Commons Sitting of 4 March 1903

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Sussex (Eastern or Rye Division), in the room of Colonel Arthur Montagu Brookfield, His Majesty's Consul at Monte Video.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LONDON BUILDING ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order [24th February] that the London Building Acts (Amendment) Bill be read a second time, read, and discharged—Bill withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
ROMFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
"To authorise the Empire Electric Light and Power Company, Limited, to construct tramways in Romford and the adjoining districts in the County of Essex; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Kinellar; Newhills; Garioch; Arbilot; Stirling; Strathdon; Old Deer; Maryton; Auchterarder; Cumbraes; Dalziel; and Both well; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petition from West Dulwich, in favour, to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL TAXATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Index to the Reports of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd March: Mr. Herald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 54.]
SEA FISHERIES REGULATION ACT, 1888.
Copy presented, of Order made by the Board of Trade, under the provisions of the said Act, for the variation of their Order creating the Devon Sea Fisheries District, together with Report by Inspector on Inquiry [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 55.]
CENSUS OF SCOTLAND, 1901.
Copy presented, of Eleventh Decennial Census of the population of Scotland, taken 31st March, 1901, with Report (Vol. II.) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TURKEY (No. 2, 1903).
Copy presented, of further correspondence respecting the affairs of South Eastern Europe (reforms in the administration of the Vilayets of Salonica, Monastir, and Kossovo) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (CONTRACT FOR ACCELERATED MAIL SERVICE TO AND FROM IRELAND VIA CARLISLE, STRANRAER, AND LARNE).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th February; Mr. Hayes Fisher; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 56.]

LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) ACT, 1900.
Account presented, showing the money issued from the Consolidated Fund, under the provisions of the Land Registry (New Buildings) Act, 1900, and of the Expenditure; the money expended and borrowed and the securities created under the said

1343
Act, for the period ended the 31st March, 1902; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 57.]

ARMY (RECRUITING).
Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Inspector General of recruiting for 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (MEMORANDUM ON ESTIMATES).
Copy presented, of Memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Army Estimates of 1903 - 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2941 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
Address for "Return of the Net Income and Expenditure of British India, under certain specified heads, for the eleven years from 1891-1892 to 1901-1902 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 93, of Session 1902)."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
FOOD SUPPLIES (IMPORTED).
Return ordered, "showing annually, for each year since 1870, inclusive, in a summarised form, the imported quantities of (1) wheat, wheat meal, and flour; (2) meat, including animals for food; and (3) sugar retained for home consumption; and also the countries from which these supplies of food were derived."—(Mr. I) . A. Thomas.)
SHANGHAI (CONSULAR JURISDICTION).
Address for "Return giving modus vivendi adopted with regard to Consular Jurisdiction in International Settlement at Shanghai."—(Mr. Joseph Walton)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Local Government Act, 1888—Amendment of Section 26.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that dissatisfaction has been expressed by Boards of Guardians in regard to the operation of Section 26 of the Local Government Act, 1888; and whether he will consider the propriety of bringing in a Bill to amend that section in such a way as to enable County Councils to make grants to Boards of Guardians towards the costs of officers of the Union, equal to the sums now in fact annnually expended by the Guardians on the salaries, remuneration, and superannuation allowances of such officers, and on drugs and medical appliances.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have received representations from Boards of Guardians with respect to this matter. The Royal Commission on local taxation thought that the grant under the section referred to should be a fixed amount, though they recommended that it should be based on the expenditure of a later year than 1887-8. I am not at present in a position to promise legislation on the subject, but the recommendation will receive consideration in connection with any general measure relating to local taxation.

Pharmacy Act—Schedule A.
COLONEL LONG: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Departmental Committee of the Privy Council on Schedule A of The Pharmacy Act, 1868; and whether, in view of its effect on agriculture, the Government proposes to bring in a Bill to give effect to its recommendations.
(Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Report is under consideration with a view to legislation at the earliest opportunity.

Road Construction at Letters, Ross shire.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that the people of Letters, in the parish of Loch-broom, Ross-shire, offer free labour in order to secure the construction of a road, will he say whether the Congested Districts Board are prepared to provide a grant in aid of the work.
(Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I can only refer the hon. Member to a letter written by the Secretary for Scotland to the hon. Member, dated 10th November, 1902. There has been no further communication on the subject since that date.

Scotch Education—Payment of Grants.
SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the arrears of the Scottish Education Department in paying the grant to technical and other evening schools, the grant in some cases for the session ending May 1902 either not having been paid or the amount earned intimated; and whether arrangements can be made whereby the managers of such schools can be promptly informed what grants they are entitled to, so that they may make arrangements for the session 1903–4.
(Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The grants have been paid to the managing bodies in all cases except twelve. Of these, two claims were only received last month; two have not yet been received although the Department has repeatedly asked the managers to forward them: three claims have been referred back to the managers and are awaiting their replies to the queries raised; two cases have just been completed, and it is hoped will be paid forthwith: two cases it has been found necessary to refer to His Majesty's Inspector; and one case under an Article of the Code requires special Treasury sanction. The financial year of continuation classes ends at 31st July, and, as all the claims are sent in to the Department at the same time, it is obviously impossible without a considerable increase of staff to overtake the necessary examination and calculation of these claims before the ensuing session begins. The Department has in a
1346
number of cases paid an instalment of grant to account, subject to rectification when the whole claims have been finally examined, and they propose to extend this procedure in respect of payments for the session 1902-3. The Department has had to deal with no less than 840 separate claims and, having regard to the fact of this being the first year of the new system, naturally some delays were caused by claims being submitted by managers while unfamiliar with the new conditions.

Working of Small Holdings Act in Scotland.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture in reference to the Return, No. 407, session 2 of 1895, of proceedings under the Small Holdings Act, 1892, and to the application of the Act in Scotland subsequent to that Return, if he will say what further counties, if any, have, under Section 5 of the Act, made inquiry, by the appointment of a committee or otherwise; what further amount of land, if any, has been acquired under Section 3 of the Act, and in what parish or parishes the same is situate; and what further number of small holdings has been provided, of what acreage these holdings are and under what terms, i.e., sale or letting, they have been provided.
(Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) We are not at present in possession of information later than 1895, as to the proceedings of local authorities under the Small Holdings Act, 1892, but I have promised the hon. Member for South Molton a full Return of the subject,† and that Return is now in course of preparation. It will include the information desired by the hon. Member with regard to Scotland.

Labourers in the Dublin Ordnance Stores—Rate of Pay.
MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that the labourers employed by the Dublin Ordnance Store Department receive 17s. per week, while the rate of
† See (4) Debates cxv., 505.

1347
pay for labourers in outside private firms is £11s. per week, he will consider the advisability of making the wages of labourers in the Ordnance Store similar to those paid at Haulbowline and other Government yards.
(Answered by Lord Stanley.) The wages paid by the War Department at Haulbowline and other Naval stations are equivalent to those paid by the Admiralty. As regards the Army Ordnance Department in Dublin, I have nothing to add to the reply given to a question put by the hon. Member on this subject on the 10th December last.†

Telegraphic Service—Underground Wires.
SIR JOHN LENG;To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience to merchants in Scotland from the interruption of telegraphic communication during the recent gales; and whether, seeing that this not only affects the Home service but also telegraphic communication with India and America, he will state how far the undergound wires have now been extended in the north of England; and whether the communication will be completed with Edinburgh and Glasgow during the present year.
(Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Yes, Sir. I have received brief reports on the extent and character of the breakdown of telegraphic communication in the storm of Friday last. I shall have the pleasure of receiving a deputation from the Chambers of Commerce on the subject of the underground cables tomorrow, and I shall then have an opportunity of explaining the position in greater detail than is possible within the limits of an answer to a Question in this House.

Omagh Post Office—Insufficient Staff.
MR. MURNAGHAN: To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the delay caused in doing business in Omagh at the post office by want of sufficient counter assistants, especially on fair and market days; and will he make inquiries into the matter with a view to providing more assistance.
† See (4) Debates, cxvi., 649.
1348
(Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No report showing that the counter staff at Omagh is inadequate has been received, but inquiry is being made on the subject, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

Foreign Office Questions in Parliament—Cost of Telegrams
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the approximate cost of telegrams sent from and received by the Foreign Office during the year ended. 31st December, 1902, to obtain and furnish information required for the purpose of Answers to Questions put by Members, of this House,
(Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I am afraid the separation of the cost of the telegrams to which my hon. friend refers from the total charge for telegrams would be a rather laborious process. Though, no doubt, it would amount to a substantial sum, yet, if it were limited to telegrams required for the information of hon. Members at question time, it would be small compared to the total Vote.

China—Railway Construction by the Pekin Syndicate.
MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken by the Government in support of the application of the Pekin Syndicate for the grant of the promised concession of the right to construct the railway from the Syndicate's mines in Honan to the Yangtsze River at Tukon.
(Answered by Lord Cranborne.) His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Pekin is in communication with the Agent of the Pekin Syndicate in China, and has made frequent representations to the Chinese Government in support of the Syndicate's application. Prince Ching informed Mr. Townley on the 21st ultimo that telegraphic instructions had been sent to the Director General of Railways to see the Agent of the Syndicate, and to negotiate in a friendly spirit.

Argentine Cattle Landed at Liverpool.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that Argentine cattle landed at Liverpool on Tuesday or Wednesday, 24th or 25th ultimo; and will he state their number, and whether they were shipped before the restrictions preventing them from landing in this country were removed.
(Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) No Argentine cattle have as yet been landed at Liverpool since the withdrawal of the Order prohibiting importation from the Argentine. The fact that animals had been shipped before the revocation Order was passed would not, as I am advised, prevent their being landed here subsequently to the removal of the prohibition, provided that all the requirements of the Foreign Animals Orders were satisfied. One cargo comprising 133 cattle and 2 calves thus shipped was landed at Deptford on the 23rd ultimo, and it may be to this cargo that the Question of the hon. Member refers.

Teachers in Irish National Schools.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of first class teachers at present employed in Irish national schools with an average attendance of less than, 50 pupils and the number of first class teachers at present employed in schools with an average of less than 70 pupils.
(Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There are 984 such teachers in schools with an average attendance of less than 50 pupils, and G2G in schools with an average attendance of between 50 and 70 pupils.

Land Purchase (Ireland) Return.
MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the promised legislation in relation to land tenure in Ireland, he will grant the Return relative to Land Purchase (Ireland) standing upon to-day's Notice Paper.
1350
(Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I have already stated that Returns are in preparation, and will be laid on the Table, containing information under a variety of heads on the subject of land purchase operations in Ireland. These Returns are necessarily statistical in form and will not give the names of the 74,000 tenant purchasers to whom advances have been made since the passing of the Irish Church Act of 1869.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Report on Army Recruiting.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the dates on which the General Return of the Army and the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting will be presented.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): As regards the General Return I have already explained to the House that its publication cannot be expected before April. The Recruiting Report will, I hope, be published by the end of this week.

  The Reserve.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: In asking the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return respecting Reservists which stands on the Paper, may I say I have received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman stating that certain portions of the Return cannot be given without undue labour. Will he grant it with those portions omitted?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, I will have it prepared in the amended form as soon as possible.

  Army Officers.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return standing on to-day's Paper relative to Army Officers (Removed, etc.).
  MR. BRODRICK: This Return, if extended to ten years, would require a great amount of research. I can give my hon. friend the information he

  1351
  requires for two years, but this would not include officers called on to resign who are numbered amongst voluntary retirements.
  COLONEL WELBY: Can we have it before the debate takes place next Wednesday?
  MR. BRODRICK: I will do my best, but I am being asked to give a number of Returns at very short notice.

  Ireland and the Volunteers.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of extending the Volunteer system to Ireland.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid I must refer my hon. friend to the replies previously given on this subject by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister.
  MR. SLOAN: What was the effect of the answer?
  No reply was returned.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: He is not a member of the Fourth Party.

  Army Discharges Certificates of Character.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether all defaulter sheets relating to troops serving in the South African War have yet been received by the War Office; and whether certificates of character can now be given to all soldiers of good conduct discharged from the Army.
  MR. BRODRICK: It would be impossible to answer this Question without calling for returns from all districts and units at home; and as no complaints on this subject are now being received it is probable that the men are duly receiving their certificates.

  Hong Kong Defences.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the question of fortifying the hills in the new territory on the Kow-
  1352
  loon side of Hong Kong has yet been considered by the Defence Committee; and will he say when the Committee last met.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information to add to that which I have already given the hon. Member on this subject in reply to previous Questions.†
  MR. WEIR: When did the Committee last meet?
  MR. BRODRICK: Three hours ago.

  Transfers from the Militia to the Army.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of men who have joined the Regular Army from the Militia during the last year; and whether these men are counted as recruits to the Regular Army as well as to the Militia in compiling the present effective land forces of the Crown.
  MR. BRODRICK: 18,379 Militiamen joined the Regular Army in 1902. They are counted as recruits on entering the Militia, and as recruits on entering the Regular Army; on the latter occasion they are at once struck off the effective strength of the Militia.

  Dingwall Barracks.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether provision will be made in the Estimates for the construction of barracks in the neighbourhood of Dingwall for the accommodation of the Ross-shire Militia.
  MR. BRODRICK: The reply is in the negative.
  MR. WEIR: It always is.

  The Death of Lieutenant Boyle.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the record and evidence in the trial of a Boer named Celliers for killing Lieutenant
  † See (4) Debates, cv., 823.

  1353
  Boyle, of the South African Constabulary, who had been taken prisoner at Wepener, will be sent home.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,, for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): I have no information on the subject, but Lord Milner will be asked if a report of the trial can be furnished.

  Naval Gunnery.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the fact that at their recent prize-firing competitions H.M.S. "Empress of India" scored 11 hits for 69 rounds fired, and H.M.S. "Formidable" 1 for 27; and whether he can explain these results.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): As I stated in an answer to the hon. Member for Caithness in December last, the attention of the Admiralty was called to the unsatisfactory nature of the prize firing in the "Empress of India." Attention has been called to the results on the "Formidable," which are also unsatisfactory, and special enquiry is being made into the circumstances in this case with a view to ascertaining the cause of the defective shooting, and whether it is in any degree attributable to defects in the gun sights.

  Engineer Officers in the Navy.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, have all the effects been considered of the changes in designation of rank proposed by the new scheme dealing with the training and employment of officers, and stated to be designed to harmonise the position of Engineer Officers with the spirit of the future organisation. Will one effect of it be that the Chief Inspector of Machinery at Jamaica dockyard will on the 1st April next become an Engineer Rear Admiral while the Captain Superintendent of the dockyard remains a Captain; will the new Rear Admiral cease to be responsible to the Captain for the machinery of the ships, and cease to report thereon to
  1354
  him and to take orders thereon from the Captain. Will the same arrangement as at Jamaica be carried out at all other dockyards where the same conditions obtain; and were the admirals in command on the various stations informed or consulted upon the new scheme before its adoption.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The effects of the changes in designation of rank have been fully considered, and all the orders connected therewith will be shortly issued in the usual form of an Admiralty circular. When this circular is published it will be seen that no such contingency will arise as that which is anticipated in the Question. There is no Chief Inspector of Machinery at Jamaica, or at any foreign dockyard. There was a Chief Inspector of Machinery at Bermuda, but he has been succeeded by an Inspector of Machinery. The First Lord sent a copy of his Memorandum at the time of issue to all the admirals in command of foreign stations. There was no necessity to consult them on the new scheme before its adoption, as the Board of Admiralty, from the nature of its constitution, is fully competent to act on its own initiative.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Was the copy of the Memorandum sent without any suggestion or expectation of replies being received.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Admiralty had the advantage of the opinions of a great many officers—flag officers and otherwise. I cannot add anything to my answer.

  United States and the Newfoundland Fisheries.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Convention between the United States and Newfoundland recently signed contains any fishery stipulations; and, if so, will he state their nature.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CRANBORNE,): There are no fishery stipulations in the Convention, unless the

  1355
  articles which give to United States fishing vessels the privilege of buying bait in Newfoundland water's, and provide for the disposal of the produce of Newfoundland fisheries in the United States, be considered in that light.

  Labour Colonies in Holland.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government will procure the latest information as to the working of the labour colonies in Holland, and furnish the same to Members of both Houses.
  LORD CRANBORNE: A Report on the present state of these Colonies in Holland and elsewhere on the Continent will be called for, and in due course will be laid before Parliament.

  British. East Africa Protectorate.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any general report on the British East Africa Protectorate has been received by the Foreign Office from the Chief Commissioner of that Protectorate later than the report presented to the House on 14th August, 1901; and, if so, will he explain why it has not been presented.
  LORD CRANBORNE: No general Report on the East Africa Protectorate later than that presented to the House on August 14th, 1901, has been received from His Majesty's Commissioner by the Foreign Office. As the hon. Gentleman, however, is aware, a trade Report by Mr. Marsden, for the year ending March 31st 1902, was laid before Parliament in September last year. A general Report has been called for, and will be laid when received.

  Aliens in British Prisons.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the return of foreigners in British prisons, which he is to present to the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, will include those who have adopted English or Scottish names and can speak English fluently; and how he proposes to obtain information as to their names and antecedents.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): If the persons referred to in the first paragraph of the Question were born abroad, the answer is in the affirmative. The country of birth is included in the particulars which are recorded as regards all prisoners.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask whether the police officers who are to give evidence before the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration are required to attend at the Home Office to rehearse their evidence before giving it to the Royal Commission.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Not that I am aware.

  London and North Western Railway—Re-housing of the Labouring Class.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can furnish information as to the legal proceedings taken by him against the London and North Western Railway in respect of their obligations to re-house persons of the labouring classes.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The proceedings which it was thought necessary to take against the London and North-Western Railway Company in order to obtain an authoritative settlement of the powers of the Secretary of State, which were disputed by the company, have involved considerable difficulties in arranging the preliminaries, and in the course of the negotiations the solicitor to the company died. I am now in active communication with the new solicitor, and matters are being pressed forward as rapidly as possible with a view to bringing the case to an early hearing.

  Government Officials before the Commission on Alien Immigration.
  MR. BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will explain why police officers who have given evidence before the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration were instructed to refrain from expressing

  1357
  any opinions, and that Mr. Herbert Evans, one of His Majesty's Assistant Inspectors of Factories, who also gave evidence, was allowed and even encouraged to express his opinions freely.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: It has long been the rule, for obvious reasons, that the police should, in giving evidence before Commissions or otherwise, confine themselves to statements of facts. The same considerations do not apply with equal force to Inspectors of Factories, and in the case in point it was not thought necessary to curtail the full statement which Mr. Evans made to the Commission of the results of his experience.

  Licensing Act—Internal Communication.
  MR. DAVID MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can take steps, in the Finance Bill or otherwise, to define the term internal communication occurring in Section 10 (1) of the Licensing Act, 1902, so that it shall not apply to the self-contained premises of wine and spirit merchants holding oil-licences and located in buildings in which other traders are carrying on their respective trades or business.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I have the point under consideration and am communicating with the Inland Revenue authorities, who, I understand, have interpreted the words of the statute in a sense which, whether right or wrong, does not, I believe, represent the intention of Parliament when passing the provision in question.

  Smallpox in Staffordshire Potteries.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of cases of smallpox that have occurred in the Staffordshire Potteries during the present outbreak; what hospital accommodation has been provided for them: and if there has been any overcrowding of smallpox patients.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): According to the information in my possession, there were,
  1358
  during the first two months of this year, fifty-nine cases of smallpox in the district referred to among a population of 262,500. The local authority for providing smallpox hospital accommodation are the North Staffordshire Joint Hospital Board. The Joint Board have only been recently constituted, but they have made temporary arrangements for accommodating smallpox cases and are treating the patients in some temporary iron pavilions. My attention has been called to statements in the local Press alleging overcrowding in the hospital, and I have directed one of the medical inspectors of the Department to visit the District and report on the subject.

  North Sea Fisheries.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the names of the vessels to be employed by Great Britain in the International Fisheries Investigation in the North Sea and their tonnage.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The vessels which will be employed by Great Britain in the International Fisheries Investigation are the S. S. "Huxley," 191 tons gross register, and the S. S. "Gold Seeker," 199 tons.

  Avoch Channel, Ross-shire.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in accordance with the promise given last year, provision will be made in the Estimates for the scheme under which four lighted buoys and one lighted beacon are to be fixed for the purpose of marking the channel off Avoch, Ross-shire.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In accordance with the promise given last year the scheme proposed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses for. lighting the channel off Avoch, Ross-shire, is being considered in connection with the Estimates for the coming financial year.

  National Food Supplies.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can grant the

  1359
  Return relative to food supplies standing on to day's Notice Paper.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the Question is in the affirmative.

  Ross-shire Roads.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what progress has been made with the construction of the proposed road between the townships of Achna haird and Altandhu, Ross-shire.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,: The necessary preliminaries with regard to the construction of this road were completed in December, and the Congested Districts Board are informed that the construction of the road has been commenced by the contractor.

  Scottish Fishery Cruiser "Garland."
  MR WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Scottish Fishery Board cruiser "Garland" has been sold, being too small and inefficient for scientific research, will he state what sum she realised; and will he state to what extent the Scottish Fishery Board will participate in the international scientific investigations in the North Sea, and what sum will be allocated to the Board for the purpose.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The "Garland" was sold for £550. The Fishery Board will participate in the international investigations to the extent of receiving one half of the whole amount available and superintend its expenditure.

  Essex Education Grant.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the county of Essex will have a deficit of sixpence in the pound, owing to delay in payment of grant, and a net rate of nine-pence, which, added to the sixpence, comes out to fifteen pence in the pound; and whether he can take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to relieve the ratepayers of this impost.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I have really nothing to add to my reply of Monday last to a similar Question addressed to me by the hon. Member for North Camberwell.† While not desiring either to dispute or to accept the figures given in the first part of the Question, I may say that I am aware of the existence of the difficulty; but the burden of this initial charge may be to a very large extent obviated by the arrangements which the Board of Education have made for the earlier payments of grants, and by the fact that a local authority may, if they desire, apply to the Local Government Board for permission to spread the charge over a period of years. It does not appear to be a matter to be dealt with by legislation.

  Education Act.
  MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he proposes to issue any regulations to the local education authorities, constituted by the Education Act, 1902, in reference to taking over the control and maintenance of public elementary schools, and to providing suitable accommodation in cases where the existing schools are not in good repair, or are not in a satisfactory condition, or are not suitable to the requirements of the district, or where the managers of such schools fail to comply with the requirements of the local education authority in these respects, prior to the date at which the schools should be taken over.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board of Education will very readily assist local authorities if requested to do so, with any information, as to the procedure of the Board on the subjects in question, which any local authority may desire to possess. The Board do not desire to issue regulations on any matters which are properly within the discretion of the local authority. As regards the last part of the Question, the local education authority will not be in a position to make any requirements prior to the appointed day.
  † See page 1098.

  Bournea Medical Officer.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the requirement of the Local Government Board that the medical officer of a dispensary district should reside within it, the Local Government Board will take steps to secure that the medical officer for the Bournea district of the Roscrea Union shall comply with this requirement.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The regulations require the medical officer to reside within the district unless the Board, on exceptional grounds, dispense with this condition. The medical officer in question was permitted to reside outside, but adjacent to his district, because it contained no suitable house or lodgings. No complaint has been received of any hardship on the sick poor by this arrangement.

  Irish Education Grant.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet come to any arrangement for the allocation of the equivalent grant due to elementary education in Ireland in consequence of the £1,300,000 voted to English schools under the Education Act of last session; and whether he will take steps to have this money granted immediately.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I expect shortly to make an announcement on this subject.

