Commons Sitting of 21 May 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE.)
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Local Government Provisional Orders Poor Law) Bill; Local Government Provisional
  1334
  Orders (No. 12) Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.
  Gas Light and Coke Company Bill, Hampton Court Gas Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill; Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Plymouth and Stonehouge Gas Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Bill Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Llandrindod Wells Improvement Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee (Preamable not proved); Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Clay Cross; Grassmoor; Gwaun cae Gurwen; and Gilwen Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petitions from Chesterfield, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Chesterfield, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Ellon; and Dornoch; to lie upon the Table.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Ramsbottom; Tottington; Turn; Radstock; Chesterfield; Killamarsh; Low Moorsley; Cramlington; Toxteth; Sittingbourne; Greenstreet; Faversham;

  1335
  Kirkby-in-Ashfield; Johnstone; Leicester; Wooldale; Handsworth Woodhouse; Staines and Egham; Croydon; Daventry; St. Helens; and, Lochgelly; to lie upon the Table.

  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Dadworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment: from Annan; and Dumfries; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Varteg; Gwaun cae Gurwen; and Gilwen Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MEDICAL COUNCILS.
  Accounts presented, for 1902, of the General Medical Council and Branch Councils, and of the Dental Registration Fund [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHTHOUSES, ETC. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS).
  Copies presented, of Reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights of their Inspection of Local Lighthouses, Buoys, and Beacons (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 227, of session 1902) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed, (No. 176.)
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Copies presented, of Twenty Orders relating to the Landing of Foreign Animals in Great Britain [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 AND 1888.
  Copy presented, of Special Report by the Board of Trade under Section (1) of The Electric Lighting Act, 1888, respecting: (1) Kilmalcolm Electric Lighting Order, 1903; (2) Sandwich, Deal, Walmer, and District Electric Lighting Order, 1903; (3) Strood and Dartford
  1336
  (Rural Districts) Electric Lighting Order, 1903; (4) Wilmslow Electric Lighting Order, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  House Tax in Bengal.
  Mr. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the amount derived from the house tax levied on every villager in Bengal, and known as the Chowkidari Tax; and whether, in view of its incidence, he will ask the Government of India to consider whether arrangements can be made for its remission.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The aggregate amount of the rate levied for the remuneration of village watchmen in Bengal cannot be exactly stated, as the money does not pass through the public accounts. The rate is assessed according to the circumstances of the persons liable, but no assessment may exceed one rupee a month, and the poor are altogether exempt. The tax is not oppressive nor unfair in its incidence, and represents an ancient and well recognised obligation. It is not proposed to remit it.

  Ecclesiastical Commission—Court of Benefices.
  MR. RIGG: To ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commission, if he will state what amount has been paid by the Ecclesiastical Commission to the officers of the Court constituted by the Benefices Act, 1898, and for other purposes connected therewith, since the passing of the Act; who are the officers in question; what duties have they discharged in the same period; what proceedings have there been in the Court in respect of which the payments have been made; and out of what fund have the payments been made, having regard to the proviso that no portion of any fund destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents shall be applied to the payment of such salaries and expenses.
  (Answered by Mr. Lees Knowles.) A Registrar of the Court has been appointed, Mr. W. H. Macnamara, and one clerk, Mr. T. Whittall, assigned to him. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have, during the four years ended 15th March, 1903, paid for salary to the Registrar, £1,200; paid for salary to his clerk, £200; paid for other expenses (stationery), £3 12s. 10d.; Total, £1,403 12s. 10d.; and the fees received have amounted to £10 19s. 2d; so that the net amount defrayed by them has been £1,392 13s. 8d. The Registrar's duties are defined by the rules which have been made under Section 11 of the Act, being concerned with the regulation of the procedure in relation to the hearing of matters and appeals; some interlocutory applications may, by direction of the judge, be heard and disposed of by the Registrar. The Commissioners are informed that the Registrar has dealt with applications in four cases which have been brought under the Act as well as with inquiries at the office and some correspondence. The payments by the Commissioners have, as directed by the Act, been made out of their common fund, and the revenues of that fund, after meeting the charges imposed upon it, are devoted to making additional provision for the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance is most required. The Commissioners have no other fund from which the payments could be made.

  Publicans' Licences—Refusals to renew during 1901 and 1902.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the number of victuallers', beer-house, and other licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors, the renewal of which has been refused by the justices of the peace in the years 1901 and 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) This information cannot be given without calling for Returns from all the licensing districts. A Return has been issued for the present year, and there are Returns for the year 1900, and some previous years. It seems to me that this is a Return which need not
  1338
  be made every year, but that its purpose is sufficiently served if it is called for periodically. It entails much labour, and, as at present advised, I do not see my way to collecting the information for the years 1901 and 1902.

  Report of Chief Inspector of Factories.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I hope that the Report will go to press within a very few days; and, if so, it should be issued to Members before the end of the month.

  Exports of Milling Offals.
  MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the amount of milling offals exported during each of the years 1900, 1901, and 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot.) There are no records of the exports of offals of all kinds as such, prior to the 1st August, 1902, except as regards bran and pollard, the exports of which in each of the three years in question were as follows:—1900, 811,172 cwts.; 1901, 1,207,433 cwts.; 1902, 1,249,569 cwts. During the period from the 1st August to the 31st December, 1902, the exports of offals of all kinds, other than from bran and pollard, amounted to 210,260 cwts.

  Education—Grants to Non-Provided Evening Schools.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state whether evening schools not provided by the local education authorities may continue to receive giants direct from the Board of Education after the appointed day in each case; and, if so, whether the local education authority will have any right to control, supervision, or inspection over such evening schools.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The answer to the first part of the Question depends upon the regulations of the Board of Education for evening classes (Command Paper 1044, 1902). These regulations are now under consideration in respect of the new issue for the coming year. The rights of the local authority referred to in the second paragraph of the Question will, for the most part, depend, subject to any changes in the regulations of the Board, upon the extent to which, and the conditions on which, the local authority gives aid to such classes.

  Promotion at Edinburgh Post Office.
  SIR LEWIS M'IVER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that recent promotions to the class of clerks in the postal branch at Edinburgh have given dissatisfaction to the staff; and that, of three men promoted, one passed over thirty-seven, a second over thirty, and a third over fifty-nine seniors; whether the supervising body was consulted before these selections were made; and, if not, whether he sanctions the supervising body being passed over in such matters.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The officers selected for promotion were those who, in my opinion, were best fitted for the duties of the vacant posts. The promotions were not authorised by me until I had given full consideration to the reports which had been obtained from the responsible officers upon the qualifications of all the persons concerned.

  Edinburgh Post Office—Retirement of Staff at Sixty-five.
  SIR LEWIS M'IVER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that an officer in the post office, Edinburgh, who this month attains the age of sixty-five, and who, according to Treasury rules, should now be retired, has been granted an extension of service; and whether he will say upon what grounds this officer is being retained.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It is the fact that such an officer has, on my recommendation, been granted an
  1340
  extension of his service by the Treasury. A new arrangement has to be made this year for dealing with the heavy parcels traffic at Christmas. The work of organising the altered services is one which requires the skill and experience possessed by this officer, and I am satisfied that his retention under the circumstances is in the interests of the public service.

  Appointment of Magistrates in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of appointments to the magisterial bench in County Longford made on the recommendation of the Lieutenant of the County since 1st April, 1899; whether it is usual before submitting the names of appointees to inquire into their qualifications and eligibility; how many of these appointments were Roman Catholics and how many Protestants; and can he state the relative proportions between the Protestant and Roman Catholic population of the county.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Five gentlemen were appointed to the magistracy for the Comity Longford since April, 1899, of whom two are Roman Catholics, two are Episcopalian Protestants, and one is a Methodist. The qualifications and eligibility of all persons about to be recommended for appointment are considered in the first instance by the Lieutenant of the County, and, subsequently, by the Lord Chancellor. It would appear from the last census that about 91 per cent. of the population of the County Longford is Roman Catholic.

  Discharges from the Army—Case of Peter Harvey.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether Peter Harvey, late a military prisoner in Parkhurst, Isle of Wight, has been or will now be discharged from the Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) In reply to a previous Question,† the hon. Member was requested to address any communication on this subject to the
  See (4) Debates, cxx., 1029.

  1341
  General Officer Commanding the district concerned. It is not apparent that he has done so.

  5th Lancers—Second in Command.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the officer who is second in command of the 5th Lancers is also second in command of the provisional regiment at Norwich, it is his intention to preserve the provisional regiment at Norwich; and if so, whether steps will be taken to fill the vacancy in the 5th Lancers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) As these provisional regiments are only temporary, it is considered expedient to provide for their command in certain instances by taking seconds in command from permanent regiments and allowing an additional Captain to those regiments so that the senior Squadron Major may

  Captain.

  Major.

  Year.

  Months.

  Year.

  Months.

  1898:—

  Cavalry

  Artillery

  Engineers

  Infantry

  Indian Army

  1903:—

  Cavalry

  Artillery

  Engineers

  Infantry

  Indian Army

  Tenders for Meat Contract for Limerick Garrison.
  MR. JOYCE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many tenders were submitted for the meat contract of the Limerick Garrison this year; when the tender which got the contract was accepted; and whether the accepted tender was the lowest.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick). Ten tenders were submitted, and the tender which got the contract was
  act as second in command. To replace those officers by permanent seconds in command would cause great difficulties when the time arrives for the ultimate absorption of the supernumeraries thereby created.

  Army Promotions Return.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return relative to Army Promotions standing on to-day's Notice Paper.†
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This Return will be granted.
  † Army Promotions,—Address for Return showing the average time taken from the date of first commission in attaining respectively the ranks of Captain and of Major of Officers in the Cavalry, Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Infantry, and Indian Army, before the late war and subsequently, in the following form:—
  accepted on the 9th May; this tender was not the lowest.

  Royal Patriotic Commission.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to introduce the Bill dealing with the administration of funds at present controlled by the Patriotic Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I hope that this Bill may be introduced at an early date, and I will endeavour

  1343
  to give adequate notice before the introduction.

  Pensions for Widows of Seamen and Marines killed on Duty.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have come to any decision with regard to granting State pensions to the widows and orphans of those seamen and marines who lose their lives on duty, similar to those awarded to men killed or permanently disabled on war service.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Treasury and the Admiralty are at present in communication on this subject, and I am given to understand that an early decision of the question in the direction desired by the hon. Member is probable.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteer Forces.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that while there are four representatives of the Militia upon the Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteer Forces, there are only three of the Volunteer Force, and that the Metropolitan and Urban Corps, and especially the regiments composed in large part of clerks and others, who find difficulty in adopting the new camp and musketry regulations, are wholly unrepresented, he will advise His Majesty to appoint an additional member, with knowledge of the internal working of a consolidated City Corps of Volunteers.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): There are three representatives of the Militia and three of the Volunteer Force on the Commission, and one of the latter commands a battalion recruited in the Metropolitan area. I fear I cannot propose an addition to the Commission. No doubt representatives of the Volunteer corps alluded to will be called to give evidence.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: The officer to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers is in command of a West Kent battalion and is not in the Metropolitan area.
    MR. BRODRICK: Three-fourths of the battalion is recruited in the Metropolitan area.

    Wireless Telegraphy in Somaliland.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the approximate cost of the various systems of wireless telegraphy recently employed in Somaliland; whether he is aware that the wireless system was thoroughly tested during the German army manœuvres last autumn, and failed; and whether he can inform the House what system of field telegraphy has been adopted in Germany, Austria and the United States.
    MR. BRODRICK: It is not possible at present to calculate the cost of wireless telegraphy in Somaliland. I am aware that the wireless system was tested during the German army manœuvres last year, and judging from the information received, it did not fail. Several wireless systems have been under trial in Germany, Austria, and the United States, but none appear to have been adopted; the other systems of field telegraphy in vogue in these countries are practically the same as that adopted in the British Army.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it the case that the system tried in Somaliland is not that in use by the Army, but that used in the Navy?
    MR. BRODRICK: That would not be entirely accurate. We applied to the Marconi Company to give us the best installation they could for Somaliland, but they were not yet in a position to supply us with the requirements of the field service.
    MR JOHN CAMPBELL: What system has been adopted for the British Army?
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot reply to that.
    MR. FLAVIN: What effect has wireless telegraphy on the Somali natives?
    [No answer was returned.]

    British Garrison in South Africa.
    MR BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will stale the number and annual cost of the British troops at present quartered in South Africa, as also the number and annual cost of the troops quartered there in 1893.
    MR. BRODRICK: The figures are as follow: — 1893, 3,331, annual cost, £300,000; 1903 (present time), 33,500, £4,500,000. The numbers at present in South Africa are 4,000 in excess of those contemplated in the current year's Estimates, and they are being gradually withdrawn, as they can be spared, and as circumstances permit. This will reduce the annual cost by about £500,000, if it is found that all the Engineers and Army Medical Corps at present in excess of establishment in South Africa can be brought home.
    MR. BLACK: Do these figures include the cost of housing as well?
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; housing is a separate capital charge on this country.
    MR. LOUGH: What fund is the housing charged on?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That does not arise out of the Question.

    Alleged Ragging in the 21st Lancers.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a discussion in the Canadian Parliament about the alleged irregularities in the 21st Lancers; and will he state whether the officer said to have been maltreated is a Canadian.
    MR. BRODRICK: The officer of the 21st Lancers alluded to was born at Hull, and was an officer in the 3rd Militia Battalion of the East Yorkshire Regiment,
    1346
    from which he was appointed to a commission in his present regiment.
    MR WINSTON CHURCHILL: Then I understand the officer in question is not of Canadian extraction?
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; I imagine not, because he was born in Hull.
    SIR A. ROLLIT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a Hull in Canada—a suburb of Ottawa?
    MR. BRODRICK: The information supplied to me is that he was born in Hull, in Great Britain. Of course, there is a Hull in Canada.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three of the Ministers who took part in the debate in the Canadian Parliament stated that he was a Canadian, and that the event would not have occurred if he had not been a Canadian?
    MR. BRODRICK: I can only give the information supplied to me. It is not possible for me to go beyond the Papers supplied to me, and these state that the officer was born at Hull.

    Volunteer Field Artillery.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Royal Commission to inquire into the Auxiliary Forces, he can see his way to leave the Volunteer Field Artillery in the same condition as they were before the recent orders.
    MR. BRODRICK: The order alluded to seems to have been misunderstood, the intention being to point out that the rôle of field artillery is to act in concert with Infantry and not with Cavalry. But as the whole question of the constitution of the Volunteers is under consideration by a Royal Commission, the Commander-in-Chief has determined to hold the order in abeyance pending their Report, and general officers commanding will be informed accordingly.

    South African War—Report on Disease in the Army.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Report of the Committee of Army Medical Officers, military and civil, sent to South Africa to report on the prevalence of enteric fever and dysentery during the war, has been received; and, if so, whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Report has been received, and will be laid on the Table.

    British Indian Subjects in South Africa.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the notification at Pretoria, dated 8th April last, directing that the laws of 1885 and 1886, imposing disqualifications on Indian British subjects as regards residence and trade, shall be enforced; and whether he will state whether any circumstances have arisen to necessitate the revival and enforcement under British rule of the restrictions imposed by the late Boer Government.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The notice in question enforces the law referred to with due regard to the vested interests of traders and with a provision for the exemption of educated Asiatics from residence in places specially set apart for Asiatics. Lord Milner informs me that it was necessary to take this step pending fresh legislation in view of public feeling, but that the existing law is being carried out in the most lenient manner possible. On the receipt of Lord Milner's despatch, which I am expecting, I shall carefully consider the whole question.

    Poles in Scottish Coal Pits.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the number of Poles who are employed in Scottish coal pits; and, if so, will he state whether, before being allowed to go down a mine, they are examined as to their knowledge of the British language
    1348
    and of the laws and regulations for the safety of miners.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this, as coal mines are under the jurisdiction of the Home Department. It is a question which has several times in recent years engaged special attention. The Poles are not examined in the English language nor in the regulations before going down into the pits, but steps are taken by the officials of the mine to see that they are instructed in the regulations. The Inspector of Mines for the West Scotland District (where most of the Poles are employed) states that, though he has given the matter special attention for several years, he does not know of a single accident caused either to the other workmen or to the Poles themselves by their ignorance of the language or of the regulations.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the matter be referred to the Alien Commission?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I believe witnesses have drawn the attention of the Alien Commission to it.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: Are the special rules printed in foreign languages and posted at the pit's mouth?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I cannot answer that. I have made inquiries to ascertain if the Poles are made thoroughly acquainted with the regulations before they are allowed to go down into the pit and I am assured that they are. If the hon. Member will repeat his Question I will endeavour to ascertain.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: Either the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor made me a promise that it should be done.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: If my predecessor promised, it will be done, and I will see to it.

    Motor-Car Regulations—Race from Scotland to London.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask Mr.

    1349
    Attorney-General if his attention has been called to the fact that several persons engaged in the non-stop race from Scotland to London committed breaches of the law; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): My attention has not been called to the fact that several persons engaged in the nonstop race from Scotland to London committed breaches of the law. This is not a matter which would come before me in the ordinary course. It is for the local authorities to deal with.

    Mr. Galloway Weir's Escape.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to cases in which motor-cars passing through Parliament Street, near the entrance to Palace Yard, have disregarded police signals; and, if so, whether he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No, Sir; and the Commissioner of Police informs me that no such case has come under his notice, nor has he received any complaint on the subject.
    MR. WEIR: The day before yesterday I was nearly knocked over. The chauffeur refused to obey the signals of the police.

    Corn and Flour Mills in the United Kingdom.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of corn and flour mills in Great Britain and their output thirty years ago, as compared with their number and production to-day.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): There are no official Returns relating to this matter, but I am informed by the Board of Agriculture that about thirty years ago there
    1350
    were probably about 15,000 mills (mostly of the old type) in the United Kingdom. The total number is now estimated at about 9,000, of which about 1,000 are roller mills of the first class, while some 3,000 have a more or less incomplete roller system. As regards annual output, the estimates of wheat flour are, for a period about thirty years ago, 52,000,000 cwts., and for the present time about 76,000,000 cwts. The hon. Member will understand that these figures can only be taken as approximate.

    The Port of Workington.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that vessels sailing to Workington recently have been put ashore owing to their bounds being limited, through the non-clearing of the river, he will state what steps, if any, will be taken to secure the safety of vessels in future.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no information as to the present condition of the entrance to the port of Workington. The matter is one for the harbour authority to deal with, and I will call their attention to the statements contained in the hon. Member's Question.

