strike I instructed a man—for obvious reasons I will not give his name or district—to respond to an advertisement of the railway company in order to ascertain what was being done to obtain men and how it was being done. The man carried out his instructions, and this is his statement:
  "On application at the Free Labour Association office a list of vacancies is read out to the

  291
  applicant, and then he is asked which position he would like to take up, and after he has informed, he is told to call again and see the general manager. The general manager asks him a few questions, and informs him on what day he will be able to proceed to his new job. Each applicant is told that there is no dispute on, and that there is no fear of one, as they satisfied the union men not long ago that they were no use on the Taff Vale Railway, and also that every man on the railway had been given notice that they must either leave the service of the company, because the company had decided to have no one working for them who were members of the union or any other society except the Free Labour Association."
  I presume hon. Members opposite will say this is quite fair—that employers are entitled to take that action. I do not deny that employers have a right to do that, but I claim on behalf of the workmen that they have as much right also to state the facts to their fellow workmen as the employers have. Trade Union funds have been held attachable for damage caused by members of the union in the absence of express sanction of such acts by the union Executive, whereas the funds of employers' combinations are not held attachable even when damage has been sustained by individual workmen, and by unions of workmen as the direct result of evidence given to members by executives of such employers' combinations. I have proved damage to the men in the case of the Indian Rubber Company to which I have referred. Yet the Rubber Company cannot be sued for the injury I done to these men. What we complain of is that the new interpretation put on the law by the judges is all in Favour of the employer. And let me say this, in fairness to employers—there are employers and employers—there are honest and honourable employers, and there are dishonest and dishonourable and vindictive employers. There are some who take advantage of the present state of the law—who go to the courts and obtain injuctions and restrain union members from doing certain things am not here to put forward the Taff Vale case, and endeavour to have it tried, here. That will be tried elsewhere, but I would give a fact or two in connection with it in order to illustrate what I desire to impress on Members of the House. During the progress of the Taff Vale strike, two men interfered with the working of a train—a most deplorable thing to do—an act condemned by me and all sensible people. These men were
  292
  arrested, they were tried at the assizes, and were sentenced to six weeks imprisonment with hard labour. They deserved all they got. I do not complain of that. But the employers now come, because of the action of these men, to claim damages from the union. I say it is monstrous, and it was never intended to be part of the law. A policeman has authority to arrest a wrongdoer in the streets, but if he exceed his lawful authority, he is made liable for damages, it is not the corporation who employ him who are to pay, it is the police officer who is punished according to the offence which be had committed in excess of his authority. Now what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and all we ask for is the observation of the principle embodied in that old proverb. If the law is to be that Trade Unions may be held as corporations, then they must have equal power to sue in their turn. Men often join the unions during a strike for an advance of wages or a reduction of hour's, but when the strike is over they often cease their membership, sometimes because they have gained what they wanted, or in other instances because they are disappointed in not having got what they wished. It is for these men who rush in when there is something to be gained and soon run out again, that the unions are asked to hold themselves responsible. That is the unfair position in which it is sought to put Trade Unions.
  What we desire is that the Government should bring in a Bill to restore the unions to the position in which they were by the Acts previous to the decision of the House of Lords, or at least to put them on a fair and equal footing with the employers, so that it may be clearly ascertained and properly defined what is legal and what is illegal in their functions, and so that the unions may know what is right and how to avoid that which is wrong. I know of no union which desires to be guilty of an illegal act. It will also assist employers, some of whom are not free from prejudice and vindictiveness, and whose stubbornness is responsible for many of the disputes that have taken place, to know that they could not obtain, and the judges would know that they could not grant, an injunction in respect of every trifling

  293
  act which the employers may regard as illegal. A similar case to that to which I have been referring was tried last month in New York before Justice Gayner. It was an application for an injunction by Frank Hezog and Lewis E. Ebert, bookbinders, to restrain J. L. Fitzgerald and others from patrolling and picketing streets in the vicinity of the plaintiffs' place of business with a view to inducing or compelling men at work to join in a strike which had been declared. In his decision Judge Gayner said,—
  "This is not a case of the injunction in advance of a trial. No violence has been done to persons or property. Capital and I hour have an equal right to organise, as is now recognised by all sensible people. The Courts should not interfere except in the case of obvious necessity. When Courts and judges of the first instance have gone beyond this it has been an abuse of power."
  I believe that will apply exactly to the position in which are the Trade Unions of this country at the present time. Trade Unions simply want justice and equality; they want to be on the same platform with the employers. But even with the most favourable legislation Trade Unions can scarce be in the same position as employers, who with their system of secret character notes have an advantage which the workmen's combinations do not, and cannot, possess.
  I hope the House will express itself in favour of this Motion, for I venture to say that the two millions of Trade Unionists of this country will not consent to remain in their present position. They will demand this legislation, and if employers are unwise enough to drive back the men to the position in which they were before 1871 I venture to say they will live to regret it. I wish it to be understood that I am not saying this in any sense by way of threat, but the employers know full well that working men can and will have their rights in some way or other, and all they ask for is equality of treatment. With less than that they will not be content. I second the resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Legislation is necessary to prevent workmen being placed by judge-made
  294
  law in a position inferior to that intended by Parliament in 1875."—(Mr. Beaumont.)
  MR. EENSHAW: I regret that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down should have marred his speech by the threatening language with which he concluded his remarks. On the whole, his statement of the case was fair, and no one in this House is more qualified to bring it forward, but I do not hesitate to say that language of the kind to which I refer would make no impression upon me, nor do I believe that it would make any impression on the great body of those who give industrial employment in the country. We, the employers, want no more than the hon. Member opposite is willing to give us namely, equal rights and fair opportunities to carry on our own industries. We want the protection that the law gives us, and we do not want to see that protection denied to those who are in our employment. The hon. Member for the Hexham Division, who has brought forward this Motion, seems to suggest that the Unions should prevail over the Statute Law as interpreted by the Courts. I think that is a somewhat unfortunate proposition to place before the House, and I should like to take exception to the expression "Judge-made law." The laws which are referred to are the Statute Laws of the land—[Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, "No!"]—well, a few decisions have been given at Common Law; but the ground of criticism to which this Resolution addresses itself is the Statute Law, and I regret to find it suggested that these Statute Laws are Judge-made. They are made by the Imperial Parliament of this country, and the judges are the administrators and not the makers of the law.
  I should like to remind the House that the Trade Unions themselves seem to be of two opinions as to the highest legal tribunal of the country, because at the last meeting of the Trade Union Congress, which was held in September, 1901, the Chairman in his opening address referred to the Taff Vale dispute and to the decision given by the House of Lords. He said—
  "The House of Lords has allowed itself to be seduced into deciding a purely legal question on grounds which were political."