  Gun Licences in Ireland Case of William Maxwell.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that William Maxwell, Castleblaney, County Monaghan, has made several applications since 1899 for a gun licence and has been refused; and will he state on what grounds the licence is withheld.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Two applications were made. The resident magistrate is prepared to issue a licence to Maxwell
  1362
  under the Peace Preservation Acts, provided he obtains the necessary Inland. Revenue licence, but this he has refused to do.

  Limerick Artizans' Dwellings Loan.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say when may the County Borough Council of Limerick expect to receive the loan of £3,000 sanctioned by the Irish Local Government Board and also by the Board of Works for the building of artizans' dwellings at Fredrick Street, Limerick.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER,): During the negotiations for the loan a statement appeared in the press that the City Council of Limerick had struck a rate insufficient to meet the liabilities of the current year. The Board of Works thereupon requested the Council to furnish them with an explanation; and, when it proved unsatisfactory, declined to proceed with the loan. If the Council can submit information showing that the financial position of the city is now satisfactory, the Board will, of course, be ready to reconsider the question.

  Telegraphic Communication with Scotland-Damage by the Storm.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the breakdown of telegraphic and telephonic communication between England and Scotland in the storm of Friday last; and will he state for how long telegraphic communication was interrupted and delayed, and what steps he is taking to establish connection with Edinburgh and Glasgow by underground cables, or by other means not liable to interruption by the weather.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I have received brief reports on the extent and character of the breakdown of telegraphic communication in the storm of Friday last. I shall have the pleasure of receiving a deputation from the Chambers of Commerce on the sub-

  1363
  ject of the underground cables to-morrow, and I shall then have an opportunity of explaining the position in greater detail than is possible within the limits of an answer to a Question in this House.

  Defences of Gibraltar.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, have His Majesty's Government now considered the Report of Captain Tizard, R. N., and Mr. Shield, dated 20th June 1902, on the proposal to construct a harbour and dock on the eastern side of Gibraltar; if so, what decision has been arrived at, and what steps is it intended to take to carry out that decision?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The report of Captain Tizard has been considered, but the Government do not think that the great expenditure which is involved would bring with it any adequate result from the point of view of Imperial defence.
  In answer to a further Question by Mr. GIBSON BOWLES.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid: My hon. friend has no right to suppose that adequate security to Gibraltar would be secured by the harbour which he desires to see built.

  Vaccination Act.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will say what course the Government propose to take on the expiration of the present Vaccination Act; and whether legislation will be proposed this session to make revaccination generally compulsory.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The President of the Local Government Board proposes to renew the existing Act for this year, and to defer any further legislation on the subject to a future session.
  MR. GALLOWAY: Will the Act be renewed for only one year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Without pledging myself, I think that that will be the most convenient course.
  MR. COGHILL: Will the Act be renewed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a question of procedure on which I should not like to pronounce an opinion now.
  MR. COGHILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that there are serious outbreaks of smallpox in several large towns like Manchester and Liverpool?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware of it. Perhaps my hon. friend will put down any further Question?

  Housing of the Working Classes.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to introduce the Bill promised by the Government in relation to the Housing of the Working Classes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid it would be impossible to give a precise day for the introduction of the Bill, which is in course of preparation, but I hope that my right hon. friend will be able to introduce it on an early day.

  Taxation of Natives in South Africa.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before any increase is sanctioned by the Crown in the rates of taxation levied upon natives in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, opportunity will be given for a discussion of the subject in this House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I could not give any pledge on the subject.

  The Navy Estimates.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: When will the Navy Estimates be laid on the Table.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that these Estimates, with the statement of the First Lord, will be in the hands of hon. Members on Monday.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When is it proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That depends on the length of the discussion on the Army Estimates.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Have the Army Estimates yet been circulated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not yet.

  Business of the House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that the Speaker left the Chair last night because there was no business before the House, the First Lord of the Treasury will so arrange the business as to prevent this waste of time in future.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must congratulate the House upon the well-earned leisure they have obtained by not discussing the Supplementary Estimates at the length to which we have unfortunately been accustomed to have them discussed in years past. I think it may result in an advantage which we might often have if we curtailed our discussions on less important matters—the time to deal with a subject in which I know the House feels a deep interest. I propose to-morrow to give the House a chance of discussing the Committee of Defence, and I shall put down a Resolution to enable that Question to be raised.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman has any spare half-hours I have lots of things I can bring on.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I wish to make a personal explanation on the subject of the debate on the issue of a writ for Galway. The hon. Member for North Islington on that occasion read a telegram from me addressed to the electors of Galway; and instantly from recollection I challenged the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement, which was withdrawn. In vindication of my accuracy, I should like to read to the House the original cable message, which
  1366
  I have obtained, and this is the only communication I made to the electors, of Galway. It was as follows:—
  "November 17, Baltimore. Irish America keenly watching election, and trust Galway will strike a blow for Ireland by the triumphant return of Lynch."
  It will be seen that that is quite a different message from the one attributed to me by the hon. Member.

NEW BILLS,
  MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION BILL.
  "To remove certain doubts as to the meaning of The Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895," presented by Colonel Long: to be read a second time upon Wednesday 18th March, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]
  COUNTY COUNCILS (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  "To amend The Local Government Act, 1888, by empowering County Councils to promote Bills in Parliament," presented by Mr. Walter Long; supported by Mr. Grant Lawson; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
  MINISTRY OF COMMERCE BILL.
  "To reform, co-ordinate, and define our Commercial Administration and to create a Ministry of Commerce," presented by Mr. Louis Sinclair; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 18th March, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]
  SUPPLY [3rd MARCH].
  Resolutions reported:—
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1902-3.

    CLASS II,
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,016,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for sundry Colonial Services, including a Grant-in-Aid."
    First Resolution agreed to.
    Second Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid a financial issue of the utmost importance had been raised in the debate which took place on the previous day, by the explanations given on behalf of the Government, Grants-in-aid, though they might be familiar to some Members of the House, were altogether exceptional matters; they did not represent sums of money voted in the ordinary way to be expended by Imperial officials, and it was consequently the universal opinion of all who had studied finance that they should be jealously watched and greatly restricted. He had ventured to give evidence to that effect before the Committee on National Expenditure, and what he said was corroborated by Sir Edward Hamilton, who declared that the Treasury were fully alive to the importance of restricting grants-in-aid, he cordially agreed, he said, that they ought to be jealously criticised, because they were the means of withdrawing large sums from the control of Parliament. They were not subject to the Appropriation audit, and the Controller and Auditor General did not follow them out in the same sense as he did ordinary Votes. He was far from saying that grants-in-aid were always improper; on the contrary, he held that, in certain instances—notably that of the National Gallery—it was extremely convenient that money should be granted as an out and out gift not to be inquired into further, and that it should be left in the hands of the grantees to spend or save in a particular year as they thought fit. But still they ought, as Sir Edward Hamilton said, to be jealously restricted. Were they? In the year 1900-01 the total amount of the grants-in-aid was
    1368
    £1,600,000; last year it was £7,683,000, and in the current year they exceeded £12,000,000 sterling. Thus, instead of the grants-in-aid being restricted, they were being enormously exaggerated, and they had now reached a point when the House should most jealously watch any further increase of them. Having laid down the general principles which should apply to grants-in-aid, he now came to the consideration of this particular grant, which was for a sum of over £1,000,000 in aid of the local revenue of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. It professed, too, to be supplementary to the original Estimate. In accordance with the financial practice of the country, the Vote was for money to come into course of payment during the current year, so that if at the end any surplus remained, it was automatically transferred to the Commissioners for the payment of the National Debt.
    He understood that it would not be in order for him to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000,000—although he would be able to prove that the with holding of that sum would not cause any public inconvenience. He wished to point out, however, that with respect to every Department of the public service, in spite of the enormously increased expenditure, the greatest laxity was observable nowadays in regard to all financial safeguards. The Sinking Fund had recently been raided, and altogether a sum of £32,000,000, double Mr. Pitt's revenue, now practically escaped the control of the House of: Commons. This was, therefore, a very I serious matter. As he had pointed out, the Vote should be to defray charges coming into course of payment during the current financial year, but on the preceding day it was admitted that it was not a grant-in-aid of the Transvaal at all, and that it was not to be expended this year. These were his two objections to the Vote. It was admitted, on behalf of the Government, that it was an Imperial grant for the maintenance of the South African police—a force raised while the war was going on—and that the sum could not be properly charged to the colonies, which did not require the services of that force. The men were, in fact, remnants of the war, and as the money was required to compensate them, now that their services were no longer

    1369
    required, the Vote was really a grant-in-aid to the Government; it was an Imperial and not in any sense a colonial charge.
    Then, again, it sinned against the rule of the House that the money was to he spent in the course of the current year. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that it would not be so spent, and that, it there were any balance unexpended at the end of the present financial year, it would not be surrendered but would be available for next year; although, when the whole transaction was completed, the unspent balance would then be handed over. But the right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong when he suggested that there was any provision for surrender when the transaction was finally closed. There was no such provision in any Act of Parliament, or in any order of the House. Having shown, as he thought he had done, that this Vote was not really a grant-in-aid of the Transvaal, but that it was a grant-in-aid of war expenses incurred by the Government, and having further shown that it was not asked for in order to meet expenditure during the present financial year, but partly, at any rate, for expenses to be incurred during the succeeding financial year, it sinned against all sound financial canons which ought to influence the conduct of the House, and he ventured to express a hope that the Government would not persist in pressing the Vote. He suggested, on the contrary, that they should withdraw £1,000,000 of it, and be content with the remaining £16,000. The public service would not in the least suffer by their so doing, as, if the money were required for next year, it could easily be included in the Estimates for that year. It was pretty clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already got the million in his pocket, or he would not allow the Government to put forward that Supplementary Estimate. What would happen if the Vote were withdrawn? The money would go in reduction of the National Debt, and that was precisely where it ought to go. He appealed to the Government, in deference to the feeling displayed by hon. Members on the Government Benches on the
    1370
    preceding night in regard to that Vote, to withdraw it, as he, for one, did not wish that they should have again to go into the Lobby against the Ministers.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): As the hon. Member says he is anxious to support the Government, I hope, when he has heard the statement I have to make he will find himself at liberty to do so. I was rather anxious to speak before him, because, in answering a question put to me yesterday, I was led into making a statement which was not quite correct—a statement to which he has just alluded—and I desired that he should be in possession of my correction before he spoke. I think it will he for the convenience of the House if I recapitulate briefly the circumstances out of which this Vote arose. Let me say first that no one on these Benches will dispute the views expressed by the Treasury witnesses before the National Expenditure Committee, that grants-in-aid should he carefully watched and should not be too readily resorted to. What are the circumstances of this particular grant-in-aid, which have led the Government to think it justifiable and necessary? During the progress of the war in South Africa, we decided to raise a force of constabulary for service in the new colonies. When the sums to he raised were under discussion, Lord Milner was of opinion that the number of men required for policing the colonies would he 6,000 men. Lord Roberts, on the other hand, held as strongly that as many as 10,000 men would be required; and after some discussion it was finally agreed that 10,000 should be raised, 4,000 of whom might he employed, if necessary, in relieving the military forces which would otherwise have to be sent out, on the understanding that no expense for these 4,000 men would fall on the colonies. The cost of these 4,000 men has been, from time to time, provided for by sums of money voted by this House. To make myself perfectly clear, I had better just say that the House will understand that the first 6,000 men were regarded as the constabulary of the colonies and are to be charged on the funds of these colonies. What we are dealing with is

    1371
    the 4,000 men raised in excess of the requirements of the ordinary police. The original Estimates of this year contained provision for the payment of these 4,000 men up to the close of the Transvaal financial year, in June. Then arose the questions whether it was necessary to maintain that force longer, how quickly such part of it as was not required for policing purposes could be dispensed with, and who was to bear the expenditure incurred until the men were dispersed. After full communication with Lord Milner, the Government were satisfied that these 4,000men would not be required as part of the permanent police force, and in accordance with the conditions on which they were raised, it was agreed to ask Parliament for the necessary money to pay their expense. The necessary information was not in our hands when the original Estimates were prepared, and therefore we were not able to make full provision for the cost of these men at the time. But when the Budget was before the House, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that he had to provide for a further expenditure of £750,000 not yet voted, on account of these constabulary, and in order to pay that expense up to 31st March next. That was the position at the time the Budget was passed. The £750,000 which was budgeted for by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is part of the £1,000,000 the Committee is now asked to vote. It has become apparent that it will not be possible to disband the whole of these 4,000 men before the 31st of this month, the close of the financial year. Very well, then, some arrangement had to be come to as to how much of the cost would remain open into the next financial year, in the event of the whole 4,000 men not being meantime disbanded. The Government had already admitted that these 4,000 men, having been raised, as Lord Milner pointed out, not for colonial police purposes, but for Imperial reasons, were a proper Imperial charge, and thus we ought not to throw on the colonics any expense in connection with them.
    Then the question arose what exactly the expenditure would be, and how it would be provided. Lord Milner's decision was that the expenditure, in addition to the £750,000 included in last year's Budget, would amount to at least £350,000 more, making a total of £1,100,000. His
    1372
    Majesty's Government did not accept these figures, and some correspondence ensued as to exactly what the cost of these 4,000 men, or so many of them as remained, would be, what economies could be effected, and how the men could be more speedily got rid of. Finally Lord Milner offered, on behalf of the colonies, that if we would vote a lump sum of £1,000,000, payable before the 1st April, he would take that lump sum in discharge of all liabilities. It was the opinion of Lord Milner that the £1,000,000 would not cover the whole expense of the force, but in order to obtain an immediate settlement between the Colonial Treasury and the Imperial Government, he accepted the offer which His. Majesty's Government made. This is the only point on which I was inaccurate yesterday. It arose out of a question of the Member for Lambeth. This payment of £1,000,000, inclusive of the £750,000 budgeted for by the late Chancellor of the Ex chequer—the major portion of which has been already expended by the colonies—is a grant-in-aid of the colonial revenue in full discharge of all liabilities which would have fallen on His Majesty's Government in respect of the 4,000 men, and is not subject to the surrender of any balance if there be one.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this £750,000, although budgeted for by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, has never yet been voted, that there has been no Ways and Means for it, that it was not provided ' for in the Supplementary Estimates of last November, and that it was left to February of this year to make up the Vote required?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon. friend correctly understands what I said. It was not included in the original Estimates of the year, because these were prepared before the figures were arrived at; and it was not on the Supplementary Estimates in November last, because the adjustment of liability had also not then been arrived at. This £750,000 is now included in. the £1,000,000, and this £1,000,000 was offered by His Majesty's Government as a cash payment in discharge of all liabilities, and was accepted as such by Lord Milner, so that even if his anticipations

    1373
    were fulfilled, and this sum should not be sufficient to meet the full charges in favour of these men, who have been discharged as rapidly as possible, there still would be no further claim upon us. The one mistake I made yesterday was in respect to the possibility of the surrender of the balance. I ought to have made myself acquainted with the whole of the correspondence, but the House will appreciate the difficulty under which I am working in this matter. I had not seen the closing letters of the correspondence, and was not then informed of the nature of the bargain come to, and that it was a final and definite settlement of all liabilities that had accrued or might accrue. Therefore no additional Vote would be asked for even if the expenses of maintaining these 4,000 men are exceeded, or, what is much less probable, of a saving being made. If the House understands the position as I have now explained it, they will see that a large portion of the speech of my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, is not applicable to the situation I have expounded. My hon. friend complains that we were providing for a grant-in-aid in this way, for an expenditure that would only become due by us next year. That is not so. In essence, instead of this bargain being left open till next year, a cash payment would be made this year in settlement of all our liabilities. I hope that my hon. friend will now feel assured that no financial irregularities are being committed, and that he will find it in his power, as he always does, to support the Government on the present occasion.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had thrown a very different complexion on this matter from that presented when they were discussing it in Committee of Supply. He was quite sure that nobody blamed the right hon. Gentleman for not being then in possession of all the facts. The right hon. Gentleman, in addition to his labours as Postmaster General, was very ably carrying on the work of the Colonial Secretary, and it was not his business to know either the Colonial Office or the Treasury point of view. But there was a representative of the Treasury in the House on the previous day, and he must say that in the whole course of his
    1374
    Parliamentary life, now extending over many years, he had never known of a question discussed when the Member responsible for the Department concerned was present, and when that Member did not speak on a question regarding his Department, but allowed the Committee to get into a fog without affording any light or leading on it. They acquitted the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, but they did not acquit the Secretary to the Treasury for not putting the Committee in the possession of the most elementary information. Apart from the Secretary to the Treasury, he had listened with care and interest to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and his explanation in regard to the policy of the Government was quite clear. There were a certain number of constabulary which the War Office thought ought to be kept in excess of those approved by Lord Milner, and the Government, in their discretion, disagreeing with Lord Milner, said that 4,000 of the constabulary were to be kept at the expense of the Imperial Government. The question before the House that afternoon was not that of bargaining with Lord Milner, but of a grant to the War Office for the services of these 4,000 men. Now they were told that the Government had made a speculation on the matter. The Government thought that £750,000 was enough, while the Transvaal Government thought it should be rather more, and that if the Government gave them £1,000,000 they might make a profit out of it, and that if so that would be to their advantage: if they made a loss they would have to stand the racket. He did not think that was the basis upon which their financial position ought to be put.
    Apart from the question of the laxity to which the hon. Member for King's Lynn had referred, it did not seem to most Members of the House that they ought to lose the present very slight control which they exercised over the different Government Departments. Under the Vote as it was presented to the Committee this afternoon, their control had entirely disappeared, and, as far as he was concerned, their position had not been improved from a financial point of view by the

    1375
    statement which had been made. As the hon. Member for King's Lynn had pointed out, although this Vote was called a grant-in-aid to the Transvaal, really the Transvaal had nothing to do with it. At all events, it was entirely outside and different to any other grant-in-aid which this House had been asked to consent to, and he did not think it was to the advantage of their financial position that such a Vote should be put practically out of the power of the Committee to express any opinion in regard to it. He did not think that in a matter representing such a large sum, upon which there had already been two or three miscalculations, it was quite right that they should make a gamble. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Oldham that a great deal might legitimately be said in favour of giving these men bonuses, or inducing them to leave at an earlier period. If they were to vote this £1,000,000, was it not possible that the Transvaal Government might carry out some such policy as that, and make £200,000 or £300,000 out of money which was intended to relieve the military forces? On the ground that the House should not part with its financial control, and because he was dissatisfied with the information, he should certainly support the proposal which had been made.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER,)said he could not allow the hon. Member for Poplar to say that he had neglected his duty either to the Treasury or to the House of Commons. It had been said that he had not made the best bargain for the taxpayers of the country. He had watched these proceedings throughout the winter, and his very last act, which was negotiated by cablegram, was to tell Lord Milner that he considered that £98,000 ought to come off his demands. He went most carefully into the figures, and he did not accept the original demand which was made upon the Treasury, but he had reduced it by £98,000. He was convinced that, taking all things into consideration, they had made a good bargain for themselves. His right hon. friend the Postmaster
    1376
    General was representing, under very great difficulties, the Colonial Office in addition to his other office, and he was in charge of this Vote. He supposed that his right hon. friend had been properly briefed in regard to the Vote, and he listened to his case, and in the whole of his original speech he could find no fault whatever. He believed his right hon. friend accurately stated the case, and it was only in the course of the examination by questions that he afterwards discovered that his right hon. friend had a different view from his own as to the result of the negotiations between the Colonial Office and Lord Milner on the one hand and the Treasury on the other. His right hon. friend was a distinguished financial authority and a, member of the Cabinet, and it was just possible that, at the last moment, a modification of the arrangement might have been made at the Colonial Office. However, he ventured to tell the Postmaster General that his view was not correct, and that what had happened was that a bargain had been struck between the Treasury and the Colonial Office, and that an examination of the documents would prove this and show that if any economies were made in South Africa they would not accrue to the benefit of the British Exchequer. He told his right hon. friend that after looking at the documents he would probably find that his interpretation was the right one, and that it was a bargain; and if that were so they could put it all right on Report. Had there been no Report stage, he should have felt bound to inform the House, but the advantage of a Report stage was that those in charge of Departments could go back and, after obtaining official knowledge, give it to the House so as to enable hon. Members to form a more correct estimate of the facts. That was his explanation. He never wished to deceive the House, and he wished to give hon. Members all the information in his power.
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDONwished to know how the expenditure out of this grant was to become subject to the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    MR. COHENsaid he thought this discussion had been a satisfactory one. The Postmaster General, in the explanation he had just placed before the House, acknowledged that they were left under a false or mistaken impression. He thought the Committee was indebted to the Postmaster General for the clear statement he had made with regard to a transaction which unquestionably did require explanation, and the House might congratulate itself that this discussion would be attended with satisfactory results. The House should uphold with the greatest possible care those sound canons of finance upon which the whole financial system of the country and our financial credit must, under all circumstances, depend.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid in this matter the House had been treated to a rare exhibition of political morality. The House had voted under a misapprehension owing to a right hon. Gentleman a Member of the Cabinet having quite unconsciously fallen into an error, and the hon. Gentleman who was the Secretary to the Treasury, who was bound to give his best abilities to the Treasury, was aware of the error and did not correct it. It was scarcely
    respectful to the House to pass a Vote in this manner and compel them to correct it on Report. The Postmaster General had been burdened with a duty which did not properly belong to him, and could not be expected not to fall into an error, but it was the bounden duty of anyone who undertook a public duty to give all his time to that duty, and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury should have attended to his Treasury duties instead of the business of his public companies. Only recently, on the hon. Gentleman's re-appointment as a director of one company in which he was interested; he promised to give his whole time to the company.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that, although the hon. Member's remarks might be legitimate on another occasion, they were certainly not on this.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would certainly not proceed further today after Mr. Speaker's ruling, but he would renew his attack on another occasion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 15.)

    AYES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Wore

    Flower, Ernest

    Aird, Sir John

    Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

    Forster, Henry William

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Garfit, William

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Allans

    Arrol, Sir William

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

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

    Atkinson. Right Hon. John

    Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Gore, Hon G R C Ormsby- (Salop

    Austin, Sir John

    Craig, Charles C. (Antrim, S.)

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

    Bagot, Cant. Josceline FitzRoy

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Guest, Don. Ivor Churchill

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Dairymple, Sir Charles

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Haslett. Sir James Horner

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Alters

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Hermon-Dodge, Sir Robert T.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Bignold, Arthur

    Dyke, Rt. Hun. Sir Wm. Hart

    Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Hope, J. F. (Sheff, B'tside)

    Brassey, Albert

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

    Hoult, Joseph

    Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehursf

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Jeffreys, Rt Hn. Arthur Fred

    Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

    Fisher, William Haves

    Johnstone, Heywood

    Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fison, Frederick William

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    kimber, Henry

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Percy, Earl

    Smith, James Parker(Lanarks

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

    Lawson, John Grant

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Spear, John Ward

    Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Purvis, Robert

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Randles, John S.

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Talbot, Rt Hn.JG.(Oxf'd Univ.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Renwick, George

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Valentia, Viscount

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Vincent,Col.SirCEH.(Sheffield

    M'Killop,James(Stirlingshire)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Welby, Sir Charles G E. (Notts.

    Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

    Mitchell, William

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Sackville, Sir S. G. Stopford-

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    TELLERS FOE THE AYES—

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Simeon, Sir Harrington

    Sir Alexander Acland-

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    Rea, Russell

    Barry. E. (Cork, S.)

    Gilhooly, James

    Reddy, M.

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Bell, Richard

    Hammond, John

    Rigg, Richard

    Blake, Edward

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundeee)

    Boland, John

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Joicey, Sir James

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Bryce, Right Hon. James

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Shackleton, David James

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Joyce, Michael

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Burns, John

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Burt, Thomas

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Levy, Maurice

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Caine, William Sproston

    Lough, Thomas

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. Rt. (Northants

    Caldwell, James

    Lundon, W.