    Women Clerks in the General Post Office.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, whether, in view of the fact that no examination for women clerkships in the service of the General Post Office has been held since October, 1901, he will consent to some extension of the limits of age, so that those candidates who had no opportunity of competing since then, and who may now be slightly over age, may have an opportunity of presenting themselves for examination on the next occasion.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No examination was held because there were no vacancies to be filled by competition; but this fact does not, in my opinion, afford any sufficient reason for altering the limits of age for the next examination.

    Scottish Congested Districts Board — New Holdings in Highland Crofting Counties.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of new holdings which have been formed in the Highland crofting counties through the agency of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland during the year under review in the recently issued Report.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): It is not easy yet to give more exact figures than those in the Report, as, in several cases, the actual sub-division and allocation of the holdings has not yet been carried out, and the estimated number of the holdings may be less or more than the actual sub-division. The total of the estimate is 216 holdings, including the 51 potato plots in Vatersay.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the recently issued Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland shows that early last year the Board were in negotiation for an estate which afforded facilities both for the enlargement of new holdings, and for the formation of new holdings for migrants from congested districts will he state the name of the estate referred to, and the cause of the negotiations falling through.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The negotiations were of a confidential nature, and it is therefore not possible to give the hon. Member the information which he desires.
    MR. WEIR: In what county is the estate situated?
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYdeclined to give the information.

    Migration of Cottars from Congested Districts—Suggested Legislation.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate in view of the fact that the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland shows that the Board have advertised extensively in newspapers intimating that they were prepared to negotiate for the purchase of suitable arable
    1352
    or pasture land for the purpose of promoting the migration of selected crofters and cottars from congested districts in Scotland to other districts offering better chances of success to such crofters and cottars and their families, and that no suitable property had been offered to the Board, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will give the Board compulsory powers for the acquisition of land.
    MR. A. GRAHAM-MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland does not contemplate the introduction of a measure into Parliament containing the powers suggested by the hon. Member.

    Island of Lewis—Major Matheson and his Tenants.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the proprietor of the Island of Lewis, Major Matheson, has yet come to terms with the twenty-five applicants for feus for fishermen's dwellings near Stornoway; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they understand Major Matheson is negotiating with the approved applicants for allocation of individual allotments, but that the result has not yet been communicated to them.
    MR. WEIR: That fact is stated in the Report of the Congested Districts Board. When may the result be expected?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Irish Board of National Education—Building Grants.
    MR. M'KEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury it he can now state the decision of the Treasury in reference to the scale on which grants are to be made for the building of new schools under the Board of National Education for Ireland in accordance with the new programme.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,): A decision on the recommendations of the recent Committee on Building Grants

    1353
    will be deferred until the inquiry into the present educational system in Ireland is completed.

    Police and Rathcline Evicted Tenants.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that on a recent occasion two tenants living in Lehery, Barony of Rathcline, County Longford, who were evicted from their farms in 1881, were visited by the police with a view to ascertaining the facts in connection with the case; and, if so, whether it is proposed to include in the Irish Land Bill a clause that will enable such evicted tenants to be restored to their former holdings.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. WYNDHAM,): These and other visits by the police were necessitated in order to collect information for the return in the name of the hon. Member for South Tipperary. I cannot anticipate the Committee stage of the Land Bill by way of question and answer.

    Ellen Farrelly's Holding at Drumard.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in 1887 Ellen Farrelly of Fehora, in the parish of Drumard, County Longford, had a rent fixed on twenty-one acres, twenty poles of land at £6 5s. per annum, and subsequently purchased same through the Land Commission; and that on the vesting order being issued the size of her tenancy was fixed at fifteen acres, two roods, and the balance, amounting to nearly six acres of bog, merged into two adjoining tenants named Anderson and Reilly; and, if so, will he direct the Land Commission to hold an inquiry into the matter with a view to such readjustment of boundaries as will restore to this woman her original holding.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The agreement to purchase entered into by this tenant set out the area of the holding to be purchased at fifteen acres, two roods, eight poles It was ascertained on inspection of the land that the area was
    1354
    eighteen acres, one rood, eight poles, which area was vested in the tenant by order dated 3rd December, 1900, when the proceedings closed.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this case has caused a great deal of annoyance locally, and will he direct the Land Commission to hold an inquiry pro formâ for the purpose of ascertaining the facts?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The parties have their remedy.

    Gun Licences in Ireland.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why Sergeant Johnson, Royal Irish Constabulary, recently proceeded to the house of Thomas Gregan, near Newmarket, County Clare, and removed from Gregan's possession two guns for which he held licences.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This man held no licence for either of the two guns, removed.

    Belfast Primary Schools.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that primary schools in Belfast are small, without class rooms or playgrounds, unsanitary, and unfitted as places of education; and whether, seeing that these schools are private property, with State-paid teachers, and that the city authority has no power over the schools and cannot make provision for the educational needs of the community, the Government has under consideration any scheme for giving the local authority control of primary education in Belfast, with power to provide by State-aid efficient primary schools to meet present requirements.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed by the Commissioners that there is no justification for the suggestion that State-aid is granted to schools that are unsanitary and unfitted as places of education. It is true, however, that there are some national schools throughout Ireland, and in the North of Ireland in particular, that do not come up to the standard of modern requirements in respect to air

    1355
    space, fittings, accommodation, etc. These schools, however, are being gradually superseded by others of modern type.
    MR. SLOAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of assisting these schools?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That is at present the subject of negotiation between myself and the Treasury.

    Lloyd Apjohn Estate, County Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he say what progress has been made in the Land Judges' Court with the sale of the Lloyd Apjohn Estate to the tenants in the parish of Nicker, county Limerick, since the 1st January, 1903; and how the negotiations for sale and purchase stand at present.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The rental has not yet been settled. The Land Judge is satisfied that the solicitor who has carriage of the proceedings is in no way responsible for the delay. It is confidently expected that the request for an inspection will be issued to the Land Commission by the 9th of July.

    Royal Commission on Trade Disputes.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the number of women workers affected by trade disputes and to the special nature of their position in the labour market, it is intended to place any woman on the proposed Royal Commission as a member.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will allow me to give him an answer similar to that which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Waterford. If the Commission on Trade Disputes is of the larger type, undoubtedly I think there ought to be some distinct representative of the women workers of the country upon it. Of course, if it is of the smaller type, the idea of representation falls through.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLhad a question on the Paper on the same subject, but in view of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman given above did not press it.

    Early Closing Saturday (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give facilities for enabling the further stages of the Early Saturday Closing (Ireland) Bill to be proceeded with during the present Session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I can hold out to my hon. friend no hope of special facilities for this Bill. He is probably aware that it would be impossible to conduct the business of this House if controversial private Bills, after being in the hands of private Members, were to have fresh facilities given them at the end of the session.
    MR. SLOAN: It is a well-known fact that all classes in Ireland are anxious that this Bill should go through.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware that there is a very strong feeling in favour of the Bill, but it can hardly be said to come within the category of unopposed measures.
    MR. FLAVIN: On the contrary, there is a strong feeling the other way.

    Company Law—Whitaker-Wright Case.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, when he proposes to bring in the Bill to amend certain alleged defects in the law as disclosed by the Whitaker-Wright case.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill has been for some time ready; but my hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General thinks, and I am in entire agreement with him, that it would be most inconvenient to have a discussion on the Bill while the Whitaker-Wright case was pending. It would be impossible to avoid allusion to that case, which, I think, would be most inconvenient, and indeed, improper.

    Military Works (Loans) Bill.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when it is intended to introduce the Military Works (Loans) Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend any information on the subject.

    Relief of the "Discovery."
    COLONEL ROYDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to representations from the Royal Geographical Society to the effect that in order to ensure the safety of the officers and men of the Antarctic ship "Discovery," it will be necessary to send the relief ship "Morning" to the Antarctic regions next December; and whether, seeing that thirty out of the thirty-seven officers and men of the "Discovery" are on the active list of the Royal Navy, he will state whether a grant from the Exchequer has been asked for; and, if so, what is the amount and what are the intentions of the Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not been able to communicate with my right hon. friend, and perhaps my hon. and gallant friend will be good enough to postpone this Question till Monday or Tuesday next.

    ABSENCE OF MINISTERS.
    At twenty-five minutes past two several Members who had Questions to the Secretary of State for War were called upon, but in the absence of the Minister the Questions could not be put. Subsequent Questions to the Colonial Secretary and the First Lord of the Treasury in succession could not be put for the same reason. A Question to the President of the Local Government Board also remained unanswered.
    After a pause,
    MR. BRYCE, addressing Mr. Speaker, said: On the question of order, Sir, perhaps you could tell us what course is to be followed in the
    1358
    circumstances in which the House finds itself.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is not exactly a question of order. I think that in the unusual circumstances that a little delay will be found most convenient to the House.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Would it not be much better if we were to meet at half past two?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: May I move the adjournment now?
    MR. SPEAKER: At the end of Questions. I think it would be convenient to wait a few minutes. The hon. Members who have Questions will not be prejudiced then.
    The absent Ministers here entered the House.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to what has happened this afternoon owing to the unavoidable absence of Ministers to whom Questions were addressed, he does not think the time has arrived when the universal desire of the House to meet at a more convenient hour should be acceded to.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have indicated very clearly to the House that I am quite ready to consider any unanimous view of the House that could be given expression to without any lengthened discussion, provided the House would accept an arrangement which would not curtail the length of time given to public business. I have said that before, and the result is that it is perfectly clear that the House is not prepared to accept that solution. Under these circumstances I think the hon. Gentleman must allow the Question to stand over until we have a further trial of the new rules.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the use of putting down

    1359
    Questions to Ministers at a quarter-past two o'clock when Ministers are not here to answer them?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is entering upon an argument which may be of importance but which clearly does not arise at Question time.

    The Whitsuntide Holidays.
    SIR JOSEPH LEESE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state for the convenience of hon. Members when the House is likely to resume after the Whitsuntide holidays.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid it is impossible for me to make any positive statement on that point until we see more clearly the business we are likely to get through before the holidays begin.

    The Finance Bill
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I ask when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That depends on the progress of business.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Arising out of that answer may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before the House separates this week, he will be able to state definitely, for the convenience of a large number of Members, if the Finance Bill will be taken before Whitsuntide or after? I hope it is not an unreasonable request to make.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the Question of my right hon. friend is most reasonable, but whether I can answer it or not is another matter. Of course, I shall do my best to give the House the earliest information as to the arrangement of business we are able to make.
    MR. BRYCE: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously entertain the impression that it will be possible to enter upon any long business after the conclusion of the proceedings
    1360
    on the London Education Bill next week? Surely he must have studied the matter sufficiently to know how much remains to be done on the Bill.
    No reply was made.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I understood the First Lord of the Treasury to say yesterday that the Finance Bill would not be taken the first day after the holidays.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the Finance Bill is to be deferred until after the Whitsuntide holidays, undoubtedly I shall not ask the House to take it the morning we reassemble. While I do not pledge myself to it, in all probability it will be taken on the Tuesday.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us in the course of to-morrow if the Bill will be taken before or after Whitsuntide? There is a strong desire to know, and I think the request is a reasonable one.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The request, I admit, is reasonable, but my right hon. friend seems to think my reply unreasonable. It is my desire to give the House the earliest possible information, and as soon as I am in a position I will do so.

THE NEW MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY,rose in his place, and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the appointment of a person not being a Member of this House to the office of President of the Board of Agriculture, leaving no official of that important Department as its representative in this House;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can any other business than Supply be taken on Thursday? It is an allotted day.
MR. SPEAKER: On what does the hon. Member base his question? I know of nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On the new Standing Orders.
MR. GALLOWAY: I think the Order provides that no business other than Supply shall be taken.
MR. SPEAKER: The word business as there used does not include Motions for the adjournment.
The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until the Evening Sitting, this day.

SUPPLY [TENTH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

  CLASS III.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he would have to move to report Progress in order to call attention to the arrangement of the order of the Votes. It was understood that the Votes would be put down in the usual order, but that was not so, and the Votes some hon. Members were anxious to discuss were left out, and therefore could not be discussed at all. This was a very unusual proceeding. It was a surprise to many hon. Members who had thought that one particular Vote would probably occupy the whole sitting. He contended that an arrangement of that kind should not be made without some public intimation, and in order to elicit an explanation from the Government, he begged to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said the reason was very simple. The hon.
  1362
  Member for South Molton had stated in the House that on the first or second Vote he proposed to raise a discussion with regard to a prosecution which was now pending. It was impossible that there should be a discussion in the House with regard to a case which was sub judice, and for that reason, and for no other, the Votes had been postponed.
  MR. CHANNING: We were told on Tuesday that the first Vote that would be taken would be the law charges.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: No the words were "Law and Justice" which cover all the items.
  SIR ROBERT REIDagreed as to the impropriety of discussing a pending prosecution; but, on the other hand, it was an alarming state of things that the House of Commons should, by the crime of—or rather accusation of crime against—an individual, be precluded from exercising its proper function of discussing the expenditure of the country—in this case, that of the law officers' Department—for a whole year. That was a general proposition which he could not accede to.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid if there was general consent on the part of the House that cases now pending should be excluded from the discussion, this Vote could be put down at the first opportunity. But he would point out that, if some one insisted on his technical right to raise a debate on a pending prosecution, the hon. and learned Member would at once see the difficulty of putting down the Vote. The inconvenience was not the result of the action of the Government but the determination of some hon. Members to discuss matters which it would be contrary to the ordinary decencies to bring on in the present situation. It would be wrong to have a discussion which might prejudice either the prosecution or the defence. Personally, he was only too anxious that the debate should be taken as soon as possible.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he could quite understand the desire of the hon. and learned Gentleman to take the first possible opportunity of vindicating his conduct, and it was an unfortunate

  1363
  thing that any pending case should be discussed in that House. But surely it was a far greater evil to withhold from the House of Commons its constitutional right of discussing important Votes because possibly something might be said in the debate which might be prejudicial to the prosecution or the defence in the case alluded to. That was a doctrine in which he could not acquiesce.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said the Government not only did not propose to the House to accept that doctrine but it had never even been suggested by him or by any one of his colleagues. The question was a simple one. He always desired to put down the Supply which, as far as he could gather, the House desired to discuss. It never occurred to the Government to lay down a hard and fast rule that the House should be precluded from discussing its own Estimates because there was a case pending. It was simply a question of convenience as to what should be done on this particular Supply day. There were many Supply days remaining, and there was just a chance that the case might be finished by the end of the session.
  MR. HEMPHILL: Is there any chance of the Wright case being finished before the end of the session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, there is a chance.
  MR. HEMPHILL: It has not been sent over from America yet.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe there is a very good chance. The right hon. Gentleman continuing said he only rose to correct a misapprehension. Whatever Estimates were taken, let no one go away with the idea that there was any desire to withhold any of them from the House. He hoped the Committee would now be allowed to proceed with the Votes on the Paper, as they were the only ones which under the Standing Order could be taken that day.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was correct so
  1364
  far as it went, but his complaint was that the House as a whole was kept in absolute ignorance of the intention to hold these Votes back until it was too late. His desire was to secure a proper discussion of the Estimates, and he would appeal to the Prime Minister to arrange, if possible, that the Supply to be taken should be placed on the Paper a week in advance, the notice now given being in his opinion too short for useful criticism in the interests of economy. That was the main reason for his protest that night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the common practice had been that the Supply for Thursday was stated on the preceding Monday [An HON. MEMBER: Too short.] If any complaint had reached his ears that this notice was too short, the practice could easily be altered. The Government had no interest whatever in keeping secret the Supply they were to take; and the sole reason why the announcement was not made earlier was that very often events occurred which made it desirable to have some immediate discussion. He had endeavoured to accede to what he believed to be the wish of the House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that an intimation on Monday of the Supply to be taken on Thursday was quite long enough notice. The case of Whitaker Wright, which was remotely connected with this Vote, might be sub judice up to and long after the end of the session, and if the House was precluded from discussing the Vote hon. Members would not have the opportunity of discussing it this year. Moreover, he was not sure whether the question desired to be raised had anything to do with the merits of the case which was sub judice. The matter it was desired to discuss was the advice which had been given in the Whitaker Wright case by the law officers of the Crown. Therefore, while the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister was a sound one, he thought the Government should give an undertaking that the fact that the Whitaker Wright case was sub judice would not preclude the House for ever from discussing this Vote.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he was anxious to avoid in future anything that might lead to misconception. He did not give a pledge that this Vote would come on, but it would come on if it was the general wish of the House. He had no desire to keep it back from the House, but he could not absolutely promise to find a day for it should the House wish to discuss other Votes within the allotted time.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the misunderstanding should not be attributed to hon. Members on that side of the House. On Friday last, when interrogated as to the Supply to be taken to-day, the Prime Minister promised to make a statement on Monday. The House were then told that Glass III., Law Charges, would be taken. He now understood—though he had not before heard of it—that a private arrangement was entered into last night by which Vote 3, and not Vote 1, would be taken. The moral he wished to point was that these private arrangements should be publicly announced, because they constantly gave rise to misunderstanding, delayed public business, and really defeated the purpose of the House by necessitating discussions without adequate notice or full information.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,)explained how the situation arose. On Monday the Prime Minister was asked what Estimates would be taken that day. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite asked that Vote 1 of one of the larger Departments connected with the Civil Service and Revenue Departments should be taken, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean asked that the Home Office Vote should not be taken. Shortly afterwards, two right hon. Gentlemen opposite came to him behind the Speaker's Chair, one asking that the Local Government Board Vote should be taken, the other begging that that particular Vote should be held over. Eventually it was agreed that the Local Government Board Vote should not be taken. Having cut out the Home Office and the Local Government Board, and having got the
  1366
  Treasury, the Board of Agriculture, and the Board of Trade, the field was very limited; but, finally, it was suggested that the Vote for law charges should be taken first. He communicated this to the House at midnight on Monday. Afterwards, he found that the hon. Member for South Molton wished to raise the question of Whitaker Wright, and in the ordinary way he communicated with one of the Opposition Whips, and told him that Votes 1 and 2 would not be taken, also writing a private letter to the hon. Member for South Molton to this effect. Personally, he had done all he could in accordance with Parliamentary etiquette, and he regretted if the House had been put to any inconvenience.
  MR. BRYCEacknowledged that the hon. Gentleman always showed an anxious desire to serve all sections of the House, and to give the fullest information. The unfortunate thing was that, in this particular case, the information had not reached the general body of Members.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEwas understood to say that, it being represented that to raise this question might be unfair to a prisoner undergoing his trial, and there was also unfairness to the Attorney-General, whose mouth would be closed, he was quite certain that the good feeling of the House would be a sufficient safeguard in that direction.
  MR. WHITLEY, in asking leave to withdraw the Motion, said he had always received the utmost courtesy from the hon. Gentleman for the Wellington Division in connection with these business arrangements. What had led to the difficulty was the fact that the House was not informed last night of the changed arrangements.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £180,118, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for such of the salaries and