  295
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean cheers that sentiment. I do not think it is a sentiment believed in by hon. Members either on this side or that side of the House. But what does the Chairman go on to say with regard to the Workmen's Compensation Act? The House will remember that there was a question as to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords in regard to that Act, and last year the Lord Chancellor brought in a Bill on the subject. The Chairman referred to the provisions of the Act as having been interpreted in a broad-minded and, generally speaking, satisfactory manner so far as the workmen are concerned. Yes, but I should like to carry that a little further and to remind the House that a Resolution was submitted by the Parliamentary Committee of the Congress bearing on the subject, and carried, I understand, unanimously, and ordered to be forwarded to the Lord Chancellor—
  "That this Committee views with alarm the proposal to abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act, and calls upon the workers of the country to wire their representatives in Parliament to prevent the Bill now before the House of Lords becoming law when it comes before the House of Commons."
  The hon. Member for Derby says "that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," and therefore if the decision of the House of Lords in regard to one matter is to be respected, it should be respected in regard to another matter.
  The Amendment which I have placed on the Paper is moved in no spirit of hostility to the general objects of Trade Unions. I do not suppose there are any employers in this House who do not recognise the perfect right of persons to combine for lawful purposes. We recognise the improvements which have been effected in the position and status of workmen by the operations of Trade Unions, not only in regard to the members of those unions, but in respect of the men outside them. We recognise also their efforts in the direction of the peaceful settlement of difficulties, and their movement in the direction of deciding disputes by conciliation rather than by strikes—a movement which has tended to prevent strikes in many cases
  296
  during recent years. And we recognise another thing, namely, the value of the Provident Funds which have been established in connection with the unions. In regard to the question of Provident Funds, I notice that the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire, in a speech in the House of Lords in a case which was heard in regard to this matter, urged as one reason for the favourable consideration of the point he was putting to the Lords for their consideration, that the funds of the society contributed for trade and provident purposes were mixed up together, and that the widows and orphans might suffer, if the Trade Unions were suable and held liable for wrong committed. Does not that rest with the Trade Unions themselves? There are many in this House who have criticised the constitution of Trade Unions in regard to this matter. I am not quite sure that in the Trade Unions themselves there are not differences of opinion as to whether the Provident Funds ought not to be separated from those funds which are available for strike work. I rather think that in the deliberations of the Trade Union Congress which took place last year, there were indications of a movement in that direction.
  However that may be, whilst one recognises the good which has been effected by Trade Unions, I think it does not blind Members of this House and the people of the country to the mistakes which are made, and to the dangers which may arise in other directions. Employers in this country are well aware of the injury done in certain trades by the rigid enforcement of Trade Union rules. The articles in The Times have brought home, I believe, to a large body of the public, more fully than ever before, the danger to many-trades in this country which arises from the restriction placed upon labour by the Trade Union regulations. I do not think that all Trade Unionists themselves regard them as desirable; I think many regard them as blocking the whole system of Trade Unions, and regret them. But, after all, they do exist, and it is well that we should keep them in mind, and regard the action of Trade Unions in respect of these matters with anxiety and apprehension.
  There is no doubt about the meaning of the Resolution before the House, though the language on the Paper is somewhat bold and enigmatical. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. Member who sits beside him have both Bills this session. That of the right hon. Baronet is the Trades Disputes Bill, and, as I understand, it purports to be founded on recent decisions in certain Cases in the Law Courts. These cases are three. Two of them have already been referred to. One is that of Lyons v. Wilkins, which was heard in the Court of Appeal on September 20, 1898. Then there was the Taff Vale case, which was decided by the House of Lords on July 22, 1901, the decision being that a Trade Union could be sued in its registered name for illegal acts done by its agents under its authority and for its benefit. Leatham v. Quin was an Irish case appealed to the House of Lords, who gave their decision on August 5th, 1901. That case was brought in the Irish Courts under the Common Law to protect a man, between whom and his workmen there was never at any time any dispute, but who was interfered with by the labour union through a third party, who also had no quarrel with his workmen. The whole contention before the House of Lords was that the plaintiff had no remedy against those who inflicted injury upon him. The Lord Chancellor said—
  "If, upon these facts so found, the plaintiff could have no remedy against those who had thus injured him, it could hardly be said that our jurisprudence was that of a civil community."
  These are the cases upon which this Motion purports to be brought forward. The question it raises is that the legal Tights of members of Trade Unions have been injured by those decisions. My Amendment asks the House to say that they are not. If hon. Members will follow the views expressed at the Trade Union Congress, they will see what they are in regard to those cases. The Chairman of the Trade Union Congress, in his opening address, said, speaking of the Taff Vale Case—
  "Therefore in this instance it may be as well to make haste slowly, more especially as the question of picketing has yet to be tried. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the present position of this matter, and until some definite pronouncement has been given on the subject by the House of Lords, considerable doubt must continue to be felt as to the extent to which picketing can be legally carried."
  298
  The decisions to which I have referred were given—one in August, 1898, and two in the summer of 1901, and this speech of the Chairman of the Congress was delivered in September, 1901. Continuing, he said—
  "When the question has been finally settled, the ground will be cleared and we shall more fully comprehend the steps necessary to be taken in order to safeguard our interest, financially and otherwise."
  Further, it is stated—
  "Your committee are also of opinion that the most vital question has yet to be decided, namely, the question of picketing, and that it is absolutely necessary in the interests of all concerned that the matter should be pressed to an issue in order that the position may be speedily and clearly defined by the highest legal tribunal."
  That was not all that took place, because the Parliamentary Committee included in its Report counsel's opinion on the Taff Vale case as follows—
  "Under the judgment (Lyons v. Wilkins) it would be exceedingly difficult to conduct a strike without any degree of success without doing illegal acts so that the first step to be taken in my opinion should be that the first case where an injunction is sought to restrain persons from picketing should be taken to the House of Lords under the authority of Congress, or such persons as it would authorise, so as to prevent the possibility of anything happening similar to that in the case of Lyons v. Wilkins."
  Further discussion took place on the subject, and the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee to the Congress was to the following effect—
  "In view of the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case rendering the funds of societies liable in damages for the illegal acts of their agents, this Congress impowers the Parliamentary Committee to take a test case to the House of Lords to ascertain how far picketing may be carried on without infringing the law, and rendering the funds of the societies liable to damages."
  Mr. Edmund Browne, counsel to the Congress, was present, and he said—
  "The most important point in the whole question was where did they stand in regard to picketing, and until they had received the opinion of the highest tribunal on the land on it, it was in his opinion of no use whatever for them to be doing anything in connection with the Taff Vale decision, and that was why in accordance with his advice the Parliamentary Committee had decided they must get a decision in regard to picketing."
  If that is the view of the Trades Unions as expressed unanimously in a resolution, and if that is the view of their counsel,

  299
  I think it is a strong thing to come to this House and propose the resolution which is now submitted. In face of this clearly-expressed conviction that they ought to get a final decision of the House of Lords, this House is asked to pass a vague Resolution of this sort, which cannot be otherwise regarded than a reflection on the Law Courts of the country.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he suggests that the Parliamentary Committee are opposed to this Resolution?
  MR. RENSHAW: I do not think that the House has misunderstood any point of my argument.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I understood the hon. Gentleman's observations to indicate that the Parliamentary Committee should raise further questions of law before this Resolution was submitted.
  MR. RENSHAW: What I understand is this, that the Congress last September resolved that the opinion of the highest court of the land, the House of Lords, ought to be taken.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: They were afterwards advised that the case ought to be dropped, and it was dropped.
  MR. RENSHAW: I do not imagine that there would be any difficulty about getting a case on an early occasion. I should imagine a case might be made for the purpose. The matter is really covered by the Bill before the House, which is to legalise the peaceable conduct of trade disputes. I am not quite sure, in the point of view of the employer, that I should think the measure was calculated to ensure a peaceful settlement of trade disputes. If two men have a fight, and one man has his hands tied behind his back, so far as any injury is likely to occur I should imagine the man with his hands free would regard it as a peaceful conflict, but I do not think that the man with his hands tied and subject to the pummelling of his opponent would be likely to regard it as a peaceful operation. Clause 1 of the Bill would
  300
  leave the Unions and their officials a free hand to interfere with the liberty of employers and working men outside the Unions—by far the larger number of workmen. It means that business might be ruined and workmen deprived of employment, while the law would afford no protection. Clause 2 would take away a man's right to protection at Common Law in the event of a number of men concerting action to the annoyance and coercion of which the individual would be exposed. The case of Leatham v. Quinn illustrates the hardship which has-been inflicted by the actions of Trade Unions when they have gone beyond the law. Leatham was a butcher who supplied beef to various customers, among others a butcher of the name of Munce, in Belfast. Leatham employed non-union men; Munce employed union men. Leatham was so anxious to continue the employment of his men that he appears to have gone to a meeting of the Trade Union and to have offered to pay the expenses of his men to join the Union. He gave his evidence before the Court, and this was how the judge referred to it in his summing up—
  '"I had better,' said the Judge, 'give his own words:'—' I said I carne on behalf of my men, and was ready to pay all fines, debts and demands against them, and I asked to have-them admitted to the society. The defendant Shaw got up and objected to their being allowed to work on, and to their admission, and said that my men should be put out of my employment and could not be admitted and should walk the streets for twelve months. I said it was a hard case to make a man walk the streets with nine small children, and I would not submit to it. Shaw moved a resolution that my assistants should be called out. A man named Morgan seconded the resolution, and it was carried. Craig was in the chair, I was sitting beside him. He said there were some others there who would suit me as well. He picked some out and said they could work for me. I said they were not suitable for my business, and I would keep the men I had. They said I had to take them. I said I would not put out my men. Craig then spoke and told me my meat would be stepped in Andrew Munce's if I would not comply with their wishes.' "
  The third clause of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman is a clause which confers on Trade Unions and their officials absolute immunity for acts done during any dispute or strike. That is a most extraordinary provision, and I have no doubt that if the Bill were formally discussed in this House