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Cameron, Robert

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Causton, Richard Knight

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    M'Govern, T.

    Toulmin, George

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    M'Kean, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Wallace, Robert

    Crumble, John William

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Cullinan, J.

    Mooney, John J.

    Warner Thomas Courtenay T.

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Murphy, John

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Delany, William

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mill.)

    Edwards, Frank

    O'Dowd, John

    Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Ffrench, Peter

    Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

    Sir Joseph Leese and Mr.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Partington, Oswald

    Charles Hobhouse.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Resolution agreed to.

    ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE 1902-3.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for Expenditure in excess of that provided for in the original Army Estimates for the year for the Pay, etc., of the Army."
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that he understood the Government to say yesterday that the expenditure in the present financial year in connection with the Somaliland Expedition would he about £250,000. There was often a great difference between the amount coming into course of payment in the financial year and the amount known to the Government to have been actually expended. He therefore desired to ask whether the Government had formed any idea of the amount of expenditure on Somaliland incurred in the present financial year, but which would not conic into course of payment until next year. From information he had received, he imagined the Government must know that the expenditure already greatly exceeded the £250,000 referred to yesterday.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said that when they were dealing with the Indian Government in the matter of supplying troops and incurred expenditure, it was rather difficult, as the right hon. Baronet had suggested, to frame an accurate estimate, but the general estimate for the expedition, on the basis that it would last not longer than four months, was between £500,000 and £600,000. About £250,000 would become payable before 31st March, but some expenditure had no doubt been incurred which would appear in the Estimates to be circulated to-morrow.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEunderstood that £75,000 had already been paid in connection with the expedition, and that a further £185.000 would be expended before 31st March, and that in the estimates of money to be expended after 31st March would appear a further sum of about £500,000.
    MR. BRODRICK: £250.000.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that that would not make up the original estimate of £500,000 or £600,000.
    MR. BRODRICKpointed out that the first estimate was £250,000, and there was a previous sum of £250,000 taken by the Foreign Office which did not come into this account, but would appear in the Estimates to be presented to-morrow. Those two items made up the £500,000.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsupposed that if the operation lasted longer than four months the amount required would largely exceed the estimated £500,000 or £600,000.
    MR. BRODRICK: If the expedition lasts for a longer period a further sum will be required, but we have no reason to expect that it will last considerably longer.
    MR. WEIR, referred to the apppropriations in aid, consisting of proceeds of sale of cast and other animals, supplies and stores, and asked whether the sales had been by public auction or by private treaty.

    NAVAL RESERVE FORCES
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,), in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Naval Reserve Forces, said: The Bill is the result of the deliberations of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick, and its objects are two-fold. First, to introduce a new principle into the practice of the enlistment of men for the Royal Navy proper, and secondly, to create a new reserve of men of which we have not yet had the advantage. The Committee which considered this question and on whose recommendations, the Bill was based, was a. very strong Committee, composed of naval officers, civil officials, and civilians interested in the subject, and the Bill will have the advantage of representing the views of over 100 Members of this House who were the signatories of a memorial in favour

    1383
    of the objects which the Bill is intended to carry out.
    The Bill has three parts. The first part extends the power of employing non-continuous rating in the Navy: that is to say, it gives power to enter men in the Navy under an engagement to serve for a period not exceeding twelve years on the condition that after a given period of service in the Royal Navy they shall be liable to serve for the remainder of the term of their engagement in the Royal Fleet Reserve. The second part, with which I am sure ail hon. Members will agree, enables us to remove the limit which at present exists to the numbers of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Fleet Reserve. We are now limited to 30,000 in the Royal Naval Reserve, and 15,000 in Class B of the Royal Fleet Reserve. As we have now nearly reached the limit in the case of the Royal Naval Reserve we ask leave to extend the limit. The third part of the Bill enables us to enrol Royal Naval Volunteers to serve as blue-jackets, and also Royal Marine Volunteers in connection with the corps of Royal Marines. The latter will be enrolled under the Volunteer Act of 1863, with this difference, that the Admiralty will, for all the purposes of this Act, take the place of the Secretary of State.
    There is only one other matter of principle to which I need refer, but it is a very important one. In pursuance of the unanimous recommendation of the Committee, the Bill proposes that Volunteers enrolled under this Act shall be liable for service in time of war in any part of the world.
    If the House permits the First Reading to be taken now, the Bill will, I hope, be printed to-night and circulated immediately. It is important that the Bill should pass through its stages as soon as possible, in view of the fact that there are large Committees throughout the United Kingdom, ready to take advantage of the provisions of the measure and enlist Volunteers, provided the House of Commons think fit to sanction its passage.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked whether the proposed increase of the limit with regard to the Royal Naval Reserve was indefinite,
    1384
    and whether the Bill would have any financial effect rendering an Estimate necessary.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the limit in each case would be regulated by the Vote of the House of Commons. It was not proposed to fix an arbitrary limit, but one which could be altered by the House in every annual Vote. An estimate had been made of the financial effect of the Bill, provided the anticipations of the Admiralty as to the number of men they were likely to raise during the year were realised. He would be happy to place the estimate before the House.
    "Bill to provide for the Constitution of a Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and a Force of Royal Marine Volunteers, and otherwise amend the Law relating to His Majesty's Naval Forces; ordered to be brought in by Mr Arnold-Forster and Mr. Pretyman.

    NAVAL FORCES BILL.
    "To provide for the Constitution of a Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and a Force of Royal Marine Volunteers, and otherwise amend the Law relating to His Majesty's Naval Forces," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,: I think there is no need for me to bespeak the favourable consideration of the House for the measure which I now ask leave to introduce, and I feel sure that the House has always given me so much indulgence personally that I do not need to ask for that. Not only has popular opinion been for a long time at one in Scotland that the time has come for a measure dealing with the amendment of the licensing laws, but, as hon. Members are well aware, during the past few years there has been a most painstaking investigation by a Royal Commission, which has presented voluminous reports with which hon. Members are familiar owing to the discussions in this House last year. More than that, there has also been the

  1385
  English Act of last session. That I may speak of now, not merely as a legislative effort, but as an Act which has actually been proved by its working. Short though the time has been, and premature as it probably would be to express an opinion as to its eventual work, yet I believe I am saying what is in accordance with the experience of many, that the expectations founded upon that Act have been more than fulfilled, and that even at this very early period great substantial advantages have been reaped from the working of that statute. That being so, it will certainly not excite surprise in the House if I say that we have begun matters in the Bill I now ask leave to introduce by practically incorporating the English Act of last session, incorporating it, of course, so far as that Act is adaptable to Scotland.
  Hon. Members will perhaps remember that the Act of last session is divided into three parts, which are entitled The Amendment of the Law as to Drunkenness, The Amendment of the Licensing Laws, and The Legislation of Clubs. So far as the first part is concerned, practically we have incorporated the whole of it, with the exception of one provision dealing with the protection of wives or husbands. We have not incorporated that, not because we are not in sympathy with the proposal, but because in the present state of the law in Scotland it would be practically impossible to incorporate it, and there would have to be further alterations in the summary jurisdiction law before we could possibly incorporate that section of the English Act as it stands. But we have not stopped there, because we have, besides the sections we have taken from 'the English Act, introduced several other provisions founded on what I may call our own Scottish experience. The Borough Police Act of 1892 was, as Scottish Members will remember, a very long and carefully-considered measure, and a measure of which we have had due experience as to its working. There are several provisions in that Act with reference to the law as to drunkenness, and we propose to make them part of the general law, and therefore, of course, applicable to all parts of Scotland, and not only to the boroughs to
  1386
  which the Act applied. We also propose to meet an abuse brought to light in the course of a decision as to which there is a very strong feeling in Scotland, and which is connected with that well-known person, the bonâ fide traveller. There was a decision in Scotland in which it was held that the bonâ fide traveller might give drink to all and sundry although they were not bonâ fide travellers at all. That we intend to strike at, and we propose to remedy it by confining the bund fide traveller's drinking to himself.
  We also propose to introduce another provision, which, I think, will commend itself to the House. Undoubtedly there has been great abuse in connection with the freedom which grocers have of sending liquor into the country by means of travelling vans. I need scarcely say we do not propose to alter the law in the way some people would like to see it altered. We do not propose to touch the question of grocers' licences, but we propose to make some very stringent regulations as to the conditions under which grocers are to be allowed to send out liquor to the country in these travelling vans. Practically it amounts to this—that no van is to be allowed to carry liquor which is not entered in a pass-book, and for which, on inquiry being made, it can be shown that a regular order was given. Persons in the country who choose to order liquor from grocers in the ordinary way are entitled to have it delivered; but I think the provision will effectually check a thing which is too common of grocers' vans being really travelling public houses. That ends the part of the Bill which is equivalent to Part I of the English Act. The second part of the English Act is entitled the Amendment of the Licensing Laws, and we have practically adopted nearly the whole of that part of the Act except a few sections technical in their character and not applicable to the particular circumstances of Scotland—not applicable, not on their merits, but because they would involve a form of procedure which is not germane to Scottish law. The practical result of that, among other things, will be to give the licensing authority complete control over structural premises which it had not before; and,

  1387
  besides that, in this Amendment of the Licensing Law we are adding a provision which I think is not only good in itself, but which is very much needed in the present state of custom in Scotland.
  We are adding a very liberal provision as to the power of the licensing authority to pass by-laws dealing with various things connected with the selling of liquor, and these by-laws will, of course, have to be confirmed by a central authority, namely, the Secretary for Scotland, before assuming the power of law. This is particularly necessary in Scotland, because in the last few years there has crept in a practice, although I am sure it was well meant, but which seems, in my humble judgment, to be illegal and, I think, to be deprecated, that is, that when magistrates in towns wish public houses to be closed, for instance, on New Year's Day—a very commendable wish—and not having power of law to say so, they issue through the Chief Constable what they euphemistically term a recommendation, and any publican who does not say that he will be glad to conform to such a regulation refuses with the halter round his neck, and in the belief that his licence will be refused. That is quite wrong and illegal, because magistrates are bound to give a judicial determination as to whether a licence is wanted or not, and they have no power to act on a recommendation not sanctioned by law. But under a system of by-laws it would be perfectly possible for magistrates to pass a by law that public-houses should be closed on New Year's Day; and assuming it received confirmation, which in that particular case I assume it would, then the whole thing would be done properly and above-board, and there would not be the present system of illegal recommendations. That exhausts what is equivalent to Part 2 of the English Act.
  Part 3 of the English Act deals with clubs. In the matter of clubs I remember being struck at the time of the discussion on the English Bill, which I had an opportunity of hearing, to find that the Scottish and English Bills could not be altogether the same. The truth is that the existence of the bond-fide working men's club is much more widespread in England than in Scotland. I do not say
  1388
  that it does not exist in Scotland, but it is not very common. On the other hand, the difficulty connected with the bogus club is much more common in Scotland than in England, and accordingly we have not taken precisely the same remedy as has been taken in England. Our remedy, if anything, is rather more stringent than the remedy in the English Act. We proceed, of course, by way of registration; and we make the selling of liquor in any unregistered club an offence, as it is in England. But we proceed rather differently in the matter of registration. We make it a judicial matter, not a discretionary matter. That is to say, any club is to be entitled to be registered; it is not to be like granting a licence to a public house, where the magistrates can refuse or not. But in order to be entitled to registration, the club must be bound by certain conditions, and the sheriff is to be the judge as to whether these conditions have been complied with or not. The conditions impose no burden whatever on any bond fide club, whatever the social scale of that club may be, but they all come to the same end, namely to secure that the club is a genuine club, and not a mere drinking shop where liquor is sold under the pretext of a club. There is to be no election of members without a proper period—a certain number of days during which the names are posted on the walls of the club-house. In fact, it is to be in complete contradistinction of a case in which I was engaged for the Excise authorities—it was the last thing I did in Scotland before I came up to this House—in which, although no doubt the forms of election were duly gone through, we discovered in the course of cross-examination that the man who proposed far more people than anybody else was the waiter. That exhausts that portion of the subject.
  I may now say in a word that we have embodied the English Bill, and we have made certain additions to it to meet our own requirements. But we have not stopped there. So far I have trodden completely on ground which was common to England. We have thought it better in the interests of what we believe to be public opinion in Scotland to go somewhat farther and to grapple with the question of the licensing authority itself. May I remind the House that, in Scotland, although no doubt the subject has always

  1389
  been attended with considerable difficulty, we may congratulate ourselves that we have not had so many difficulties as they have had in England. We have never had any case of Sharpe v. Wake field in Scotland, for the simple reason that we never doubted the power of the law. But may I say also that I do not think we could express in any better words, if as good, what we consider to be the law than the words in which the Lord Chancellor expressed the judgment in the cast; of Sharpe v. Wakefield as to the way in which the discretion of the licensing authority should be exercised. I do not repeat it to the House. The House will remember that it was repeated a few days ago in answer to a question which was put. But there has been a feeling in Scotland that there was something still to be said upon the constitution of the licensing courts, because in truth the constitution of the licensing authority of first instance has been inconsistent, and the constitution of the Appeal Court of the licensing authority has been unpractical and unworkable.
  Just let me remind the House and perhaps I may be listened to by some who are not Scotch Members what the Scotch system is at present. In all Royal burghs the licensing authority of first instance are the magistrates of the burgh. The appeal from those magistrates is to the County Justices sitting in Quarter Sessions. In the counties the licensing authority is practically the same as in England, that is to say, it is the Justices sitting in Petty Sessions, and with an appeal to the Justices sitting in Quarter Sessions. I think that bears out what I said that the court of first instance in its constitution is inconsistent, because in the burghs you have a body that is purely elective, while in the counties you have a body that is purely non-elective. There is a good deal to be said for both, but there is no particular reason why it should be different in counties and in burghs. Then the Appeal Court, as I have said, is unpractical and unworkable, but not always. Those hon. Members who come from Lanarkshire, of whom there are many here, will remember, especially in recent years, the extraordinary scenes—they can he called
  1390
  nothing else—at the Appeal Court of the Justices in Quarter Sessions, where so many attended that they had practically almost to stand in the street, and the numbers were such as to make any judicial examination of the matter practically impossible, complicated as it was by the provision of the statute which declares that only the votes of those present shall be counted.
  Besides that there is another curious anomaly which everyone felt ought to be done away with. I have mentioned that the Appeal Court in the Royal burghs are the magistrates. The Royal burghs are those which enjoy a charter from the King, but no Royal burghs have been created for many years, and practically, the fact of the matter is that all those Royal burghs are very old creations indeed. On the other hand, the Scotch Burgh system, under what is known as the Burgh Police Act, has grown and flourished, and the whole of Scotland, as everybody knows, is dotted over with burghs, many of which have grown to a very large size and taken a great part in the life of the country. They have no licensing authority, and accordingly you come to the extraordinary result that, for instance, the burgh of Culross, with a population of 348, has a licensing authority, whereas the police burgh of Govan, with a population of 82,000, has not. I think everyone will agree that that state of matters should not continue, and that really the distinction between Royal and other burghs, which is a purely historical one, ought to be done away with in a practical matter of this kind. Of course, it is quite obvious you must go by some population limit, and whenever you come to a population limit obviously your line must be an arbitrary one. I do not claim that the figure I am going to say has any divine institution, but we have taken what we believe to be, in the whole circumstances of the case, the best figure we could take. We have taken the figure of 7,000. It is not a new limit. It is the figure already under the provisions of the Local Government Act, for instance, by which no burgh under 7,000 population can have a separate police force. It is the limit for the exercise of the Contagious Diseases Act, and I think it is also mentioned in some other pro-

  1391
  visions. At any rate it is a familiar figure. We propose, therefore, that for the future, burghs which are under 7,000 population are simply to be treated as parts of the counties to which they belong. On the other hand, all burghs above the 7,000 limit are still to have the burgh legislation. [An HON. MEMBER: What about Royal burghs?] We take away the powers of some of them in this matter. I think that no doubt some of them may not like this, but, on the other hand, I cannot see that a burgh with a population of 328 has any right to have a separate licensing authority, and if you are going in the one direction, I think you must go in the other.
  We propose to give to the County Councils a power to divide counties, if they choose, into districts. I may mention this. Of course under the present law they have practically divided the counties into districts. Though a Justice of the Peace is for the whole county, still, as a matter of fact, counties have been practically divided into districts for the purpose of holding courts. It is only a little matter of convenience, for I take it to be a legal right that any Justice of the Peace may, if he chooses, go to any court in the county. We only impose one limitation in connection with the division of a county into districts, namely, that they must take either one, or more than one, of the local government districts. The local government districts, as hon. Members who are familiar with Scotch legislation know, are districts under the 1889 Act, and are for the various purposes of the public health authority and the road authority. They may either take one of these districts, or, if they choose, they may make a licensing district of an aggregate of more than one district, but they are not to take other burghs. That is a consideration that will appeal to the House. There is nothing more troublesome than having different demarcation lines, and it is far better, if they are to divide, that they should take the existing divisions, which are pretty well known. Well, the county having been divided into districts, or left undivided as the County Council chooses, we propose that the licensing authority should consist of one-third of County Councillors and two-thirds of Justices.
  1392
  We propose that the actual numbers shall vary in size. Here of course we have to take the population limit. We propose to divide the possibilities into four divisions—under 25.000; between 25,000 and 50,000; between 50,000 and 100,000; and above 100,000, and the numbers appropriated to these respectively will be nine, twelve, fifteen and eighteen, in each case, of course, one-third being County Councillors and two-thirds Justices. The Appeal Court we propose to constitute in the same way as the court of first instance. That no doubt may first of all seem a curious proposal, but really in this matter I do not know to whom else we could go. The difference we propose to make in the Appeal Court from the court of first instance is to slightly increase the size, that is to say, we propose to add two more County Councillors and four more Justices, making the Appeal Court six more than the maximum court of whatever districts they are. Of course there will be only one appeal of the county, from whatever districts they come, so that the maximum Appeal Court that can be constituted in that manner would be twenty-four.
  Passing from the counties I come to the burghs, and the burghs, of course, as I have already explained, mean all the burghs with over 7,000 population. Here we have determined to leave the licensing authority of first instance as it was. On the whole it has worked well, and we do not think there is any desire to alter the magisterial jurisdiction, and accordingly we propose to allow that the licensing authority in burghs with a population over 7,000 should be the magistrates of the burghs. So far that is simple enough, but when you come to the Appeal Court you necessarily have a little more complication, which we have got over, I hope, with simplicity. I hope I shall be able to explain it clearly. In the constitution of the Appeal Court the desire will be that the burghs themselves should have some representation. Hitherto, as hon. Members know, in the Appeal Court they have had none; that is to say, the appeal from the magistrates was to the Justices of the Peace of the county. The burghs were not at all represented except in so far as certain persons in the burghs might be Justices of the Peace of

  1393
  the county. We propose to take some proportion, and the Appeal Court should be constituted one-third of magistrates and two-thirds of justices. But now comes this matter which is a little complicated. You see it would be quite impossible to have a separate Appeal Court for each burgh, because that would come to be a perfectly preposterous number, the number of burghs being so large. At the same time we think that you cannot keep in our idea of giving a burgh a certain amount of representation in that Appeal Court if you simply made one Appeal Court for all the burghs in particular counties, because there the numbers would be so large that if you were to put in somebody from each burgh you would have a perfectly unmanageable court.
  The way we propose to get over that difficulty is this: to group the burghs into two classes. There is one class of burghs, very few in number, which create no difficulty. These burghs are county cities, and there are only four of them, viz., Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee. With them there is no difficulty, because you have the Justices of the Peace of the county and of the city acting as an appropriate tribunal representing the city. All other burghs we propose to divide into two groups—those between 7,000 and 20,000, and those above 20,000. Now for those between 7,000 and 20,000 we propose to have one Appeal Court for each county arranged by Schedule, and the necessity for arranging it by Schedule is this that when you come to look at the burghs and where they are, you would find that the counties in Scotland differ very much. That is to say, some of them have only one burgh, whereas some others have a good many. For instance, Argyll has only one burgh over 7,000 inhabitants, viz., Campbeltown. Forfar, on the other hand, has four burghs—Montrose, Brechin, Forfar and Arbroath. Renfrew has five—Port Glasgow, Pollockshaws, Johnston. Barrhead and Renfrew. Accordingly in the case of Renfrewshire, in order to secure the adequate representation of the burghs—and if I know anything of small town life there is no confidence in one small burgh in the representation that would he given to it by another
  1394
  small burgh. That is to say. you would not satisfy, for instance, Port Glasgow by saying that Renfrew is to send somebody to the Appeal Court. If you give representation in the case of Renfrewshire you must have a larger Court than you have in the case of Argyll, because you have got all these burghs to represent in Renfrewshire and only one in Argyll. Accordingly we do that by Schedule, hut the result is to confine the Appeal Court within perfectly manageable numbers. The minimum of the Court in the burghs of from 7,000 to 20,000 is nine, and the maximum eighteen. The maximum is given to Dumbarton, which has many burghs of large size. In burghs above 20,000 we propose to have a separate Court for each burgh, composed of the whole of the magistrates in that burgh with a number of Justices of the Peace added, making two-thirds Justices of the Peace, and one-third represented by the magistrates. But there again the numbers are kept within perfectly reasonable limits, because the maximum Appeal Court would only be the comparatively moderate figure of twenty-seven. Hon. Members will remember that since the Town Councils Act of 1900 the number of magistrates is fixed in burghs according to the scale of population. In each case we take the whole of the magistrates and add twice their number from the Justices of the Peace—making the Court
  There remain only those very large cities which are themselves county cities, and where they do not have recourse to the county justices at all, but compose the Appeal Court with their own magistrates and two-thirds of their own Justices of the Peace. We hope that that result, although somewhat complicated in the Schedule, is perfectly simple. It is merely carrying out the idea of giving the burghs one-third representation by their magistrates and two-thirds from the justices of the county of the city, instead of, as at present, giving the appeal to the Justices of the Peace. And it will have this result, if the House sanctions this scheme that there would be a court of perfectly workable size which would be able to carry on the business according to the true spirit of the law as laid down by the

  1395
  Lord Chancellor in the case of Sharpe v. Wakefield. Of course, I am quite aware that no one approaches this subject and supposes that he is going to give satisfaction to all who have views upon it. That would be indeed foolish. On the other hand, I am very far from being apologetic about the, matter. I have not mentioned the Majority or Minority Report of the Royal Commission. As hon. Members will find, as a matter of fact we have confined ourselves to neither of these Reports; but we have taken what we consider to be the best out of the recommendations of both. There is no slavish adherence to the Report of the Majority or that of the Minority; and what I do say is that although no one can expect to please everybody, we certainly ask this Bill to be considered as a fair and honest contribution to the cause of temperance, and I ask the House to grant leave for its introduction, and that it be read a first time.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not introduced this Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, and that, therefore, it will be competent for hon. Members, especially those who represent Scottish constituencies, to express their opinions at this the earliest stage of this important measure. The House is well aware that in Scotland there is. and always has been, a very intense feeling on this particular subject. I suppose it will be readily acknowledged that we are, not only in point of law, but in point of the aspirations of almost the entire community in Scotland, very far ahead of the general feeling in England, and therefore Scotland should be treated in an exceptional manner. There is no desire to attempt to dwell for a moment on the immense evil that arises in Scotland, within our own knowledge, from this traffic, but on all sides there will be a great desire to take exceptional advantage of this opportunity of making a step in advance on this subject.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the English precedent of last year. I have no doubt that that Act will do good, but, at the same time—and the Lord Advocate will not hear: t for the first time—we in Scotland do
  1396
  not consider that we ought to be fettered in any way by English precedents in regard to this class of legislation. We have our own system and our own needs, and there is no necessity that these needs should be limited by English precedents. If I were to speak only on one point in reference to the statement of the Lord Advocate, it would be in regard to his omissions. We have had a Minority Report and a Majority Report from the Royal Commission, differing very much in regard to liquor licences, and yet I am sorry to say that there are no provisions in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill which would assist us to get rid of unnecessary licences; nor is there anything at all—I did not expect it from this Government—to afford any assistance in the direction of granting popular control. So far as the subject is touched upon at all—as I understood the statement of the Lord Advocate—there is an indirect popular control, but it is circumscribed to some extent by certain proposals in the Bill. It is unnecessary to express disappointment, but it is right to say that, notwithstanding these proposals, with some of which I am content, it is not at all likely that they can he regarded as an adequate measure such as will be acceptable to the great majority of the people of Scotland. It is perfectly right that the bonâ fide traveller should be limited to the liquor he himself uses. With that we all agree. And I hope that strong rules will be made in regard to travelling vans, which un doubtedly have done a great deal of harm in the country districts of Scotland. A very fruitful suggestion was made by the Lord Advocate, to which I wish to do full justice, viz., that by-laws, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, should be made by the licensing authorities. There is a system of recommendations which to a certain extent is already in existence, but it is not clothed with the authority of law. I am perfectly satisfied that the system is operative, but it should be placed in the more normal position. I am very glad that there can be bylaws made containing conditions on which licences may be granted, and I express the hope that the limit within which these by-laws can be framed may be made