  1367
  expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  MR. BUCHANANasked who was really responsible for this Estimate as a whole. In framing the Estimates, the usual course was for the head of the Department to exercise a general supervision, and then to submit his particular estimate to the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for approval, holding himself ready to answer for the various branches and details of the Estimate. As he understood, there was no such central control over the Estimate under discussion. To illustrate the matter, he put this case to the Attorney-General—if the Lord Chancellor desired to increase his staff by a certain number of clerks, would he have to obtain the consent of the Treasury before placing the additional charge on the Estimates for the year? Where a Department wished to increase its establishment by any considerable number of officials it had to get the consent of the Treasury before it could apply to Parliament for increased expenditure. He wished to know whether the same rule applied to this Vote. The heads of the Court of Judicature were in a position of greater independence than the heads of the Civil Service Departments, and this did not tend to economical expenditure.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that appointments under this Vote were made and held under wholly different conditions to the rest of the Civil Service, and with an almost complete absence of those checks which the wisdom of Parliament had imposed upon every other kind of expenditure. The reason might be that there was an enormous amount of fees, and it might be considered that they had a sort of right to an independent administration of their Own. All the appointments and salaries were fixed by the respective heads of Departments, and not by the Treasury. This was a very large Department, incurring a large expenditure which was wholly withdrawn from the ordinary securities which attached to the expenditure of this country. He thought the Treasury had to be consulted before any
  1368
  material changes were made in the existing scales of salaries. Was that so? He believed it was perfectly true that the Treasury had no sort of control over this expenditure at all, corresponding to the control which it had over other Departments. They all had the highest respect for the Judges in their judicial capacity, but he had very little respect for them in their financial capacity. He believed they were very bad financiers, probably through their early training and the demoralising effect of large fees, and he believed that they were by nature, profession, and practice addicted to extravagance of the most reckless kind. This was partly the fault of Parliament, because a lawyer generally got about ten times the salary of any other person of the highest possible eminence under these appointments. He had the very greatest conceivable distrust of His Majesty's Judges as financiers, and he thought this Department should be treated the same as other Departments which were administrated and controlled by the Treasury. If there were some great contravention of principle, or some serious ground on which the withdrawal of this large Department from the control of the Treasury could be justified, he wished to know what it was. He supposed that there was some sort of answer to be given to this question. If the official answer was that this enormous judicial establishment collected fees which it would, in the ordinary way, be entitled to keep, but which it had now to hand over, that argument had no effect at all. That was recognised as a dangerous system years ago, when it was ordained that the Revenue Department should pay all Departments.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that on one page of the Estimates before them there was a note telling them that in the case of second class clerks the number was to be reduced by one on a vacancy. That was to say that they were overstaffed by one clerk. On the very next page he noticed that three new clerks had been engaged at exactly the same rate of salary, and apparently exactly the same class of public servant. If the Treasury did its duty in this matter, application would have to be made to them to say

  1369
  whether three more second class clerks were required, and they could have made arrangements to transfer one clerk from the Department which was overstaffed. This kind of thing was continually occurring. Certain Departments were overstaffed and could well spare some of their clerks. He gave that as an illustration to show where Treasury control was useful and where economy might be brought about.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid it was quite true that a great number of these appointments were made by the heads of Departments, and many of them were made by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. Others were made by the Lord Chancellor. In regard to these appointments it should be remembered that if they wanted proper appointments made they ought to be made by some person thoroughly acquainted with the subject. If they were made by the First Lord of the Treasury or any other great official, he would only go to the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General for advice. So far as the minor appointments made by the President of the Probate Court, the Master of the Rolls, and the Lord Chief Justice were concerned, he should deprecate those appointments being taken away from those officials in order to be given to the Lord Chancellor, whose patronage was already far too great.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was only making a suggestion which he thought should be considered.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the only observation he had to make on the subject was this. He did not at all suppose that there was no room for reform. Far from it. He should think it was very likely that there were superfluous offices which ought certainly to be cut down. There might be Departments which were understaffed, but he had no doubt there were some which were overstaffed, and if the hon. Gentleman or anybody else wished to bring it to a point by means of a Departmental inquiry, or in any other convenient manner, to get a thorough knowledge of
  1370
  what the expense was and how it could probably be diminished, he would heartily support the proposal. He asked the Attorney-General to state how the appeals stood now. There had been for two or three years a very great excess of arrears. The present Master of the Rolls and the Court of Appeal had done their best to avoid this state of things, and they had had the assistance of a third Court. He did not know whether they had got the arrears down to a satisfactory condition, but he did say that the Court of Appeal ought not to be pressed with such an excess of work. It was a state of things which ought not to exist. It was not creditable to the country. He should very much deprecate an increase of the Court of Appeal if it could be avoided in any way, but if the amount of work which came before the Judges could be diminished by limiting appeals, or otherwise, it was desirable to avoid working the Court of Appeal at high pressure in clearing off arrears.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries was one of very great and general importance. He was glad to be able to say that according to his information the arrears were in a very much more satisfactory condition than they were last year. In regard to the Chancery appeals, where the arrears were formidable indeed, he understood that they were almost, if not altogether, disposed of; but in regard to the appeals from the Exchequer Division, the state of things was not quite so satisfactory, although he hoped the Court was not very far behind He understood they had a number of very heavy cases which required prolonged argument, and this had prevented the Court from being so well situated with regard to progress as was hoped at one time. The improved state of things at present as compared with last year was no doubt due to the sitting of the third Court, in which the Lord Chancellor presided, and which had done substantial service in clearing off a number of cases. If assistance was required from time to time, he was sure it would be given in the same way, so that the necessity for more Judges would be avoided. Of course it was extremely

  1371
  desirable that the arrears should be kept within reasonable compass, because every lawyer knew that as soon as it was known that arrears were accumulating, appeals were put down for the purpose of gaining time. It was said by a distinguished lawyer in the United States that the way to keep down arrears was to have none. If they did not have arrears they would find that appeals would not be entered. A proposal had been mooted in regard to which he was not in a position to say anything on behalf of the Government. It was that where there was a decision given by a divisional court of three Judges with the Chief Justice presiding, it might be possible to appeal from that Court direct to the House of Lords. He thought that arrangement might, it carried out, relieve the Appeal Court of a certain amount of work which at present occupied its time. He was in entire accord with what was said by his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn in regard to appointments by the Judges. No one could say that the patronage of legal posts ought not to rest with the Judges. After all, they must trust some one, and the person most fitted to be trusted was the person who was concerned in the efficient discharge of the work. Every man in business knew that the way to secure the best appointments was to leave the appointments to a subordinate who was conversant with the work himself, and whose business it was to see that the work was efficiently done. He assured the hon. Member for Lynn Regis that he had not observed any of the symptoms which he seemed to have detected, namely, a tendency to extravagance. The hon. Member thought that the Judges were reckless in money matters, and that they were disposed to appoint officials at large salaries. Even if the Judges had any defects of that nature they were under the control of the Treasury.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the Treasury control these appointments?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the Treasury did not control the persons to be appointed. It would be a very improper thing if it did, but if any new
  1372
  office was created which involved any expenditure, whether out of money voted by the House, or out of fees, that expenditure could only be incurred with the consent of, and under a scheme approved by the Treasury. His hon. friend's remarks seemed rather to apply to days early in the last century when there were sinecures with which it was difficult to deal. There was one post then with emoluments amounting to £25,000 a year. When an inquiry was held the Lord Chief Justice was called as a witness, and asked whether he did not think it was possible to reduce the salary, he replied, with great force and irresistible logic, that if there were any duties attached to the office which could be reduced they could reduce the salary in proportion, but as there were no duties it was impossible to entertain the idea of reducing the salary. The hon. Member for Halifax had suggested that a clerk might sometimes be transferred from one post to another. If a clerk was appointed for some particular duties, they could not ensure that he would be an Admirable Crichton and that he would be qualified to take up the other duties to which he might be transferred. It might turn out to be a great mistake to transfer him to a totally new field, even though thereby some economy might on the face of the Estimates be obtained.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the Attorney-General had not quite answered the criticism from this side of the House. What had always struck him about this particular Vote was that under the present regulations of the House there was no efficient check upon improper appointments by the Judges. He entirely agreed with what had been said as to the propriety of allowing the Judges the patronage in regard to any offices in connection with the Courts of Justice, but the difficulty in which the Committee were placed was that the salaries of the Judges were on the consolidated fund, and they could not discuss these appointments. The salaries of the judges were properly on the Consolidated Fund in order that their judicial action might not be criticised by this House, but in the exercise of

  1373
  patronage they exercised an executive and not a judicial act. It would be entirely unfair to attack an official referee in this House on the ground that he was incompetent, but it would be quite another and a proper thing to criticise adversely the action of the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice for making the appointment. He recognised that there was very great difficulty in the matter, but still more difficulty in regard to the question of the control of subordinate offices. So far as he could see the control of the Judges over the subordinate officers was by no means adequate. He did not know, for instance, how they were to get rid of an incompetent Master or Official Referee. He wished to call the attention of the Attorney-General once more to the amalgamation of the offices of probate registrar and district registrar of the High Court of Justice. He knew that some years ago the present Lord Chancellor was anxious that many of the offices of the Courts of Justice should be amalgamated.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid he was very glad to hear that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was to abolish the intermediate appeal between the King's Bench and the House of Lords. He wished to ask whether there was no means of pensioning aged official referees who were unfitted by reason of the infirmity of years to conduct the business which they had to do. It was known that Judges of the High Court at the expiration of fifteen years were entitled to retire and receive a pension. So long as they remained vigorous no one would suggest that they should avail themselves of that course. It was notorious that legal business in certain Departments of the judicature was now very much handicapped indeed by reason of the fact that a certain gentleman retained his position although the infirmity of his years prevented him from discharging his duties to the satisfaction of those interested in the business of that Department. It was said that the reason of that was that there was no provision of the law entitling him to retire on a pension. If so, that was a defect in the law which should be remedied.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that as regarded the exercise of patronage it would be very invidious indeed if the House were to sit in judgment on the exercise of patronage in an individual case. In regard to the amalgamation of the offices of probate registrar and that of the district registrar of the High Court of Justice there was no doubt that that was a matter which deserved consideration. He was not in a position to make a statement now on the subject, but what his hon. and learned friend said should command attention, and the nature of the matter was such that he was sure it would receive it. In regard to pensions he was not in a position to make any authoritative statement, but his impression was that if an official was disqualified by illness he was entitled to a superannuation allowance. He, however, might possibly be wrong.
  MR. JAMES WOODHOUSE: Not necessarily illness, but advanced age.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that advanced age incapacitating an official from performing the duties of his office came to the same thing as illness. If some provision was not available in such cases he thought the question was worthy of consideration.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid that in the case of county court Judges, although they were not entitled to a pension, there was an express provision in the statute which enabled the Lord Chancellor to retire them on an allowance. He thought that that should be applied to three important officials in the courts now.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was so encouraged by the generous way in which the Attorney-General had answered him previously, and especially by the admirable illustration the right hon. Gentleman had given of the correctness of his view, that he ventured to bring under his notice another very delicate case. He referred to the retention of office by Judges at a time when it would be desirable for the public benefit that they should retire. Nobody was a greater advocate than

  1375
  himself of the sound constitutional principle that the Judges should be placed beyond all outside influences.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! There is no Vote for the salaries of Judges.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid there were two points he wished to bring before the Committee — one on finance and the other in regard to patronage. The Attorney-General had given a very general answer to a question put to him in regard to the first; and he would be rather surprised if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury were to make an answer in equally broad terms. The question he had to put was—Had the Treasury the same control over the increases in mass and detail on this Estimate as it had over the increases in mass and detail of other Estimates submitted to the House of Commons? Because, from all the evidence given before the Committee on National Expenditure and various other Committees, the Treasury control over these law charges, particularly this Vote, and the creation of new offices, and the increase of salaries of the new officials, was much less complete and effective than in other Departments of the Civil Service expenditure. It was not necessary to prove that on this Vote there had been gross expenditure, but what they pressed for was that there should be as effective control over the people who were responsible—the Lord Chancellor and others—for the Department served by this Estimate as there was over the other great Departments of the State. In regard to the second point—viz., patronage—speaking as a layman he was not sure that he quite agreed with what had been said by previous speakers. Of course there was a great distinction between the patronage of the offices contained in this Estimate and other offices in other Departments. Some of these were distinctly legal and personal offices, and it was only reasonable that the Lord Chancellor should be able to give them to those who he thought were able to discharge the functions of these offices. But was he to understand that the Lord Chancellor and other legal heads of the various Departments under this Vote had the right of
  1376
  patronage over the clerks in these various Departments? That appeared to him to be no inroad on the right of private patronage. There were between 300 and 400 clerks borne on this Estimate. Were these generally appointed after open competition and examination under the Civil Service Commission, or were they not? And if not, why should they not be appointed under the same rules as the clerical staff in other Departments of the State were appointed? The work they performed was analogous to that performed by the clerks in other offices, and their appointment should no longer be entrusted to private individuals, but only after competition and examination.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that there were seven Masters of the Supreme Court, and two Assistant Masters. Who had authority to determine the number?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY Mr. ELLIOTsaid there appeared to be a misapprehension as to the absence of financial control on the part of the Treasury. There was no doubt whatever that the Lord Chancellor or any other great dignitary had no more power to appoint a clerk and get him paid out of public funds than any hon. Member. If any important change were proposed as to the number or salaries of particular officials at the Courts of Justice it could not be enforced without the sanction and approval of the Treasury having been obtained. He had not been very long at the Treasury, but he had been long enough there to know that it was impossible to get hold of public money without the sanction and approval of the Treasury.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if that applied to superannuation?
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that superannuation was regulated by Act of Parliament under a recognised scheme. To suppose that any great dignitary could do as he liked as regarded superannuation was a mistake.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked what duty the messenger of the Great

  1377
  Seal discharged. The Lord Chancellor had nine personal attendants. He could understand the permanent secretary, the private secretary, the clerk of the chamber, the junior clerk of the chamber, the first clerk, and the third class clerk, but he could not understand the messenger of the Great Seal. There was also an allowance of £12 for an assistant sealer. He was given to understand that the Great Seal was in charge of the Lord Chancellor himself. He himself when in the House which the Lord Chancellor honoured with his presence saw the Great Seal in his charge. The Lord Chancellor was the custodian, and the only custodian, of the Great Seal. What, therefore, was the messenger for?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he thought his hon. friend would see that although the Great Seal was in charge of the Lord Chancellor it was impossible for the Lord Chancellor to carry all the documents to which the Great Seal was to be affixed. It was part of the duty of the messenger of the Great Seal to see that those documents were taken to the proper place in order that the Great Seal might be affixed to them.
  MR. CALDWELLasked whether the clerks in the first, second, and third divisions were appointed by examination under the Civil Service system.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he was informed by the Secretary to the Treasury that the classification was the result of examination. He did not say that there was an examination in every case, as circumstances might require the appointment of a particular person possessing special qualifications, who might find it difficult at his time of life to pass an examination.
  MR. CALDWELLasked if the clerks were placed in their respective divisions as the result of a Civil Service examination. The various divisions mentioned would lead hon. Members to suppose that the clerks had passed a Civil Service examination in the usual way. When he mentioned the matter five or
  1378
  six years ago, the appointments were not then made as a result of a Civil Service examination, though there might have been a change since then. The clerks were then appointed on the nominations of different Judges without any examination at all. He was anxious that those clerks should be brought into the ordinary Civil Service so that no question of favouritism might arise. He wanted to know how the matter really stood now.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)said he understood that the clerks were appointed as follows—they were nominated by the presidents of the various divisions, after which they had to pass an examination. There were separate examinations for each of the three classes. As regarded promotion, in the majority of cases it was by seniority, but no clerk could be promoted without having a certificate from the head of his Department that he was a proper person for promotion. There was no great distinction between that system and the system in the other great Departments.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the Committee were now getting at the facts. Those clerks were not appointed by ordinary Civil Service examination. They numbered about 300, and were not elected by open competition. They were appointed under a system of private patronage with a qualifying examination. Why should there be such a large amount of private patronage, and why should those positions be closed to open public competition? He thought it would be the bounden duty of the Committee to express an opinion on the matter.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that that was a perfectly new question. It was not the universal rule in the Civil Service that appointments should be made by competitive examination. Competitive examinations were admirable, but they were not a panacea for all human ills. He did not understand why a great Department such as Law and Justice should be held up to opprobrium because it adopted a system of nomination

  1379
  in order to get the best men. As regarded the qualifying examination, it was held in accordance with a scheme settled by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury and it was issued by the Civil Service Commissioners for the guidance of candidates. There was, however, a special power to dispense with an examination in the case of an individual possessing particular qualifications. He did not think that any complaint could be made with reference to the personnel of the office of Law and Justice.
  MR. BUCHANAN, in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the hon. and learned Attorney-General, moved that the Vote be reduced by £100.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £180,018, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the hon. Member who had moved the reduction was quite in error in his view of the Civil Service of this country. The appointments were not made, as he supposed, by competitive
  examination. In all branches of the Civil Service persons were selected because they had special qualifications. The Geological Survey, for instance, might desire to appoint a geologist. They would not appoint him by competitive examination, but would select some one near at hand with special qualifications, and if he had not a University degree an examination took place to test his general education.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he could not vote for his hon. friend because he had seen the result of those competitive examinations. He believed himself that the appointment by competitive examination was not good for the public service. He believed that the service would be much benefited if they could find some impartial person to make the appointment. He did not wish to see the Chinese system carried into our public service.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 83; Noes, 178. (Division List No.95.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Flower, Ernest

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicol, Donal Ninian

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Garfit, William

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Randles, John S.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bill, Charles

  Groves, James Grimble

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Brassey, Albert

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bull, William James

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset, E.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Smith, H. C. (North'umb Tyneside