  301
  some arguments would be advanced in support of it; but it seems to me that if what is implied in the Resolution of the hon. Member for the Hexham Division is to be anything approaching to the provisions of the Trade Disputes Bill, it would be a very serious thing for the general body of employers in this country.
  Mr. Justice Farwell, speaking in the Taff Vale case, said—
  "It would require very clear and express words of enactment to induce me to hold that the Legislature had, in fact, legalised the existence of such irresponsible bodies with such wide capacity for evil,"
  and the Lord Chancellor in his judgment said—
  "If the Legislature has created a thing which can own property, which can employ I servants, which can inflict injury, it must be taken, I think, to have impliedly given the; power to make it suable in a Court of Law for injuries purposely done by its authority and procurement. "
  The provisions of the Bill seem to me to go beyond any possible requirements. If a Bill of this kind were passed, it would constitute an entirely new departure in the labour legislation of this country, and would give rise once more to bitter feelings and serious difficulties between employers and those whom they employ. The hon. Member for Derby, speaking of the Taff Vale case, spoke of certain deplorable incidents in connection with the strike which took place. There were deplorable incidents, and I was very glad to hear what the hon. Member said tonight; but I should like to ask him what does the Union do by way of punishing the members of its body who break the law, as these members broke it. Are they members of the Union today?
  MR. BELL: They are not members today.
  MR. B. ENSHAW: I am exceedingly glad to hear it; and I should be glad if every Trade Union in the country dealt with its men as I understand the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants deal with their men where they have been shown to have broken the law of the land. I believe the Trade Unions would enjoy still more the confidence and the respect of the country if that could be held to be the case. I wish to put forward the view which is
  302
  held; the view not of myself alone, but, as I believe, of many employers who are interested in the industrial progress of the country. I think the question is one of the greatest possible importance. As I understand it, what is aimed at by some of the proposals of the Bill to which I have made reference, is to give practically irresponsible power to Trade Unions.
  MR. BELL: On a point of order, may I ask Mr. Speaker whether the hon. Member is in order in discussing a Bill which is not before the House. We are simply asking the Government on their part to introduce a Bill, and very likely, if they consented, they would not introduce it in the terms of the Trades Disputes Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: The terms of the motion are wide. I understand that the Bill which the hon. Member is discussing relates to amendments of the law as expressed in the Statute of 1875. I cannot say that he is not in order. If the Bill were on the Order Book, it might be a different matter.
  MR. RENSHAW: Of course, Mr. Speaker, if the Bill had been on the Order Book I should have refrained from all reference to it, but I understood that the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had withdrawn his Bill in order that we might discuss the matter freely. I do not wish to give any offence to any of the Trade Union representatives in this House. In the interests of our trades and commerce it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this matter. The necessity of a good understanding between the employers and the employed is essential to the carrying on of our great industries, and our progress in the open markets of the world. The interests of all who are engaged in the great industries of this country are the same. It does not matter whether they are employers or employed. Their interests in carrying on their work, and producing economically and efficiently the articles they produce, is of vital importance to employers and employed. We had an interesting debate the other night upon education, and the hon. Member for Haddington in the course of the debate referred to the alarm felt in

  303
  this country at the progress made in education in Germany and the United States of America, and the fears and apprehensions felt as to what its effect would be on the interests of the manufacturers in this country. Well, but what is the good of education, and technical and higher education, for the operatives of this country, if they are not allowed to make full and free use of the powers which it gives them? What, too, is the use of new resources in the way of machinery if a restrictive policy is formed which prevents employers getting the benefit of it? Such a restrictive policy is a very serious and dangerous policy, and I am persuaded it is no part of the policy of Trade Unionism, speaking generally, but is favoured by a narrow and, I hope, a comparatively small section. If the trades want to keep in sympathy with the great body of the public, they must once and for all show that they will have nothing to do with it.
  One hon. Member, a representative of the Labour Party in this House, who has been to America, can bear me out when I say that in many of the great industrial works in America there is far greater freedom in regard to the exercise of the powers of the industrial workman in his work to do a larger amouut of work, and to be progressive in the character of his work, than is permitted to a workman in this country under the rules and regulations of Trade Unions. Two years ago I was travelling down to Scotland, and in the railway carriage there was a gentleman, not known to me, but who, I found, was the brother of a Member of this House. I had lately added plant in my works, and in going over it I was struck with the large number of American machines I had found it necessary to buy. I was told they were more economical than were those of the same kind which are produced in this country. I related all this to my travelling companion, who said he was not in the least surprised; that a friend of his, engaged in manufacturing a certain class of machinery here, had been so struck with the difficulty he had in competing with America in the same class of goods that he went to America with the object of seeing how they managed. He had hardly got inside the works which he visited there, before he saw six machines being worked by one man. Of course, they must have
  304
  been a simple class of machine, probably cutters, or something of the kind. The English engineer who was making these observations said: "How is it you are able to work six machines like that; where are the other five men?" The reply was this: "I have not got the other five men, one man is sufficient." Then the English visitor said: "I need to go no further into your works to learn how it is you are underselling me. In my own country I should not be allowed to have one man to work six machines." Those are the dangers involved to the trade of this country, in any restriction of the out put. I do not say that state of things is general, but it exists, and the public are a little apprehensive when Trade Unionists come and ask for those restrictions to be again placed upon it. It is in consequence of the fear I feel that I venture to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  MR. WOLFF: I rise to second the Amendment moved by my hon. friend, and, considering the short time we have, and the number of Members who desire to speak on this matter, I shall be very short.
  I do not second this Amendment in any spirit of hostility to the Trade Unions. I know that if it had not been for the Trade Unions, hours of labour would be much longer than they are, and wages would be very much lower. During all the years that I have been connected with the large works in which I am a partner, we have had a good many fights with the Trade Unions, but I should be very sorry to be without them. I would far sooner have to do with a central and responsible body in the shape of a Trade Union, than be left to an irresponsible body of workmen. If Trade Unions are well and properly managed, it is better to have them than no organisation at all. In all the disputes we have had with our men, I do not think we have had any trouble about picketing or interference with our men, but it is perfectly well known that that is not the casein other parts. It is well known that in other parts of the country where disputes have arisen, Trade Unions have interfered in a manner which I think is very unfair to employers, though it may have been legal. The hon. Member for Derby said all

  305
  he wanted was equality between employers and employed. I quite agree that employers should not have rights with regard to their workmen which the workmen have not with regard to them, but I do not know that the incident he quoted quite covers the interference of workmen with workmen in other cases. On that point, we have no actual decision which we can say governs the law with regard to picketing. Certain decisions have been given, but the appeals which should have been made by the Trade Union to the House of Lords have not been made, and so long as the law is undefined, it would be idle to set about making a new law for the relations of the employer and the employed. I cannot understand why the Trade Unions have not appealed to the House of Lords, but they have not, and, that being so, I cannot doubt but what there is a want of confidence in the judgment of the House of Lords, because this matter is of such importance to the Trade Unions. I think before we make new laws this great point should be settled. The hon. Member for Battersea called out "No, no," when my hon. friend the Member for Renfrew referred to the interference of workmen in the case of new machinery, but I can state from my own experience that there is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Renfrew has said. I will not enter into details now, but will content myself with seconding the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'This House declines to commit itself to fresh legislation on the subject of trade disputes until it is shown that the existing law does not sufficiently protect workmen in the exercise of their lawful rights.'"—(Mr. Renshaw.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR ROBERT REID: Although this question is one of immense importance, the time that is allowed for us to discuss it is so limited, and there are so many Members who wish to speak upon it, that I shall compress my remarks into the smallest possible space, and in that short time try
  306
  and unravel the real point of the discussion. In the first place, we have nothing at all to do with any question of violence, or intimidation, or coercion. Nobody suggests that there ought to be anything to interfere with the proper punishment of persons guilty of such offences. We have nothing to do with what is called the restrictive policy—that is, as the seconder of the amendment said, absolutely outside the question. What we have to do with are certain recent decisions and the effect of the law in those recent decisions. Until the year 1898 it was always believed to be lawful to station pickets, in case of a strike, with a view to exercising peaceful persuasion upon workmen. That was the object of the Act of 1875, and it was so declared in the House of Lords by Lord Chancellor Cairns. He declared that that was the object, and the whole profession believed that that was the effect of the Act of 1875. But in 1898 it was decided that picketing for the purposes of peaceful persuasion was contrary to the law. It was "an interference with the ordinary comfort of human existence," as one of the judges said, a phrase very characteristic of the Rhadamanthine attitude of the judges throughout the history of this question. In that case it was decide I that the men were entitled to attend near the works where the strike took place, only for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information. That was the change that was made in 1898. The effect of the change was that pickets might not even, to use the phrase of the employers, enter into any argument with persons approaching or leaving the works. That was one of the first deadly blows given to the effectiveness of strikes by recent decisions, altering what the whole legal profession had always believed to be the law.
  The second, and even more serious, change was this. A Trade Union is a club as much as it is a trade organisation. It does conduct strikes, but its chief work is of a different character, It is that of conferring benefits, administering sick funds, pension funds, unemployed funds, widows' funds and so forth, on a very large scale. Now hitherto, until the year 1901, it was always believed that Trade Unions could not be sued, nor