  1397
  very wide, so as to give a great discretion to the licensing authorities to make the by-laws suitable to different localities. I see no reason why they should not be framed in a generous spirit.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman spoke of clubs. There, again, I wholly agree with him. I am acquainted with the fact that there are many, many bogus clubs in many parts of Scotland which do an immense deal of harm, and I have frequently had complaints made to me not only of the drunkenness but of the disorder and scandal created by these clubs. It is perfectly right to make strong proposals for the purpose of preventing them, and I do not believe that any Scottish Member will in any way do other than help the Lord Advocate forward in this good work. The next subject the right hon. Gentleman dealt with was the licensing authority, and I wish to preface the few remarks I would make; on that with one observation. He said, as if some very special significance attached to it, that the Lord Chancellor laid down, in Sharpe v. Wakefield, that judicial discretion must be exercised by magistrates in granting licences, and he said that in Scotland there was not the smallest doubt that the fullest and freest power existed to grant or refuse licences merely on the ground of popular convenience. Never has there been the smallest doubt in Scotland, and I might add never has there been the smallest doubt in any well-informed legal circles in England, that the law is exactly the same. I remember when Sir Richard Webster and Sir Edward Clarke, two very distinguished men, for whom I have the greatest respect, some fifteen years ago told the House of Commons that a mundamus would be granted by the English Courts to compel the renewal of a licence unless some case of misconduct was shown. I remember also endeavouring to contradict that, together with other hon. Members; and, fortunately, the case of Sharpe v. Wakefield came to be decided in ten days from that time in the court of first instance. The consequence was that the proposal which the Government then had in hand, which would confer practically a freehold on licence holders in England, was defeated by a decision of the courts which had been anticipated in many analogous cases. I think there is no real doubt about the law at all.
  1398
  At all events there is no doubt about it in Scotland, and when the right hon. Gentleman uses the phrase, "judicial discretion," I beg to say, if I may, that he has somewhat misunderstood it. It merely means that discretion must be exercised by magistrates on material open to the court. It means that the court must not refuse or grant a licence because of some personal matter, or mere whim or caprice, but is entitled to consider all the circumstances, and among the most important of these circumstances is whether the licence is required in the public interest or not. When the Lord Chancellor spoke of judicial discretion, I am perfectly certain that that very learned and noble person would not dispute that judicial discretion merely meant that discretion was to be exercised honestly, and in face of all the facts, in order to try and arrive at a just decision.
  In regard to the scheme, notwithstanding the lucidity with which it has been placed before us, it is too complicated to criticise on the spur of the moment; and therefore, before saying anything further, I will wait until I see the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman may expect thunder and lightning with respect to the proposal to take away jurisdiction from the Royal burghs and confer it on a mixed tribunal of county justices and County Councillors, two-thirds of which shall consist of county justices. That is likely to provide comment and criticism, and I anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman will hear something about it before very long. I say nothing about it except that I have misgivings as to conferring so large a share of jurisdiction upon county justices; but I would prefer to leave the matter there, as it is impossible to discuss it as a whole until we see the clauses. I will only say that I hope that we shall have a fair interval between this and the second reading, in order that the opinion of our constituents may be fully taken. I think it is a matter of great importance, but I feel sure that there will be great regret that this Bill does not go farther. It is no doubt well meant, but it does not go far. It is a small instalment of what we might have in Scotland, but my view is, and always has been, that we ought to make the

  1399
  best of any step in the right direction. We. are in a hopeless minority, and I think our proper course is to make this Bill as effective as we can in the direction which, I have no doubt, is desired by the Lord Advocate himself. Let us have a fair time to have it fully discussed, and to bring what pressure we can on the Government in order to try and induce them, if possible, to go a little further.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I make no apology for saying a few words on this Bill, because, although I do not now represent a Scottish constituency, I did so for many years, and I have taken a continuous interest in local affairs, especially in the matter dealt with by this measure. I think it is fortunate that this Bill has been introduced so early in the session in order that it may be fully considered before the Second Reading. Although great reforms have been made in Scotland, and great improvements in the social condition of that country have been introduced by the restrictions placed on the liquor traffic—restrictions greater by far than have been attempted in England or Ireland—still all concerned in the welfare of Scotland will admit that the excessive drinking habits of some people are a great blot on our country; and I am glad to hear from the Lord Advocate that increased power will be given to the local authorities to put restrictions on facilities for drunkenness, especially at times of the year when excessive drinking most prevails. I have myself been a witness of most painful scenes in Scotland, The 1st of January is a very festive day in Scotland, and in a large, populous place near where I was staying it was remarked with pain the number of persons including females who were in the streets in a state of intoxication. It is quite evident that it is consonant with the feelings of the country that increased power should be placed in the hands of magistrates to check the indulgence in liquor on such occasions.
  My right hon. friend said that an Amendment would be provided in this Bill with respect to bona fide travellers. It happened that I was one of the Bench of magistrates in the Oliver case, and we were very greatly
  1400
  astonished when our decision was upset. I am very glad that the fault disclosed by that case is to be remedied. My right hon. friend also referred to the Amendment which he proposed to make in the law to meet the case of the great abuse which prevails in connection with the free sale of intoxicating liquor in grocers' travelling vans. In the mining districts especially it is monstrous that these vans should go about selling liquor just as if they were itinerant public-houses. Twenty-eight years ago I was Chairman of a Royal Commission which inquired into the question of grocers' licences in Scotland; and, apart from myself, the members of that Commission were all extremely able and experienced men. We made a report in which we pointed out defects which prevailed in the law, and we made recommendations to remedy these defects, but nothing has been done from that day to this; and for two reasons. The first great reason is that the recommendations did not satisfy extreme temperance reformers. They were not so anxious that the liquor laws should be improved, as that they wanted them to be made so strict that the taking of liquor might be made a criminal offence. Another reason was that the licensed grocer might count in politics. Will English Members readily believe that it was possible and common, until the Act of last session was passed, to send a child to a public house in Scotland with a cup to take home spirits? Women also went to grocers' shops and tossed off whiskey behind a conveniently-placed screen. I hope that in this Bill the defects in the law affecting off licences will be dealt with, and that the selling of liquor by grocers' travelling vans will be put down. In a Bill which I presented last year along with the Member for Partick we not only provided for all the points taken by the Commission, but we were able to meet the objections of the trade and make the measure protective and at the same time interfere as little as possible with legitimate trade. With regard to the Licensing Courts, hon. Members from Scotland will agree with me when I say that the Licensing Courts are unsatisfactory, and the Appeal Court is a public scandal. There is nothing so common, when licences have been re-

  1401
  fused by the local Bench, for the Justices of the Peace who constitute the Appeal Court to be canvassed right and left. They come to the court like people going to an election. I hope that sort of thing is going to be put an end to, and I am glad that, although the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite says the Bill does not go so far as he would like to have gone, he will offer his powerful assistance towards a reform that is much needed in Scotland, and one which will be welcomed by the respectable part of the community.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs): I can join in the congratulations of the hon. and learned Gentleman beside me to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate for having introduced this Bill so early, but there are one or two points to which I would draw attention. First, with regard to the areas of population. I think a population of 7,000 is too small. I think it is too small for the police authorities, and I think it is too small for the licensing authorities. I wish it could have been a bigger area. With regard to the county areas and districts, I believe, for the purposes of effective administration—which is all we have to attend to after all—it is unfortunate for the people that they are not larger. The licensing body, on the other hand, is, I think, a little too largo. My own view is in favour of popular control, but I recognise there are difficulties in the way, and our aim should be to have as strong a licensing body as possible. Owing to the way in which the liquor trade is conducted by private persons in their own interests, it is essential to have as strong a licensing body as possible, and, in my opinion, the smaller it is the stronger it would be. as a rule. Attempts have been made, I believe, in Glasgow to get at the justices, and the stronger you make your Court the less likely it is that outside influences would be brought to bear upon it. I agree in thinking that the Bill is not an adequate Bill, while, at the same time, it effects some very useful reforms. I should have liked to have seen one of the recommendations of the Peel Report brought into it, and that is the fixing of a date after which there should be no question of compensa-
  1402
  tion for any licences withdrawn, and I should have liked to have seen some provision made by which a locality could claim from the licensing authorities the right to have, its supply of liquor conducted under the Scandinavian system. Under the liquor law of the Transvaal, promulgated by Lord Milner last year, any community has the right to have its supply of liquor conducted under the Trust system, and the trusts are bound to give the supply of liquor necessary for the community. Once new licences—it may be of considerable value—are given, the difficulty in the way of a community conducting its liquor trade under the Trust system is greatly increased, and must be so until it is recognised that after the lapse of a certain number of years the holder of a licence shall not be entitled to compensation in the event of the licence being withdrawn. The reason I venture to lay so much stress upon this point is that it is only by doing away with compensation that you can insure pure local administration. So long as the liquor trade is conducted for private profit the local administration is exposed to very great risk, and I do not think you can have any great reform until the liquor trade is removed from private interests. But, however far we may look ahead in the direction of putting the liquor trade under popular control, we shall certainly welcome the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I believe all Scottish Members are unanimous in considering the subject of this Bill a subject deserving of the greatest consideration in Scotland, and they will all be desirous to assist the Government in making this Bill a workable one. It is no use now to make a speech on the details, and the only point which occurs to me upon the speech of the Lord Advocate is that I think the County Council element is too small and the Justice of the Peace element is too large. And with regard to taking any power away from the County Councils, I do not think that is a thing that will be welcomed in Scotland. We complain that this Bill does not go far enough. There are many of us in Scotland who have supported measures going a good

  1403
  deal farther. We have knowledge of the circumstances of Scotland, and of the great evil of drink in Scotland, and we think it would be wiser to deal with that evil in a much more drastic way than is necessary in England. We hope it may be possible, without delay, to deal with this matter, and that this Bill of the Government may be strengthened in its passage through the House. I hope this Bill will be referred to a Committee mainly Scottish in its character, and I think upon its merits it will receive the support of public opinion in Scotland—not only by hon. Gentlemen opposite but, as I believe, the vast number of the supporters of the Government in Scotland itself as well as in this House. I hope the Government will be willing to test that opinion, and, with the force of Scottish opinion behind them, will be willing to go as far as possible consistently with the passage of this Bill through the House. We desire the Bill to be strengthened as much as possible.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Although I do not sit for a Scottish constituency, I have a large interest in this question, and therefore have no apology to make for intervening in this debate. I do not envy the Lord Advocate in the task he has set himself, and I do not agree with the hon. Member for North-East Manchester, who has told the House that our Licensing Courts are corrupt, and the Court of Appeal a public scandal. I do not believe any man in any other country would dare to get up and make such a statement.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I think the hon. Member is in error in saying the hon. Member for North-East Manchester said the Courts were corrupt; he did not say any such thing.
  MAJOR JAMESON: He said they were canvassed as if they were going to the poll, and that the Court of Appeal was a public scandal, and if that is not corruption it looks very much like it. I do not see in what way the Bill of the Lord Advocate is going to help that. I was also astonished to hear the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, when speaking on the subject of licences, tell us of the honesty of taking away licences without giving compensation.
  SIR ROBERT REID: It is not only honest, it is the bounden duty of the authorities.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, for the simple reason that in 1881, when the tax on spirits was increased, it was stated by the Government of the day that that money should be put on one side for compensation for licences which were taken away. Therefore, in the opinion of the Government, at any rate, it was only honest that these licences should be compensated. I must differ, therefore, with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the honesty of any court of justice that would take away from any trade a licence granted by Act of Parliament without compensation, unless the licencee broke the law. I trust the Lord Advocate will not bring a hornet's nest about his ears by binding anyone to the extraordinary ideas of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries. The Lord Advocate has stated that the Bill is founded neither on the Majority Report nor on the Minority Report of the Royal Commission. I do not think that with any show of justice a Bill could be founded on a Minority Report. The right hon. and learned Member says he has rejected the Royal Commission. Having appointed that Commission, I think you are in honour and honesty bound to stand by the Majority Report, which, after long and careful research by the greatest authorities on the trade, was agreed to by a majority of seven. I do not envy the Lord Advocate his task; he will offend his friends, and in no way placate his enemies.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: II rise for the purpose of saying a few words in reference to the observations of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I should have been content, and I think the House generally would have been, to leave a Scottish Bill of this character to the Scottish Members. Even those on this side of the House who are not Home Rulers would be glad to let this strictly Scottish subject be treated from the Scottish point of view without any Irish or English interference. Our function in a matter of this kind is simply to strengthen the hands of the mass of Scottish Members in endeavouring to make the Bill as effective for its

  1405
  purpose as possible. The moment a Temperance Bill, no matter what its character, appears in this House, the hon. Gentleman opposite is certain to rise, as one of the representatives of Ireland, on behalf of "honour and honesty." He has just said that the Government is bound in honour and honesty to act on the Majority Report of the Royal Commission. I would like to know whether the hon. Member would support such a Hill. I venture to say he would be the first to oppose it, and. without doubt, would plead "honour and honesty" in his opposition. I have risen simply to protest against the hon. Member, as a representative of Ireland, putting any difficulty in the way of this modest and, as I think, harmless Bill; I hope he will think better of it, and even use bis influence in favour of the measure.
  MR. BRYCE: I have only a few words to add to what has been said in this debate. Unquestionably, as we gather its provisions from the very clear statement of the Lord Advocate, it does introduce some considerable improvements into our Scottish law. I can assure English Members that the opinion of Scotland is a great deal more ripe in regard to temperance legislation than that of England. I am persuaded that if the Government had gone further they would have had just as generous and cordial support from Scottish opinion irrespective of Party, as they will have for the good provisions of the Bill now introduced. I should like to support the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester with regard to the present condition of the Scottish Licensing Courts. Those courts cause the greatest dissatisfaction in Scotland. The proposals of the Bill, taking them all in all. will, I believe, effect some improvement, but at the same time I regret that the Government do not propose to give in the counties the decision upon licences entirely to the Councils. I see no occasion whatever for bringing in the justices. Justices in Scotland have very different functions from the justices in England: they are far less important: they have much less to do; and the position is not sought after to the same degree. We
  1406
  should have been perfectly satisfied if this matter had been left in the hands of the elected representatives of the people, and I think the general feeling in the country would be in favour of such a plan. With regard to the small burghs, the proposal of the Government will actually have the effect of making the constitution of the licensing court less popular than it is at present. In the burghs which have hitherto been Royal burghs, but which will lose their privileges under this Bill if they have a population of less than 7,000, the authority will become less popular, because the justices will be brought in where they have hitherto had no functions at all. I suppose the idea of the Lord Advocate is that in constituting these courts the whole of the justices will elect certain of their number to represent them, and I presume he makes provision in the Bill as to the method by which that election should he effected. These, however, are details upon which I do not wish to dwell at present. I hope the Government will pay attention to the wish expressed by the hon. Member for the Partick Division, as well as by Gentlemen on this side, that the Bill should be referred to a Scottish Committee. If the Government cannot make up their mind to let it be a purely Scottish Committee, I hope they will make it substantially Scottish. There is hardly a Member from Scotland who ought not to he allowed an opportunity at the Committee stage of expressing the view of his constitutents on a question such as this. I hope that in Committee the Bill will be substantially improved. I am sure the Lord Advocate will not desire to deal with the matter in a Party spirit, and I trust that the Government will not resist Amendments if they are satisfied, as it will be the duty of Scottish Members to satisfy them, that those Amendments represent the genera] wish and mind of the people of Scotland.
  "Bill to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Acts, 1828 to 1897," ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, and Mr. Anstruther.

  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT LULL.
  "To amend the Licensing (Scotland) Acts, 1828 to 1897," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a

  1407
  second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

  SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,), in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with regard to the sale of adulterated butter, said: This is a Bill which I think I might not unreasonably have proposed to introduce under the "Ten Minutes Rule," because its proposals are practically the same as those of the Bill brought in last session and read a second time without opposition. However, as there are some alterations in the measure, perhaps it is right that I should explain it more fully to the House. About a year ago the Board of Agriculture had to fix the standard for butter. Acting on the recommendation of a strong Departmental Committee, they fixed the standard at only 16 per cent.; that is to say, that butter might contain 16 per cent. of water. That was a very lenient standard, because all the evidence went to show that so far from butter, when properly or genuinely made, containing anything like 16 per cent., the average was nearer 11 or 12 per cent. That being the case, if anybody sells butter containing more than 16 per cent. of water, the presumption against him is that the butter is not genuine butter. Of course, if he can establish the fact that it is made in the ordinary way and that there has been no added water, the law is on his side, and no conviction follows. But there is being sold now as butter a large quantity of an article in which the water has been added after the process of churning—that is to say, it can in no sense be described as genuine butter, and it is largely to meet the trade in that adulterated article that this Bill is introduced.
  The way in which it is proposed to deal with the sale of the adulterated article is the following: No butter containing more than 20 per cent. of water—which is a very high amount, and can never be obtained in honestly-made butter—will under any circumstances be allowed to be sold. Then I come to the question of butter containing between 16 and 20 per cent. of water. In the case of butter of that kind, except the vendor can show that it is genuine butter, he will be liable to conviction unless he has sold the butter
  1408
  practically under the provisions of the Margarine Act, subject to the penalties provided for in that Act for the sale of butter adulterated with fat. There is this exception—that on the label and in the description of the butter, instead of the word "Margarine" the words "Adulterated Butter" will be used.
  Now there are three classes of people who are distinctly interested in the passing of a Bill of this kind. In the first place, there is the producer, the dairy farmer, whose industry, as a rule, is a very large and growing one, and who has a clear right to the use of the trade description "butter," which should be made a recognisable article, and it is unfair to the producer that any other article should be sold under that name which is not genuine and honest butter. This applies not only to the home producer; but even more anxious for the passing of this Bill are the farmers scattered throughout our colonies, especially in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, because it is to a very large extent that their butter is adulterated, Their butter is very dry butter, and contains only 9 or 10 per cent. of water; consequently, it is precisely butter of that kind where the largest margin of adulteration is possible. This butter is very largely adulterated, and in consequence discredit is being thrown upon the colonial manufacturers, and I have received requests from the agents of all the butter-producing colonies that this Bill should be passed into law. But not only are the producers interested in a Bill of this kind, but I should think there never was a Bill upon which the traders throughout the country were so unanimous. The grocers in every borough and district of England are unanimous—that is, the men who sell honest butter—in favour of this measure. Those who sell the genuine article are anxious to have this adulterated butter, if it is to be sold at all, sold under its true name as an adulterated article. The traders desire to sell butter honestly which is not adulterated, but they find competition with the adulterated article is increasing day by day.
  It may be said that this is a case in which the buyer of this article ought to be on the look-out, and that the buyer ought to know what he is buying. I

  1409
  think the doctrine of caveat emptor is often carried to extreme lengths. We know very often that the people most imposed upon are the very poor and ignorant, and it is perfectly absurd to suppose that these people should know exactly what is the right amount of water in butter. I propose by this Bill that these poor and ignorant people shall know what they are buying; and if they buy an adulterated article, this Bill provides that it should be stamped as such, and then these poor people will know exactly what they are buying. But while I am thus protecting the consumer and the honest trader, with regard to the honest producer no harm can be done to him. There is one trade to which I wish to allude, and it is the trade in Irish salt firkin butter, where it is a certain necessity that the amount of water should exceed 15 per cent. Therefore, Irish salt firkin butter is excluded from the operation of the 16 per cent. standard, but under no circumstances must such butter contain more than 20 per cent. of water. Irish salt firkin butter, being a known and well recognised article of trade which is sold to a great extent in the large manufacturing towns in Lancashire, is excluded from the operation of that particular clause which provides for not more than 15 per cent. of water. In the case of all producers, where they can show that the butter is genuine butter through the ordinary process of manufacture, and where they can show that the butter has not been manipulated as a butter—I am principally aiming this Bill at butter which is manipulated—the proof will lie upon them to show that it is genuine, and if they can show that the butter has not been manipulated, then no conviction will follow. I think it was necessary to introduce this Bill briefly as I have done. I really do not know where the opposition is to come from to such a Bill as this, except from those interested in the sale of adulterated articles. I hope the time has come when everybody will agree that we ought to protect more the poor and the ignorant against the dishonest trader than we have done in the past. (A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Will Irish firkin butter containing more than 16 per cent. of water have to be marked adulterated?) No. I hope this Bill
  1410
  will have the effect of putting an end to a form of adulteration which is growing every day, and I hope it will put an end to an evil which in recent years has been increasing more and more in all our large towns.
  MR. FLYNN: Many Irish butter producers and many Irish dealers as represented by the Cork Butter Market Association hold strongly to the view that an honest butter, even a salt butter, can be made, and very well made, under 16 per cent. average of water. I have personal knowledge of a community that has been directing close attention to this particular aspect of the case within the past two years. They have taken some thousands of specimens both of butter in firkins and boxes, and they have found the average to be about 13 per cent. of water. This result has been arrived at by taking all kinds of butters, including fresh butter, mild cured butter, and the heaviest sort of butter, and they have established the fact that Irish salt butter can be carefully and honestly made with an average of 13 per cent. of moisture. I am sure that all those interested in the production of an honest article will welcome this Bill. There cannot be any doubt that in many parts of this country, and in many parts of Ireland, farmers' butter has been adulterated with margarine, and there is no doubt at all that many dishonest traders have been in the habit of adulterating butter with added water, thus imposing upon the poor consumers. As an Irish Member interested in the production of honest Irish butter, and as one who knows the opinion of the largest butter market in the world, namely, the Cork Butter Market, I say that we are glad that this Bill has been brought in, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will find no opposition from the Irish Members.
  MR. A. K. LOYD: I should like to say one or two words of welcome in regard to this Bill. Not only will the home and colonial producers and the retailers of butter welcome this Bill, but the vendors of butter substitutes will also be ready to recognise the care which the right hon. Gentleman has given to framing a just and proper measure upon this question. It must have been no easy task for the right hon. Gentleman to have drawn up a measure

  1411
  which is fair both to the manufacturers of artificial and wholesome dairy products and butter substitutes and at the same time draw a Bill stringent enough to grapple with this very ingenious and plausible form of fraud. I do not think fraud is at all too strong a word to apply to it after the result of the inquiry and investigation which has taken place upon this question during the last two years. While I hold very strongly that all attempts to regulate or restrict trade should be watched most carefully, I have been very greatly impressed by the attitude assumed by all the respectable retail dealers in butter upon this question. They have most distinctly stated that they considered that the consumer was defrauded by the so-called milk-blended butter. It was not the milk which remained in the butter but the water, and this was the most plausible and ingenious way of imposing upon the consumer. The retailers of this country have asked that this method of imposing upon the public should be stopped as speedily as possible, and made illegal, and for this very remarkable reason—that if it were allowed to become general and treated as legal they themselves in self-defence would be obliged to resort to this form of trade, which they do not approve of, in order to avoid being squeezed out by a form of competition which they could not cope with. I think this ought to carry conviction to the most scrupulous mind as to the necessity of regulating this trade as much as possible. This argument from the retailer shows how deadly unfair and how profitable this form of competition was, and it shows how great is the need for legislation. I shall not say any more upon this occasion beyond stating that on behalf of an agricultural constituency, and on behalf of the retail grocers throughout my constituency, I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing this Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: I think the motives of the right hon. Gentleman are very good in bringing in this Bill. He has told us candidly that he has been moved to this action practically by the proceedings of a certain large firm of traders in this country. If that be so, I think to introduce a general Act of Parliament because of the proceedings of a single firm may be looked upon as somewhat suspicious.
  MR. HAN BURY: I did not say so, and there is more than one firm.
  MR. LOUGH: That should not prevent us giving the question a fair consideration; but the House ought to, remember that this is practically the third attempt made by the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this matter. We had a Bill of this kind before us all last year, and a good deal of time was taken up with it, but now we have a Bill before us which is proceeding on an entirely different principle. The Bill of last year was introduced in the same eulogistic terms as the right hon. Gentleman has applied to this Bill, and he received then the same amount of general gratification from both sides of the House. And yet the President of the Board of Agriculture found it quite impossible to proceed with his measure. If the Bill of last year was bad, I think this measure is a great deal worse. And it contains provisions which it will be extremely difficult to enforce. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to examine this question very carefully before he proceeds to waste the time of the House of Commons upon it. One of the provisions of the measure is that butter containing more than 20 per cent. should be excluded altogether. How is that to be done? It is easy to say that. How many transactions may there be in which there will be 20½ per cent., and what is to be done with the sellers who may be quite innocent in the matter? What punishment is to be put on them? That strikes me as a most difficult provision to enforce. The right hon. Gentleman said there was one class of butter that must be altogether excluded from the operations of the Bill. Practically the arguments that apply to that class apply to all butter. [Cries of "No."] It would be very much better if the hon. Gentlemen who do not agree with what I say would speak afterwards. Why should any different law be extended to Irish butter which is not extended to butter from the Highlands of Scotland or from Wales? It is admitted that salt butter may contain, without any fraud, up to 20 per cent. of water. How do we know that it may not be 21 or 22 per cent.? I believe it is in the western parts of Kerry and in the remote districts of Ireland that this butter is produced.