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Coddington, Sir William

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Kimber, Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Knowles, Lees

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

  Denny, Colonel

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

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

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lundon, W.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

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

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

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

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Younger, William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mount, William Arthur

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £28,144, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Land Registry."
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that in discussing the operations of the Land Transfer Act, the question of whether or not land transfer by registration was the better system was one for the public, and should not be raised at all as a matter of professional interest. He did not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of the Act, but after five or six years experience of its working in the County of London certain criticisms had been made. The Act

  1383
  was alleged to have caused an increase of cost in the transfer of land, which was a matter of great moment to land owners, and one raising economic considerations of no small value from the social point of view. It was also said to have produced greater complication with reference to the the title of land, to have caused delays both in action and in administration, and not to have been the greater check upon fraud which its supporters anticipated it would be. It was further alleged that under the Act the risk of mistakes was greater, and that there had been a large increase of officialism. Many people, too, objected to the element of compulsion. Without expressing any opinion on those criticisms, it was only natural, when an increased amount was asked for the purpose of extending the operation of the Act, that the Committee should inquire how the Act had been administered, and whether it should be regarded merely as a temporary measure, an experiment, or as having a more permanent character. The Land Transfer Bill, when under consideration in the House, encountered many obstacles and difficulties, and, though he would not say there was an express agreement that an inquiry should be held, there was no doubt the Bill was allowed to pass upon the understanding that it was an experiment, and that experience should determine whether or not it should become a permanent part of the law. To ensure its operation being watched tentatively the express provision was made that it should be put into force gradually. That that was the clear understanding the comments of the public Press abundantly proved. He did not suggest that they should revert to the former condition of things, but, allegations having been made, he did ask that some inquiry should be made as to where the facts really lay.
  The Act had been in operation for some time, considerable experience had been gained, and some test should be applied to see whether its operation had been successful or not. The system of the gradual application of the Act through the counties was an important element in the inquiry, because it was obviously for the purpose of
  1384
  obtaining evidence as to the success or otherwise of the Act. Inasmuch as the County Council had to determine this question it was material that they should go through some inquiry in order to know whether they should apply the Act or not. That could only be done properly by some form of public inquiry through a Committee of this House, or a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. Questions had been asked by several hon. Members as to whether such an inquiry would take place, and replies had been received in the negative. Were they to take the opinion of the framers and administrators of the Act? Surely that could not be satisfactory to those who took a different view of the operation of the Act. It was said officially in the House that an inquiry had taken place, but that answer was an admission of the desirability of inquiry. What was that inquiry? It was not a public and independent impartial inquiry through a Committee, but through a Departmental Committee conducted by the framers and administrators of the Act, and not bearing any of those credentials which would give the weight which such an opinion ought to have. It was no inquiry really, for it was limited to the working of the Act and to the demands of the registry as to staff and the mode in which it had been performing its work. Anything above that was beyond the purview of the inquiry. It was a Departmental inquiry of the most limited character by the terms of the reference. He asked that there should be a more general, impartial, and independent inquiry and they ought to have some assurance that such an inquiry would be held. It was quite possible an inquiry might justify the Act, and if it did, it would meet with acceptance, by the public and the profession. If the facts were likely to lead to that conclusion, why was there any hesitation? An inquiry would produce conviction and settle public opinion. If, on the other hand, there were facts which would show that the charges made against the Act and registry were well founded, it was of great importance to the public that the system should be put an end to if it was found to be faulty.
  An inquiry was desired by many classes of persons who were brought in

  1385
  contact with dealings in land—by building societies, bankers in the City, by a large meeting in the City of representatives of Chambers of Commerce, bankers, and property owners, and by several Borough Councils. As the County Councils had the statutory responsibility of applying the Act or not according to the experience of its working in its earlier stages in the Metropolis, there should be some means of determining for their guidance what the operation of the Act had been. If it had been costly and had not answered expectations, that ought to be embodied in a Report in order to put County Councils on their guard against applying the Act. If, on the other hand, the Act had operated well, or was likely to operate well, and the Committee was satisfied with its working, no one would seek to interfere with that result, and it would be welcomed by every landowner, and this would be in the public interest. Before more money was spent on officialism and staff and registry buildings, the Committee ought to be well satisfied that the experimental stage of the measure had passed. He hoped they would hear from the learned Attorney-General what was so reasonably desired by so many classes and bodies of public men. If his reply was satisfactory no further objection would be raised to the Vote. If it was unsatisfactory then he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon this question both from an economical and social point of view.
  MR. WHITLEYthought it was desirable that this Motion should be supported by at least one hon. Member who did not belong to the profession which was so much respected in this House, but which was sometimes considered to have views of its own which did not commend themselves to all laymen. His first reason for pressing for an inquiry into the system of land registry was that in the district he represented in the West Riding of Yorkshire, there was a strong feeling that that district would, in all probability, be the next one to have this system extended to it. He was aware that that could not be done without the assent of the West Riding County Council, but he had had
  1386
  several representations made to him from his constituency and from the Law Society there, urging him to press upon the Government that there should be an impartial inquiry, now that the Act had been in operation for five years, whereas the experimental term mentioned was three years. They contended that there should be a proper impartial inquiry, in order that County Councils in other parts of the country might have proper information to guide them in considering the question whether they should ask for the application of this Act to their own district or not. In the West Riding of Yorkshire they had already an excellent system of land registry at Wakefield, and they were disinclined to give up that system in favour of the one in operation in London unless there was strong evidence, taken by an impartial Committee of Inquiry, showing that the system under the Act of 1897, was one which conferred substantial benefit. This matter had been several times before the House by means of questions, but this Vote had very often come under the guillotine, and, consequently, it was not often they had had an opportunity of pressing for an inquiry into this matter. Replying to a question on the 6th of February last year, the Attorney-General said that—
  "An inquiry has in fact been held, with the aid of an independent Committee, into the organisation and working of the Office of Land Registry, and the result is entirely satisfactory."
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: Hear, hear!
  MR. WHITLEY: The Solicitor-General said "Hear, hear," but he should like to know where was the result of that inquiry? They did not even know what the reference was. What they wanted was not a departmental inquiry, conducted entirely by lawyers, but an inquiry which would fairly represent the various business interests concerned as to whether the working of this Act in London had been a success or not. The reply of the Attorney-General did not meet the case. In the first place, the Committee he spoke of was the wrong sort of Committee to deal with it; and in the second place, they had not got the Report of that Committee, and the inquiry only appeared to have been made as to the

  1387
  organisation and working of the office. That might be a proper thing for inquiry, but it was not the inquiry they were asking for. They wished to know if this Act had carried out the anticipations of its promoters, and whether it had simplified and cheapened land transfer in such a manner as to justify this system being applied to other parts of the country. If the result was good it was high time the system should be extended. If the idea present in the minds of those who brought in the Bill had proved to be correct why exclude other parts of the country from the benefits of the Act? If, on the other hand, the result of the working of the Act had greatly increased expense and complication, this fact ought to be made known. He was informed that a case had been decided in the High Court which appeared to show that the title was not a good one at all. He hoped some legal member of the Committee would be familiar with that case, and able to say exactly what was the result of the decision on the system now in operation in London. The Attorney-General seemed to take pride in the fact that when the Act passed through this House it was passed nem. con. He ventured to think that that fact was due to the assurance given to the House that it was to be experimental in the first instance, and that there would be proper inquiries into its working before it was extended to other parts of the country. If the Attorney-General believed that it had been working satisfactorily he should give the Committee some information to show that it was desirable to extend this great boon to the other parts of the country.
  The increasing expense which this House was continually asked to vote entitled them to ask an inquiry. The capital account was approaching £500,000, which had been expended on the offices. This experiment was one in regard to which the Government did not seem disposed to give an adequate report or to grant an inquiry. It was not business for the Government to come and ask an increased sum of money, and that the House should vote it light-heartedly without inquiry as to whether the money was well spent or not. He was entirely unprejudiced on the question.
  1388
  Complaints had been made by responsible persons, and that seemed to him to be quite sufficient ground for demanding an inquiry into the matter. This was not entirely a matter for lawyers. He was not one who would support a system, whether old or new, which merely brought grist to the mills of the lawyers. He thought they prospered fairly well without any addition from the legislation of this House. He read, the other day, a very interesting report from which it appeared that the building societies of this country were very greatly exercised on the question the Committee were now discussing. It appeared to him that the majority of these societies thought that the Act was bad, while others thought there was something to be said for it. These societies were concerned in cheap and efficient methods of transfer, and they wanted inquiry into the question. He thought these building societies had a claim for consideration. They were not interested from the legal point of view, but rather the reverse. What they wanted was that less money should be paid to the lawyers, and that they should obtain cheaper land on which to place their buildings. He was inclined to base his case for inquiry even more on their request than on the request that came from lawyers in all parts of the country. He thought a very strong case had been made out for inquiry. It need not involve any great expense. A few lawyers could be appointed to inquire whose interest it was to get land easily and cheaply transferred. It would be a simple thing to get a Committee which would give perfect satisfaction not only to this House, but also to the County Councils, which had a legitimate claim to know about the working of the Act. He called attention to the fact that in connection with this Vote there were footnotes explaining extra emoluments for officials. That was a practice which had prevailed in connection with old offices and it had been strongly condemned. But here was a brand new office, and the same abuse was allowed to creep in. He hoped that the Attorney-General would give that matter his careful consideration. He moved the reduction of the vote by £1,000, stating that he would go to a division unless an inquiry was promised by the Government.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £27,144, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the hon. Member in objecting to the system of footnotes in regard to particular salaries said he was astonished that they should occur in connection with a new Department. He would remind the hon. Member that that might be due to the fact that some of the officials were taken over from other departments, and that this would involve a modification of the arrangements with regard to their salaries. After all, that was a very small matter. The hon. Member had referred to certain matters in connection with the expenses of the land registry. Of course there was some expense, but that was absolutely inevitable. If they were to have a Department of this kind for the purpose of registering titles, it was natural enough that there should sometimes be a certain feeling of soreness on the part of those who were asked to make additional payments at the time the transfer took place, in order to cover the expense of registration for the first time. The building societies had objected to these charges, but the question was whether what was done under the Act was not worth paying for. It was only in the course of years that they would realise the effect of that for which they were now paying, and he could not help thinking that the hon. Members for South Islington and Halifax were just a little too soon in asking the Government to institute a tribunal for the purpose of inquiring into, and reporting on the general policy of the new system. The facts were known, and the real question was whether those concerned would not ultimately reap the benefit, which was a very great one indeed, and which was well worth paying for.
  He could not understand why it should be asserted that a land registry did not offord any additional security. It was clear that it did; if a man who wanted at buy a bit of land knew that, when the system came into operation, he could, without extended inquiry, and without going back forty years and it might be more, get an absolute title as against all the world. He thought that was an object which was well worth endeavouring
  1390
  to attain to, and paying something for. Then if a possessory title was registered, it was quite true that an absolute title could not be acquired as against conflicting interests at the time of registry. But there was this enormous security, that no dealing with the land could take place after that registration; that no title could be conferred without reference to the registry. Those who grumbled at the present charge which was incurred, were sometimes forgetful that, in the course of affairs in this world, it was necessary often to bear a present burden for the sake of a future benefit. His hon. friend had referred to the evil of what he called officialism. It was perfectly obvious that they could not have a great system of registration such as was enjoyed by other countries, without having officers to work it; and it would be found that the range of direction in which the State could promote a public utility without an official staff was singularly restricted. His hon. friend said that the measure had been passed on the understanding that it was to be of a tentative nature; and he read some extracts from a leading article in The Times in that sense. They were all perfectly agreed that the measure was passed through the House on the understanding that it was to be applied gradually in one county after some delay, and that it was not to be extended to the other counties unless the County Councils desired to have that extension. That was in fact more than an understanding, it was embodied in the Act. He knew nothing of any other understanding. He was not himself in charge of that Bill and took hardly any part in its progress through the House; but he was present a good part of the time and had refreshed his memory by looking through the debates on the Bill, and he could not find any trace of any further promise or understanding of any sort or kind as to any inquiry. He thought that some passages in the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Islington conveyed an impression which, he was sure, was a little misleading. Certainly, apart from the express enactment, or the modification of it, for the purpose of securing the progress of this great and beneficial change in the law, there was no understanding that he ever heard of that any inquiry would be held.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he had not said that it was expressly stated that there was to be an inquiry, but that the measure was passed as an experiment and tentatively, and that its application was to be gradual. That was the understanding.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that that was exactly what he had stated. It was an experiment in the sense that it was to be applied after some delay in one county and was not to be extended to other counties unless the County Councils wanted it. But from some passages in his hon. friend's speech he led the Committee to believe that there was an understanding that there was to be some inquiry. It was right that it should be understood by the Committee and by the public that there was no promise, so far as he was aware, either express or implied, that there was to be an inquiry. Now he came to the question whether it was desirable that an inquiry should now be held into this subject. The inquiry referred to by the hon. Member for Halifax was an inquiry which bore merely on the organisation and working of the office. It was an inquiry held by several highly competent gentlemen, one of whom was selected for nomination by the Law Society of which his hon. friend the Member for Islington was president. These gentlemen made numerous suggestions in regard to the working of the Department, and these suggestions had been embodied in rules which were now actually in force. The inquiry now asked for was of a totally different kind—an inquiry into the general question of policy which the House determined when it passed this measure into law. He did not say for a moment that the decision of this House, and of Parliament as a whole, when this measure became law, was to preclude any inquiry, at the proper time, into the way in which the measure worked and with the view of deciding whether it was doing good. But the question arose, were they now in any better position for holding an inquiry before a Committee such as, he understood, his hon. friend suggested—viz., an inquiry on the general policy of the measure? All the materials that could be brought, in the nature of things,
  1392
  before that Committee would be details of the expenditure that had been incurred in the first stage. They would have members of various societies, including a good many members of the legal profession, coming forward and giving the Committee details as to what the measure had cost. But then, in order to get an answer to the question as to the general policy of the measure, they must realise what would be the ultimate effect of that registration for which they were at this stage paying. Surely that was hardly a matter for investigation by such a Committee as his hon. friend foreshadowed. That was the question of general policy—the very question which the House had already determined.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Into the operation of the Act.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Yes, into the operation of the Act; he quite agreed. But until the Act had been in operation for some time that inquiry would not be of any great service.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that the term of three years operation was the period distinctly mentioned as the time for the experiment.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he must repeat that there was no expectation held out when the Bill was passing through the House that there would be an inquiry after three years or any other specific period.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: It was said that the Bill was an experiment, and for three years.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: It was an experiment for this one county. Anything said by the Lord Chancellor, either in the letter to which reference had been made or elsewhere, had been absolutely carried out, not only in the letter but in the spirit, and every pledge given had been absolutely fulfilled. So that the question his hon. friend raised was whether such a Committee as he suggested, would be able to throw any light on the general question of policy and as to the advantages of registration,

  1393
  and whether it would be worth while to go to that expense for the purpose of bringing one county under the operation of the Act? He very respectfully suggested to the Committee that this inquiry would be a little premature. It would be bringing into undue relief the initial charges, because the Committee would necessarily not be in a position to say what advantages the Act would bring in the future, and they would be pulling up the plant to see how it was growing.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he did not think the Attorney-General was quite correct in his assumption that this Department had paid its way. There was no statement on the Estimates of that portion of the income which came from the old Middlesex Land Registry. On the Estimates the expenses of the Land Registry Department were calculated at £48,144 which was a net increase of £8,951 on the preceding year, with an additional expenditure charged to other items of over £12,000. Therefore the Department was costing at the present £60,000 a year. The fees were estimated at £74,000, but unless they knew what amount was included in respect of the Middlesex Land Registry, which was practically a sinecure and which now went into the coffers of the existing Land Registry, they could not say how income and expenditure really stood. He did not say that this was an extravagant office, nor did he deny that they could not have a change of this sort without a good deal of annual expense. As to the general question, his hon. friend the Member for York would remember that when this Act was being passed in 1897, the hon. Member for York moved that the House should go into Committee on the Bill that day three months. They were then towards the end of the session and it was hopeless for the Government to carry the Bill in the shape it then stood. The First Lord of the Treasury, who said he had listened with interest and attention to the debate, intervened to make what he called a conciliatory proposal, because he understood that the whole objection to the Bill arose from the compulsory clause. The Government, the right hon. Gentleman said, were prepared to make a compromise and introduce an Amendment
  1394
  by which it would be impossible to force on any County Council the provisions of the Bill without the initiation and the consent of that county. He thought that the offer of the First Lord of the Treasury was very fair on the part of the Government, and he urged his hon. friend to accept it, and his hon. friend the Member for York withdrew his Amendment. The matter was not definitely settled that night because the Committee wanted to see the exact words by which the Attorney-General would carry out the proposal. Next day he ventured to state to the House that he was willing to accept the statement of the Attorney-General; but to prevent any possible misconstruction he wished to state what he understood to be the position. "In the first instance the Lord Chancellor might select any county he thought proper, and there was a distinct understanding that that county was to be the administrative County of London. The Lord Chancellor might give notice to the County Council of London, and they would have the option, within three months, of determining whether or not they would have this compulsion. If they said they would not, then the Lord Chancellor would have to select some other county in which to try the experiment; but assuming they did accept it, and assuming the Act to be put in force in London, then no further order was to be made under this Act at all for three years. At the expiration of three years no order could be made by the Privy Council unless and until a County Council asked for it in accordance with the terms of the Act." There was no doubt an impression, to some extent in the legal profession, that the three years having elapsed, the experiment, so to speak, being over, that the Lord Chancellor had now the power to introduce this compulsory registration in any county he thought proper. That was not the case. The Lord Chancellor could not introduce it into any county which did not take the initiative. At the close of his remarks the First Lord of the Treasury was good enough to say that he (Sir Henry Fowler) "had, with perfect lucidity, explained the arrangement; and that it would be carried out." That was the only understanding which was arrived at. No doubt a period of three years was mentioned; but that was only an indication of the time which the