  307
  could their funds be made liable in an action at law in respect to any illegal act done by stray members of the union. So fixed and firm was that belief that in the year 1901 the Court of Appeal decided that a Trade Union could not be sued, giving expression to the universal belief in the legal profession on the subject. But on appeal in the year 1901, the House of Lords held that a Trade Union might be sued and that all its funds might be appropriated to meet that judgment; that a wrong committed in the course of a strike by some ill-willed and obscure person—one of many thousands of men—might result in the taking of funds which had been dedicated to charitable purposes. That was the position in 1901.
  Exception has been taken to what has been called judge-made law. The hon. Member who made that observation is not perhaps aware that nearly all the law of this country has been made by the judges. They are the masters and make the laws as much as they administer them. They declare the common law, and where there is no precedent they evolve the law from a sense of justice and from principles in the best way they can.
  MR. RENSHAW: What I referred to was statute law.
  SIR ROBERT REID: These cases are not statute law, but common law desions. Let me put these decisions together and look at their consequences, and see what is the result. Strikes are a deplorable incident, and everybody laments them, but they are sometimes necessary, and they are the only weapon the workmen have. The law now is this, that you cannot attend near a factory peaceably to persuade men to support a stike, although the employer may persuade as many other employers as he pleases to join him. The Trade Union, if such an offence is committed, are liable to damages to the full extent of the compassionate funds which they have laid by in the form of benefits. If that be the case, it seems to me that there have undoubtedly been grave innovations in the law during the last three years, and what I understand the Trade Unions to ask for is the restoration
  308
  of the state of things that existed before. Let the law be restored to what Lord Cairns announced was the intention of the Act of 1875.
  There is one other matter. There have been decisions which have construed conspiracy in a sense very unfavourable to the workman. I am not making the slightest reflection on the judges. I know quite well the judges are desirous of acting impartially according to the law, but it is an unfortunate circumstance that, in two notable cases recently decided, the liability for conspiracy has been construed very narrowly in the case of employers and very widely in the case of workmen. It is an unfortunate circumstance that in the case in which the workmen were concerned the point was construed very narrowly. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the case of Quinn v. Leatham. He need not have done so. No one would defend the action of the men whose conduct was referred to. It was abominable, and, if the law did not permit of it being checked, the law ought to be altered. But that is not the point here. No one complains of the judgment as a judgment. What is complained of is the loose and dangerous, one might almost say the slippery, language used in regard to the meaning of the term "conspiracy" in the speeches of some of the noble and learned persons who gave the judgment. There were sentences or dicta of the most dangerous and far-reaching character.
  That is the position. What is the position of the hon. Gentleman in answer to it? He has not really met any part of the point in the case. He spoke of intimidation, but all he said was that he understood the Trade Unions themselves thought there ought to be a further decision. The Trade Unions are supporting this Motion; they are the persons who are bringing it forward. They were advised that they ought to take a case to the House of Lords—I believe there was a case pending—but they were subsequently advised that they had no chance at all on the decisions as they then stood, and therefore they did not go on. The point is this. These things are really an unjust encroachment upon what have hitherto been believed to be the legal rights of the Trade Unions, and what were intended to be their rights in the year 1875. Why should it be delayed

  309
  by bringing some case not yet in existence before the various courts and pursuing it to the House of Lords? What is asked is that the law should be made fair and just in the sense in which Parliament thought it ought to be some thirty years ago, and there is no necessity for obtaining any more decisions of the House of Lords, or for tempting any more of the as I think—rather unwise expressions of opinion which are scattered throughout the judgments.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I have listened with interest, as I always do, to my hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries, but I confess the sentiment he expressed in the concluding part of his speech took me somewhat by surprise. He seemed to indicate that there was one law of conspiracy for the masters and another for the workmen.
  SIR ROBERT REID: On, no; I do not think the Attorney General should say that. I said, and I mean every word I said, that I was perfectly certain that the Judges desired to do what is right and just according to the law, but that it was an unfortunate circumstance that in the case in which the masters were concerned a much wider interpretation was placed on the term "conspiracy."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am very glad to know that I misunderstood my hon. and learned friend. He knows, as does every other lawyer in the House, that the law of conspiracy for master and for man is exactly the same. There is not the slightest ground for any man saying that there is one law for the master and another for the man. I am glad to have on that point the high authority—and there could be none higher—of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries. I think the judges have a little reason to complain of the terms of this Resolution, and of some of the things which have been said about them. I do not intend to dwell upon the phrase of the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the "loose and slippery "terms of some of the judgments. That phrase slipped from my hon. and learned friend in an unguarded moment. But I would refer to the terms of the Resolution, which has been drawn up in cold blood, and, I
  310
  presume, after consultation with all the authorities in this matter—
  "That legislation is necessary to prevent workmen being placed by judge-made law in a position inferior to that intended by Parliament in 1875."
  It is impossible for anyone to say that that Resolution is not couched in somewhat slighting terms towards the judges. What is the object in saying that all our law is Judge-made? If the Resolution means anything it means that the judges have so dealt with the law as to set up a new law of their own which is not in conformity with the intention of Parliament. That is to say, they have altered the law. The judges are a much abused body. I think they deserve a little sympathy. We set them the most difficult statutes to construe, and I have heard that even the judges sometimes retaliate upon this House, and complain of the way in "Rich those statutes are drawn; but if every time a decision is given which does not exactly agree with the views of hon. and learned Members as to the construction of a statute, we are to have in this House a Resolution about "Judge-made law" and the "intention of Parliament," I think the lot of our judges will be a very unenviable one. For myself, I think the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend is a sensible one. If you are to rush into fresh legislation every time there is a decision, or, as in this case, dictum, with which you do not agree, you will never get the law settled. Nothing tends more to uncertainty in the law than a perpetual succession of fresh enactments. You had better get your one statute settled in meaning before you set to work with fresh legislation, and it is in that sense that I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend. The attitude towards the House of Lords taken up by some Members who so ably represent-the Trade Unions is rather amusing. It is quite clear that they go on the principle of judging by results. When the House of Lords, in regard to Workmen's Compensation, gave a decision which they liked there never was such a tribunal: but when a decision is given that they do not like, it is a judgment influenced by political and not legal considerations. The House of Lords needs no defence from me. Anyone who knows that tribunal is aware that in giving decisions