  1413
  The butter which contains 21 and 22 per cent. of water is produced in those places where primitive methods are employed The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he is going to be as stiff about this butter from Ireland as the butter which comes from any other place. I think it will be extremely difficult to do this. There is another distinction with regard to butter containing from 16 to 20 per cent. This is to be called adulterated butter, and the onus of proof is to lie with the seller to show that it is not adulterated. All this ingenious arrangement is to be applied to one of the greatest articles of consumption, which is sold in the greatest variety of shapes in this country. It is the second or third time that the right hon. Gentleman has made an attempt to deal with it. I would put it to him that he is making an attempt to deal with the question before the Committee which is considering the matter have presented their Report. There is a Committee, presided over by Mr. Horace Plunkett. We have no Report before us or any evidence, I think the motives of the right hon. Gentleman are good, but he has not considered the subject thoroughly, and I think it would be better, after the failure of last session, if the Government would take time before bringing in another Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: This question has been considered by the Food and Drugs Committee, which sat for three sessions. I had the misfortune to be Chairman of the Committee for two sessions. If the hon. Member for West Islington wishes information, I would invite him to go to the Library and refer to the volumes containing the evidence brought before the Committee, and he will get as much as will please any ordinary man. I have heard tonight with very great gratification the statement made by one of the Members for Cork County, that the butter merchants are convinced that this Irish salt butter can be made with 17 per cent. of moisture. All I can say, as Chairman of the Committee, who heard the evidence of witness after witness from Ireland on this subject, is that
  1414
  they asserted, one and all, that it was impossible to make this kind of butter without 18 or 20 per cent. of moisture. One of the most difficult things the Committee had to consider in recommending something such as my right hon. friend is proposing in the Bill, was the danger of mining this butter trade. Although there may be difficulties about standardising, I think the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Agriculture, in legislating in the interest of the poor consumer who is being deceived, is exercising a wise discretion, and I hope that the Irish Members, not withstanding what my hon. friend says as to the method of manufacture, will support the measure.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I desire, on behalf of the British Dairy farmers Association, of which I am President for the year, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the introduction of this Bill to amend the law with regard to the sale of adulterated butter. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what this water-logged butter is, and I agree with what he said on the subject. I think also he is perfectly right in saying there is more than one firm that deals in this butter. But supposing there is only one firm dealing in this butter and making enormous profit at the expense of the consumer, the matter would still be one for legislation. It is so profitable to sell butter of which one-fourth is water, that, but for the threat of legislation of this kind, water-logged butter would be thrust on the market, and we should not only have factories set up for its production in this country, but it would be imported to us from abroad. I am of opinion that the standard of 16 per cent. of water is slightly too high, seeing that the average is only 11 per cent., and that, practically speaking, anything short of 15 per cent. can be safely regarded as genuine butter. If the other parts of the Bill are sufficiently strong, I think that is satisfactory as regards the producer. As representing not only an agricultural constituency, but the British Dairy Farmers Association, I welcome the Bill and hope it will receive favourable consideration.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: There is another aspect of this question which I do not think was alluded to by my right hon. friend. I mean the aspect which presents itself to those who have committed to them the duty and responsibility of administering the existing law dealing with the adulteration of food and drugs. I have been on the Adulteration Committee of the County Council ever since its formation, and know the extreme difficulty encountered in trying to protect the interests of the honest trader, the producer, and the poor consumer, because we have been defeated again and again in those matters by trade descriptions or names which may have been apparent to trade experts, but which do not bring any idea of adulteration home to the minds of the innocent consumer. Therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman is heartily to be congratulated in having taken his courage in both hands and in having described this butter as what it is, namely, an adulterated article, and I hope the Bill will have the almost unanimous support of the House and will be carried to a successful conclusion.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I wish to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture to the following Resolutions, unanimously adopted on 27th February at a meeting of the Cork Butter Trade—
  "(1) That we fully endorse the views given expression to by Mr. Hanbury, M. P., at Preston, on the 21st inst., to the Lancashire Farmers Association, viz:—'That in the ease of butter containing more than 16 per cent. of water, if that percentage could not be proved to be the result of the legitimate process of manufacture, it should he sold as adulterated butter, and that if butter contained more than 20 per cent. of water it should not be sold at all.'
  "(2) That we declare the exemption of Irish firkin butter from the general standard would be disastrous to the Irish trade, as then the adulterated butter of all countries would be sold as Irish butter."
  In support of the above I beg to state that for the past season the standard of 16 per cent. having been adopted at the Cork butter Market—which is the largest Firkin Butler Market in the United Kingdom—the working of the same gave results beyond the highest
  1416
  expectations. This confirms the butter merchants in the opinion that this standard should be fixed for all Irish butter.
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire,): So far as the right hon. Gentleman's statement was concerned, I think we may approve of that. I am sure this is a measure which will be welcomed by every honest dairy farmer, and it will also be welcomed by that large class of consumers who wish to get the article for which they pay. There is nothing whatever Protective about this Bill. The only protection it affords is the protection of the consumer against fraud. I think that is a very valuable protection indeed. I think it will be extremely valuable to the poorer class, because, after all, they are the people who are more apt to suffer from adulterated articles than the richer class. It is gratifying that the Minister of Agriculture has recognised how much butter is growing in the public estimation as an article of diet. Now nine doctors out of ten recommend the consumption of butter, especially in cases of phthisis. I think invalids should get the article they desire. I believe the Bill will be an advantage not only to the poorer classes but also to the honest producer.
  MR. O'MARAsaid there was good reason why the exemption should be made in the case of the Irish butter trade. There was a great demand for Irish firkin butter in the large manufacturing towns in the North of England. The trade had been in existence for a long time, and there was an immense turnover. The butter was made in districts where the most modern appliances were not available, and it was sometimes necessary that at least 18 per cent. of water should remain in the article. The Committee which sat upon this Bill for three years reported that salt Irish firkin butter would not, as a general rule, have less than 18 per cent. of water; and he thought that the unanimous Report of that Committee ought to have great weight with the House in dealing with the present Bill. It was with very great regret that he had to differ in this matter from the two hon. Members who represented Cork. These hon. Gentlemen spoke only in the

  1417
  interests of the Cork Butter Market, but Cork was not all Ireland, and the rest of Ireland differed from the views expressed by the hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for West Cork had stated that the Cork market fur salted firkin butter was the biggest market in the United Kingdom. It might be that that market was the largest bulk butter; market in the United Kingdom, but the trade was mainly in factory or creamery butter. A Cork man who was a trustee of the Cork Butter Market and had given evidence before the Departmental Committee, had stated that his trade in the Cork market in salt firkin butter was only about 100 firkins a week.
  MR. GILHOOLYsaid he had got his information from the Secretary of the Cork Butter Market,
  MR. O'MARAsaid that the evidence of a trustee of the Cork Butter Market itself was just as much worth the consideration of the House as a letter from the secretary to that market; and that evidence was that the trade in Cork in salt firkin butter was very small indeed. The Cork butter merchants should not stand in the way of the interests of the small dairy farmers in other parts of Ireland, especially in the counties of Clare, Mayo, Tipperary, Limerick and Sligo. He maintained that the bulk of the butter made in these counties could not be produced with less than 18 per cent. of water, and he did not think that the farmers in other parts of Ireland would agree with the hon. Member for N. E. Cork when he said that any butter which contained more than 16 per cent. of water was not honestly manufactured.
  MR. LUNDONsaid he did not think that milk blending with real butter was to be recommended, for if that was to be done, and the result sold as real butter, where would the line be drawn at by and by? Already honest butter-makers were liable to suffer from the malpractices of other people. He had interviewed the most important butter merchants in London, Messrs. Kearly & Tonge, Phillips & Sons. Loval & Christmas, and he found that the opinion prevailed that milk blending
  1418
  would ruin the Irish trade in butter, and if milk-blended butter was sold, it ought to be described as such in large, clear letters, "Adulterated Butter." His two hon. friends who represented the county of Cork had spoken on a subject which they knew nothing about. They represented the merchants of Cork, from whom, he contended, the first blow to the butter trade in the South of Ireland had come. Many years ago these merchants in Cork had shipped first-class Irish butter to Denmark, and then re-exported it from Denmark to Great Britain as Danish butter. He represented the dairy farmers of Limerick and Tipperary, and knew something of butter-making, because he was the son of a farmer himself. He could assure the House that they took the greatest care in making their butter, and they never thought of adding 20 per cent. of water. Some hon. Gentlemen had given it as their opinion that 17 or 18 per cent. of water should be allowed in salt firkin butter. He was certain that Limerick mild cure and creamery butter could be produced with 16 per cent. of water. There was no man standing in two shoes who could teach a Limerick farmer's wife in making butter. In large dairy farms, not a great distance from a railwaystation, mild cured firkin butter could be made at the 16 per cent. standard, but when the small dairy farms were sixteen to twenty miles distant from a railway station, a larger amount of salt had to be used, which involved a corresponding amount of moisture; and if an uniform standard of 16 per cent. was insisted upon, and the Irish system of putting salt butter on the market was interfered with, there would soon be an agitation amongst the small farmers to pay less rents than at present to the landlords.
  MR. JOYCE: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing this Bill, and for keeping the promise he made to Irish Members who are interested in the Irish salt butter trade. The House would hardly credit the large amount of money that is turned over in twelve months in this particular trade. There is a turnover of £3,000,000 in the Irish salt firkin butter trade in twelve months, and that money is received by a very poor class of the farming

  1419
  community. A Departmental Committee went very fully into this question of butter, including firkin, fresh, and mild cured, and it was thought that the least that could be allowed to Irish firkin butter was 18 per cent. of moisture. That is far from the amount stated by the hon. Member for North Cork, and I think it was proved clearly by my hon. friend the Member for East Limerick, in one of the interviews we had with the President of the Board of Agriculture, that at times the climate of Ireland was so moist that it would be impossible to make butter with less than 20 per cent. of moisture. This butter is mainly consumed in the great manufacturing districts of England, and it is sold at a less price than the ordinary butter. Taking all these things into account, the President of the Board of Agriculture has decided to exempt Irish salo firkin butter when it does not contain more moisture than 20 per cent. I am very glad that he has done this, and I certainly believed all the time that no matter what influence would be brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman, he would keep his word with the Irish Members. I congratulate him upon having done so, and I also congratulate turn on the Bill he has introduced.
  MR. DALZIEL: So far as I am concerned, I may say that I opposed a similar measure to this last year, because I thought it was a defective Bill. I still think so, but I wish to call attention to an extraordinary feature which is introduced into this Bill, namely, the exclusion of Ireland from this measure. My hon. friend said he could not understand why Irish butter had been excluded.
  MR. HANBURY: Irish butter has not been excluded.
  MR. DALZIEL: But why should butter containing such a large percentage of moisture coming from Ireland be allowed to be sold in England. It seems to me that the influence of the eighty Irish Members in the House of Commons is mainly responsible for how Ireland is being treated under this Bill. We must be cautious in dealing with this matter to see that we are not having too much
  1420
  coddling legislation. If the consumer desires to have adulterated butter, and somebody is willing to make it, surely it is a crime that the consumer cannot have such butter.
  MR. HANBURY: If the consumer wants adulterated butter he can have it, but it must not have over 20 per cent. of moisture in it.
  MR. DALZIEL: As long as it is made perfectly clear that the purchaser knows what he is buying, so far as this Bill aims at achieving that object it shall have my hearty support. At the same time it seems to me at the present moment rather a tall order in a free country that if a man wants 21 per cent. of water in his butter he should not be allowed to have it. That is practically what the Bill lays down, as I understand it. I understand that Irish butter cannot be made with less than 20 per cent. of water.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It cannot be made with less.
  MR. DALZIEL: For the moment, as far as I am concerned, I shall support the Bill so far as it puts down any system of fraudulent trade.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not know whether it is worth while for me to say one or two sentences from an Irish point of view in answer to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The hon. Gentleman has shown himself, so far as this Bill is concerned, absolutely ignorant of its effect. He started by saying that this Bill exempted Irish butter, but it does nothing of the kind. The Irish salt firkin butter which this Bill deals with and exempts is a very small portion of the butter trade, and I doubt whether it is one-fourth of the whole butter trade in Ireland. The hon. Member asks why should this House exempt butter coming from Ireland and not from England. I would point out to the hon. Member that there is no analogous trade in: England. This small Irish salt firkin butter trade exists only in Ireland, and it is chiefly consumed in some of the large towns in England, and very largely in Lancashire and other places.

  1421
  in the north, but there is no analogous trade in England. There is no analogous trade even in the colonies or in England or anywhere else. It is a peculiar trade of its kind and the general opinion in Ireland is that that particular kind of butter cannot be made without a larger proportion of moisture than the standard of 16 per cent. I think the position taken up by the Cork butter merchants and some of the farmers in Ireland, is really inconsistent. It may be possible in the future, by employing other methods, to make this Irish salt firkin butter with a less proportion of moisture than at present. I think, therefore. that possibly the fork butter merchants are right in saying that at some time in the future it may be possible to do that, but. so far as the present is concerned, with the present methods employed all over Ireland, it is absolutely certain if you apply the standard of 16 per cent. of moisture you would instantly kill the whole or this butter trade, and it is for that reason that we made this claim upon the right hon. Gentleman. Notwithstanding what has been said on behalf of one or two butter merchants in Cork, the right hon. Gentleman may take it for granted that his Bill will receive the support of the bulk of the Irish Members of this House, that we are grateful to him for introducing it. and we are also grateful to him for having put into his measure the provision which he promised us he would insert. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs says this provision has been put in in consequence of the influence of eighty Irish Members on the right hon. Gentleman, but that statement is a trifle absurd. This provision has been put in the Bill because the right hon. Gentleman has recognised the justice of saving from extinction altogether this firkin salt butter trade. On the broader aspects of the case everybody ought to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the introduction of a Bill of this kind, which is framed for the purpose of protecting the poorest and the most helpless consumers of this country from having forced upon them adulterated butter.
  "Bill to amend the Law with regard to the sale of Adulterated Butter," ordered
  1422
  to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.

  SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
  "To amend the Law with regard to the sale of Adulterated Butter," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  THE SECRETARY OK STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): It is nearly a hundred years since legislation for the protection of children commenced. Since then a long series of Factory Acts has been passed, tin' age dealt with has been advanced from eight to twelve, and I he hours of labour for children have been limited. And. further than this, a system has been established under which the regular attendance at school is made compulsory, and there has been a provision for half-timers. But the effect of these provisions has been for the most part confined to industries in which children are employed at regular hours and in considerable numbers, and the Education Acts, by making education compulsory, and by prohibiting the labour of children during the hours at which the law requires them to be at school, has made the regular daily employment of children illegal. Up to now the employment of children outside school hours is wholly unregulated. In the year 1901 the late Home Secretary appointed a Committee to enquire into the question of the employment of children during school hours, and they reported that it was desirable to make an alteration in the laws relating to child labour and school attendance, and in the administration of those laws. The Bill that I am now introducing is based upon the recommendations of that Committee.
  This measure proposes to give powers to County Councils and to Borough Councils to make bye laws for regulating the employment of children by prescribing the age below which, and the hours beyond which, employment would be illegal; by prescribing the hours between which it is illegal, and restricting the employment of children in certain specified occupations which may

  1423
  be shown either to be harmful to health or dangerous to their morals. Further, this Bill will prohibit the employment of children in certain specified occupations, such as the carrying of heavy weights and work of that sort, which is undoubtedly injurious to their health, and which is likely to be injurious to life and limb. The bye-laws, of course, will not affect children who are already protected under the Factory Acts and the Mines Acts, and will not apply to children over twelve years of age who, under the Half-Timers Act, are wholly exempted from the obligations to attend school. This measure further gives power to make bye-laws for the regulation of street trading by. children under the age of sixteen years, and it prohibits altogether such employment under the age of eleven years. The making of bye-laws is entirely at the option of the Councils, but when they are made they have to receive the sanction of the Secretary of State before they come into operation, and if there be any idea that the scheme does not represent the general view of the locality of course an individual enquiry can be made in that district.
  I do not think in introducing a Bill of this sort, which I venture to hope has the general approbation of the whole House, it is necessary to deal very much longer with it. I believe the Bill if it is passed will do a great deal to counteract the dangers to which these children are now exposed, both in regard to their health and morals, and I trust the House will not only allow me to introduce the Bill, but that they will receive it as kindly and with as sincere a promise of success as was promised to a similar Bill last session.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not propose to discuss this question now. I congratulate the light hon. Gentleman on having introduced the Bill and only desire to ask for some information as to the territorial limits of it. I rather gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that it was a purely English Bill. What I want to know is, is it intended to extend its operations to Scotland?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Last year there was a feeling in Scotland against the Bill, but that has passed away and the Bill will now be made to extend to Scotland.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; that is all I wanted to know.
  MR. TENNANT: All those hon. and right hon. Members who remember a remarkable speech of the right hon. Member for the Cambridge University upon this subject must congratulate the Secretary of State for Home Affairs upon what he has just said. There are just one or two questions I should like to ask. The right hon. Gentleman said his Bill gave the local authorities power to act in these matters. Does that mean that there is a compulsory power to compel local authorities to carry out the provisions of this Bill? If so I am very glad to hear it, as I was to hear that my native country is not to be debarred from the blessings of this Bill, and I should like to ask whether one of the most significant clauses in the Report of the Committee is given effect to in it. The Clause I refer to is that in which the Committee states that some of the worst evils found in child labour had been found in those small exempted laundries which do not come within the purview of the Factory Act. Some of them are the most evil dens it is possible to conceive, but they were exempted on the ground that only the woman and her children worked there. But the children work intolerably long hours, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman has taken that into account in the measure he now introduces.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I hope the House will allow me to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for bringing in this Bill at this date, and to express the hope that during the present session it will pass into law. In introducing legislation of this sort I rather regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not give honour where honour was due. This question was brought to public attention by a lady who, unhappily, is now no more—Mrs. Hogg—who took a vast amount of

  1425
  trouble and made inquiries in schools and other places, and laid very definite information before the Secretary of State of that day, and it is due to her that the Home Secretary and the Board of Education took the matter up and passed the legislation they have. I am sure the whole of us regret that Mrs. Hogg did not live to see the result of her labours. I am sure my right hon. friend may take it that every side of the House will give the greatest service to help him in this matter, but I should like to point out that this Bill only touches the fringe of a great question. At an enormous expense the country provides instruction in our public schools for all the children of the country, but. unhappily, a very great number of those children come to school in a state totally unfit to profit by that instruction: indeed they come to school in such a state that it is absolute cruelty to compel them to engage in intellectual labour, and, in consequence, many of the masters allow these children to sleep at their desks, or, at any rate, do not allow them to take part in the studies. I hope in this Bill the right hon. Gentleman will try and take a broad view. and will afford such protection as will insure that a child shall come to school in a fit state to receive instruction.
  DR. MACNAMARAalso congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on this measure. He had worked with Mrs. Hogg in this matter, and lately he had found thousands of cases of little children who, having clone twenty-seven-and-a-half hours in school, every week were still putting in anything between thirty and sixty hours of hard and severe labour, working right up to midnight in many cases; children of tender age who were compelled to deliver milk up to school time, who ran errands during the whole of the dinner hour, and who sold newspapers or vended flowers up to midnight. He would be happy to help the Government in any effort to put a stop to such a condition.
  He had, in his own experience, known of boys dragged up at three in the morning to go to the flower market at Covent Garden, who got back to the East End of London at nine o'clock, who
  1426
  then went to school and fell asleep on their desks; who ran errands during the whole of their dinner hour; who having slept again all through afternoon school, had sold flowers or newspapers right up to ten o'clock at night. Another boy at Marylebone, now unhappily dead, occupied the whole of his leisure time measuring corpses as assistant to an undertaker. Anything more shocking could scarcely be imagined. The whole thing had filled him with shame and indignation. The Government must, of course, mix up the desirable with the possible. We could not move fast in this matter, but, on the contrary, very slowly. He did not know whether this Bill had not got its eye rather on the possible than on the desirable, but small as it was, the Bill was before the House, and he hoped the Second Reading would be taken as soon as possible, and having got that, the Bill might go to a Grand Committee, where a few suggestions could be made to the Home Secretary which might strengthen it. These he would suggest later.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: I should like to join in the chorus of congratulations that has risen from both sides of the House, on the prospects of a Bill so much needed, and which, when we see it we shall, I think, admit will do much good. I myself have met children going to their work at 3 and 3.30 in the morning, and, as has been pointed out, they go to school exhausted and spiritless and unable to work. I do not think it is fully realised how much the physical standard of the country is deteriorating by the miserable conditions in which these children are brought up. And if things are allowed to go on in this way, we may become a degenerate nation. Let me illustrate my meaning. It was my duty some time ago to be in attendance at a Charity; a boy called to see me, he looked about fourteen years old, was very slouching in his gait and aggressive in his demeanour. I tapped him smartly under the chin and said, "Hold up your head like a man," when he replied "What are you hitting me for, I am a man and I am married." That was a striking instance of degeneracy. The man ought to have been several inches taller, several inches broader, and