  1395
  Lord Chancellor thought fair in which to test the experiment.
  He understood that the Attorney-General objected to the proposal on the ground that it was premature; but he did not object to it on the ground of principle. Parliament had decided, as far back as 1875, that a proper, economical, and effective—and to be effective it must be compulsory—system of land registration ought to be embodied in the laws of this country. He knew nothing personally about the working of the Act, but he was speaking the opinion of competent persons, viz., members of the legal profession who were familiar with the working of the Act, and persons who had to pay fees for the transfer of land. The general impression was, rightly or wrongly, that the present system was dilatory and unnecessarily expensive, and did not give that protection to title which Parliament no doubt intended to give. He did not say whether that allegation was true or not; but, it was made by persons who were not anonymous or inexperienced. Surely the great building societies of England and Wales ought to know something of the transfer of land, and their views were adverse to the views which prevailed in 1897. The Attorney-General said that there was no ground for those statements; but all his hon. friend asked for was that these conflicting facts should be brought before an independent tribunal, not to reverse the decision of Parliament but for the guidance of the County Councils. The County Councils, before they became involved in expenditure, should know whether it would be satisfactory or not. They should not be at the mercy of advocates recommending different systems. No inquiry could be more satisfactory than a Departmental Committee or a Committee of the House of Commons. It was not a Party but an administrative question, on which he declined to express any opinion, because he had not sufficient evidence before him. They asked the Government, not in any menacing or Party manner, to consider the question of an inquiry. He hoped his hon. friend the Member for Halifax would not ask the Committee to divide. To express an opinion on the question now would only have the effect of misleading the public. The proper course was to impress on the
  1396
  Government that there was a bonâ fide desire to know whether the administration, not the organisation, was working efficiently and economically, and whether the system was such that the County Councils ought to take it up.
  MR. E. BECKETT FABERsaid they were not satisfied with the working of the Act in Yorkshire. He did not intend to touch upon the legal aspect of the case, but from a business point of view he found there were very strong objections to the Act in the minds of the business men in the West Riding. Without entering upon the question of policy, he wished to point out, as an example of the inconvenience, that before it was passed, if a man went into his bankers with his deeds in his hand the banker looked at the deeds and was able to lend money on them then and there. Under this Act the banker could no longer do that, and it was necessary for him to tell his customer that he could not lend the money without first searching the registry at Wakefield. He had the privilege, when this Act came into force some years ago, of representing the country bankers at the London office, and he had the opportunity of interviewing Mr. Brickdale when this question of registration was discussed. The difficulties were then pointed out, and it was arranged that a certificate should be given to anyone depositing deeds with the Registration Office in London, and on that certificate should be set out all particulars of the land, so that the customer could take the certificate to his banker and borrow money upon it. If his memory served him rightly Mr. Brickdale gave them to understand that this Act would be first applied to London, and before it was applied to any other county they should have a statement as to its working in the County of London. During the last few months the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire had been asking for guidance as to their actions in this matter. They did not know when they should bring the Act into force and they could not come to a decision until they had some evidence put before them of the working of the Act in London
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that the matter was a very important one. No doubt there was a great ferment in the profession against the Act. Men who were long accustomed to deal with deeds were haunted by apprehension as to the effect of the Act. There was no doubt that for many years the influence of solicitors, and also to a certain extent of the Bar, was directed against this system of the registration of titles; and that was one of the reasons why this country was so far behind other nations in this matter. In Australia a man might purchase 20,000 acres of land, and get an absolute title at the registration office in twenty minutes. So it would be in this country if those who urged this reform and supported the Government when it brought forward the beneficent Act of 1897 could succeed in getting a fair opportunity for it to work. The fact was, when they were beginning a system they could not say, in the first instance, that all the land in a particular county should be registered. What had been said was that if there was a transfer of land it should be by registration. In the first place, it became necessary to establish a title, and once that was done by a transfer having been registered, for all time to come the expenses would become infinitely less until they came to be practically nothing, and the value of property would be considerably enhanced. The scheme for the registration of land was not one to which any particular person was entitled to lay a claim. It was a great scheme, which existed in all our self-governing colonies, —notably in Australia—and in nearly the whole civilised world, and there was now happily a prospect of its being adopted in this country. The inquiry that had been asked for could at best be only a mutilated inquiry, and could only yield imperfect results, because it could only be an inquiry into the operation of the Act, and therefore could only inform the Committee with regard to the most cumbersome and expensive stages. It would only disclose half the truth, and that half which was of the least benefit to the community. The Lord Chancellor supported this Act, the late Lord Chancellor supported it, the late Attorney-General—present Lord Chief Justice—cooperated with him (Sir Robert Reid) in
  1398
  trying to pass it, and he believed the present Attorney-General also. He hoped hon. Members would not interpose objections, however well meant they might be, to the extension of what was a great Act.
  MR. BUTCHERsupported the desire that had been expressed for an inquiry into its administration and the effect of its working in London. It was the duty of the County Councils to consider the question of extending the Act to their counties. That was a most important duty to impose upon them and this inquiry was necessary to give them proper materials to enable them to form a decision. The late Attorney-General seemed to think that in asking for this inquiry they were desirous of destroying the Act. That was not their intention at all. They only desired to put the County Councils in possession of information upon which they would be able to act. He thought the County Councils would be well advised to wait until they got that information, and he did not see how any County Council could ask for an extension of the Act to their county without first having the materials supplied to them by which they could be guided as to whether it would be beneficial or not. He did not regard this as a lawyer's question but from the point of view of those who were interested in the cheap and quick transfer of land. Building societies often had large transactions in land and mortgages, and it would be calamitous to adopt any system which would increase the charges made for dealing with land. Then again the bankers desired to be able to transact their business, in their own interests and in the interests of their clients, both cheaply and quickly. It was important that before this Act was extended all over the country there should be some means of finding out whether it would benefit the country at large. The late Attorney-General went into a panegyric upon the system of land transfer under this Act; on that subject he did not wish to say anything, and in regard to it he had a perfectly open mind. This question was not a new one. The experiment was first made in 1862, and there was another in 1875, but that failed, and it was remarkable if the system was so simple as the late

  1399
  Attorney-General represented it to be that the people of the country should have been so exceedingly stupid as not to have adopted it before. They wished to keep an entirely open mind as to whether the Act would work well or for ill, but they certainly ought to acquaint the County Councils with the result of its working. When the Bill was originally brought in it did not contain any provision whereby there should be an experimental working for three years, but in order to get the Bill through the House the First Lord of the Treasury said it would be applied to the County of London for three years and would not be applied to the other counties unless they asked for it. The Act had now been in operation for five years; millions of money had changed hands through the transfer of property under this system, and he should have thought that, if an inquiry were instituted, it would be possible to ascertain not merely the present cost, but whether that cost was likely to have a good result in the future. If the Government were satisfied that the present movement was premature, he would accept their decision, but it should be clearly understood that the Attorney-General accepted the view that an inquiry was necessary, and that before the County Councils could be asked to extend the Act to their respective counties they ought to be informed of the result of its operation in London by means of an inquiry.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I never said that.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid he understood the hon. and learned Member to say that an inquiry might hereafter become necessary, and what would be the good of an inquiry except to enable County Councils to form a judgment as to the desirability of applying the Act? It would be folly for the Councils to extend the operations of the Act to their respective areas without knowing how the system had worked in London, and he hoped the Attorney-General would give an assurance that in due time an inquiry should be made.
  MR. MARKHAM, as one who had taken an
  1400
  interest in this question for some years, earnestly hoped the Attorney-General would reconsider his decision. County Councils hesitated to put the Act into operation because they knew the system was being tried in London, and they wanted to know the result. There was an urgent necessity for a radical alteration in the present system of land transfer. Great Britain was practically the only civilised country in the world in which the antiquated and tortuous system of land tenure under which we suffered, was permitted to continue. Why should the House of Commons, dominated by the interests of lawyers, refuse to allow this reform? He should certainly support the Amendment.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the reply of the Attorney-General was altogether unsatisfactory. If the hon. and learned Member would promise an inquiry at the end of seven years, he personally would be quite satisfied. If the Act had all the virtues ascribed to it by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, he desired to see it extended to his constituents. Why should they be deprived of its advantages for an indefinite period simply because the Attorney-General would not appoint a Committee whose Report would enable the County Councils to decide as to the desirability of extending the Act? Unless an assurance was given that an inquiry would be made, within a reasonable time, he would be compelled to go to a division.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITthought the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Halifax for his efforts in this matter. It was true they had not received all the assurances they desired, but the debate had produced two notable admissions—first, that there were hardships and objections in the administration of the Act, and, secondly, that time might overcome them. The fair in erence was that after a time an inquiry would be justified, and, he assumed, would take place. After those admissions and the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, he suggested the Amendment should be withdrawn.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid his impression was that the withdrawal of such a Motion wiped it out of the mind of the Minister concerned. The process of passing through the lobbies seemed to impress the matter on the Minister's mind. They had not got an inquiry this year, but possibly, if they took a
  division now, they might get it next year.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 215. (Division List No. 96.)

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Rea, Russell

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Asher, Alexander

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

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

  Russell, T. W.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Black, Alexander William

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Burns, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Cameron, Robert

  Labouchere, Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

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

  Crombie, John William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Tomkinson, James

  Crooks, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Leng, Sir John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Wallace, Robert

  Edwards, Frank

  Lough, Thomas

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ellis, John Edward

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Murphy, John

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woodhouse, Sir. J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Partington, Oswald

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Perks, Robert William

  Mr. Buchanan and Mr.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Soares.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Austin, Sir John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Flower, Ernest

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicol, Donal Ninian

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Garfit, William

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Randles, John S.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bill, Charles

  Groves, James Grimble

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Brassey, Albert

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bull, William James

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset, E.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Smith, H. C. (North'umb Tyneside

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Coddington, Sir William

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Kimber, Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Knowles, Lees

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

  Denny, Colonel

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

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

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lundon, W.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

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

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

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

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Younger, William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mount, William Arthur

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Robinson, Brooks

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

  Guidon, Sir W. Brampton

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Austin, Sir John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley. Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Black, Alexander William

  Humphreys-Owen Arthur C.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hutchinson,Dr.CharlesFredk.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Brigg, John

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Joicey, Sir James

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Bull, William James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Burt, Thomas

  Labouchere, Henry

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.

  Butcher, John George

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, SirWilfrid (Cornwall)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Cameron, Robert

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Tomkinson, James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leng, Sir John

  Toulmin, George

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Wallace, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  M`Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Crombie, John William

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morgan,J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Weir, James Galloway

  Davies, M.Vaughan- (Cardign

  Murphy John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Palmer, SirCharlesM(Durham

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Edwards, Frank

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Perks, Robert William

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (huddersfd

  Faber, E. B. (hants, W.)

  Pirie Duncan V.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Rea, Russell

  .Fenwick, Charles

  Reckitt, Harold James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Mr. Whitlfy and Mr.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Charles Hobhouse.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brassey, Albert

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Campbell,JH.M. (Dublin Univ.

  Dorington,Rt.Hon. SirJohnE.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carson, Rt. Hon, Sir Edw. H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Doxford,Sir William Theodore

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. HonSirH.

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J A (Wore

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chapman, Edward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward.

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

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith,

  Balfour,RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Barry, Sir Fras. T. (Windsor)

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrint,S.

  Finlay, SirRohert Bannatyne

  Bathurst,Hon.Allfen Benjamin

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton.)

  FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose

  Bignold, Arthur

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Bigwood, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon

  Bill, Charles

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  flower, Ernest

  Bond, Edward

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Forster, Henry William

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Dirnsdale,Rt.11on.SirJosephC.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Gardner, Ernest

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehause)

  Garfit William

  M'Killop Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn.Col. E. J.

  Gibbs,HnA.G.H(City of Lond

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Maxwell,RtHnSirH.E(Wigen

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Maxwell,W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

  Sinclair, Louis (Ramford)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sloan. Thomas Henry

  Greene,Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Mootagu, Hon. J . Scott (Hants.)

  Smith, H. C(Northm'b tyneside

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  More,Robt. Jasper(Shropshire

  Smith,JamesParker (Lanarks.

  Groves, James Grimble

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

  Spencer, Sir E. (W .Bromwich)

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G.(Midx

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hamilton, Marg. of (Londondy

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M`Taggart

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent,Ashfd

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray,RtHnA.Graham(Bute

  Stroyan, John

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. w.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Sturt, Hn. Humphrey Napier

  Helder, Augustus

  Myers, William Henry

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hobhouse,Rt.HnH(Sorarst, E.

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Orr-Ewing,C rles Li dsay

  Tomlinson, Si(Wm. Edw. M.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Vincent,ColSirC.E.H(Sheffied

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Foyer' hm

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott' ham

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pryce-Jones,Lt.-Col.Edward

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hutton, John (Yorks, .V R.)

  Purvis. Robert

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Jessel,Captain HerbertMerton

  Randles, John S.

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

  Jones, David Brymnor(Swansea,

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W.(Salop

  Reid,Sir R,Threshie(Dumfries

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Knowles, Lees

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

  Lawrence,SirJoseph (Monm'th

  Ridley,Hon.M.W (Stalybridge

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lawson,JohnGrant(YorksN.R

  Ritchie,RtHon.Chas.Thomson

  Wortley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield

  Wortley, Rt. Nn, C. B. Stuart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N S

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Younger, William

  Long, Col. Chas. W .(Evesham

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Russell, T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  3. £25,000, to complete the sum for County Courts.
  4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £26,390, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904, for the salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the pay and expenses of officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the salaries and expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."
  MR. SCHWANNsaid he thought a great deal of blame was put upon the police force which they did not rightly deserve. They were a body which performed great civil duties, and the fault did not always lie with them. The fault was that there were too few of them. As was often said of the British Army, they were splendid soldiers, but there were too few of them. He should be able to lay before the Committee reasons why there ought be a considerable increase in the police force within the metropolitan area. The police force had not grown with the population. The police area extended to within a fifteen miles radius from Charing Cross, and included such populous districts as Enfield, Barnet, Wimbledon, Kingston,

  1405
  Croydon and other places well known to hon. Members. Many of those suburbs were, as far as burglars were concerned, a regular paradise and a happy hunting ground. He knew of one case in Wimbledon in which the burglars came just after twelve o'clock at night with a horse and cart and stripped the whole first floor of everything without the slightest interruption. It seemed almost impossible that such an act should take place. Up to the year 1890 the police were regularly augmented by about 400 annually, but after that date only very insignificant additions had been made to the force. In 1890 the population of the metropolitan police district was 5,500,000, and the police force numbered 15,725 men. In the year 1900 the population was 6,500,000, and the number of policemen was 15,847, or 122 more than in 1890. The population during that period increased by 1,000.000, and the Home Office thought the addition of 122 men was sufficient to meet the requirements of that increase in the population. He believed the Committee would agree with him that, under these. circumstances, there was a primâ facie case for the Home Secretary to explain.
  In 1901, London grew to the extent of sixty miles of new streets, and there were 27,174 new houses built. That might seem impossible, but he wished the Committee to understand that the area included the districts immediately around London, such towns as Ilford, Enfield, and other places which had increased enormously, and almost beyond the range of imagination. In the ten years from 1890, there were 202,127 new houses built, and 2,643 new streets formed, representing 531 miles. All these additional houses and streets had to be looked after by a police force in 1900, which showed only 122 additional men as compared with the year 1890. That would be something if the whole number of police were available for police duties, but 1765 had to be deducted in respect of the number of men employed in the dockyards, patrolling gardens, and protecting many institutions, including the Houses of Parliament. That reduced the total number to 14,082 to do the whole of the police work of London. But even of that number they had to cut off 1,361
  1406
  who were permanently on sick leave or absent from duty for other reasons. That reduced the force to 12,721, and in that number were included superintendents, inspectors, and sergeants, and from the portly appearance of those officers it did not appear to him that they did an enormous amount of work. Practically the number of policemen for street duty was 12,721; of that number a certain proportion were on night duty. Of course that was the most important and the most dangerous part of their work. The number on night duty was 7,632. They went on duty at 10 p.m. and remain till 6 a.m. The rest of the policemen were divided into two shifts, each of 2,544, for the day service. Half of them commenced work at 6 a.m. and remained on duty till 2 p.m. The other set went on duty at 2 p.m. and left off at 10 p.m. The estimated population of London in this area was 6,678,808, and that meant that there was one policeman for 2,625 persons, which was considerably less than the average in 1890, when there was one policeman for 2,000. He hoped the Home Secretary would tell the Committee that he was impressed with the dangers which overawed His Majesty's subjects, that he had in his mind the increasing of the police of the Metropolitan area, and that he would distinguish himself by providing a remedy for the dangers referred to.
  The rateable property in London had increased largely, as everybody knew. In 1890 it was £35,500,000, and in 1900 £44,000,000. That, of course, was satisfactory as showing the growth of property in the Metropolis, but it was not satisfactory to the owners if their prosperity was imperilled by the absence of police protection. He would not go into the statistics showing the increase in the loss of property during the past ten years, but he could inform the Committee that there had been an increase. There were in the official returns proofs that the effectiveness of the police had weakened. Street accidents had nearly doubled since 1890. In 1891 the killed and injured in this area were 5,784, and in 1901 the number was 9,293. The danger to life in the streets had no doubt increased on account of motor-cars and cycles being introduced. Now it required very accurate eyes to calculate

  1407
  whether one could escape being run down by these vehicles. Fewer hackney drivers had been summoned before the magistrates in 1900 than in the previous year, the numbers being 9,758 as against 11,419. He hoped that this decrease was because of better conduct and more skilful driving. Protection of property was a small thing in comparison with the protection of the public in the streets. Where there was no control by the police there was frequently disorder, and very often it became absolute lawlessness, and from it arose the serious evils which were generally classified under the name of hooliganism. A good deal of this, he believed, arose from the monotonous lives which were led by many young persons in London, and those people who had greater advantages of education and birth must feel sympathy for lads who were misled, and had fewer opportunities for improvement, and who had less self control. If a gang of lads were allowed to run wild in the streets they indulged in different forms of mischief, and as a result they had those cases of the use of the knife and other lethal weapons, which had so often to be deplored. They all remembered the case of Murray Spicer, who was attacked in the neighbourhood of Tavistock Place, near Euston Road. In that case a respectable man was violently attacked in a respectable neighbourhood. To-day he read in the Daily Chronicle an account of a case in which some foreigners in the same neighbourhood had formed themselves into a gang, and lived by robbery and other disreputable means. He thought the attention of the Home Secretary ought to be called to these facts. The right hon. Gentleman might be able to point out some redeeming features which had not presented themselves to him. He thought that the evil of hooliganism might, to some extent, be dealt with by having habitual offenders segregated for the rest of their lives, afterit had become evident that their nefarious occupation was professional. He was not lawyer sufficient to say what the exact number of years should be, but he thought the Home Secretary should turn his attention to the range of facts laid before the public by Mr. Anderson. That gentleman had pointed out that there were 300 or 400 men
  1408
  well known to the police, their names, habitations, and how many times they had been convicted, who devoted themseves to training up young criminals. They did not mind spending a couple of years in prison, and when they came out they went for a trip to Monte Carlo to spend there their nefarious gains, acquired before being convicted. But for these criminals many persons who had drifted into crime might have been decent members of society. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £26,290, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Schwann.)
  MR. WEIRsaid he noticed that there was a reduction of £5,000 in the cost of police officers specially employed. He thought that, instead of a decrease, there ought to have been an increase of men to look after motor-cars, the curse of our streets. He had called the attention of the Home Secretary that afternoon to the fact that, at a quarter-past four on Monday last. a motor-car driver set at defiance the orders of the police at the crossing from Parliament Street to Palace Yard. But he had got no satisfaction, and he intended to follow the matter up until he got satisfaction. More police were wanted. They should have powers to deal with these motor-car drivers. He suggested that the police should be provided with a lasso, to catch the drivers such as he had seen at a recent exhibition. Perhaps the Prime Minister would suffer; but the right hon. Gentleman must take his chance, and the law must be no respecter of persons. Police officers might also be provided with motor bicycles for the pursuit of runaway motor-car drivers. There certainly ought to be numbers on motor-car, although that was a matter which, he assumed, required legislation. The President of the Local Government Board and the Home Secretary, should not allow the existing state of matters to continue. It was for these Departments to devise some means by which the police could effect the capture of reckless drivers who had no more regard for