  311
  in the one case and in the other they are influenced solely by a desire to arrive at the correct interpretation of the law.
  The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, if I rightly apprehended him, expressed a desire that we should have legislation to undo the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case. He wants a short Act of Parliament stating that "the decision in the Taff Vale case is hereby annulled," and declaring that the law is the other way. I really think that any hon. Members who may be carried away by my hon. and learned friend's eloquence on this point cannot have understood the decision in the Taff Vale case. In that case the decision of the House of Lords had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question of picketing. The only point decided in that case was that a Trade Union is liable to be sued for acts done by its officials within the scope of their authority my hon. friend says that the House of Lords decided that the Trade Unions were liable to be sued for the act of any stray member. The House of Lords decided nothing of the kind. I really think that, as a punishment for that statement, my hon. and learned friend deserves to be put through a course of reading and examination in the judgment in that case. What the House of Lords decided was that the ordinary law of the land applied to Trade Unions as to everybody else. They did not introduce any exceptional law for the case of Trades Unions; they decided that where those who constitute Trade Unions employ officials, for the acts of those officials within the scope of their authority, within the scope of their duty, they are liable, just as any other employer is liable for the acts of his servants. That is the whole decision in the Taff Vale case. That anybody should get up in this House and, in the interest of anybody, however respectable or useful, propose that that decision should be repealed by legislation, to me simply astounding. The Trade Unions are simply associations of individuals; they are not corporations. It would be a marvellous thing if an association of individuals were to be at liberty to employ servants and officials for the purpose of doing a certain class of acts relating to trade disputes, and yet not be liable in the case of injury being done by those acts. That the decision in
  312
  the Taff Vale case in the House of Lords was strictly limited has been recently illustrated by a case in the courts in which it was laid down that a Trade Union can be made liable only for acts done by its authority. The case was tried by Mr. Justice Walton the other day, and the learned judge, after finding on the facts that a wrong had been done and the plaintiff injured, held upon the evidence before him that the Trade Union could not properly be taken to have authorised the act, and dismissed the action against the Trade Union, but decided against the "stray member "—to use the hon. and learned Gentleman's phrase—who had done the wrong. What then becomes of the contention that there is any special hardship on Trade Unions under this decision? Whether that decision was right or wrong upon the facts is a matter we have not the materials for deciding, and which may possibly be dealt with elsewhere, but it is an illustration establishing beyond all doubt, if there could be any doubt on the point, that the House of Lords have never applied to Trade Unions anything but the ordinary law which applies to every other person. For myself, I entirely object to any privilegia being enacted for any class of individuals or for any class of associations.
  It was suggested that the decision in the Taff Vale case was contrary to the intention of Parliament when it passed the legislation of 1871. I think that suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Derby, and, as I am referring to him, I may congratulate him and the hon. Member for Hexham on the ability of the speeches in which they placed this Resolution before the House. Still more may I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby on the possession of the quality of discretion. When my hon. friend proceeded to comment on the Bill in which the proposals lying behind this Resolution were put in concrete shape, he got up and objected. That was a most discreet objection from his point of view, for when propositions of this kind are laid before the House they are tolerable only when they are left in a vague, abstract, and undefined condition. As soon as they appear in a Bill they are open to the criticisms which my hon. friend made, and to which the hon. Member for Derby so discreetly objected.
  MR. BELL: May I put the hon. and learned Gentleman right? I simply asked whether it was proper or in order for an hon. Member to discuss a Bill which had been withdrawn. As soon as Mr. Speaker said it was in order I raised no further objection.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The hon. Member could take no objection when Mr. Speaker had ruled the point in order. I feel satisfied that if hon. Members will take the trouble to look into the matter they will find that there is no ground for supposing that the decision in this much canvassed case is in any way contrary to the intention of Parliament. What was said when the legislation of 1871 was under consideration was that it was not desirable that the internal affairs of these unions should form the subject of litigation. It was not intended or desired that a Trade Union should be incorporated so that it could sue its members or its members sue it. It was not desired that a Trade Union should have the right to get an injunction against a workman, deposing of his labour as he pleased if it were in contravention of the rules of the society to which he belonged, and it was not desired, on the other hand, that the workman should have the right of bringing a Trade Union into court in order to have their domestic difference there adjusted. In the words quoted by the Home Secretary, Mr. Bruce, on February 14th, 1871, from the report made by Mr. Frederick Harrison, who was a member of the Commission which sat shortly before the legislation was introduced—
  "The affairs of Trades Unions should rest entirely upon consent,"
  and that principle is embodied in the 4th section of the Act of 1871. There are elaborate provisions there guarding against the possibility of any litigation in connection with the affairs of a Trade Union as between the society and the members who are its constituent elements. But all that has no application whatever to the case of wrongs done by a Trade Union to a third party, and the suggestion that there was anything in this decision contrary to what Parliament intended in 1871 really rests upon a want of attention to what was said in the course of the debate,
  314
  and to the terms of the Act which embodied the intention of Parliament at that time.
  A forcible argument was put forward as to the effect this would have upon what are called benefit funds, funds intended to make provision for members in old age or for their wives and families in the case of their death. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that in 1871, on April 4th, my right hon. friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that the benefit funds should be separated from the funds to be used for what I may call fighting purposes—for the purpose of a Trade Union as distinct from the purposes of a benefit society. What was the answer of the Home Secretary, Mr. Bruce? He said that no Trade Union would stand it.
  MR. BROADHURST: Hear, hear.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The hon. Member cheers that. If that is the attitude of Trade Unions, in the name of common sense how can any Member on the other side get up and say it is a hard ship that in consequence of the liability of a Trade Union, as of any other subject, for wrongs committed by it, its funds should be liable? I do not presume to say what is the proper course to take in this matter. It has occurred to me that it would be a great advantage to separate these funds, but I do not presume to dictate on that point; the hon. Member knows more about it than I do. But what I do say is that if trades unions deliberately elect to blend these funds it is preposterous for them to get up and say it is a hardship that these funds should be made liable.
  The urgency of the case for declaring the liability of Trade Unions for wrongs done by their authority may be understood by reference to the case of Quinn v. Leatham in the House of Lords. As long as the right of action for a wrong was confined to a right of action against the individual it was absolutely worthless. In most cases the individual would be a man of straw, and however grievous the wrong, and however substantial the damages to which the injured person was entitled, he would get no fruits whatever

  315
  from the judgment. But as soon as it is established that the body which really really authorised the act is liable, there is a real remedy given to the man who has been wronged. What were the facts iilustrated by the case of Quinn v. Leatham? My hon. and learned friend read a passage in which the plaintiff, Mr. Leatham, describes his interview with the officials of the Trade Union. He had in his employ several non-union men. One man called Dickie, a man with a large family, suited him, and had been in his employ for some time. The Union said, "You must dismiss that man because he does "not belong to our society." Mr. Leatham went to a meeting of the society and said, "I will pay all his fees for him and all my other men; all I ask is that they should be admitted to the society, so that I may be enabled to keep them in my employment because they suit me." But they said, "No; they are to walk the streets for twelve months as a punishment for not joining the society."
  SIR ROBERT REID: Nobody defends that.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Nobody defends it, but it is a good illustration of the sort of acts which require to be kept in check. I may point out to my hon. and learned friend who interposed that that case was carried to the House of Lords, where it was established that such action was illegal.
  MR. HALDANE: The House of Lords confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Beitso, but the Trade Union appealed, and I believe my hon. and learned friend opposite appeared for the respondents in that case, and succeeded in vindicating the law, upon which I congratulate him. Mr. Leatham said to the Committee—
  "It is very hard that a man with nine children dependent upon him should be compelled to walk the streets for twelve months."
  They said, "Well, we will tell Muntz who has dealt with you for some twenty years that he is not to deal with you any longer, and that if he does we will call out his men also." Muntz wrote a letter
  316
  which I will read to the House. He wrote to the secretary of the union that—
  "He could not interfere by bringing pressure to bear on Mr. Leathern to employ none but society men by refusing to purchase meat from him as that would be outside his province and be interfering with the liberty of another man.
  Surely that was the only attitude for Mr. Muntz to take up. He could not, however, stand the pressure put upon him because he was constrained to send a telegram as follows—
  "Unless you arrange with society you need not send any beef this week as men are ordered to quit work."
  That is the sort of tyranny which no one will defend, and now it has been clearly declared to be illegal. But if the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, became law, it would extend absolute immunity to action of that kind. No one would defend such action, and no one would say there should not be some redress for it. The Bill of the right hon. Baronet would take away all redress of such action and no one can deny it. Such actions are more wanting in sincerity, and unless you have the strong hand of the law behind you to intervene in suitable cases you may depend upon it these things will be done, and such wanton tyranny will occur over and over again.
  I think there is one proposition upon which we are all agreed, and it is that workmen have a perfect right to combine just as employers have. There is also another proposition with which I think we are all agreed, and it is that neither employers nor workmen have any right to coerce other people. There ought to be absolute freedom for men to work or not to work, as they think fit. Every man should be at liberty to dispose of his own labour, and I hope this House will never be hurried into giving its ascent either in the form of a Resolution or a Bill, to any proposal which will tend to diminish that liberty which we at present enjoy. There is another proposition which I am sure will be assented to in every part of the House, and it is that the law with regard to combination is exactly the same for employers as for employed. If anyone will take the trouble to look at the definition of "Trade Union" in the Act of 1875, he will find that it applies to combinations