  1427
  he ought not to have been married. I hope this Bill will give to the child some of its rights, and, among others, the right to enjoy some of its life.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The House of Commons has listened to a chorus of congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on the little measure he has introduced. I agree with those congratulations, but wish to supplement them with a word of advice. I would venture to suggest that in certain quarters outside the House this Bill may be received with a good deal of opposition, and I appeal to the Home Secretary to see that between this and the passing of the Bill into law it is not whittled away, and, what is more, I would urge him to strengthen it.
  As to the merits of the Bill, take the proposal to interfere with street trading. The Bill is to give local authorities power to regulate street trading up to the age of sixteen, and to prohibit it in the ease of children under eleven. So far so good. But I can assure the light hon. Gentleman that a great number of tobacconists, milk men, and newsagents will try to reduce the age for prohibition irons eleven to seven or nine, while many will say, "Why interfere with street trading up to sixteen years of age?" The opposition to this excellent proposal will come from people who have more weight in these matters than they ought to have, viz., the newspaper proprietors, who are interested in taking the vitals out of this Bill. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to budge from sixteen, and if he wants a reason why it should be raised to eighteen, or even twenty, let him go to some of the newspaper offices, within fifty yards of Fleet Street, when the editions of the evening papers are coming out. He will there see from 50 to 200 boys fighting literally like beasts for their parcels of papers and behaving in a disgraceful and scandalous manner. I am not blaming the boys—the stress of competition is so keen, and the conditions under which they have to earn their bread are so demoralising and degrading. Let him have a chat with the City policeman, who, with a cane, is kept outside and sometimes inside these offices, as to the way in which these lads are treated
  1428
  in order to provide some "Yellow Press" proprietors with West-end mansions and high dividends, and he will find reasons why the age should be higher than sixteen.
  As to the parents, I would warn the right hon. Gentleman against the "poor lone widow." She will doubtless be invoked on the Grand Committee. Fancy pictures will be drawn of the lady who does a little charing, alternating with some of the duties of Mrs. Gamp, who has two or three children, one selling flowers at Victoria Station, another selling newspapers at Charing Cross, and another who has to be up with the milk at four o'clock in the morning or selling newspapers until twelve o'clock at night. Let the right hon. Gentleman "beware of widders," and take no notice of the lady who too frequently lives out of the labours of the children in order to get more gin than is good for her health and to keep later hours than are desirable.
  Above all, let the right hon. Gentleman remember what the physique, morals, and language of these boysare. I read the other day with surprise and pain an excellent article by General Morris, Governor of Woolwich Garrison, confirming the recruiting statistics from Lancashire and elsewhere, from which it appears that out of 11,000 recruits from 3,000 to 4,000 were rejected as unfit. What is the reason? It is that these boys in their early years live in overcrowded slums and rooms; their years of school life are not sufficient to teach them to live and behave properly; the temptation for them to be driven out by their fathers, who are often out of work, or by their mothers who are not as good mothers as they might be, is so strong that when the boys are over the school age they earn a little money by selling newspapers, holding horses, and so forth. I know nothing more demoralising to a man and to the unskilled labour market than casual labour, but its effect on boys and girls under sixteen is infinitely worse. Some of the newspapers will oppose it; some of the parents will obstruct it; and shopkeepers will say that it goes too far. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to stiffen his back on this matter, and, if possible, to bring the industrial schools and private houses in which cruel cases of over work are proved within the purview of the Bill. We

  1429
  have hundreds of men and women out of employment simply because their children are allowed to undersell them in the labour market; by which practice the children are demoralised, and the rate of wages for adult labour lowered.
  SIR; GEORGE BARTLEYsuggested that the Home Secretary should, if possible, bring the employment of children for begging purposes within the scope of the Bill. It was not really an employment, but it was one of the most demoralising uses to which children could be put, and it might escape attention unless special attention were drawn to it.
  MR. SHACKLETONdesired to join in the chorus of thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing in this Bill, which he hoped would receive the unanimous support of the House. As to the selling of newspapers by children, he thought there would be less ground for complaint on that score if the Home Secretary would bring in another Bill prohibiting the publication of betting news.
  MR. BROADHURSTurged the right hon. Gentleman to be careful In his definition of "local authority." That would be an important point in the measure, because many small places employed children to as large an extent as the larger towns. He hoped, too, that it would be made compulsory on local authorities to put the Bill in operation, otherwise many bodies would be only too glad to avoid the trouble and. in some cases, the unpopularity of putting the Bill in force. The Bill would be held in quite sufficient restraint in its administration by the magistrates, so that there need be no fear of making it too strict.
  "Bill to make better provision for regulating the employment of children, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas and Mr. Cochrane.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  "To make better provision for regulating the employment of children," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I do not intend to oppose, much less to obstruct, this proposal, but there are one or two remarks I desire to make. In the first place, I object to the title "Municipal Trading." It has become a common expression, but really it is a misnomer, and is not even in accord with the wording in the body of the proposal. "Municipal powers" or "works" would be much more appropriate, while "Municipal trading" is, to some extent, a pre-judgment of the question at issue. Then, if it was intended to propose the re-appointment of this Committee, it is to be regretted that so long a delay has taken place since it previously sat. There ought to have been more continuity in regard to its action and, for my part, I regret exceedingly that the sittings were suspended, because the municipal evidence vindicated in the highest degree the municipal action which has been taken, and had produced a strong impression on the minds of the members of the Committee, and I do not believe that the municipalities shrink in the slightest degree from further investigation.
  Of course, private enterprise is the basis of our commercial and industrial system, and no one would wish to place any restriction upon it. On the contrary, every encouragement the law can give ought to be given to its development. But I would point out that whatever restrictions have been placed upon it, have been imposed by this House. Take the case of the Electric Lighting Acts. It has been said, and with some truth, that there have been restrictions with reference to the general adoption of electric lighting, but that has been done by this House; just as, in the same way, one may refer to the housing of the poor, as regards which this House gave

  1431
  a mandate to the municipalities, but, on the other hand, placed very great practical obstacles in the way of the performance of that public duty. The municipalities have done much to carry out the duties entrusted to them, in some cases under very exceptional difficulties; but admitting all that, there is still a great deal more for municipal activity to undertake.
  Anyone who is familiar with the history of this country during the past century must attribute its progress and its enterprise in a very great degree to municipal action. Take the work of the municipalities for the public health. There are no Acts of Parliament which form a more splendid code than the Public Health Acts. They have been built up by municipal enterprise, through local experience, and even municipal experiment, and if at times mistakes had been made, they have been mistakes which were the forerunners of progress; because experience, if utilised as it ought to be, may be gathered from mistakes as well as from successes. On the whole, however, the mistakes have been few and the successes have been many and great. What have the municipalities done for the people in supplying the necessaries of life, such as pure water, pure light and pure air? The results have been of the greatest advantage to this country, and I am sure this House will never overlook the indebtedness of the country to such municipal action. And it is simply absurd to call such great local and national work mere municipal trading, even from the trading point of view, for it has made the national health and strength, and so the national wealth. Nevertheless, though I think it ridiculously unnecessary, I have not a word to say against the inquiry, because I believe it will result in vindication; but I should like to add one word about the composition of the Committee. I appeal to the Government in the strongest way that they will at least have the fairness to carefully consider the composition of the tribunal which is to try this question. I say this, because I complained that in the case of the preceding Committee there were many upon it who had not had any practical municipal experience.
  1432
  There was only one, or at most two, Members who were really municipal representatives; and I venture to say that no one can pass a fair and just judgment on the action and work of the municipalities unless he has had practical experience in their City and Town Councils as Mayor, Councillor, or otherwise. Notwithstanding the absence of that qualification, I admit there was much fairness; and I believe that many previous adverse and even hostile convictions were overcome by irrefutable and conclusive evidence, but I do appeal to the Government in the strongest terms that they will put on this Committee real, practical representatives of the municipalities. I think if this course is taken, good will result; that force will be given by the local authorities to the judgment of the Committee; that the result of the inquiry will be beneficial; and that as regards great public undertakings as well as private enterprise, which are really not in conflict and which ought to be reconciled, competition will be as far as possible avoided, so that both may work for the welfare of the country; or, where competition is advisedly set up, either by the one or the other, in the public interest, it will be so conducted as to conduce to that paramount end.
  MR. BROADHURST: When this Committee was originally proposed some few years ago I opposed it; and I oppose it now on the ground that its effect, and what I fear is its object, is to harass, discredit, annoy, and obstruct corporation work. I have confidence in trading by municipalities. Who are supporting this proposal? It is supported by the professional classes, bankers and lawyers who are interested in it, and above all by company promoters. The revelations which have been submitted to us during the past twelve months by some of the organs of the Press in this country are sufficient in themselves to deter the Government from pursuing this policy of irritation and annoyance against the great popularly elected, and, in the main, economically managed local bodies. [An HON. MEMBER: Oh!] I am speaking of bodies on which I have taken a part; and, therefore, I know what I am talking about. I am not

  1433
  speaking of the City of London Council, but of the great corporations throughout the country, which are in the main above suspicion, and which are managed by men who give most valuable time and experience, without fee or reward, for the benefit of their fellow citizens. I think the reappointment of this Committee can only annoy the municipalities; and therefore I will divide the House against the Motion.
  MR. GALLOWAY: The hon. Member who has just spoken stated that this Motion is supported by bankers, lawyers and company promoters. I am neither a banker nor a lawyer, nor, as far as I know, a company promoter; but I wish to say a few words on behalf of a class not yet mentioned, that is, the unfortunate ratepayers. The increase in rates all over the country during the last ten years has been something astounding. In our great towns that enormous increase has seriously hampered manufacturers. It hampers most seriously the railway companies; and, although I do not expect much sympathy for them, because unfortunately they are looked upon as fair game, still they are entitled to consideration. Many persons have their savings invested in these enterprises, and depend almost entirely on them for their subsistence. My only complaint about this Committee is that it does not go far enough. I do not consider it is an attack on the great corporations of this country to appoint a Committee to investigate the manner in which they carry on their trading. If they carry on their trading successfully, and for the benefit of the community, they have nothing to fear from investigation; but if they carry on their trading, as I believe they do in a great many instances, at the cost of the ratepayers, then the ratepayers have good reason to complain.
  My only complaint about the action of the Government is that they did not take a broader view of the question. They are merely taking in hand one side of a very large question, and are not dealing boldly with the other side. It must be obvious to anyone who has taken the trouble to inquire into the statistics, that the manufacturers of this country cannot continue to conduct
  1434
  their business in large towns if the rates are so high as to seriously cripple them. After all the manufacturer, although it may be fashionable to scoff at him, is very often the largest ratepayer in the town. Not only that, but he employs those who live in the town; and if he is driven out you will not only inflict injury on him but also on those who reside within the area. I hope that my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is in charge of this Motion, will not lose sight of this larger question. We ought to consider how best this great increase in the rates can be dealt with, and whether ratepayers are getting value for their money. If they are not some other restrictions on municipal trading should be imposed.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: The hon. Member for South Islington was very coy about the words "municipal trading," and he suggested one or two other synonyms which would suit him better. But what have municipalities done? I will give a few instances—cold air storage, ice manufacture, concert rooms, hotels, Turkish baths, cycle tracks, and brass foundries. What is trading if that is not trading? The hon. Member also said that there were other openings for municipal activity. Let me give a few of the proposed developments. He had seen suggestions that municipal trading should be further developed so as to take in pawnbroking, banking, running public-houses—[OPPOSITION cheers]—fire insurance, and retail coal trade. That evidently pleased hon. Members opposite. He thought, therefore, it was important that they should have a Committee, or rather a Royal Commission, to inquire into the question. He considered that the matter was much more likely to be properly dealt with by a Royal Commission than by a Committee of Members either of this or the other House of Parliament.
  Referring to the financial aspect of the question, he spoke of the rapid rate at which the local indebtedness of the country had grown during the last twenty-five years, and more especially during the last ten years. It was all very well for them to try to reduce the national debt, but if local debt was to develop as it had been doing

  1435
  there would not be much advantage gained. He asked the House to remember that local debt was not under the purview of the control of Parliament in the same way as the national debt. It was a matter for serious consideration that while during the last twenty-five years we had reduced the national debt £140,000,000, local loans had been increased by £201.000,000 in the same period. The indebtedness of local authorities was now estimated at £.330,000,000 or £10 per head of the population. These were startling figures, well worthy of the consideration of any Committee that might be appointed, and they ought to give pause to any thoughtful person not to engage in an enterprise where competition would be with Corporations having the rates behind them. The way in which local indebtedness was being piled up was one of the most serious dangers which the community had to face. He did not deny for a moment that municipalities had done a great deal of good in the country, but he held that they had made many dangerous experiments, and that their action must tend in the future, if carried into all departments of trade, to paralyse private enterprise.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): My hon. friend has discussed the question whether municipal trading is a good thing or a bad thing. The question before us is not whether municipal trading is good or bad, or whether a Committee should be appointed to inquire into municipal trading, but whether the Committee which was appointed two years ago should be reappointed to inquire into a question of the greatest possible importance. From my own experience at the Board of Trade, I think it is extremely desirable that the Board should have the assistance of a careful inquiry by a Committee to enable us to come to decisions on proposals made in provisional orders for the extension of municipal trading. For instance, the Board has hitherto refused to admit into provisional orders provisions to permit municipal authorities to manufacture electrical fittings, and that is one of the points upon which the Board would be glad to have the
  1436
  advice of a Select Committee. I do not wish to detain the House longer at the present moment, but I do earnestly urge that the House should allow this question to be inquired into.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was very sorry that he could not respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and particularly after the speech he had made. The right hon. Gentleman could not have cited a more unfortunate illustration for facilitating the passing of this Resolution than the one he mentioned in regard to the supply of electrical fittings. On that matter he ventured respectfully to say that the Board of Trade ought not to seek guidance from a Committee of this House. The proper body to decide whether electrical fittings should be made and sold was the local authority that undertook that particular enterprise. When the President of the Board of Trade asked that a Committee should be appointed in order that his Department might be guided, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman revealed that the Resolution was a flank attack against municipal authorities managing their own business in their own way, and consequently he was strongly opposed to it. What was the Resolution? The President of the Board of Trade obviously had not given it that attention he should have done. The Resolution said—
  "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction."'
  All the local authorities in this country acted under statutes and Provisional Orders which were passed by this House. The House had already sufficient supervision of the work done by the local authorities, and what was the reason assigned for the appointment of this Committee? The mere fact that you had a Committee two years ago which did its work, as suggested by the hon. Member for South Islington, was no reason why it should be reappointed unless there was necessity.

  1437
  There was no fact alleged or evidence produced about dereliction of duty by any of the local authorities to warrant this investigation. Corruption, mismanagement, extravagance, or loss to the ratepayers had not been alleged. On the contrary, all the evidence went to show that the local authorities, in regard to gas for example, managed their enterprises in such a way as to supply the consumer cheaper than private companies could do, while at the same time making substantial surpluses which were used for the purpose of lightening the burdens of the poor and reducing the charges to manufacturers. For whose purpose was this Committee demanded? The facts did not warrant it, and no section of the ratepayers had asked the Board of Trade to set up a Committee. Had the London County Council or the municipality of Manchester, Liverpool or Glasgow demanded an investigation into municipal trading? Not a single one. On the contrary, outside The Times and a few company directors, whose policy on municipal trading was equal to their incapacity to manage their own affairs, there was no tittle or shadow of a public demand for this inquiry.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  EVENING SITTING.

    TRADES UNIONS.
    MR. BELL, on a point of order desired to know whether the Motion would be in order seeing that there was a Bill down for a future day dealing with the same subject.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid he was about to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact there were several Bills on this subject, and, as the Motion was couched in wide terms, he was about to ask the hon. Member what matters outside the scope of these Bills he proposed to discuss, and whether he would modify his Motion so as not to include their subject-matter.
    MR. PEMBERTONsaid he did not intend to trench upon those Bills in the observations he proposed to make, but it certainly seemed to him there was ground for some inquiry.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid it was not enough, in order to avoid anticipating a Bill, for the hon. Member to contend that the question which was raised by a Bill was one on which there should be previous inquiry. The hon. Gentleman must avoid all discussion on the subject-matters of those Pills. If the hon Gentleman said he could make his Motion without touching the subject-matter of those Bills that was another matter.
    MR. PEMBERTONsaid that was his impression. The position he had taken up had been misunderstood, and he had been met with a good deal of opposition from opposite quarters. Those who represented the employers considered he was bringing a Motion which might injure their view of the law, whilst hon. Members who represented Trades Unions thought he was trying to burk discussion on the Bills which would come before the House in due time. He should, he thought, be able to show good reason for asking the House to agree that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the state of the law as it affected Trades Unions, without attempting to allude to any of the points to which the Bill of the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean and others alluded. His first point was that the legal status obtained by Trades Unions was of great importance to the country and to the House, quite irrespective of party. Everybody who knew anything of social and economic life in this country, looked upon it as a matter of great importance to the country that Trades Unions should not be in the uncertain position that they were in to-day. Trades Unions had become more and more important from time to time, and had now obtained a quasi-legal status. Then came the great combinations of employers. Considering the importance of trade in this country and the fact that the whole prosperity of the country depended upon the operations of trade, and that that was involved in the relations

    1439
    of the Trades Unions and the Employers Unions, it seemed to him primâ facie that that was good reason for asking for an inquiry to settle what exactly was the position of the law, if there was a law, with regard to Trades Unions.
    The three grounds on which he based his request were, first, the uncertainty as to the liability of Unions and as to what they could do, as well as the uncertainty of the rights of Employers Unions. That in itself he thought justified his request for inquiry. Such inquiry would be in the interests of the general public as much as of the combinations themselves. Secondly, he urged the inequality of the position of Trades Unions and Employers Unions as a reason for inquiry. That inequality was not only possible with regard to their legal positions, but also from their general positions. He pointed out that in cases of dispute the workmen risked more than the employers, because the employers could shift their business and get rid of the difficulty in that way, but that this course was not open to the Trades Unions. The chief ground on which he had based his argument was the natural and broad one of public policy. Trades Unions were a very important body in the country. Everything, he thought, should be done, as far as reasonably could, to consider their position, and all that the country or the House could desire was that they should obey the law. It would surely be a wise course to try to make their position clear. In asking for an inquiry, he could not see that he was in any way asking for an amendment of the law. He only asked for an inquiry into the state of the law as it was, and he hoped the Government would show favour to such an inquiry. He begged to move.
    MR. HALDANE, in rising to second the Motion congratulated his hon. friend on the extremely skilful way in which he had proposed it. He himself felt the sword of Damocles suspended by a hair over his head, and a sense of extreme peril in the task he had undertaken in seconding the Motion. He contended that the general law relating to Trades Unions was in a crude condition. It was law made by the Judges rather than by the House. He was far from wishing to be understood to object to what was called Judge-made
    1440
    law, for some of the Judge-made law was of the very best we had. He instanced the Merchant Law, made not only by judges but juries as well, and the Law of Partnerships, which was made in a like manner from time to time until at last it reached a stage, as the result of an inquiry by a Committee of this House, when it was possible to legislate upon it. The difficulty the House was in when it approached legislation which related to labour lay in the uncertainty of the material. It was essential that there should be before the House some clear view of what the law was before they could possibly proceed effectively to amend it. Therefore it was eminently desirable to his mind that the Government should initiate some form of inquiry on this subject. Speaking for himself he thought the Government would probably act wisely in going a little short of this Motion—if they confined themselves to asking for a report on the actual state of things rather than for suggestions as to a remedy. He would prefer that an inquiry of this sort should be conducted in a dry scientific light, which could only be done by those engaged divesting themselves of the very smallest tinge of opinion on one side or the other; and he submitted to the House that the condition of things with which they were all familiar made it essential and desirable that they should have some authoritative statement as to" the material with which they had to deal. He begged leave to second the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the existing law as it affects Trades Unions, and report what, if any, alterations should be made therein."—(Mr. Pemberton.)
    MR. GALLOWAY: I acknowledge at once the difficulty in which I am placed in following two such eminent Members of the Bar. That difficulty is almost insurmountable, and I rise not so much to discuss in any way the merits or demerits of the proposal of my hon. friend the Member for Sunderland as to submit an Amendment which, even assuming the ground taken by my hon. friend to be sound, I believe will remove the ambiguity involved in his Motion. All