  1409
  human life than they had for flies. He hoped they would have some assurance from the Home Secretary that he would take some steps in the matter. He had a great deal of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, who was new to his office, but it was his business to inquire into this serious public danger. This was not solely the complaint of one Member. Judging from the cheers from both sides of the House, it was a general grievance, and there was a general desire that something should be done to put down the furious driving of motor-cars.
  DR. HUTCHINSONthought it would be well if the Colonial Secretary were to descend from the empyrean heights of African mists, and come to hear this discussion. He thought this question was too trivial for the Imperial Parliament. The House should be left to grapple with bigger matters, and the time of Parliament should not be taken up with discussions on managing the street traffic of London, or preventing burglaries in suburban villas. Such small matters ought to be delegated to some other body.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order' That question does not arise on this Vote.
  DR. HUTCHINSONsaid he only wanted to draw attention to the fact that these were purely municipal questions.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that for his part he thought that the life, liberty, and comfort of one single citizen of London were of more importance to the House thanthe millions in Sokoto, or any outlandish part of Africa. He believed that delegation would be desirable, but they had not got delegation, and this was the only opportunity which they had of calling attention to what was going on in the Metropolis. His friend had complained of what took place in regard to motor-cars. He did not agree with him that it would be necessary to increase the number of police, because if a motor-car was rushing past, there would be no possibility of the police stopping it
  1410
  unless a large force flung themselves on the ground before it. His hon. friend had suggested the use of the lasso, but he suspected it would probably prove just as dangerous to the innocent passer-by as to the motor-car driver. He urged on the right hon. Gentleman that it was very desirable that these cars should be numbered. They could not really stop the motor-cars when they were found to be going at an excessive pace, or when the drivers were disobeying the police, but if the cars were numbered the men would be known, and could be punished. He thought that if a few of these people were haled before the police magistrate and fined, an end would be put to what was becoming an abuse and a pest.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,)said the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty had asked him about an accident, or what was very nearly an accident, near Palace Yard. He had applied to the police for information on the subject, and the answer he had received was that an accident had not been reported to them, and therefore presumably the police on duty did not think the occurrence of sufficient importance to call the attention of the Commissioner of Police to it. He agreed, on different grounds, however, with his two hon. friends that some legislation was becoming essential in regard to the regulation of motor-cars. Such legislation, as the House knew, was in contemplation, and would be introduced by the President of the Local Government Board. The hon. Member had called attention to the decrease of £5,000 in the Vote for the expense of officers specially employed, and he argued from that, that if this reduction had not been made, there would have been a much larger number of officers in London for the purpose of watching and preventing the excessive speed of motorcars. He would point out, however, that these specially employed officers were not engaged for general police work in London, certainly not in connection with motorcars, but only at ports and in connection with public buildings. The hon. Member for North Manchester had complained that the numbers of the Metropolitan Police Force had not kept pace with the increase

  1411
  of the population—not that they were inefficient, but that they were not sufficient. The hon. Member had pointed out that whereas the population had increased since 1880 by something like 2,000,000, there had been a very small corresponding increase in the numbers of the Police Force. On looking into the Returns furnished to him, he found that the population in London in 1880 was about 4,706,000, and the number of effective police was about 9,640. Last year, with a population of over 6,700,000, there were 14,470 effective police, to whom the addition of another 100 had been sanctioned recently. The large increase which had been alluded to as having taken place between 1880 and 1890 was due to the particular necessities of the moment. That period included the dynamite outrages and the subsequent scare. The increases of 1900-01 were not, he admitted, as large as they might have been; but this was accounted for by the fact that, owing to the continuance of the war, recruitments had been much smaller than usual. The Commissioner of Police felt that it was desirable to wait for filling up the numbers until a more efficient supply of recruits could be secured. The figures which he had given did not include any of the men employed on special duty or in dockyards. Moreover, there had been during recent years a direct increase of effectiveness by the withdrawal of men as far as possible from all non-effective duties, so that the figures did not show the real amount of increase. In addition to that there had been since the early years which the hon. Member had quoted a very large increase in the number of new stations, of police signal-boxes, and of fixed points where constables were to be found.
  He had not the figures showing the proportion of police to population for the period 1890–1900, but he would give the figures for the twenty years ending with the latter date. During that time the population of the Metropolitan Police district increased from about 4,706,000 to over 6,700,000, or more than 39 per cent. During the same time the police force available for ordinary duties increased
  1412
  from about 9,640, to 13,900, or over 40 per cent. In 1880 there were 20.5 police for every 10,000 persons; in 1900 there were 21.2. This proved that there had been no falling away as compared with 1880, if it did not get rid of the argument that more police were needed. It was said that the police were not as numerous in the Metropolis as they were in other cities in the country; but comparing London with other centres of population, he found that in 1900 there were in London 21 policemen to 10,000 persons, in Birmingham, 12.8, Leeds, 11.6, Liverpool, 21.3, Manchester, 18.3, Sheffield, 12.2, and Bristol, 15.1. But efficiency was not to be tested entirely by numbers, but by the work which was performed. The hon. Member stated that the number of accidents in London had increased, and that the amount of lost and stolen property had also increased. He could not give the hon. Gentleman the figures he asked for at the moment; but he would point out that during the period dealt with by the hon. Gentleman, the County of London had enormously increased, and in addition to an enormous increase in the ordinary traffic, there was the motorcar traffic and also a large increase in the bicycle traffic. All that should be taken into consideration when comparing the number of accidents now with the number ten years ago.
  The proof of the pudding was in the eating; and they had got to see what the police were able to do now as compared with what they were able to do ten years ago. There had been an increase in the arrests in London for misdemeanour and petty crime. Thirty thousand more such arrests took place in 1901 than in 1890. In serious crime there had been a very considerable decrease. In 1880 the number of felonies committed in the district was 25,368; in 1890 the number was 18,815; and in 1901, 18,918. There had, therefore, practically been no increase, notwithstanding the large increase of population in the last ten years, in the cases of serious crime compared with the state of things ten years ago. The effective strength of the police available had actually increased, because the whole of the force had been made more efficient. Surely it was better to have a force efficient

  1413
  and moderate in size rather than a larger force which might not be as efficient, and which would entail increased expenditure on the ratepayers of the Metropolis. He believed that, at the present time, the police force in London was perfectly adequate to meet all the requirements made on it, and that its efficiency was greater than at any other period of its history. With regard to hooliganism, he was glad to think that, by the action of the police and the salutary sentences passed by those who administered justice in London, this form of lawlessness had Practically ceased to exist. At all events it was nothing compared to what it was a few years ago. At the same time, he would not forget the warning which the hon. Member had given him, and he would watch very carefully the necessities of the situation. With regard to habitual criminals, he certainly thought some better means ought to be provided of dealing with habitual professional criminals, so that society might be more effectively protected against their misdoings. The matter was at the present moment engaging the attention of his Department.
  MR. NUSSEYcalled attention to a reduction in the pay and expenses of officers specially employed of £5,000, and said he would be much obliged if the Home Secretary would inform the Committee what public buildings sub-head B referred to, and what were the special services referred to.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid there was not a more admirable body in the world than the Metropolitan Police Force. A celebrated field-marshal of France had said only recently that the only forces he envied England the possession of were her men in blue, by which were meant the blue jackets on the one hand and the policemen on the other. The duties of the Metropolitan Police were largely concerned with traffic, and in his opinion the powers under which they dealt with the traffic of this great city had become insufficient for the purpose. They ought to have much larger powers. They should have the
  1414
  power to order that heavy vans should only pass over the streets between certain hours, and they ought to have power to characterise vehicles, especially that obnoxious and brutal vehicle the hooded van, in which the driver sat without being able to see on either side and only very imperfectly in front. That was a most fruitful source of accident and still more of bad temper and improper language. It might seem to be a small thing, but in the condition at which traffic had arrived it was a very large question. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should introduce a Bill which would readily pass the House giving the police power to deal with these matters. He should like in this House to bear his testimony to the extraordinary merit of the late Chief Commissioner of Police, Sir Edward Bradford. He was not only the handsomest man on a horse in all the processions in which he was engaged, but he was the best policeman we had ever had in this country. He handled his men with considerable discipline and when there came great occasions, such as we had had during his term of service, he had handled the police with the most masterly and consummate ability.
  MR. CROMBIEdrew attention to the flagrant breaches of the law in supplying children with intoxieating liquors in bottles not properly sealed. He said, although a great many cases had been brought to the notice of the police no prosecutions had occurred, and all he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman now was whether he would instruct the police when they came across a particularly grave case, to report. it to the Commissioners.
  MR. BURDETT COUTTSasked the Home Secretary if he contemplated meeting the request of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, whether he would extend and enlarge the powers. so as to control a new and very extraordinary feature of the street traffic in London. What were practically almost railway trains were, without any objection, apparently, of the authorities, taken off the line and run through the streets of London. There was not only a serious danger caused to life and obstruction to the traffic but he believed also injury to

  1415
  the buildings in London. Over and over again he had practically felt the buildings in which he happened to be, shaken almost to their foundations by these freight-trains which were allowed to run through the streets. The streets were constructed for ordinary vehicular traffic, and underneath there was a perfect network of tunnels and sewers and so forth, and they were never meant to carry these enormous weights. He thought if any further powers were given to the police, those powers ought to include power to deal with this class of traffic.
  MR. DALZIELcomplained of the way in which children were allowed to beg with boxes in the streets. It was, he said, impossible to come out of the large hotels in the Strand, even at midnight, without being pestered by children shaking money boxes in one's face. If a poor person begged for a penny he would at once be hauled off to Bow Street, but these children, as he understood, were sent out by charitable societies in South London with a box to beg, and he believed received threepence for every shilling they collected when the box, which was a sealed box, was opened.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid the question of the traffic of London and the powers of the police to regulate it was now being considered by the Traffic Commission. It was a very great question and the powers of the police were very little understood, but the whole matter was now being considered by the Traffic Commission.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the question of collecting money in the streets was engaging his attention, and it was his intention to ask Parliament to give him power to deal with the matter. He would introduce a Bill as soon as possible, and he hoped it would have the support of the hon. Member opposite. He entirely agreed with his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn in his criticism with regard to hooded vans, and as to the necessity for wider powers being given to the police, but he did not think it would be courteous to the Royal Commission if any action were taken by the Government while they were sitting.
  1416
  The reduction of £5,000 was in regard to police employed on special duty at the ports and public buildings and institutions, where it had been found possible to reduce the number of men employed.
  MR. SCHWANNasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported To morrow.
  Committee to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.
  THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

    ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10).
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid in moving that the House do now adjourn, he did so in order to call attention to the appointment which had been made of a person who was not a Member of this House as the President of the Board of Agriculture. That his Motion was not a political one was evidenced by the front Opposition Bench. He did not make this Motion from any objection he had to the noble Earl who had been appointed, or on the ground of his unfitness for the position, because from his training as a Member of many Government Departments and from his having been under the Colonial Secretary at the Colonial Office, he would naturally be a man of business qualities, and no doubt to a certain extent able to fill the position. He did not oppose the appointment of the noble Earl on the ground that he was a Peer, although he was aware of the fact that the agricultural journals of the day did so. There was a very strong objection indeed to the President of the Board of Agriculture being in the House of Lords when there was not an official in this House to represent that Department. Up to now the precedents were all in his favour; on no

    1417
    occasion had a President of the Board of Agriculture been appointed who was not a Member of this House. What good reason was there for the Government departing from these precedents? He was, of course, aware that at the present time no county seat was safe; but even if that were so, the position could be filled by an hon. Member who, like the late President or the President of the Local Government Board, sat for a great borough. If the Government thought the boroughs were also shaky, then why not appoint the Secretary to the late Mr. Hanbury to the position? It was well known that the late President of the Board of Agriculture had had no great experience of agriculture, but he brought great business abilities to his Department, and was an ideal President whom it would be difficult to replace from either side of the House. Mr. Hanbury was an ideal President because he was a man who had absolute independence and firmness, and was prepared to stand up for his Department and the agricultural interest in this House even against his colleagues. It was very undesirable that this House should have no representative at all, in an official sense, of the Board of Agriculture. Of course, there was the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire who would represent it—in the way of a Member sitting on the Treasury Bench as a junior Lord of the Treasury to answer questions put to him—but he would be only a mouthpiece, and have no power or initiative—he would be, as had been aptly suggested, merely the phonograph of the noble Earl sitting in another place.
    What would happen in the case of a Bill being brought up, a new Bill of great interest to agriculture, such as the Adulteration of Butter Bill, the Sheep Scab Bill, or even the Food and Drugs Bill? They would in future have to come down from the other House, where they might not have been discussed at all But supposing, for the sake of argument, they were introduced into this House, the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire would have no power to make alterations in them, or make concessions. He would have to consult the noble Lord in another place. He might be told that the Government intended that the hon. Member for
    1418
    North Huntingdonshire should be practically the President, but if that was so he would ask why they had not appointed him President of the Board of Agriculture. They could not say he would not be well-fitted to succeed the late Mr. Jan-bury, because the hon. Member was a practical agriculturist and understood what the farmers wanted in this matter. He was one of those members of the Government who would not have to seek re-election upon accepting office under the Crown, and therefore the Government would not risk a shaky seat. But if he was wanted by the Government as a Whip, then why could they not look a little lower down on the Treasury Benches and appoint the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Suffolk, in which case the Government had nothing to fear in case of a by-election, because his seat again would not be affected by his taking office at the present moment. It was really impossible to understand why it was so necessary to go to another place for a President of the Board of Agriculture. On the benches opposite there were twenty or thirty hon. Members perfectly capable of succeeding the late President. With regard to the question as to whether the President of the Board of Agriculture should sit in another place, he might point out that that system was adopted in the last Parliament with regard to the Post Office, and was a failure. The Duke of Norfolk was appointed Postmaster-General, and his appointment had been most inconvenient. They wanted a responsible man in this House who could answer them face to face when they attacked his Department, and who might explain away, if he could, the objections taken to the methods of that Department. It would be found to be practically impossible to get into touch with the President of the Board of Agriculture, because when they went up to another place they would probably find the House of Lords had adjourned, and that the noble Earl's whereabouts were not discoverable. The late Mr. Hanbury, in season and out of season, was always anxious to see agricultural Members, and that was a state of things that was of great advantage to the agricultural

    1419
    interests of this country. It seemed to him, for all practical purposes, the Government were abolishing the Board of Agriculture. Why could not they say boldly that they desired to save £2,000 a year, and that agriculture could be represented in another place by a Lord-in-Waiting, and in this House by a junior Lord of the Treasury. He could assure the Government that if the Party to which he belonged had ventured to offer such an insult to the House of Commons as the present Ministry had done in this particular appointment, he should have taken exactly the same course as he had done on this occasion.
    MR. SOARESsaid the point at issue between them was the very simple one of whether this Government, or, for the matter of that, any Government, had the right to appoint a peer as head of the Department which represented the largest industry in this country. He did not intend to make any attack on Lord Onslow about whom, and of whose capacity, he knew nothing, nor would he say anything about the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, except that if the Government had thought fit to appoint the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire to the office, he, for one, should have had no complaint whatever to make. But as a result of the action of the Government, those who represented agricultural constituencies would no longer be in touch with the Minister for Agriculture, and it seemed that the Government had now deliberately broken the link between the tenant farmer and the Board of Agriculture. Those who represented the Board of Agriculture knew they represented the tenant farmers, and were bound to understand their grievances, and the conditions under which they lived; they knew their needs, and it had been a perfectly simple matter to put the difficulties before the Board of Agriculture. What chance would there be of ventilating the grievances of the tenant farmers in the House of Lords? The House of Lords was a house of landlords, and there could be no doubt whatever that they would look at agricultural interests from the landlord's point of view, and that the tenant
    1420
    farmers were bound to suffer by it. The great feature of Mr. Hanbury's administration was his accessibility. They would bitterly miss Mr. Hanbury in this House, but his loss to them had been accentuated four-fold by the action of the Ministry in appointing a Peer to take his place. He did not think there was any doubt in any quarter of the House that the appointment had been made absolutely in order to avoid a by-election. Suppose some more vacancies occurred; suppose, for the sake of argument some terrible epidemic carried off a number of the Ministers, then he supposed more peers would be appointed to the positions, and that the House of Commons might take a long holiday because the seat of Government would then have been removed to the House of Lords. This appointment might suit the Prime Minister and the Members of the House of Cecil, but it would not suit the electors, and by the appointment they had made, they were only driving another nail into their own coffin which had now become well studded.
    Adjournment (under Standing Order No. 10), Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn." —(Sir Edward Strachey.)
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR and Lord EDMUND FITZMAURICErose together, but the noble Lord at once gave way. The Prime Minister, however, also resumed his seat with the remark, "You had better precede me."
    LORD EDMUND F1TZMAURICEthen advanced to the table and explained that he had given way out of courtesy to the Prime Minister. He said this was a matter of great importance, because it involved questions which went a little beyond the immediate question, which was a comparatively narrow one, raised by his hon. friend the Member for South Somerset. Nothing, he maintained, could be more natural than that those of his hon. friends who represented constituencies partly or wholly agricultural should seize the opportunity of calling attention to the appointment of a Peer to represent agriculture. The matter