  317
  of employers just as much as workmen. It is said that you will interfere with peaceable persuasion. I say without fear of contradiction from any of my hon. and learned friends in the House, that peaceable persuasion by itself never imposes any liability, either civil or criminal. I defy any man to show that peaceable persuasion by itself imposes any liability, either civil or criminal. The Statute of 1859 provided that peacable persuasion by itself should not impose any liability, and that law as declared by that statute still exists, although the statute itself is not enforced. But, of course, it does not follow that if peaceable persuasion is coupled with such acts as occurred in the case of Quinn v. Leatham, if peaceable persuasion is accompanied by such acts, or by acts which constitute a nuisance at common law, that immunity is to be extended to such cases. What you have to deal with in the cases where this question has arisen has not been peaceable persuasion by itself, but it has been peaceable persuasion coupled with what is known as watching and besetting the house of the person to be affected by it. Picketing may, of course, be be carried on upon such principles, and in such a way as to constitute a serious nuisance, and I not think any hon. Member would deny that if his house was watched and beset by a number of men relieving one another and going on week after week and month after month this would amount to serious nuisance. Peaceable persuasion is perfectly innocent in itself, but it is not so meritorious as to afford relief from the consequences of other wrongs which you do at the same time. This has been laid down in the case which has so often been referred to of Lyons and Wilkins. In the final judgment given in 1899 it was laid down—
  "That to say it was caused by an attempt possibly to persuade other people would afford no defence though persons may be peaceably persuaded, provided that the method employed is not a nuisance."
  There is one further observation that I wish to make and it is that, in order to be criminal, watching and besetting, or picketing, as it is generally called, must be with a view to compel some one to do some act or to abstain from doing something with a view to compelling some other person, and there has not been a single case in the Criminal Courts in
  318
  which anyone has been held to be guilty of a crime under the Act of 1875 who would not have been liable under the terms of the charge of Mr. Russell Gurney in 1875, and which has been more than once referred to in this case. There has not been a single case in the Criminal Courts in which anyone has been held guilty of a crime otherwise than in accordance with that decision. [An HON. MEMBER: This is a matter of civil right.] I will deal with the civil aspect too, but for the moment I am talking of universal liability. I have pointed out, and I challenge contradiction, that there is not a case where any one who is guilty of crime would not fall within the charge of Mr. Russell Gurney. In 1891, in a well-known case, it was held that the word "intimidate" must mean intimidation in the shape of threatening physical violence or something of that kind. It is perfectly true that in the case of Lyons and Wilkins, which my hon. friend has referred to, there are passages giving a different effect to the Act of 1875. In the first place, as my hon. and learned friend has pointed out, that was a civil action, but if anyone will take the trouble to look at the final decision given in that case in 1899, he will find that the majority of the court in that final decision distinctly held that, apart from the statute altogether, watching and besetting, or what is commonly called picketing, had been carried on to such an extent as to constitute a nuisance at common law.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly possible that some of the dicta in the case of Lyons and Wilkins may require further consideration, but the decision itself cannot be quarrelled, and we have pretty good authority for assertaining this, because when an appeal to the House of Lords had been entered, that appeal was, upon advice, withdrawn. If any one is dissatisfied with the decision which has been laid down by the judges, the courts are open to them, and an appeal may be brought. What is the remedy? The remedy is the answer which was referred to in the resolution, arrived at on the advice of counsel, by the Trade Union Congress held in September last year. I should like to call the attention of the House to the

  319
  terms of the Report of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress held at Swansea in September, 1901. I find that this was reported in the Scotsman of Tuesday, September 3rd, 1901. The Parliamentary Committee, in their Report in reference to the Taff Vale case, say—
  "They lost no time in placing the matter in the hands of their advising counsel. That gentleman came to the conclusion that, as the result of their judgment, it will be exceedingly difficult to conduct a strike with any degree of success without doing illegal acts. So that the first step to be taken, in my opinion, should be that the first case where any injunction is sought to restrain persons from picketing should be taken to the House of Lords under the authority of the Congress or such persons as it would authorise, so as to prevent the possibility of anything happening similar to that in the case of Lyons v. Wilkins."
  On the second day of the Congress, Mr. Steadman made a Motion in accordance with this view, and Mr. E. Browne, counsel to the Congress, made a speech, in which he said—
  "The most important point in the whole matter was, where did they stand in regard to picketing, and until they had received the opinion of the highest tribunal of the land on it, it was no use whatever for them to be doing anything in connection with the Taff Vale decision, and that was why, in accordance with his advice, the Parliamentary Committee had decided that they must get a decision in regard to picketing."
  I am bound to say that I think that was very sensible advice, and in the resolution which the Congress agreed to, and which was approved of by the Parliamentary Committee upon the advice which was given to them by their counsel, a very sensible, course indeed was taken. That resolution was accepted by the Congress, and what is the meaning of this change of tactics? The appeal to the House of Lords is abandoned, and it has been abandoned because it is found that the decision itself cannot be quarrelled with; and then, forsooth, on the strength of certain dicta which occurred in the case, certain propositions of law laid down, but which are not necessary for the decision, because, as was pointed out just now, there are other grounds on which the decision might be supported, as is shown by the determination to abandon the appeal. It is on the strength of this dicta that this House is invited to rush into fresh legislation. I trust that the House will not
  320
  think of adopting any Resolution of this sort. In the Amendment of my hon. friend the House is invited to say that—
  "This House declines to commit itself to fresh legislation on the subject of trade disputes, until it is shown that the existing law does not sufficiently protect workmen in the exercise of their lawful rights."
  It is only upon such principles that we can get the law settled upon secure and safe foundations. If every time a judge says something which you do not like you pass a fresh law, you may depend upon it that the law will soon be in a state of chaos. If the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean got his Bill I carried, I venture to say in the course of twelvemonths after his Bill became law, there would be quite a crop of grievances in the decisions of judges in construing chat measure. When it is shown that there is a case of injustice let us deal with it, but not till then.
  MR. HALDANE: I think it is to be regretted that the Attorney General should have devoted so much time to controverting propositions about which there has been no controversy from this side. No one in the course of this debate has defended the proceedings of the trade union in the case of Quinn v. Leatham, and nobody has assailed the result arrived at by the judges in that particular case. But what we have said, and what the Attorney General has not controverted, is that the principles of law as laid down by the judges are in a state of confusion because different judges could not agree among themselves. In a very few moments I will show the House what I mean, and I will conclude with an appeal to the Government upon this matter. Speaking for myself, I am quite inclined to make a present to the Attorney General of the Taff Vale case if he will undertake to initiate legislation which will put the law as to conspiracy upon a more satisfactory footing than it is at the present time. I will defy the Attorney General or any other lawyer to tell what the position of those who have to conduct a strike is at the present moment. The effect of this judgment has been to make it an impossibility to conduct a peaceable strike in a legal fashion. In this the Attorney General

  321
  himself is my witness. Take the case, for the moment not of conspiracy, but of picketing. The Attorney General, after telling us a great deal about the criminal law, gave us his view about Lyons and Wilkins, and he told us that there were two views. He said that one judge took one view of the case and the other judges took another view. I have here an extract from the judgment of Lord Justice Kay, who laid down that watching the premises of Messrs. Lyons with a view to compelling them to come to the terms which the union had fixed, was a direct violation of the section, if there was that sort of communication which amounted to the most peaceable persuasion, as distinguished from the bare imparting of dry facts; and yet by other people we are told that it is legal to send people to communicate with the workmen for the purpose of persuasion. It is perfectly true that Lord Justice Vaughan Williams took rather a different view, but nobody to this hour knows what is legal with regard to picketing, for there is obscurity as to whether the law allows even peaceful persuasion. In what is known as the Mogul case the House of Lords declared that a combination which I will now describe was lawful. The great shipowners, including the P.&O. Company, being minded to put out of existence certain ocean "tramp" steamers which were reducing the rates, not only made offers to carry those cargoes at a less rate, but they actually went to the shipping agents and said: "If you deal with those 'tramp' steamers we will boycott you." That is what may be done by the capitalist as held to be lawful by the House of Lords which is the supreme tribunal. A great deal was said about it at the time. When you come to the case of Quinn and Leatham, which is a perfectly right decision on the facts, you hear a great deal said by a different set of judges which indicate that they did not agree with this view. Lord Justice Lindley laid down the law to the effect that for the officials of a Trades Union to tell the employer that if he would not come to their terms they must call out their men who were working for him, was illegal. Therefore for the officials of a Trade Union to go to an employer and say "we wish you to give certain terms, and if you do not we shall be compelled to call
  322
  out our men who are working for you," according to the law laid down in Lord Justice Lindley's judgment would be an illegality, and not only so but it would expose those joining to commit it to a prosecution for a criminal offence. How can you say that the law is in a state of harmony in regard to what is laid down for the ship-owners and what is laid down for Trade Unions? I agree that the judges do their best, but different judges take different views, and if you try to harmonise the decisions of the House of Lords itself in the three great cases of which we have heard so much, you will find it impossible for any lawyer to tell the unfortunate officials of a trade union what they may do and what they may not do.
  In this state of things, what is the plain duty of the Government? I agree that they are not called upon to initiate heroic legislation. I am not going to discuss the policy of the Taff Vale case, and I am not going to discuss the liabilities of Trade Unions, but I may say that I do not agree with all that the Attorney General said about the intention of those who framed the Act. I have read Lord Aberdare's speech, made when this policy was laid down, and adopting the lines of the separate Report made by Mr. Frederick Harrison and the Commissioners who agreed with him in which it was stated that Trade Unions were not to be incorporated. Let us now deal with what is infinitely more important, and that is the state of absolute confusion in which the law is at present, owing to the different decisions as to what constitutes legal conduct on the part of workmen. Surely, without doing anything heroic, the Government can do something towards what is called the codification of that part of the law which deals with conspiracy. A Union cannot at this moment conduct a peaceable strike in a legal manner according to these decisions, if what is laid down by-Lord Justice Lindley is the law of the land. This was not the effect which at the time the law was passed it was contemplated that Trade Unions should get. But that is not a matter of Statute law. It is what has been said by certain judges to be the common law, which is far more important in this matter than the statute law. You have