    1441
    the laws affecting Trades Unions had their foundations in a preliminary inquiry. That was the case with the Royal Commission presided over by the Lord Chief Justice Earle, and which sat from 1867 to 1869 and with the subsequent Royal Commission of 1874. If we are to have any legislation affecting the Trades Unions of this country then I submit that before such legislation is proposed we ought to have some inquiry to enlighten us as to what is the actual condition of the law. It is admitted that there is uncertainty in regard to that which should be removed. If the Motion of the hon. Member for Sunderland is passed in the form in which it now stands it might merely mean that the inquiry should be made by a Committee of this House, because my hon. friend simply says "a Committee." I am quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman who seconded the Motion is the last person in the world to recommend a Select Committee of this House. It is not for me to argue what would probably happen if there was such a Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman referred to the bias which some people might have who had read, for instance, Mr. Sydney Webb's book: but whatever view we take on this question we all admit that a Select Committee is not either a proper or a good tribunal to deal with this subject. Therefore that ambiguity should be removed from my hon. friend's Motion.
    Whether it would be better to appoint a Departmental Committee of experts or a Royal Commission is a matter worthy of consideration, and for debate. I think a Depart mental Committee is very often apt, to judge from the experience of various such Committees, to labour the official view of the Department. I do not say that the employers' view of labour questions is necessarily hostile to that of the workmen. I believe it is not the case in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred; and that the two interests are so combined and conjoined that it is impossible, except with a malicious intent, to divide the one from the other. If that be so I submit that a Departmental Committee would be by no means a good tribunal to deal with this question. So far as I know the only other method left is a Royal Commission. I know it is suggested
    1442
    sometimes that Royal Commissions are often appointed for the purpose of delaying legislation, but if there is any guilt in the matter it is shared equally by both sides of the House. I am sure that my hon. friend will agree that this House should thoroughly understand a question before it attempts to legislate upon it. My hon. friend holds decided views on various questions, and he would not suggest that the House should embark on legislation on a subject which he himself did not understand. It is admitted, then, that we do not know exactly where the law stands, and there is no other method, which I can imagine, of affording us the information we require than by an inquiry by a Royal Commission. Therefore I beg to move the omission of the word "Committee" in the Motion of my hon. friend, and the insertion of the word "Commission." I use the word "Commission advisedly, because I do not know whether technically I would be carrying the Government with me if this suggestion of mine is agreed to.
    I do not think it is necessary that there should be a limit to the number of Members on the Commission, but at the same time I do not think it necessary it should be a large Commission. On the contrary it would be very much better if all contending interests were excluded from this body, and that there should be included only those competent to form a judgment from a legal and a common-sense point of view. I know it may be urged that we cannot appeal to the judges for any assistance in this inquiry, because they would not be able to spare the time for this additional work, although I cannot imagine any work in which the judges could be more properly engaged than in settling a difficulty of this kind. Whether the Commission should be large or small it is not for me to say: but I wish to remove any ambiguity in the original Motion, and to make it quite clear that the inquiry should be made not by a Committee, but by a Commission.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the word 'Committee' and insert the word 'Commission' instead thereof."—(Mr. Galloway.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Committee ' stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. F. HOPE: I have an Amendment on the Paper to the Motion of my hon. friend the Member for Sunderland, but I am bound to say that in putting down that Amendment I based it on the view to which the hon. and learned Member for Haddington has given expression. I had had the hope of gratifying the ambition of hatching the egg which the hon. and learned Member has laid, but I feel that now he has cut the ground from under my feet. I will confine myself to one or two general observations. In the first place there is a point on which I think we all agree. It is certain that the law as it stands at present is obscure, and that it is suspected that the law at present is partial. The obscurity ought to be made clear, and the absolute fairness and equality of the law ought to be demonstrated without doubt or cavil. Whatever view we may take of labour disputes I think all parties who have to enter such disputes have a right to know where they stand, and have a right to meet each other on equal terms. I do not believe that Parliament will ever give any privilege to one class and deny it to another. [Ironical cheers from the OPPOSITION Benches.] Certainly Parliament ought not to do so; and it ought to be absolutely clear that if unfortunate labour disputes do take place both sides should meet to settle their differences in a fair field, and with no favour. As to the composition of whatever body is appointed to investigate this matter, I believe there is a distinct prejudice against a Royal Commission constituted in the ordinary way. It is found that when a large Commission is appointed, representing every kind of interest, and when that Commission sits over a long period, hearing every kind of evidence from every quarter, an impression is produced on the public mind that it has been appointed to shelve the matter. I deprecate that that should be the ease on this occasion. I think that whatever body is appointed to inquire into this question should be small, expert, and impartial. [An HON. MEMBER on the Opposition Benches: "Why not appoint the House of Lords?"] The appointment of the Commission ought to be made on the assumption that real busi-
    1444
    ness is meant, and that the state of the law should be so settled that no Party will be able to say that they are aggrieved, or that all are not placed on a footing of equality.
    MR. BELL: I think this must be an evening of short speeches. These must necessarily he compressed in consequence of the narrow lines on which we shall have to confine ourselves in discussing; the matter before the House. I certainly feel gratified with the hon. Member for Sunderland for the sympathetic manner in which he introduced his Motion; but all I heard fall from his lips seemed to be arguments why his Motion should nor be carried. They are arguments for the; Bill set down for Second Beading on 8th: May, and everything covered therein. I have heard remarks to-night in favour of a Committee, a Commission, or something else, to inquire into the state of the law, and, at the same time, each of the speakers has admitted that the law is in an unsatisfactory state. That is the reason why Bills have been introduced into the House for the specific purpose of putting the law on a satisfactory footing; but if this Motion is adopted to-night it will prejudice the chances of any of these Bills being carried, for it will be said that a Royal Commission or a Select Committee is inquiring into the subject matter of the Bill, and until it has reported the judgment of the House must be withheld, and hon. Members will not be inclined to give the Bill their support. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to offer us their sympathy, and I am obliged to them for it. But last year we had a Motion before the House in which we wanted the appointment of a Committee on practically the same lines as that proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, that the Government should do something to codify the law so that employers and workmen, lawyers and judges might know how to deal with these matters. On that occasion hon. Members refused to support it. Perhaps I am not right or fair in suggesting that if we were not in a favourable position for bringing our Bill before the House, we should not have had a Motion of this description at all.
    MR. PEMBERTON: SO far as I am concerned that is not my intention; and, as a matter of fact, I supported the Motion last year.
    MR. BELL: I fully accept the hon. and learned Member's explanation, and I am much obliged to him for the support he gave us on that occasion. For once, perhaps, I am in agreement with the employers. I received to-day a circular from them asking me, along with others, to oppose this Motion.
    MR. GALLOWAY: I was in no way interested in the circular.
    MR. BELL: I do not suggest that the hon. Member was interested in it. I simply referred to the fact that such a circular had been sent to me. The arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Manchester are really arguments against the Motion and in favour of the Bill. I know the hon. Member tor Manchester holds very different views about Trades Unions from what I do, and that is perhaps really the reason why he wants a Commission, or the House of Lords, to inquire into this matter. However, the action of hon. Members in the House, in refusing us support when we asked last year for a Committee of Inquiry into the state of the law in order that it might be codified, has raised a storm in the country which has had the effect of inducing hon. Members opposite to support this Motion and to show that they are in favour of something being done. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, which represents 1,500,000 of the workers of this country, has made up its mind on this subject, and we are going to test the opinion and sympathies of this House by bringing forward our Bill on May 8. I ask the House, and especially those who sympathise, or even say that they sympathise, with the Trade Unions, to vote against both the Motion and the Amendment, and to be in their places on May 8 to give their support to the Bill.
    MR. LAWSON WALTON: I would like to say a word on this Motion, associating myself for the moment with my hon. friend behind me
    1446
    and at the same time associating myself with the hon. Member for Sunderland. I do not think that the views of these hon. Gentlemen are necessarily inconsistent. Personally I share profoundly the opinion expressed on all sides of the House that the existing state of the law is extremely unsatisfactory. I also share the feeling of my hon. friend behind me that it ought to be amended at the earliest possible date. But I am not so sanguine as he seems to be that the 8th of May will see an alteration made in the Statute Law. In all probability the extremely slow operation of the legislative machinery of this House will involve the elapse of a considerable time before the necessary changes are introduced. But, in the meantime, it is surely of the utmost importance that we should ascertain definitely what the state of the law is before proceeding to legislative action. I defy any lawyer to expound the law at present in clear terms. Before we can amend it, or before we can consider the rational application of the proposed changes, we should know the specific subject-matter to which these changes are intended to apply. I trust that within the limits of the very narrow groove which you, Mr. Speaker, have announced in reference to this Motion, I shall be able to indicate what should be the subject which this House should refer to a Committee or Commission.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. and learned Member has been really for the last five minutes arguing the question of the Bill. I hope he will not pursue that course.
    MR. LAWSON WALTON: Of course I accept your views, Mr. Speaker, but it is difficult to justify a reference to a Committee without, in some measure, trenching on the subject-matter of the Bill. I|think I might be in order, if it is the fact that the state of the law we propose to change is uncertain, in arguing that there should be some preparatory inquiry to ascertain what exactly the law is.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is repeating the same thing, although I quite appreciate the difficulty he is in.
    MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he supported this Motion in the hope that the legislation proposed might be final, and that the result would not be a further conflict between the constructions of the Statute and the views of the judges, and he trusted that there would not be further confusion between Statute Law and judge-made laws. He thought all this might be avoided by some form of preliminary inquiry.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid that all those who were specially interested in Trades Union legislation could not view with favour the Motion made by the hon. Member for Sunderland. What the Labour Party contended for was that their difficulties were well known and their dangers well defined, and that they had a remedy sufficient for the purpose in the form of a Bill which would shortly be introduced. Therefore an inquiry, rightly or wrongly, could only be used as an excuse to evade a direct issue on the 8th of May of what was required. Holding those views it was impossible to agree in any measure whatever with any view or policy that would lead to delay of even an hour on this great question. The Tory Government in 1874 found itself in a similar position. In the year 1872 he himself was in a responsible position, and he remembered that the Government were sorely pressed, and indeed oppressed with the operation of the Law of Conspiracy and the Law of Contract. In the General Election which took place in February, 1874, they heckled every candidate in the country on the issue which came out at that General Election. The overwhelming majority of members returned in February, 1874, were steeped in pledges in favour of the views of the Labour Party at that time. When the Government was formed in the year 1874 by Mr. Disraeli, a similar Motion to the one now made by the hon. Member for Sunderland led to the appointment of a Commission against the clear declarations of all parties that the House should proceed to legislation.
    Their case now was that there was no necessity in their judgment for this inquiry because the facts were before all parties, and any willing draftsman wishing to relieve both sides of this dilemma could do so at very short notice.
    1448
    The Commission he had referred to was appointed, and the hon. Member for Morpeth was invited to join the Commission, but he refused. A number of the leading Labour leaders refused to give evidence before that Commission, and the Government was forced to bring the inquiry to a close. After that, a draftsman within a few weeks drew a Bill, both with regard to conspiracy and the law of contract, which, if not entirely satisfying all the demands of the Labour Party, was so well grounded that it satisfied the wants of the Labour world for a great number of years. If the House now agreed to the appointment of this Committee it would be taken purely as an evasion, and as a means of avoiding the expression of the opinion of the House on a direct issue, and all such policies were undesirable. It was on those grounds that they viewed with disfavour this proposal, because they thought it would be taken as a way of escape from saying directly "aye" or "no" to a straight question which would be put to Parliament on the 8th of May. Therefore they were bound to oppose this Motion, and all well-wishers of Trades Unions, and all who desired that peace should reign between Capital and Labour in this country, ought to oppose this Motion. He held strong opinions upon this subject, and he sincerely hoped that both sides would join in rejecting this suggestion for an unlimited delay in legislation, because legislation upon this question was a most urgent need, in order to protect the interests of hundreds and thousands of the workers of this country.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that nobody was asking for delay in regard to this question, and he did not think legislation of this sort would be hastened by speeches made in such a spirit as that which had just been delivered by the hon. Member for Leicester. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] The time had gone by when either the House of Commons or the public outside could be driven into any such course by the use of minatory and brow-beating language. He had a strong preference for the appointment of a Royal Commission rather than a Select Committee. There was a much more difficult question before the legislature in the year 1867, when a Royal Commission was appointed. At that time Parliament

    1449
    appointed a strictly impartial Committee, and they recommended legislation which was strong enough to last for a generation. There was another precedent in 1893, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife appointed a Commission to deal with certain riots arising out of a coal strike in that year. If in the present case they got from a Commission appointed a report so luminous and valuable as was produced on that occasion it would be a great advantage, and he did not think any more delay than was absolutely necessary need be feared. He hoped if there was to be an inquiry it would be by a Royal Commission, and that it would not be constituted by the discredited method of giving representation to those contending parties from whom it was impossible to get an impartial judgment.
    MR. SHACKLETONsaid he was sorry the hon. Member for Sheffield had introduced words which were calculated to give offence to hon. Members. He did not think anything had been said to justify the remarks which the hon. Member for Sheffield had made, and as far as he was personally concerned he should endeavour to keep from remarks which would give offence to anybody. What they desired was that the opinion of the House should be given on this question. The employers were perfectly satisfied in their own opinion as to what the law was, but the workpeople, so far as the decisions which had been given from time to time, were not satisfied, and they were anxious to get away altogether from the legal decisions which had been given within the past few years. They wished to lay clearly before the country the position which they desired to be in—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If I allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed on these lines, I shall be inviting a discussion which I have ruled to be out of order.
    MR. SHACKLETONsaid he would bow to Mr. Speaker's ruling, and what he was going to say was that they did not feel that the Committee of this House, chosen as suggested from those not interested in the case either on one side or the other, would be of any advantage at all. They were also of opinion that the appointment of a Royal Commission meant delay—certainly
    1450
    of months and might be years—and he appealed to the House, for the sake of peace in the country, and in order to be able to conduct any future disputes in a proper manner, that this matter should be settled by Parliament as soon as possible. He thought the House would be wise in accepting the advice of the employers on the one side and of the representatives of Labour on the other side. The employers distinctly advised that this question should be settled, not that night, but on the 8th of May, and the Coal Miners Association advised the same thing, and these two associations represented 75 per cent. of the employers of this country. He appealed to the Government not to give any encouragement to this Motion, because he felt sure the people would take it as an attempt to delay legislation and nothing else. He hoped the House would defeat the Motion.
    MR. WHITE RIDLEYsaid he sincerely hoped the Government would see their way to grant a small Commission. He thought they might take it that it was the general sense of the House and of the country that the law upon this question was in a state of chaos, but they were not all agreed that the bringing of a Bill before the House was the best way to remedy this state of chaos. It was possible that a small Commission would be able to put the state of the law into some coherent code, and that would probably be the best way of settling the question, which they all admitted was of a very complicated character. The Homo Secretary had stated that the Government would not shrink from making an inquiry if they thought it was necessary, and therefore he thought they might take it that the Government was not entirely averse to the principle of an inquiry. In order that they might arrive at a fair judgment and come to a decision he thought that some such inquiry as that proposed by his hon. friend the Member for Sunderland was absolutely necessary.
    MR. ASQUlTH: Without any disrespect to the hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this debate, I venture to record my own opinion, which is that I have rarely heard a more unprofitable discussion—unprofitable not from any fault on the part of those hon.

    1451
    Members who have shared in it, and not from any lack of interest on the part of the House upon a subject which, if we had been able to approach it, would have engrossed universal attention; but unprofitable owing to the conditions under which the debate is carried out, which preclude us from discussing even the subject matter. We cannot approach even the outskirts of the subject; our tongues are tied and our hands are fettered, and we are really beating the air to no purpose. [An HON. MEMBER: Ploughing the sands.] I agree with the suggestion that at the earliest possible moment this discussion should come to an end. It appears to me that neither the representatives of the employers nor of the employed are anxious for the passing of the Motion which has been suggested. For my own part I agree with my Iron. and learned friend behind me that there is, at any rate, a considerable area of the existing law which is covered by recent decisions with obscurity and confusion; and, as I have said before, I do not believe that any lawyer who has studied the decisions of the Courts could advise with any confidence in any given state of circumstances what Acts were legal and what were illegal, and what constituted a conspiracy and what did not. But there are certain defects of the law which are patent and obvious and capable of a clear remedy which have been revealed by recent decisions. There is the law of picketing, for instance, and some branches of the law of agency.
    THE SPEAKER: I must remind the right Iron. Gentleman that the points enumerated by him are specifically dealt with in the Bills which have been introduced.
    MR. ASQUITH: I have unconsciously illustrated my own contention that it is impossible to discuss this subject with any profit under existing conditions, because the moment you approach a concrete fact you are pulled up and you cannot get on. I would strongly deprecate any Commission or Committee of inquiry as likely to be relied on as an argument against immediate legislation; and since it is clear that neither of the interests concerned desire the inquiry I appeal to the mover to withdraw his Motion.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,): I only rise to re-echo what was said by the right Iron. Gentleman opposite, and I agree with him that whatever importance there may be attached to this Motion if we were free to discuss it—and I am far from saying that if we were free there might not be a great deal to be said in favour of the course which is suggested—I still do think that on the matter introduced by my hon. friend the mover, which is one of extreme importance, we do find ourselves almost in a ludicrous position in trying to come to any conclusion. What is the position in which we are placed? The Motion suggests that we should ask for a Committee or a Commission to examine into the existing law as it affects Trades Unions. Sir, your ruling prevents us from even talking about what that law is. The Motion goes further and asks that the inquiry should also be an inquiry as to what the alterations of the law should be. But we are not allowed to refer to such alterations, and therefore we are really during the whole of this debate talking in the abstract, and we are unable to illustrate a single argument by a concrete example, and we are in such a position that I hardly think the House—with the exception of those hon. Gentlemen who have gone minutely into these decisions and happen to know them—is in a position to discuss this question at all. Sir, in addition to that we have hon. Members getting up and saying that they do not want this Motion, and therefore I do not really see what use it is to proceed with the discussion. I therefore join with the right hon. Gentleman in asking the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. PEMBERTON: With the leave of the House, I should like to withdraw my Motion.
    MR. GALLOWAY: And I also ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    EARLY CLOSING OF SHOPS.
    MR. PRICEthen rose to move "That in the opinion of this House, the unnecessarily long hours of labour in shops are injurious to the health and well-being of all concerned; that it is desirable that Borough and District Councils should be authorised to obtain provisional orders making such regulations in respect to the closing of shops and the limitation of the hours of labour of shop workers as may seem to them to be necessary for the areas under their jurisdiction, thus effectively carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Early Closing of Shops, as embodied in paragraph 15 of the Report of 1901." He said that at that late hour of night he would only very briefly tell the House what had been the Parliamentary history of that movement. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that in the year 1888 a Bill dealing with the early closing of shops was introduced by Lord Avebury, then Sir John Lubbock, and was rejected by a very large majority. In 1893, however, the House came unanimously to the conclusion that some change in the law was necessary, and consequently in 1895, a Bill effecting that change was introduced and passed a Second Heading. It went to a Select Committee and was there dealt with, but further progress with it was checked because the Government annexed the whole of the time of the House. In 1896, almost the same thing again occurred, the Bill, however, going to the Grand Committee on Trade instead of to a Select Committee, it passed through that Committee with certain Amendments proposed by the Home Office, but again it was lost through want of time. Since then they had had no formal Bill on the subject in the House.
    In the House of Lords, however, in 1901 Lord Avebury introduced a Bill, which was referred to a Select Committee where some interesting developments took place. One of the members of that Committee was the Marquess of Salisbury, who was at first disposed to take a very strong line against the measure, judging from the questions he put to some of the witnesses. But after they had called eighty-six witnesses, sixty-two
    1454
    of whom represented large trade interests, Lord Salisbury submitted a recommendation to the Committee setting forth that they were convinced by the evidence that the early closing of shops would be an immense boon to the shopkeeping community, both shopkeepers and shop-assistants alike; that the present hours were grievously injurious to the health, especially of women, and undermined their constitutions, and recommending that Town Councils should be authorised to pass Provisional Orders making such regulations with regard to the closing of shops as might be deemed to be necessary in the areas under their control; such Provisional Orders to be submitted to Parliament in the usual manner.
    Now, the Motion he had the honour of submitting that night went generally upon the lines of that recommendation. There were only two points, indeed, in which it differed from it. In the first place Borough and District Councils were substituted for Town Councils, and in the second place he added to the recommendation a limitation of the hours of shopworkers. Indeed he thought that was a necessary corollary. It was obvious that the mere closing of shops would not preclude excessive overtime being worked after the establishment was closed, and therefore it was necessary to include some limitation of hours in the interests of the shop assistant. Anxious as he was to get this matter dealt with by Parliament, however, he would warmly welcome an early closing movement, even if unaccompanied by any recommendation as to the hours of labour. In refreshing his memory with the evidence given before the Committee, he was struck by the terrible position of affairs in many trades. There were three kinds of shops—the rich man's shops, the middle class, and the very poor man's shop. In dealing with the richer class of shop, the matter was comparatively simple. About twelve years ago the Voluntary Early Closing Association was started by the hon. Member for Dulwich and others, and the working of that organisation in the case of the superior class of shop had been most satisfactory and gratifying. Up to that time the hours worked at all shops

    1455
    had been laboriously long. But the Association had produced a marked improvement in that respect in the better class shops which now closed at a reasonable hour in the evening, which gave a weekly half-holiday to the assistants, and in which there was no Sunday labour. In the middle class shops, too, there had also been considerable improvement, but there was still room for more improvement. But when they came to the very poor shops the condition of things that obtained there was terrible to contemplate. The assistant had to work eighty to ninety hours in the week, and one witness stated that to his own knowledge there were shops in one poor district where the employees were working an average of fifteen hours daily, including Sundays. No doubt, that was an extremely rare case, but it was certain that in many poor districts in London, and in some provincial towns, assistants had to work from 8 in the morning till 10.30 on most nights, and even later on Fridays and Saturdays. There was no question that they were dealing with a section of society where life was very hard, and where moments of leisure were very few. And in any legislation which was passed, in any provisional order drafted by Councils, care would have to be taken that unnecessary hardship was not inflicted on the very poor.
    One interesting witness examined by the Committee, a lady who had intimate knowledge of the lives of the very poor in London, said that it was no doubt impossible, under present conditions, for the poor to shop earlier in the evening; the husbands were not paid until very late, and, of course, no shopping could be done until they got home with the money. One argument put forward for late shopping was that it was found that at midnight on Saturday the butcher, realising the necessity of disposing of his stock, let it go at very low prices. But surely if he were compelled to close an hour or two earlier the same considerations would still obtain with him; he would still be under the necessity of selling off his meat, and he would let it go at the best price he could get for it. No doubt some of the lateness was due to the habits of the people. Formerly the middle classes were in the
    1456
    habit of shopping late, but, thanks to the voluntary early closing movement, shops were now closed much earlier and yet no public inconvenience was suffered, because people did their shopping earlier. With the middle and upper classes it was unquestionably a matter of habit and convenience, and as far as they were concerned everybody's sympathies would be with the shop assistants. Long confinement indoors was most detrimental to health, and varicose veins were a common form of complaint among assistants. Nothing could be worse for a man than to start a varicose vein, for it led to chronic ulcers.
    The question was would an alteration of the law inflict any hardship upon the very poor. They would, no doubt, have to move very carefully in the matter, and that was the reason he had couched his Resolution in such moderate terms. Indeed, so anxious was he to see something done, he was willing to still more modify its wording. If they could by some legislative means bring about an improved condition of affairs they certainly ought to do so. The Voluntary Early Closing Association had done extremely well, but it had made no practical impression on very poor shops. If they could contract the hours slightly at first, they would alter the habits of the people, they might be able to induce them to shop earlier on Saturday night, and the result would be a great boon to a hard-working and very much overworked section of the community. Shop assistants represented a large proportion of the population. There was a great tendency for people to migrate from the country into our large towns, and they got into crowded centres where the conditions of life were far from healthy. Everything possible ought therefore to be done to render more healthy those conditions. It was with that object that he moved the Resolution, and it would be very gratifying to him if he were told by the Government that night, seeing that both sides of the House were agreed upon the main principle, that they were themselves prepared to take up the question and introduce what would be a most beneficent reform.
    SIR JOHN GORSTrose to second the Resolution. He did not suppose there would be any strong opposition to it, seeing that it

    1457
    practically embodied the words of Lord Salisbury, and he hoped it would be supported by the Government and carried by the House. But that would not take the matter very far. The Resolution would be carried and they would hear no more about it. What he wanted to ask the Government to do was to assure the House that not only would they sympathetically support the Resolution, but that during the course of the present session they would give practical effect to the policy of Lord Salisbury. This case was a very fair example of the extreme slowness and difficulty with which social reforms were carried in this country. This was a question which had been before Parliament for the last quarter of a century. So long ago as 1886 there was a Bill introduced into that House upon which a Committee sat, in which all the evils at which the present Motion was directed were brought under the notice of Members of Parliament. More than that, two years later a memorial was addressed to Parliament by all the most prominent medical authorities in London, including the President of the Royal College of Physicians and a President of the Royal College of Surgeons, pointing out to the House of Commons the great social danger of these long shop hours, particularly in the case of women. The heads of the medical profession of that day declared that these long hours gave a very great impulse to tubercular disease, rickets, and other diseases to which town populations were liable, and which had a very serious effect on the next generation. That was fifteen years ago, and the young men and women employed in those days under such conditions had proved very bad parents, from a physical point of view, to the generation which was now rising up. How could they expect, when they had more than three-fourths of the population gathered together in the towns, that the nation would be physically healthy if they allowed that state of things to continue year after year? However, after 1888, not very much was done. Not long afterwards a Government came into office which was so occupied with the Home Rule Bill, and subsequently with ploughing the sands,
    1458
    that it was not able to attend to the social wants of the people.
    In 1895 there was a gleam of hope. There was a General Election in that year, and Members of the Party now in power, in the course of that election, vied with each other in assuring the electors that they would make the social condition of the people their one consideration. They had no United Kingdom to dismember, and no Parliamentary reform to occupy themselves with. They had, in fact, they said, nothing to do but to attend to the social condition of the people. They were returned to power, and practically nothing was done. A good deal was heard about the case of the shop assistants during the progress of the election, but nothing was heard of it in the legislature except the various attempts made by Sir John Lubbock to bring the subject under consideration. And it was not until Sir John had been translated to the House of Lords that he was able, in 1901, to bring in a Bill. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and on that Select Committee was Lord Salisbury, who, at that time was Prime Minister, and who, being entirely convinced of the necessity for some legislation, joined in the unanimous report of the Committee, which proposed a remedy for the evil. He believed that Lord Salisbury, on that occasion, indicated for the first time the real direction in which reform should take place, viz., by leaving it to the local authorities to make such regulations as were suitable to the circumstances of each particular case. After all, the closing of shops and the shortening of the hours of workers must depend largely upon the habits of the people and the circumstances of the locality. Lord Salisbury proposed that the duty of framing the regulations should be entrusted to the local authorities, who would be better able to lay down rules suitable to the requirements of their respective districts. He attached certain restrictions, which appeared to be scarcely necessary. Personally, he could not see why the local regulations should be subject to the confirmation of Parliament. He thought that if the Government would carry a Bill exactly on the lines of the recommendation made by Lord Salisbury two years ago, it would be a very satisfactory step in the direction of progress.