    1421
    had come rather suddenly upon the House, because nobody could foresee what interpretation would have been placed on the rule governing Motions for Adjournment. Nothing was more natural than that, when a legitimate opportunity arose, his hon. friend or some other Member should raise this question. In regard to the representation of great Government Departments in this House, the House of Commons had from time immemorial claimed to make its voice heard. It had not always been actuated by the same wishes or motives, but debates had certainly arisen as to the position of Ministers in this Houseߞwhich, and how many, Ministers should sit in it, and so forth. In earlier constitutional history the House of Commons was intensely jealous of a great number of Ministerial places being created, on the ground that the Front Bench was thereby unduly strengthened. That was the state of things when the House was not so representative of the popular voice as in these days. The relations between the House of Commons and Ministers of the Crown were regulated by a Statute passed as far back as 1782, when the House asserted its opinion that not more than two Secretaries of State, and a limited number of Under-Secretaries, should be allowed to sit in the House of Commons, the fear being that if a larger number of places were created the popular voice might be over-awed by the influence of the Crown. After the Reform Act of 1832 a new order of ideas arose. The House, feeling that it represented the voice of the nation, desired that Ministers should sit here rather than in another place, in order that the representatives of the people might have as large and as tight a hold upon them am possible. In successive years the number of Ministers who might sit in the House of Commons was increased, and since the Act for the better government of India, which might be taken as a crucial case, the spirit of the House had always beer in favour of more Ministers being members of the House of Commons than formerly. The Minister for Agriculture had always hitherto been a member of this House. The case was all the more remarkable that the change took place when they were all united ii desiring that something should be done,
    1422
    if possible, to promote the interests of a great and suffering industry. One would have thought that of all times this was, perhaps, the last when the responsible Ministry would have desired to separate the interests of agriculture from representation in this House where there was not, and could not be, an Under Secretary, as no such office existed The burden of proof was upon the Government to tell the House why they had departed from the ordinary rule, and had gone across the lobby to find a Minister for Agriculture.
    Mr. Gladstone made it a rule that the heads of the two great spending Departments should be members of the House of Commons, and it might be laid down as a parallel proposition that the heads of the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture ought always to sit in this House. But one hope had filled all their breasts. He had hoped that the unfortunate loss which all deplored would be seized to restore to the Board of Agriculture the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford. That appeared such a natural thing, and, under the circumstances, almost a providential opportunity created for the Government, that it was supposed they would have insisted on the right hon. Gentleman being restored to his proper place in the hierarchy of office. It would then have been interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak on the repeal of the Corn Duty, but whether he would have converted his colleagues or been converted himself it was not for him to speculate. There was, no doubt, a suspicion abroad, that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were blockaded on that bench, and that they were in the position of the famous Austrian general who got into a great fortress and would have given his eyes, ears, and nose to be able to get out, but was not able, because he was besieged. That being so, they were perhaps really discussing the wisdom of keeping to the antiquated rule of Members vacating their seats on appointment to offices of profit under the Crown. Through the existence of the rule Members were sometimes not appointed to offices for which they were eminently fitted, and Ministers were then drawn from another place. Such a state of things was essentially contrary

    1423
    to the power and dignity of the House of Commons, and he sincerely trusted that the matter might again draw attention to the question of limiting still further the necessity for re-elections on accepting or changing office; but he was quite aware that some of his hon. friends would not agree with him in this opinion. They desired to raise the question on strict constitutional grounds, holding that according to immemorial practice the Board of Agriculture should be represented in that House, and not on any personal ground.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The speech of the noble Lord may be divided into halves, one devoted to history and the other devoted to humour. The historical part was exceedingly interesting, and I think there is no man better qualified than the noble Lord, who has made a great study of constitutional history, to remind the House of the strange and most interesting vicissitudes of opinion which have influenced the House in its dealings with its own Members who have held office under the Crown. He has reminded us, and worthily reminded us, of the times, not so far distant, when this House was nervously anxious that not too many office-holders should be amongst its Members, and if it has any anxiety at the present time it is in the reverse direction. With regard to the humorous part of the noble Lord's speech I shall say nothing; it speaks for itself. But there was one observation which fell from him at the close of his speech which came upon me as a matter of surprise. It was when he spoke of the matter in dispute as not being one with regard to whether the Minister for Agriculture should be in this House or in the House of Lords, not a question whether the new Minister for Agriculture was, or was not qualified to carry out his high functions, but a question of a by-election. I confess that never occurred to me before. It never occurred to me that any hon. Member would get up in this House at three o'clock, and solemnly ask leave to discuss as a matter of urgent public importance an appointment which the Government had made, not because the appointment was a bad one, not because the person
    1424
    appointed was in another place rather than here, but because it did not vacate a seat which hon. Members opposite thought they had a chance of winning. That is the newest version of a "question of urgent public importance."
    Now let us turn to the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the Motion. Neither of those hon. Members attempted to traverse the proposition that Lord Onslow is eminently fitted to carry out the duties of Minister for Agriculture. In my judgment, no man'not in the Cabinet, has to a greater degree shown by long service to the country in different offices, his capacity to carry out the functions now to be entrusted to him than Lord Onslow. He is himself an agriculturist; he is an administrator; he has carried out administrative work in at least three great Departments of State; he has had not only British but colonial experience. Except for the fact that he is a Peer I cannot conceive of any human being who would suggest that he is not eminently fitted for the office he is to occupy. If I may incidentally allude to it in this connection, the fact that Lord Onslow will be assisted in this House by my hon. friend the Member for North Huntingdonshire, to whom well-deserved eulogistic allusions have been made, shows that the interests of agriculture will suffer neither in this House nor in the other. I take it, therefore, that it is not a question of the fitness of the individual for the office. What, then, is it? It is the question whether it is consistent with the conduct of public business and with the dignity of this House that the President of the Board of Agriculture should be in the House of Lords. What theory of the Minister for Agriculture lies at the bottom of this criticism? We on this side of the House have taken a very different view of the position of the Minister for Agriculture from hon. Gentlemen opposite. This zeal of theirs for the Minister for Agriculture is new-born. The office was initiated by the Party on this side of the House. When Mr. Gladstone came to appoint the only Minister for Agriculture who has been appointed by the Party opposite, it is true he did not take him from the House of Lords, but he did not put him in the Cabinet. Therefore, if we are to estimate by precedent the conception of the Party

    1425
    opposite of the dignity and importance of this office, we are forced to the conclusion that the Minister for Agriculture may be in this House possibly, but certainly not a Member of the Cabinet. That is the doctrine which hon. Members opposite commend to the great agriculturists of the country. [" No."] I am talking not of their speeches but of their practice. It is not to their professions when we are in office, but to their practice when they are in office, that the agricultural interest will look, and it will then be seen what an enormous difference there is between the views of the two parties as to the importance of the Minister for Agriculture.
    That being conceded, as I think it must be, the principal question for us to consider is whether or not it is proper that the Minister for Agriculture should be in the other House. I may ask hon. Gentlemen opposite on what principle they think that offices should be allocated between the two Houses. The noble Lord quoted a sentence from some remarks of Mr. Gladstone's in 1869, declaring that the two heads of the great spending Departments should always be in the House of Commons, and he incidentally observed that that had been the invariable practice of Mr. Gladstone when he had the opportunity himself of making a Government. I do not remember the occasion; I do not happen to carry it in my mind when he laid down that dictum, but I do know that he hardly ever kept it. I am not aware that, subsequent to the Ministry which existed in 1869, Mr. Gladstone ever appointed the heads of the two spending Departments in this House. We remember that Lord Northbrook, Lord Ripon, and Lord Spencer were heads of the Admiralty. Can any hon. Gentleman recollect that after 1869 any hon. Member of this House was appointed to that office? [" Oh."] Well, perhaps the hon. Member's memory is better than my own. I therefore assume the right of saying that, after the dictum laid down in 1869, Mr. Gladstone felt it to be absolutely necessary, as long as the Legislature consists of two Houses, that there should be a due proportion of Ministers at the head of great Departments in the other House.
    MR.LOUGH: Mr. Childers.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Childers was a Minister in the very administration of which I am speaking. I say that the year 1869, the date of the dictum, is the date in which Mr. Gladstone put the First Lord of the Admiralty in this House. This is admitted to be the universal practice of the Constitution, a practice going back to time immemorial, sanctioned by Mr. Gladstone himself. That practice is that you must have a due proportion of the great Ministers of the Crown in the House of Lords, even if some of those Ministers represent spending Departments over which this House has a special and natural right of control. If that is true of the First Lord of the Admiralty, it is true of the Minister of Agriculture. The complaint is not that my hon. friend the Member for Huntingdonshire is inefficient, but that he is so efficient that he ought to be the Minister for Agriculture himself. That was the allegation of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
    MR. DALZIEL: But he is not an official of the Deprtment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that by the practice of this country, where there is not a secretary allocated to an office, it is the practice that he should be represented by a person who is not a Minister. I should like to point out to the House the tendency which seems to me to influence these matters. There is a very growing desire in this House to have Ministers representing the Departments among its Members. That is a natural tendency; and yet there is another tendency that cannot be ignored—I am afraid I am rather travelling away from the question of the Minister for Agriculture—[" Hear, hear!"]—there is another tendency which makes it more and more difficult to have the more laborious Departments represented on this Bench. Never again, I think, shall we see a Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House. ["Oh,_ oh!"] Well, hon. Gentlemen may have the gift of prophecy denied to myself, but

    1427
    I have some knowledge and experience of the matter upon which I am speaking. There have been great Ministers for Foreign Affairs in this House; but I do not believe it will be physically possible in the future for a Minister for Foreign Affairs to sit in this House, carrying on at the same time the duties of an ordinary Member of Parliament and the duties of a member of the Government. The growing strain of official work is a thing that is not, and perhaps hardly can be, appreciated by those who have not had experimental knowledge of it. The noble Lord opposite has held a high official position, and he knows that in his time the work was far greater than it was ten years before; and I can assure him that in the Department he represented in this House the work is now far greater than it was in his time; and I believe it is true also under modern conditions, of every Department, or almost every Department, of State that it is, if not actually overworked, at all events worked up to the highest pitch and strain its staff can possibly endure. The idea that a Minister can do the current work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the current work of a Member of this House at the same time would never enter the head of any man who knows the amount of work to be done by a modern Minister for Foreign Affairs. The mere labour of keeping abreast of the vast pile of documents poured in upon him day by day, alone renders such a thing impossible.
    We have, therefore, in these modern times to deal with a double stream of tendencies running in opposite directions. This House is still increasing, as it has increased through many generations, its relative power in the body politic as compared with the other Chamber; and with the increase of its power, responsibilities, and activity, there naturally arises the desire that more and more of the Ministers responsible for the discharge of duties of high offices should sit on this bench, and should assist the House with information, should be compelled to give direct answers, and to take part in the day-to-day controversies across the floor of the House. Yet I am convinced that the difficulty of carrying that out will be found increasingly great, and that as you pile one duty after another upon the heads of great Departments, so it will make it less and less possible for a
    1428
    man to be a Member of the House of Commons and a great Minister at the same time. We know it has been made matter of comment that as compared with times past, the number of gentlemen who are able to sit on this bench throughout an ordinary debate, in which their respective Departments are not concerned, is getting smaller and smaller. I believe that, so far as I am individually concerned, some comments have been made upon my not being present last night during a large part of a debate upon a matter in which I, at all events, take great interest. It is perfectly true. You cannot avoid it. It is absolutely impossible that the work of the country can be carried on inside the House and outside the House at the same time by the same man. And when I read, as I do, of the many hours spent by Mr. Disraeli, when Leader of the House, on this bench, and when I am told that there is less done now than was done then, I think that history has exaggerated, and I do not believe it is possible for anybody holding a great office to spend very much time on this bench during discussion of matters in which he is not directly concerned. I am afraid I have unintentionally become rather egotistical. I did not mean to touch upon my own case. I want the House to remember that the very fact of the growing influence and importance of the duties placed on Ministers makes it more necessary that a due proportion of those Ministers should be allocated to the other House.
    There is one other point I should like to mention before I sit down. Two of the hon. Gentlemen who have been good enough to address us to-night spent a good deal of eloquence on explaining how much better they would have made up his Majesty's Government than we have made it. They have explained what recommendations they would have made to the King if they had been Prime Minister for the Unionist Party. But then they are not Prime Ministers for the Unionist Party. I am quite sure that when, in due course, they have the burdensome responsibility they will make a proper selection; but I do not think they have any greater claim to

    1429
    make up our Administration than I have to make up their Administration. I shall be quite ready when the time comes to offer my advice, perhaps it will not be eagerly sought, as to how the next Administration should be formed. I am quite ready to act as a Board of Conciliation, or whatever the approved phrase may be, and to give the best advice which along—too long, perhaps—acquaintance with delicate questions has enabled me perhaps to give with some advantage. When that time comes, my advice, in private, will be at their disposal. But certainly it would never occur to me to move the adjournment and ask as a matter of urgent public importance why this Minister is in the House of Lords and that Minister in the House of Commons, or to thrust my advice on them in public, after long speeches, as to the various qualifications of gentlemen who are going to form the next Administration; that, I think, would be travelling far beyond my duty, and would amount almost to an indelicacy. It is an indelicacy which I think hon. Members opposite have not been reluctant to commit on the present occasion. But I can assure them that this interference with our domestic politics is really quite unnecessary, that we can settle for ourselves who shall best represent the Departments which they have got to preside over, and that I am perfectly ready to give to them all the freedom which we claim for ourselves. I would ask them to remember this one additional thing. It is not an easy matter to form a Government, as perhaps they will one day know; it is not an easy matter to allocate the various offices among the various persons thoroughly competent to fill them. But I do say in the interests of those who may come after me that any such arbitrary rule as apparently hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to lay down to-night—that this office is to be held in the House of Lords and that office in the House of Commons—will add a difficulty which may greatly interfere with the proper constitution of the future Governments of this country.
    The difficulty is got over in some foreign States, I am aware, by providing that the Minister of the Crown, or what corresponds in those States to the Minister of the Crown here, should have the right of expressing his
    1430
    views in either House, and should be cross-examined in either House. I think that is wholly alien to our wishes and our traditions. We wish the Ministers of the Departments to belong to one House or to the other; and, so far as the Ministers in this House are concerned, they may be the friends of the House, or the victims of the House, or the tyrants of the House, or whatever it may be, but they must belong to the House, to be bullied by the House, to coerce the House, or to conciliate the House, whichever their particular functions and abilities may enable them to do to the best advantage. We should not tolerate some gentleman coming down from another place and giving us a lecture on any subject whatever, even if it was his own Department; and I daresay they would be as fastidious, in the House of Lords as we should certainly be here. That being so, if no interchange is possible, then depend upon it you must have some fair balance of forces between the two Houses; and you will only hamper the Minister responsible for the choice of the best man to serve his country, his office, and Party, if you lay down arbitrary restrictions with regard to this or that Minister. I have explained to the House how Mr. Gladstone, after having laid down, in 1869, that the heads of the two spending Departments must always be in this House, was himself driven by the logic of events always to have the head of one spending Department in the other House. Can there be a more striking proof of the folly of laying down these dicta, these new constitutional maxims, not based either on the history of the past, on the necessity of the present, or on the legitimate desire which this House properly has of supervising the action of the Government? Such maxims, if the House once accepts them, will do nothing, in my judgment, to add to the dignity of the House or to its power in the State, but will only entangle the future framers of Ministries in a series of arbitrary rules, which can only result in the less efficient man being chosen for the office simply in order to carry out some rules laid down in times gone by which have no reasonable application to present circumstances. These, Sir, are grounds not narrow, small or personal—grounds, I

    1431
    venture to say, of great and lasting importance, which ought to induce this House uncompromisingly to reject this Motion, which, as far as I know, is absolutely without parallel; and for that reason, if for no other, I am sure they ought utterly to thrust it aside.
    MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid they were indebted to the First Lord for his offer of future conciliation between the ranks of the Liberal Party, and he rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman was having now such experience as would enable him to give very good advice. The more experience of that sort the First Lord had, the sooner probably would the time come when his advice might be necessary. He would not traverse the Prime Minister's history, or his criticism, or humour. He was bound to say the right hon. Gentleman had extracted a good deal more humour from the noble Lord's speech than was intended or contained in it. The humour of the speech was entirely the Prime Minister's. He spoke about by-elections, but he did not think the noble Lord was anxious about by-elections.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But he spoke about them.
    MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid he did not see where the humour of the situation came in except in the mind of the Prime Minister. He could assure the right hon. Gentlemen that there was not much humour in the by-elections from a Government point of view. [MINISTERIAL interruptions and cries of "Question."] He said if he were out of order Mr. Speaker would correct him, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite who were interrupting him that he was in no hurry. They were discussing the appointment of a new Minister for Agriculture. The First Lord had not said that the noble Earl appointed to the post was the best man, he could find for it. He had said it was very difficult to form a Government. It was sometimes difficult to keep it together when it was formed.
    MR. A. J BALFOUR: I did not say that.
    MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: No, no, that was my addition. One recommendation for the present appointment might, perhaps, be found in the fact that the House of Lords owned about one fifth of the land of the country. He did not know whether that qualification had formed the basis for this appointment. It was said that they had a capable hon. Member to represent the noble Lord in this House. It was a curious thing that the hon. Member was not present during the first debate upon this question. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the work of some Departments was so laborious that they ought to put the Ministers representing them in another place where they could devote all their time to administration. That might be true. If there was one office where the work was so laborious as to require the whole time of the person in charge it was the Board of Agriculture. The hon. Gentleman who was to represent the Department in the House was a Whip. Surely this was not a time to increase the labours of a Government Whip. He had not only to whip his own side, but to whip eighty Members from Ireland. He protested against the burden which was put on the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire. He was new to the duties. The post of Minister of Agriculture essentially belonged to a Member of the House of Commons. There were many Members who had great claims upon the office, but the Prime Minister seemed to have felt that it would be invidious to make a selection from his followers in this House. He would not make a point of by-elections. He understood that the Prime Minister had one difficulty. He was told that there were certain revolts on the Government side of the House. It would have been very awkward to have promoted a revolter. It would have been putting a premium on revolt. The training of the noble Lord appointed to the office had been essentially bad. The noble Lord had received it under the Colonial Secretary. No man could possibly have a worse training than that. The Colonial Secretary was autocratic and all-powerful. Did any one imagine that the right hon. Gentleman allowed the noble Lord to say a word as to colonial policy? Not a single cheer