  323
  a very difficult task before you in declaring what the Common law really is. But attempts to make such a declaration are actually in existence. These form part of the draft code which was drawn up by the late Sir James Fitzstephens, and which now repose in the pigeon-holes of some Government office. Surely it is possible for the Government to ask one of our great Judges to preside over a small Commission to report upon the whole matter and submit to Parliament a code of principles and a clear statement which will enable Parliament to lay down what the law of conspiracy is to be. Until you do that you will have a feeling on the part of people, who do not know the difficulties of the law, doubting whether the judges are not laying down that law in a partisan fashion. The judges are coping with a very difficult matter upon which Parliament has given them very little instruction. Surely it is better to allay that feeling in a way that plain men can understand and give people the sense that Parliament has done its best to put the mode of conducting in a peaceful fashion these great industrial complications which from time to time must arise, into terms that plain men can understand. If the Government will promise to take steps to appoint a small Royal Commission to codify the law of conspiracy and picketing so far as it embraces this question, I for one will promise in exchange not to vote for this Motion.
  SIR J. ROLLESTON: As the representative of a constituency in which this question is of great interest and upon which I have received numerous representations, I have no hesitation in saying that there can be no doubt that recent decisions have considerably altered the relations of those engaged in manufactures, and that they have disarranged the mutual interests of employers and employed. But however one might be disposed to agree with the spirit of the Resolution, I cannot congratulate the proposer upon the language employed. I do not know how Members of this House can be expected to express disapproval of the decisions of the highest tribunals in the State, although I freely and fully admit that these decisions have resulted in bringing to the front matters well worthy of reconsideration and re-adjustment.
  324
  In my opinion these matters are too weighty and too important to be discussed on a chance Resolution in this House, and I earnestly hope that the Government will agree to the recommendation of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, and appoint a Committee to inquire into them, and for the purpose of giving fuller and calmer investigation to the many delicate questions involved than can be given to them in this House. I hope that we who wish fairly and justly to represent the mutual interests of two great classes may not by a division be placed in a position of hostility to one side or the other on a great question in which conciliation and agreement might, after fuller discussion and examination, be arrived at. If such a committee were appointed I feel sure, that the time would be well spent having regard to the great commercial interests of this country.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I hope there is not going to be any attempt made by hon. Members to shelter themselves behind the Judges. There seems to be an inclination to object to this Motion be cause of a phrase it contains—"Judge-made law." The question at issue is whether the law is to be so straightened out as to be understandable by the judges who have to interpret it. The Attorney General made much of the decision of Mr. Justice Lindley in Wales, but either he is not aware of, or he conveniently overlooked, the fact that a decision given since that in Manchester completely contradicts the decision in the Welsh case. It has now been decided by two judges of equal standing, first, that Trade Union funds are not liable, unless the act under which the action arises has been committed by a responsible official of the society, and carrying out the decision of the society. In the second case, it has been decided that no matter how irresponsible the individual may be by whom the act is committed, the Union funds are liable for damage in consequence of that act. Now that is a very serious state of affairs. May I remind the House of what took place during a strike? In a picketing case

  325
  tried at Blackburn these facts were brought out in the course of the evidence and they are not to be denied. The employers had employed agents of provocation to go among the men on strike and among the pickets and incite them to the committal of illegal acts, and if these agents had succeeded, and the pickets had gone beyond what is now called the law, the Union funds would have been held liable for any action arising out of their illegal conduct. It is true that there is one law for employers and employed, but there are two ways of interpreting it. We do not accuse the judges of being consciously biassed, but we say emphatically that the judges, being human, are influenced by their environments, and that they unconsciously lean towards the employers in giving judgment, and we ask that the law be made such that it cannot be misunderstood or misinterpreted. May I read to you what is proposed by the General Federation of Trade Unions of this country, which includes all the organised workmen. It asks an amendment of the law on two points, and here are the words in which it puts forward its claims—
  "First, a Bill to define the liability of Trade Unions; and that no action shall lie against a Trade Union for the recovery of damage sustained by any person whatever by reason of the act of a member or members of the Union unless it be proved that such member or members were acting with the directly expressed sanction and authority of the Trade Union rules."
  Surely that is a reasonable demand to make. It admits that where a trade union official does an illegal thing within the scope of his instructions the fund shall be held liable, but relieves the Union funds of liability where an illegal act is done by some irresponsible member. In regard to picketing, all that it desires is that it shall be lawful for workmen to attend at or near any place where there is a dispute for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information, or for the peaceful persuasion of workmen to refrain from entering such employment. It appears from what the Attorney General says that that is already the law. I hope I have shown the House that there is some confusion in the minds of the judges concerning it, and all we ask is that the Act shall be so amended that the judges shall not be able to misunderstand or misconstrue its meaning. We ask that peaceful persuasion shall be legalised.
  326
  One case which came before the courts was this: Two members of a Union visited a "blackleg" in his own house for the purpose of trying to persuade him by peaceful argument to refrain from continuing at work. They were tried and had to pay damages to settle the case and avoid being sent to prison. With the law in that condition, and with the interpretation of the law in that condition, it is the merest nonsense to say that peaceful persuasion is legal in connection with picketing, and all that the unions ask for, I repeat, is that the funds shall not be attachable for the illegal act of irresponsible members, and that peaceful picketing shall not be, as at present, a penal offence leading to the imprisonment of members and the depletion of the Union funds.
  MR. ASQUITHI think it would be very undesirable that the results of the evening's debate should be entirely thrown away, and I venture to make an appeal to his-Majesty's Government. Having listened to the arguments, and this being in no-sense a Party question, I hope the Government will make some kind of response to what I think is the general feeling of the House: that the law is in a confused and unsatisfactory state. I do not know how it ought to be finally defined. The fact is this, and we cannot dispute it. Parliament in 1871 and 1875 laid down what it then believed to be a fairly satisfactory code for the regulation of these labour societies. Since that time we have had several decisions of the judges, and particularly during the last three years, which it is no exaggeration to say no one could have anticipated or foreseen even ten or fifteen years ago. In the first place we have had a decision—I do not say whether it is right or wrong—that the funds of a Trade Union are liable for the acts of any person shown to be a authorised agent of the Union. On the other side we have had, if not a decision, at any rate, the dicta, that picketing, not accompanied by unlawful acts of violence, or menaces, and which takes the form of the mere conveyance of information is also illegal. I do not hesitate to say that human nature

  327
  being what it is, and the economic conditions being what they are, no strike can be lawfully conducted in which the pickets confine themselves to the giving of information. Assuming that they are trying to regulate their action by all possible restraint that the law imposes, they must persuade or solicit those whom they are trying to influence. In the question of the funds of the Trade Union and the question of picketing, which are two questions which eminently require further consideration and legislation, and as regards the law of conspiracy in its recent application to trade disputes, the judicial development of that law by the House of Lords has led the country to 'Conclusions from which every one would have shrank twenty years, or even ten years ago. Under these circumstances could not the Government agree that a case has arisen and a situation has developed itself in which it is eminently desirable that we should have some further investigation of the question. I do not understand any of my hon. friends who have supported the Motion to have wedded themselves to any particular proposal or to have said that trade disputes should be settled in any particular way. What they say is that in the present situation, the question ought not to be left to the decision of the judges and to the irresponsible development of of the law by judicial tribunals, but that it is pre-eminently a question for Parliament. I am not going to indulge in any reflections on what is called "Judge-made law." A good deal of our law is Judge made law, and it is a good thing that it is. But, as regards a question like this, which goes down to the very roots of the I economic and social conditions of the I people, Parliament and Parliament alone should be the real judges. By universal admission, it follows from the speeches on
  328
  both sides of the House that the law is in an unsatisfactory, confused, and I think I might almost say, chaotic state, and may we not hope to elicit from the Government some admission that the time has come for further inquiry with the view to ultimate legislation, which shall make Parliament the House of Commons, and the House of Lords the real judges, and not leave the matter entirely to the judges. If we could get some assurance of that sort from the Government, I think we should be prepared to allow the Resolution to drop, but unless we do I think we must persist in the Resolution which declares that Parliament and Parliament alone is responsible.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): The right hon. Gentleman has made a very moderate and very proper appeal to the Government with regard to two points belonging to the same question. He says that the law with regard to financial liability ought to be inquired into, and also that the law of conspiracy as interpreted by the judges ought to be inquired into.
  MR. ASQUITH: And also picketing.
  MR. RITCHIE: With regard to the first question, the financial aspect, does the right hon. Gentleman say that the decision which has been arrived at is, in his opinion, an improper decision; I am sure any one who listened to the speech of my hon. and learned friend the Attorney General must have felt that any allegation that the law was different in regard to the workman from what it is with regard to the employer was not consistent with the facts of the case; neither would