    1459
    The Committee reported in 1901, and it might have been supposed that the Government would, in the following year, bring in a Bill giving effect to its recommendations. But they had done nothing of the kind. A Bill had been brought in in another place, however, though not by a supporter of the present Government, which exactly carried out Lord Salisbury's proposal There was little probability of the House of Lords not supporting the unanimous conclusion of its own Committee of 1891, so that that Bill would doubtless reach the House of Commons. He assumed the Home Secretary would not oppose the Resolution under discussion, but he hoped that in addition, in order to give effect to the Resolution, he would assure the House that when the Bill to which he had referred reached the House of Commons it would receive the support of the Government.
    Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the unnecessarily long hours of labour in shops are injurious to the health and well-being of all concerned; that it is desirable that Borough and District Councils should be authorised to obtain Provisional Orders making such regulations in respect to the closing of shops and the limitation of the hours of labour of shop workers as may seem to them to be necessary for the areas under their jurisdiction, thus effectively carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee or the House of Lords on Early Closing of Shops, as embodied in paragraph 15 of the Report of 1901."—(Mr. Price.)
    MR. ASQUITH: I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the controversial parts of his speech; I will only say that, as usual, he has dealt out even-handed justice. I am prepared to admit, as he has frankly admitted, that neither Party is altogether free from blame in this matter; but, if we were to enter into the question of the Apportionment of the blame, I should say that the Party which has been in power, with a large majority in both Houses, during the last few years should, at any rate, accept its share. I have risen, however, simply to re-echo the appeal which has been made from both
    1460
    sides of the House, for some reassuring declaration on this subject. There are two propositions in regard to this matter which I think have now passed beyond the region of possible dispute. The first is as to the gravity and magnitude of the evil itself. The report of the Committee to which reference has been made shows that the average hours of shop assistants in London are between seventy-five and eighty hours per week, and very often you have to add to that from half-an-hour to two hours per day during which they carry on their work after the shops are closed. I cannot help contrasting that with the effect of the evidence given before the same inquiry with regard to co-operative stores, in which, you may say, both employers and employed belong to the labouring class. These are carried on with the most profitable results, and yet the hours of labour rarely, if ever, exceed sixty-five per week. If co-operative stores, catering for the same class of people as many of the poorer shops, can do their business at a profit, and exact from their employees only sixty-five hours per week, it is an unnecessary scandal that eighty, ninety, or even a hundred hours per week should be exacted in other shops.
    I need not enlarge on the enormous injury inflicted on people by these long hours. Without any exaggeration, and after long study of the question, I really believe that there is no class of the population, except the very lowest stratum of the working class, who are so badly off as regards facilities for humane and civilised life as shop assistants. Just consider what it means. They are in the shop for fourteen hours out of the twenty four; they are beyond all possibility of enjoying domestic, social, or civic life; they have no means of recreation, physical or intellectual; they are practically working slaves. Nothing struck me more, in reading the evidence given before the Committee, than a statement of the Rev. J. W. Horsley, a well-known clergyman in South London, to the effect that the tradesman class, meaning shop assistants, and small tradesmen who have no assistants of their own, never enter the public libraries. You see artisans, clerks, and members of almost every other class of the community

    1461
    availing themselves of these libraries, but shop assistants cannot. I am sure I have the universal sympathy of the House in saying that such a state of things is a disgrace.
    The second proposition, which I think is equally clear, is that it has been demonstrated by generation of disinterested and zealous effort, that voluntary action is not sufficient. We have had our Early Closing Associations, and they have undoubtedly done a great deal, particularly in the better class of shops, not so much to shorten the average hours of labour, as to bring about something in the nature of a weekly half-holiday. But voluntary associations are insufficient for the purpose, as has been shown over and over again, because a single, selfish, profit-seeking tradesman in a district can defeat the combined action of those who are disposed to close their shops and give reasonable facilities to their employees.
    These two propositions being granted, and I think they are amply proved, we are driven to legislation. It is really a melancholy and discreditable thing that for eighteen years, while both parties in the State had been practically agreed on these two propositions, nothing really effective has been done, except that very homoeo pathic measure for shortening the hours of young persons in shops, which does very little, and is, I am afraid, but inadequately administered. What I want to elicit from the Government, if I can, is this. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has shown that Lord Salisbury himself has indicated a way. I want the Government to assure us that they will take up seriously, and this session, one or other of the practical proposals which have been put before Parliament, and so bring about a solution of this evil. For myself, though I admit there are arguments on both sides, I think that, on the whole, the balance of argument is in favour of leaving the matter to the discretion of the local authorities. The conditions are so various, as between different communities, that to lay down a hard and fast cast-iron rule for the whole country might be productive of considerable mischief. I have sufficient confidence in the county and town councils—and I believe that confidence is shared by the bulk of Members on both sides—to know
    1462
    that in these matters they would be responsive to public opinion and anxious to improve the condition of this class of the population, without, on the other hand, being guilty of anything in the nature of tyranny or arbitrary action. I would leave the matter to them without any reference to Parliament. The machinery of a Provisional Order, with its delay, cumbrousness, and expense, is not one that it is desirable to use in a matter of this kind. But I do not want to labour that now. I want an assurance from the Government that when that measure reaches this House they will grant it the facilities which only a Government can give, so that it may pass into law. and at last clear away from our social structure that which has long been a scandal and a, disgrace.
    SIR; FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that the shop assistants worked very long hours, and therefore he would place the whole of the business of the shopkeepers in the hands of the Borough Councils. ("No.") He thought that was the result of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The local authorities were to fix the hours—not the hours that the people might work, but the hours that the shops were to be kept open. They might have poor people, a poor man and his wife, who were ready to keep open in order to earn a little money, and the right hon. Gentleman would compel them to close. That was a most extraordinary doctrine to be enunciated from the Front Bench opposite. It really seemed as though the people of this country were not to be allowed to do anything except under the regulation of the local authority. Much had been said lately as to the necessity of education to enable us to compete commercially with other countries, but what was wanted was not so much legislation as the freedom of every man to manage his own affairs in the way he thought best for his own interests. The mover of the Resolution was evidently aware of the evils which might result from the Motion, because he had said that it should be put in force slightly and tentatively at first. But there was nothing in the

    1463
    Resolution to that effect. The question of the very poor came in. People who were employed until six or seven o'clock, and had their purchases to make after they arrived home, would, under this Resolution, be unable to do their shopping at all. There were also the small shop-keepers, who would practically be deprived of their means of livelihood. Many of these people, although their shops were open from eight o'clock in the morning, did not really commence business until eight o'clock in the evening, the remainder of the day being spent in the shop parlour.
    The Act of three or four years ago, by which shopkeepers were compelled to provide seats for their women assistants, had to a great extent removed the evils to which reference had been made by previous speakers. The medical evidence before the House of Lords Committee was practically confined to women, and if the hon. Member had introduced a Resolution restricting the hours of women he might possibly have supported it. Up to the present there had been no legislation affecting the hours of labour of the adult male. As to the hours of railway servants, they were not limited. If representations were made that the hours of labour of railway servants were excessive, and might cause danger to the public, the Board of Trade had power to step in and say that such hours should not be worked. But that was an entirely different thing from laying down a hard-and-fast rule that no adult male was to work beyond a certain number of hours per week. Even if the hon. Member had confined this Resolution to saying that the hours of shop assistants were to be limited, it would be introducing a very dangerous precedent, and one which might lead to serious results. But the hon. Member had gone further than that, and declared that a man might not work for himself as long as he liked without State interference. That was a serious matter, and he hoped the Government would say that as long as a man chose to work in this free country he should be allowed to do so. In that way they would do more for the prosperity of the country than would be done by all the efforts of Ministers of Commerce, Borough Councils, and other
    1464
    people who knew nothing whatever about the particular cases with which they might have to deal.
    MR. YOXALLsaid the hon. Member for Peckham had made a great point of the freedom of a man to work as long as he pleased, but that also implied the freedom of an unreasonable person to make his competitors work as long as he pleased, and in this country we usually proceeded on the assumption that the wisdom of the many was superior to the obstinacy of the one. The Committee of the House of Lords, whose Report was largely drawn up by Lord Salisbury himself, stated:—
    "We have endeavoured to ascertain the views of the shopkeepers themselves, by evidence, petition, and resolution. We have had before us the views of a large number of tradesmen, and of associations formed for the purposes of trade in all parts of the country. Of these over 2,900 are in favour of the general provisions of the Early Closing Bill, and many would wish to see it made more stringent, while the only tradesmen or associations who have petitioned or desired to give evidence against the Bill are the off-licence holders and the London pawnbrokers. "
    That did not appear to support the arguments of the hon. Member for Peckham. The hon. Member for the Peckham Division also argued that this proposal would give the Town Council power over the shops within its area. Now what was the proposal? It was not a hard and fast piece of legislation for the whole of the country. It applied in the first instance to that part of the country from which the demand for it arose.
    If a Town Council after consulting their constituents and hearing local opinion desired to do something in the way of restricting hours, then that Council might obtain a Provisional Order, with all its safeguards, which must be submitted to this House before it could have the force of law. Could anyone contend that that could be described as handing over the trade of a borough to the local authority. The Report of the Select Committee recommended that the local authority should be authorised to obtain a Provisional Order, which should be submitted to Parliament before it had the force of law. Therefore he submitted to the

    1465
    House, and especially to the Home Secretary, that the proposal was a moderate and restricted proposal, and that the right hon. Gentleman could hardly decline to extend to it the blessing of the Government. Depend upon it, it would not be availed of in any locality until the municipality were perfectly satisfied that they could adopt it without the risk of losing their own seats. The course of moderation could not further go; and he hoped that the proposal would have the support of the Government. The shop assistants were in favour of it, and he was perfectly certain that the chief thing they desired was a reduction of their hours of labour; the traders themselves approved of it; several associations of employers approved of it; Trades Union Conferences had passed resolutions in favour of it: and he thought that, altogether, the case was a very strong one from every point of view.
    LIEUT.-COLONEL GEORGE KEMPsaid he wished to say a few words in favour of the Motion, because he had already taken some steps in favour of even more stringent legislation. He did not think that any hon. Member would have opposed the Motion, seeing that its principle had been affirmed over and over again; and he was rather surprised that his hon. friend the Member for the Peckham Division should have taken exception to it on the ground that it would put more power; into the hands of the local authorities. Surely they on that side of the House had been giving powers of decentralisation in many directions. They had given it with reference to education, and had trusted the local authorities in that matter; and he hoped that it might be given, in the dim and distant future, even to the Army. If power were given to the local authorities in this matter they would know the requirements of the public, and the wishes of the electorate would be consulted. After all the principal part of the electorate were not shopkeepers or shop assistants, but the public; and the great argument, as he understood it, against the Motion was, that the public might be inconvenienced by any curtailment of hours; but as the public formed the larger part of the electorate, their wishes would be the most consulted by
    1466
    the local authorities. They knew from the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords that the shopkeepers as a whole were entirely in favour of legislation on the lines of the Motion, and he hoped that the Government would see their way to take the matter up and pass the desired legislation. He thought it would be a grave reflection on the House if, after acknowledging the principle for so many years, they were to let the matter slide. However, he had every confidence that the Government would show that in this respect they cared for the real interests of the hard working people of this country; and that they would add to the Statute Book a measure which would materially increase their happiness.
    MR. TENNANTsaid that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Beckham Division stated that if the Resolution were limited to the case of women he was not sure that he might not support it. He did not feel very sure that the hon. Gentleman would support it even then.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: Withdraw the Motion and introduce one referring to women.
    MR. TENNANTsaid that he had not the good fortune of his hon. friend in the ballot, but if he had he would not have introduced a less drastic Motion. Probably his Motion would be a little more forward, because he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the House had nothing to boast about in its relation to this question. What had they done? They passed what his right hon. friend called a homoeopathic measure, but what was the use of homoeopathy in a case like this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew as well as anyone else that the only law of the land with reference to shops except the Seats Act was the Act limiting the hours of young persons to 74 a week, and this was not administered in 50 per cent. of the eases. It could not be administered because young girls, of all ages up to eighteen, could not remember at the end of the week how many hours they had worked. They got bamboozled when they were asked.

    1467
    The hon. Member for the Peckham Division also introduced the story of the man and his wife, and their old friend the widow. They had timely warning given to them by the hon. Member for Battersea not to be misled by the old story of the widow. Finally the hon. Member for the Peckham Division came to the conclusion that if this country meant to compete with foreign countries it should employ women and girls eighty-four or ninety hours a week.
    He had from his hon. friend the Member for the Clitheroe Divisiona list of the hours worked per week in the Co-operative Society at Darwen. They were as follows:—Monday, ten and a half; Tuesday, four; Wednesday, nine and a half; Thursday, ten; Friday, eleven and a half; and Saturday, eleven and a half—a total of fifty-seven hours per week. He was talking to a shop assistant some time ago, and she said she worked from seventy-six to eighty hours, and she added that that was nothing to the hours of her little sister in Kings Road, Chelsea, who worked 91 hours a week, including six hours on Sunday. He had been refreshing his memory with the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Lords, the most interesting part of which was the evidence of Miss Octavia Hill, and her cross-examination by the late Prime Minister. Lord Salisbury could only be persuaded with great difficulty that shops did remain open in London on Sundays, and he asked if there was not an Act of Parliament against it. No doubt there was, but as the penalty was only 2s. 6d., and as the shopkeeper would make at least 3s. 6d. by keeping open, it was not surprising that the Act was almost a dead
    1468
    letter. He sincerely hoped that this Motion would be carried. They had remained too long looking at the subject; and it was really a reproach on the House of Commons that it had delayed so long in dealing with it.
    MAJOR EVANS-GORDONsaid he was in general agreement with what had fallen from his hon. friend the Member for the Peckham Division; but he hoped that, in agreeing with his hon. friend, it would not be supposed that he was wanting in sympathy with people who had to work in many cases very long hours. But although they might have the deepest sympathy with such people—and he was sure he had—they should think of the shopkeepers to whom his hon. friend referred, and whose very lives depended on keeping their shops open to what might seem unreasonable hours. In the part of London which he represented, the people who did the shopping were employed in all parts of the Metropolis They were out at all hours, and bought the smallest quantity at the most extra ordinary hours of the day and night, when the money happened to come in. It would be a terrible hardship on the shopkeepers and those people if they were handed over to the local authority It had been said by his hon. friend opposite that they were out of touch with the sentiments of those people if it was thought that they desired to keep their shops open; but he knew that a great number of the people in the East End of London would view the adoption of this Motion with great alarm. There were one or two points which had not yet been dealt with, to which he wished to refer. Had it occurred to anyone the extraordinary situation that would arise if, for instance.

    1469
    in the East End of London one Borough Council were to adopt a resolution of this nature, and a neighbouring Borough Council were not. That would create a most extraordinary state of things, and he submitted it was a very great objection. One other point had not been referred to. There were 80,000 people in London who would be affected by this Resolution—he meant the costermongers. In the East End of London an immense amount of shopping was done from barrows, and a great number of people were employed in carrying perishable goods about the streets in barrows. It would be a great hardship on them if they were told that after a certain hour they could not sell their goods.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the House knew the facts with regard to the danger and evils which accrued from late shopping, and he was really surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had not expressed his intention to abate the nuisance. He was also sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have introduced the East End of London, and should have used reactionary and obsolete arguments. He too represented a constituency in which there were large numbers of poor people, and also costermongers, and he contended that in the interest of the shopkeeper, in the interest of the shop assistant, in the interest of the purchaser, and in the interest of the costermonger, there was no reason why a maximum number of hours should not be fixed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of men who were employed late at night, but who bought the food for such men? Who bought lighter-
    1470
    man's steak? If he were a decent fellow, as he generally was, he was married, and his wife bought it.
    MAJOR EVANS-GORDONsaid that a carman's wife could not buy food until the carman came borne late at night with his money.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he would deal with that later. The lighterman's wife bought his steak, if he were married: and if he were single, his landlady bought it, but not at one or two o'clock in the morning. If the landlady wanted to get her young man lodger into a happy mood, she would buy his steak at a proper hour, and not have to depend on cagmag ornaments. As to the carman, he was not paid daily. He was paid on Tuesdays and Fridays, and had sufficient money to allow his wife or his landlady to shop at reasonable hours. Mechanics now had short hours, but they were inclined to rather selfishly impose long hours on the people who served them. The shopkeeper's assistant ought to get protection from the too often selfish and greedy mechanic, whose wife too frequently bought the Sunday dinner at midnight on Saturday night. He would tell the hon. and gallant Member what would happen. The local authorities, when this Resolution took the form of an Act, would give it six months working, and if an anomaly was disclosed they would make the Resolution uniform and applicable to all the Borough Council areas.
    The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham really surprised him on these matters. He had spoken on behalf of working men, but he really did not know

    1471
    a great deal about them. The hon. Member had stated that there were some people who worked late at night. That was no excuse for late shopping. Workmen did not shop. Shopping was done by their wives and families. Skilled and unskilled labourers were now getting reasonably short hours, and it was scandalous that shops should be open for sixteen hours, though they were not doing more than six or eight hours effective work in the time. The hon. Member for Peckham did not go shopping after eleven o'clock at night. In the West End of London the big shops were as a rule closed early. If Belgravia could shop at the Army and Navy Stores between ten and five o'clock, he saw no reason why something like reasonable hours should not be kept in the New Cut. Voluntary closing could be broken down by a few greedy shopkeepers with a little capital; the pressure of a law in which common-sense should be embodied was required. In the East End there was no reason why British shop keepers should be subjected to the unfair competition of aliens who worked from sixteen to eighteen hours a day, and, as was shown last week at Stepney, sometimes disposed of putrid foodstuffs in the late rush on Saturday night. It was because he believed that the adoption of such a Resolution as this would enable the people to buy better and cheaper food, at a time of day when they could detect the bad from the good, that he supported it.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The House will desire to hoar from me what reception the Government are prepared to give to this Resolution, and what view we take in regard to this matter. I cannot complain at all of the terms of the
    1472
    Resolution moved by the hon. Member for East Norfolk, nor of the tone in which he has addressed the House. I fully sympathise with him in the view he takes as to the hardships which are inflicted on many of these people in the shops of London. There has been a very general opinion for a long time past in favour of some form of early closing. I think opinion has certainly grown in the last five or six years in that direction. There is, I think, quite a general desire that shops should close earlier, and possibly the only feeling which is in conflict with that view is the feeling which has been expressed by the hon. Members for Peckham and Stepney, who seem to think, and possibly not without reason, that the smaller shopkeepers might suffer. But I am one of those who think that we might safely adopt the suggestion contained in the final clause of the report of the Lords Committee, and allow the Borough Councils to deal with this question. I think they are perfectly capable of exercising the power, and further than that, I honestly believe they will exercise it with justice. I believe that they will not venture, probably, to make any such proposition unless they have first taken a plebiscite of their population and decided on it upon a given proportion, and I believe that in most of the districts or boroughs three-fourths of the shopkeepers themselves would vote in favour of a proposition for the earlier closing of shops. There need not be any hardship on the smaller shopkeepers, because their views would in one way or another be heard.
    My right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University has challenged us for not having ourselves introduced a Bill to deal with this subject in the years

    1473
    we have been in office. As my hon. friend the Member for Peckham has pointed out, a certain amount of the blame, if blame there be, falls equally on his shoulders, because he was a Member of the same Government. But I do not think the question was quite in the same position then as it has been since this unanimous report of the House of Lords Committee was presented. I think that the feeling that we were not at all assured that there was any general opinion in favour of this proposal, or any general likelihood of being able to carry a Measure of this sort unless it was made a principal Measure and a large amount of time devoted to it, may now, to a certain extent, be set aside. I cannot accept the challenge of my right hon. friend that we should ourselves this year introduce a Measure of this character. We have already got a large amount of legislation to deal with, probably a larger amount has been given notice of in the King's Speech than we shall be able to carry, and I have myself often witnessed, as most hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House who have been in any Administration must have done, the trouble the Government get into near the end of the session by having overloaded their coach in starting. I am not prepared to accept the responsibility of introducing legislation upon the question myself, but I am perfectly prepared to view with favour any Measure laid before the House which is based on what has been alluded to as Lord Salisbury's Clause in the Lords' Report. I would point out to my hon. friend the Member for East Norfolk that he does not entirely follow this in
    1474
    the Resolution he moved. He winds up his Resolution by saying—
    "Thus effectively carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Early Closing of Shops, as embodied in paragraph 15 of the Report of 1901; "
    and yet in the earlier part of his Resolution he asks us to agree to a proposal which would include the limitation of the hours of labour in shops. There is nothing of that in the Resolution carried in the House of Lords.
    Then I have felt that that Bill which was introduced and printed the other day, and which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean, went a very great deal farther than the Resolution proposed in the House of Lords. I would point out to my hon. friends who favour the proposal that the Government should deal with this question, that it is not at all certain that, even if we accepted the challenge, the House would generally agree to support such a Measure, because my right hon. friend the Member for Forest of Dean would be the first to endeavour to extend it to the extent of his own Bill. I venture to say, that if the Measures alluded to by the hon. Member for East Norfolk as now awaiting Second Reading in another place—one of which he says is based on this Report, and the other of which stands in the name of Lord Avebury, who may be called almost the father of this question—came down here, or came in a consolidated form, it is not at all certain that a large section of the House would accept it, or that the Measure would receive general support. I have no doubt that the hon. Member who moved

    1475
    the Resolution would accept it, because he said in so many words that he would accept a moderate Bill, and although he might considerate it only a tentative one, he would vote for it in this House. I am not at all certain whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean would view the matter in the same light. He would very probably seek very largely to extend its scope, and therefore certainly prevent the possibility of any Bill which came down here late in the session being able to pass under the limited opportunities which offer themselves at that period of the year. I only hope that the more moderate view of the hon. Member for East Norfolk may obtain if those measures come down to this House, because I am firmly of opinion that we shall advance very considerably with a moderate proposal such as this would be if based on the Report. I can only repeat that I am ready to welcome on behalf of the Government any Measure based on the Resolution to which allusion has been made, but I cannot hold out any hope of the Government being able to legislate.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he might be allowed to state in reply to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that he might not be disposed to accept a Measure which came down from another place that that question was not before the House at present. He was quite content with the Resolution moved by his hon. friend. The Trade Union Congress and the organised workers in this trade preferred the Bill under his charge, but they accepted the Resolution of his hon. friend
    1476
    and were prepared to support it. He submitted that they ought to be allowed to take the sense of the House on the Resolution because the words to which the Home Secretary had taken exception were words which were necessary to efficiently carry out Lord Salisbury's clause.
    Resolved, "That, in the opinion of this House, the unnecessarily long hours of labour in Shops are injurious to the health and well-being of all concerned; that it is desirable that Borough and District Councils should be authorised to obtain Provisional Orders making such regulations in respect to the closing of shops and the limitation of the hours of labour of shop workers as may seem to them to be necessary for the areas under their jurisdiction; thus effectively carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Early Closing of Shops, as embodied in paragraph 15 of the Report of 1901."—(Mr. Price.)

    SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. WEIRmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said he would be able to show that ratepayers in Scotland, and especially in the Highlands, whose rentals did not exceed £4 per annum, had a very serious grievance in this matter.
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
    Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.