  329
  anybody spy that, when any unlawful acts are done or authorised by any body of persons, that body of persons ought not to be financially responsible for any damage that might be sustained. Therefore, I cannot myself see upon what ground any inquiry is necessary in regard to that particular question. With regard to the other point the right hon. Gentleman cannot quote, cannot give a single instance, I think, in which, upon the merits of the case, there has been any decision with which he can find fault. I do not think he can; and there certainly has not been one single case adduced in the discussion which shows that the decision, so far as the merits of the case are concerned, has been in any respect a wrongful decision, or contrary to the law or the wishes of Parliament, My hon. and learned friend the Attorney General took case after case and showed that the operation and action of Trade Unions in these cases was action which went far beyond any question of peaceful persuasion. I will go this length with my hon. friend. If the Trade Unions were to take a test case to the House of Lords as was recommended by their own central body, and it was found by the decision of the House of Lords that the law was in a condition which was unfair to the working classes, then I think His Majesty's Government would be quite ready to consider as to whether or not some inquiry should not be made into the law with a view, if he likes, to some further legislation with the object of clearing up any doubtful points that might arise. But so far as we have gone at present there does not seem any reason why the Government should interpose. The Amendment which is before the House does not say that no amendment of the law is necessary, but it
  330
  suggests that before the Government is called upon by Parliament to propose any alteration of the law, some steps should be taken by the aggrieved persons to get the decision of the highest tribunal in the land as to what the state of the law is, and I think the House would be well advised, either in accepting the Amendment of my hon. friend behind me, or in not going to a division on the matter, because it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and His Majesty's Government do not very materially differ. Let us have a decision of the highest tribunal—the House of Lords—showing that an amendment of the law is necessary, or that further inquiry may be desirable. If the result of the proceedings should be to show to Parliament and His Majesty's Government that the law is in a state of confusion, then it would be for the Government to take some action, whether by inquiry or otherwise. We should not shrink from making inquiry if we thought it was necessary, but nothing has been shown to-night, which in the opinion of the Government calls for the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman desires, and no case has been adduced, either from the financial or the conspiracy point of view, which shows that there has been any decision either on the one or on the other, which is contrary to the wishes of Parliament, or contrary to the justice of the case.
  SIR H. CAMPELL-BANNER-MAN: The right hon. Gentleman said he thought that there was very little difference between the two sides of the House.
  MR. RITCHIEdissented.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Well, between the Government as represented by the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. friends who have taken part in the debate. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Well, between the two right hon. Gentlemen, if that suits the Home Secretary better. I differ from him entirely. It is not a question of those individual points which have been brought before the House, it is not a question in regard to which you can go from one to the other and ask each Member to decide for himself whether or not he accepts the clause as it is at present interpreted by the judges. What has been proved, and proved tonight up to the hilt, is the state of confusion in which the law now stands, which in itself requires the intervention of the Government. Besides that, I will venture to go a little further and say that the right hon. Gentleman must be very blind to the state of feeling in the country if he is not aware that there is a very strong sentiment on this subject—a very strong feeling indeed. When he

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Cawley, Frederick

  Elibank, Master of

  Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Ellis, John Edward

  Atherley-Jones, L.

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

  Emmott, Alfred

  Austin, Sir John

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidst'ne

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Eenwick Charles

  Bell, Richard

  Crean, Eugene

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Blake Edward

  Cremer, William Randal

  Ffrench, Peter

  Boland, John

  Crombie, John William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Bond, Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Flower, Ernest

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Burns, John

  Delany, William

  Buxton, Sidney Charles

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Gilhooly, James

  Dillon, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Caine, William Sproston

  Doogan, P. C.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Caldwell, James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Green, Walford D. Wednesbury

  asks us to wait until, in the course of some months or years, a further decision has been taken, he knows he is practically opposing a non posmmus on the part of the Government to that which has been asked for. I regret very much the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up in the face of the most conciliatory and reasonable proposal of my right hon. friend who preceded him. But as he has refused to give that inquiry which would have satisfied the feelings of those interested in the matter, we shall, of course, support the Resolution.
  MR. BANBURYrose to continue the debate.
  MR. ROBSONrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  (11.47.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 177. (Division List No. 173.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roche, John

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Runciman, Walter

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lrd G. (Midd'x

  Mather, William

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Montagu, G. (Huntindon)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Mooney, John J.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Hardie, J. Kier (Merthyr Tydvil

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Moss, Samuel

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Murnaghan, George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

  Harwood, George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Norman, Henry

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Smith, James Parker (Lunarks.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset

  Holland, William Henry

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Sullivan, Donal

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. N.

  Thomas, F. Freeman -(Hastings

  O'Malley, William

  Thomas, J. A. (Glamorg'n Gower)

  O'Mara, James

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

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Tomkinson, James

  Toulmin, George

  Labouchere, Henry

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Langley, Batty

  Partington, Oswald

  Tally, Jasper

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Priestly, Arthur

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Logan, John William

  Whiteley, George (York W. R.

  Lough, Thomas

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Russell

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'dd'rsfi'd

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Reddy, M.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Reid, Sir R. Thresbie (Dumfries

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rickett, J. Compton

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rigg, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Mr. M'Arthur and Mr. Causton.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Coddington, Sir William

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brassey, Albert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shrops.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Butcher, John George

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cavendish, V. C W. (Derbyshire

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  334

  335

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir Willam Halt

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Renwick, George

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalyb'dge

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsr, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Round, James

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

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Rutherford, John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Finch, George H.

  Lucas, Col. Fras. (Lowestoft)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Regd. J. (Portsmouth)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Fison, Frederick William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

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

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Garfit, William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Spear, John Ward

  Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (Cityof Lond.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (E'in burgh, W

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Gordon, Hn J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Stroyan, John

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Greene, Henry D. (Shewsbury)

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

  Tuffnell, Lt.-Colonel Edward

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mitchell, William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Gretton, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'stow)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morton, Ar. H. A. (Deptford)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicholson, Wm. Graham

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (T'nton

  Henderson, Alexander

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Willonghby de Eresby, Lord

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Horner, Frederick William

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Parker, Gilbert

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

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

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Peel, Hon. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Penn, John

  Percy, Earl

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Mr. Renshaw and Mr. Banbury.

  Knowles, Lees

  Purvis, Robert

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pym, C. Guy

  (12.10.) Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

  AEYS.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Bell, Richard

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Blake, Edward

  Caine, William Sproston

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Henry

  Boland, John

  Caldwell, James

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Austin, Sir John

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Burns, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  The House divided:—Ayes, 174; Noes, 203. (Division List No. 174.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Joyce, Michael

  Priestley, Arthur

  Crean, Eugene

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Crombie, John William

  Randles, John S.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Langley, Batty

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Reddy, M.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Delany, William

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Rigg, Richard

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark

  Logan, John William

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lough, Thomas

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Lundon, W.

  Roche, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Elibank, Master of

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Ellis, John Edward

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Runciman, Walter

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Crae, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Schwann, Charles E.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Ffrench, Peter

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mather, William

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mooney, John J.

  Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moss, Samuel

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Flower, Ernest

  Murnaghan, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thomas, F. Freeman-f Hastings

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, J. A (Gl'morgan, Gower

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Toulmin, George

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tully, Jasper

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Harwood, George

  O'Dowd, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  O Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Mara, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. I (Huddersf'd

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Holland, William Henry

  Palmer, George Wm. (Heading)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Partington, Oswald

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Mr. M'Arthur and Mr. Causton.

  Jones, D'vid Brynmor (Swansea

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bignold, Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Anstruther, H. T.

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

  Bond, Edward

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Brassey, Albert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Arrol, Sir William

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  338

  339

  Butcher, John George

  Helder, Augustus

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Parker, Gilbert

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Penn, John

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Percy, Earl

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Chamberlain, Kt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Pym, C. Guy

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Coddington, Sir William

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Collings, Kt. Hon. Jesse

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Keady

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Renwick, George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Knowles, Lees

  Ritchie, lit. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Round, James

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rutherford, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Dyke, Rt. Sir William Hart

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spear, John Ward

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stroyan, John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir I (Mane'r

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxfd Univ.

  Finch, George H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fison, Frederick William

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Tomnlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Maconochie, A. W.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Garfit, William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milner, Kt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mitchell, William

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.)

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry Sedm'nds

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morgan, David J. (W'lth'mstow

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Grah'm (Bute

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Hardy, Laurence (K'nt, Ashford

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mr. Renshaw and Mr. Wolff.

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  It being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Adjourned at half-past Twelve.