    1433
    was raised in answer to that. The noble Lord had obediently and reverently carried out the policy of the Colonial Secretary. Was that a qualification for a man appointed to the head of a Department? Why, the noble Lord would not know what to do when he got on his own legs. There were a great many men in this House sitting behind the Prime Minister who ought to have been preferred for this appointment.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): This debate has been raised in order to call attention to a point of some constitutional importance. I have been told that the course of the debate hitherto has been confined to the constitutional question, and that nobody on the other side has introduced into the discussion anything like reflections upon my noble friend the Minister of Agriculture. It has been reserved for the hon. Member for Anglesey to complain, not merely of the appointment with reference to the question of the precise position the Minister of Agriculture should occupy in the one House or the other, but also on the ground of the position he is in, as more or less an intimate acquaintance of mine. It is that which has induced me to intervene in the debate. Having had the great advantage of the assistance of Lord Onslow during the past few years, I can truly say to the House that, having in view my noble friend's judgment, energy, initiative, and industry, the Government, the country, and, above all, the agricultural interest, are extremely fortunate in obtaining his services. When the hon. Gentleman says that my noble friend as Under Secretary was the meretool of his superior he shows a grotesque ignorance of the administration of a Government Department. When the hon. Gentleman is the head of a great and responsible Department, I hope he will treat his subordinates much better than he seems to think it is desirable to do under similar circumstances. For myself, I can say of my noble friend that, during the period we have been working together, I have always valued his opinion, and have often followed it; and certainly he has never been deterred by any terror of me from expressing his
    1434
    opinion, whether he agreed with me or not. Now that he has been placed in a position in which he will have greater opportunities of individually distinguishing himself, I am perfectly certain that he will justify the choice which has been made by the Prime Minister and the confidence which all who know him feel in him.
    MR. DALZIELsaid that the Secretary for the Colonies had ably defended the appointment of his colleague, but he ventured to say, with all respect, that the qualifications of Lord Onslow did not form the question before the House. This debate had been justified, if by nothing else, by the interesting declarations which had been made from both front benches. The Prime Minister had declared that, in his opinion, never in the future of this House would the Foreign Secretary occupy a seat here. What was the reason the right hon. Gentleman gave for that? It was that the office was so important, that the duties were so responsible, and that the necessities of the office required such an amount of time, that it was quite impossible for the Foreign Secretary to discharge the duties of the office and occupy a seat in this House at the same time.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that no man could be Foreign Secretary and at the same time attend to the ordinary duties of a Member of this House.
    MR. DALZIELsaid the analogy of the Foreign Office was not closely applicable in the case they were discussing. The Foreign Office was not an administrative office. Did the Prime Minister hold that the office of Foreign Secretary was the most important in the Government, and that it was the only office that no Member of the House of Commons could hold? He ventured to say that the Secretary for the Colonies did not believe that his office was less important than that of Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
    MR. SPEAKER: The discussion of the relative importance of the different posts in the Government is out of order, unless it bears on the question now

    1435
    before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury made an allusion to the office of Foreign Secretary, and I did not interrupt him, although it was not strictly relevant, because I thought the whole House was listening with interest to it.
    MR. DALZIELsaid he would, of course, strictly observe that ruling. [Cries of "Divide."] He hoped that the hon. Member for Lowestoft would control himself a little.
    COLONEL LUCAS: I was not opening my mouth even.
    MR. DALZIEL: It is sometimes possible to make a noise without opening your mouth. [Cries of "Withdraw."] I would withdraw if I thought I had made a mistake. The hon. Member said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cricklade Division had argued that when the head of a Department was appointed there should be no by-election, and that the law should be so altered as to enable a Member of this House to accept office without having to seek re-election. He entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman on that point. The argument put forward by the Prime Minister suggested that his position was troublesome and full of anxiety, and he had appealed to them to pity the sorrows of a poor Prime Minister who had no time even for golf. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh," and repeated cries of "Divide."]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must appeal to hon. Members to maintain order. On the other hand, I trust the hon. Member will address himself to the question.
    MR. DALZIELsaid he did not intend my remark he had made to be offensive to the Prime Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman regarded it as offensive he would withdraw it. He contended that the House had a right to criticise the appointment of the head of an important office. Lord Onslow could not properly represent the Board of Agriculture in the House of Lords, and the interests of agriculture would be practically unrepresented in the House of Commons.
    MAJOR JAMESONsaid he absolutely brushed aside the fact that Lord Onslow was a Member of the House of Lords. That was his misfortune and not his fault, and it should not be the means of penalising one of the best men of the country who could have been chosen to fill the post of Minister of Agriculture. Lord Onslow was a practical agriculturist, and there was no Member on the Ministerial Bench who knew half as much about agriculture as the noble Lord did. The noble Lord was the one man whom the Government had never sufficiently rewarded for his great services to the country and the Empire as Governor of New Zealand. He congratulated the Prime Minister on having appointed a Minister who had rendered greater services to the Empire than any other Member of Parliament. He supported the Government most heartily in the appointment they had made.
    Question put.
    House divided:— Ayes, 54; Noes, 178. (Division List No. 97.)

    AYES.

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Edwards, Frank

    Labouchere, Henry

    Black, Alexander William

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lambert, George

    Brigg, John

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall),

    Caldwell, James

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Cawley, Frederick

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Craig,RobertHunter (Lanark)

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Lloyd-George, David

    Crooks, William

    Harwood, George

    Lough, Thomas

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig'n

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Perks, Robert William

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Pixie, Duncan V.

    Rea, Russell

    Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

    Williams, O. (Merioneth)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E

    Runciman, Walter

    Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

    Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

    Sir Edward Strachey and

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney

    Mr. Soares.

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Sullivan, Donal

    Whitley, J. A. (Halifax)

    NOES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Murray,Rt.HnAGraham(Bute

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon 1

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Flower, Ernest

    Myers, William Henry

    Arrol, Sir William

    Forster, Henry William

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Aubrey- Fletcher,Rt. Hn.SirH.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Garfit, William

    Pilkington, Lieut-Col. Richard

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Baird, John George Alexander

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

    Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Balfour.Rt.HnGeraldW(Leeds

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Purvis, Robert

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Randles, John S.

    Banbury,Sir Frederick George

    Greene,Sir E.W.(Bury St. Ed.

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Groves, James Grimble

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bigwood, James

    Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x

    Renshaw Sir Charles Bine

    Bill, Charles

    Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'ndry

    Renwick, George

    Bond, Edward

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Ridley,Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Brassey, Albert

    Helder, Augustus

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hobhouse,RtHnH(Somerset,E

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Butcher, John George

    Hoult, Joseph

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Campbell,J.H.M(Dublin Univ.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Howard,John(Kent,Fay'rsham

    Russell T. W.

    Carvill,Patrick Geo.Hamilton

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

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

    Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm

    Johnstone, Heywood

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

    Chamberlain,Rt. HnJ. A(Wore

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Keswick, William

    Smith,H.C(North' mb. Tyneside

    Chapman, Edward

    Knowles, Lees

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

    Charrington, Spencer

    Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Law, Andrew Bomar (Glasgour

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

    Lawson, Join G. (Yorks. N. R.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

    Lee,ArthurH(Hants. Fareham

    Stewart,SirMarkJ.M'Taggart

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Cranborne, Lord

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lundon, W.

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Valentia, Viscount

    Denny, Colonel

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Walrond,Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH

    Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tr. Haml'ts

    Malcolm, Ian

    Welby,Sir CharlesG.E. (Notts.

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Massey-Mainwaring,Hn.W.F

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Dinisdale,Rt.HonSirJosephC.

    Maxwell,W.J. H. (Dumfriessh

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mitchell, William(Burnley)

    Wolff Gustav Wilhelm

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.Hart

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants

    Wylie, Alexander

    Fellowes,Hon.AilwynEdward

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Wyndham, Rt, Hon. George

    Fergusson,Rt. HnSirJ. (Mane'r

    Morgan,DavidJ(Walthamstow

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Finch, Rt, Hon. George H.

    Mount, W ilium Arthur

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    and Mr. Anstruther.

    Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Resolution agreed to.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  ULSTER AND CONNAUGHT LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL (BY ORDER)
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question (14th May), "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.

  ALL SAINTS, POPLAR (RATE ABOLITION), BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. PERKSbegged to move "That this Bill be read a second time this day six months." This Bill, he said, was called a Church Rate Abolition Bill, but that was a great misnomer; it should be properly called a Church Rate Perpetuation Bill. The Bill no doubt would primarily have a direct effect on the parish of Poplar, but it would also manifestly affect other parts of London. He ventured to say that the Bill was one of the most singular measures presented to Parliament in the shape of a private Bill for many a day. He trusted there were many Members in the House who would bring to the consideration of this Bill an unfettered judgment. It was promoted privately, and was being assisted in its passage through the House by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He hoped that the opposition which he brought to it would be fairly considered by his Nonconformist friends on the other side of the House, and by others who were not Nonconformists, but represented constituencies
  1440
  where there were large numbers of people who belonged to the Free Churches, and that they would act in unison with the wishes of their constituents. The Bill was intended to commute, at what he thought was an exorbitant price, a rate levied since 1817 for the benefit of the Church of England in the parish of Poplar. In the year 1817 the rate was authorised for the purpose of building a parish church at the cost of £30,000, and also for paying the stipend of £400 a year to the parish clergyman, and for employing a lecturer, and two or three subordinate officials. This rate was unfortunately not extinguished in 1868, when the Church Rate Abolition Act was passed. From 1868 to 1882 the rate was levied under the provisions of the old statute, but many of the parishioners strongly objected, and alleged that a number of the objects for which the rate was levied were illegal. The question was raised in the courts of law that year, when it was found that fourteen of the objects to which the money derived from the rates had been applied since 1868 were absolutely illegal, and that there should be paid out of the rate a salary of £450 a year to the clergyman, not less than £60 a year to the lecturer, and £10 a year to the clerk. These payments went on from the year 1882 to 1899, when Poplar was formed into a local municipality. This rate, not being taken over by the local authority, had had to be collected and enforced by the Vestry. Difficulties at once arose, and many parishioners pro-tested against the payment of the rate, which was only partially collected, so strong was the antipathy to it. The result was that the clergyman's salary, and those the lecturer and the clerk, had been advanced by money-lenders, whose names he did not know. Under these circumstances an effort had been made by various parties to commute these payments. A statement circulated to hon. Members alleged that the bargain proposed in the Bill was approved of by a large number of people, whose names were set out. He observed that the hon. Member for Poplar, whose name had been put to the Whip in support of the Bill, was not present. If that hon. Member had been present he would have asked him to explain how it was that a few years ago he took a strong attitude against a similar measure introduced for the parish

  1441
  of Marylebone. It was stated that the Bishop of the diocese was in favour of the Bill. Well, one very seldom found an arrangement which had the effect of putting a very large sum of money into the hands of the Church which had not the support of the bishop. Again, it was said that the Vestry was in favour of the Bill. He understood that the Vestry had called the meeting, at which fewer than twenty people were present, and, naturally being unable to collect the rate, they wanted to get out of the difficulty. The lecturer, who was now getting £100 a year, the clerk, who got £10 a year, and the sexton, who received a small sum, were also in favour of the Bill.
  The whole of the money originally raised in 1817 for building the Church had been paid back long ago, and he had made a calculation that no less than £100,000 had been paid out of the rate to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the benefit of the parish. The Bill provided that £19,000 was to be paid over by the local authority to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were to invest it at 3 per cent., and pay the interest to the parish. But the parish was to raise this £19,000 by levying a rate for sixty years, so that instead of this being a Rate Abolition Bill, it was a Bill to impose a rate identical in character for sixty years.
  There used to be a rule that the short title of a Bill must not mislead the public or the House as to the contents of the Bill, but he insisted that it was a complete caricature of the Bill to call it a Church Rate Abolition Bill. Having made this neat little bargain for the Church, what did the promoters proceed to do? They went to the unfortunate lecturer, a gentleman of some intelligence and influence in the parish, and said to him "You have been receiving £100 a year; what will you take to vacate your office?" They proposed to give him £300; that was three years' purchase. Having got rid of him, they went to the clerk and said "What will you vacate your office and give up your emolument of £10 a year for?" And they proposed to give him £30, which was also three years' purchase. Then they proceeded to deal with the balance of £19,000; and they gravely proposed to capitalise the salary
  1442
  of the happy incumbent in possession at no less than forty-two years' purchase of that salary, leaving the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with the rest of the plunder. Not only that; they took the parish property of this important church, and the very important site of the church house, clean out of the hands of the parishioners, who could have utilised it and done what they liked with it, subject to ecclesiastical law, and vested it in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by a Trust Deed under the Church Building Act. So that the parishioners were disendowed, and disestablished, and dispossessed completely, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were left in control of the £19,000, subject to the payment of 3 per cent. to the parish.
  It was well known that the Ecclesiastical Commission was one of the richest corporations, and the most exacting, in London. They extorted the very highest rack-rents from their lessees and refused to renew leases except on the most extravagant terms. They invested their money in building land in the neighbourhood of London. He could point to hundreds of acres in the suburbs which had been bought by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for £100 an acre, for which they now claimed £1,000 or £1,500 an acre. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] His hon. friend said "Hear, hear"; but he was not a member of the Anglican Church.
  COLONEL LUCASsaid he was hardly listening to the hon. Member. The subject did not interest him very much, and he asked the hon. Member to withdraw.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid it was he who had said "Hear, hear.".
  MR. PERKSsaid he withdrew the remark, but he certainly was under the impression that it was the hon. Gentleman who had made the interruption. If the hon. Member had not heard anything he was saying, he trusted that he would try and listen now, and convey what he said to some of the Nonconformists in his constituency. He had been pointing out that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were

  1443
  going to make a huge profit out of this £19,000. The bargain was a very bad one for the parish, but a very good one for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The more one studied the operation of this little deal between the Church and these unfortunate parishioners who had bartered away their rights at a ridiculous figure, the more one would say that this was a Bill which ought not to receive further consideration. No harm whatever could arise if the Bill were postponed, and it would give an opportunity to the parishioners who had not yet studied the effect of the measure to carefully consider it. He was told that a large number of the parishioners at Poplar knew nothing about it, and that the whole business had been privately managed, and that there had been very little publicity brought to bear on the matter in the Borough Council. The representatives of the portions of the borough which were exempted from the operation of the Bill were permitted to vote in its favour. The Bill was not only unjust, but a very bad commercial bargain, and on both those grounds he trusted the House would not read it a second time.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORseconded the Amendment. He said the Bill on page 4 drew attention to the fact that great dissatisfaction existed with regard to the rate dealt with in the Bill, and yet it was proposed to continue the rate for the next sixty years, and make its collection smooth and comfortable. Surely it was rather too late in the day to give special legislative facilities for the very kind of thing on which hon. Members were lectured so severely the other night by the Prime Minister, who declared that those who favoured passive resistance to the Church rate were acting contrary to commonsense. This was a religious and not an education question, and the inhabitants of Poplar were not all of one mind in regard to religious matters. No one wanted to deprive anyone of proper commutation, but the forty-two years purchase proposed in the case of the incumbent was excessive. While the poorer members of the brotherhood, the lecturer and the clerk, were to be bought out at three years purchase, the incumbemt was to get no less than forty-two
  1444
  years purchase, or more than twice the rate at which Irish landlords were willing to sell. He thought an arrangement might have been made which was fairer to the ratepayers, if it were considered desirable to reimpose this rate, which was practically what Parliament was asked to do.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Perks.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the House would not wish to he drawn aside into a discussion on the general administration of the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners: the remarks of the hon. Member on that point, if they proved anything, pointed to the fact that the Commissioners were very good trustees indeed. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill had stated that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were going to make a considerable profit out of this transaction. It was nothing of the kind. They were making a serious and solid contribution to a proper settlement of a very difficult question. After paying arrears and extinguishing certain interests, which cost something over £2,000, there remained £16,700 in their hands, which at 3 per cent. interest produced a little over £500 a year. Out of that they had undertaken to pay £450 a year to the parson, which was no more and no less than he was entitled to by statute and by the decision of two learned judges. They had also undertaken to pay £50 a year for the reinsurance and repairs of the rectory house. They had in addition undertaken to pay the salaries of such officers attached to the church as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Bishop of London might determine, as well as the salary of the incumbent of any district or new parish which might wholly or partly be formed out of the original limits of the parish of All Saints, Poplar. That surely was not a winning bargain for the Commissioners. He submitted that so far from this Bill being so monstrous in principle, as it had been described by the

  1445
  hon. Member, that it should not be sent to a Committee, it merely gave effect to that which the Borough Council had with singular loyalty and good sense stated ought to be given effect to—namely, that the undoubted rights of these people, sanctioned by Parliament and upheld by the courts of law, should be settled on a satisfactory basis. He entreated the House not to do less than the representatives of Poplar were willing should be done.
  MR. CROOKSsaid he had often heard it stated that in order to learn anything about one's home a person must live away from it. The statement of the hon. Member for Louth was an absolute revelation to him. He was born in Poplar, and, so he understood, was his father, and he had never heard complaints that this matter was dealt with in a hole-and-corner fashion. There had always been the fullest possible publicity. As to those who were alleged to be badly treated; one, a personal friend of his, was nearly eighty years of age, and surely three years' purchase in his case was fair; while the other, the clerk, was exceedingly anxious that the Bill should become law, as his one desire was to serve the parish. He would like to point out if the parish were to go on collecting this rate of £500 or £600 it would be put to the expense of paying an additional £400 a year for another rate collector. It was utterly unreasonable to ask them to incur that expenditure. As to the complaint that members of the Borough Council had voted on that Bill who were not interested, he might remark that the decision was a unanimous one, so that it made no difference whatever. He hoped, on the ground of economy, that the House would give Poplar what it wanted.
  MR. PERKSsaid he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.
  Leave to withdraw Amendment refused.

SUPPLY [10th ALLoTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

CLASS III.
£375,897, to complete the sum for Prisons, England and the Colonies.
MR. WHITLEYasked for some explanation of the increase of over £55,000 in this Vote. Seeing that the addition was so substantial he thought the Committee was entitled to hear from the Minister in charge why it was necessary to ask for that increased sum.
Mr. CHARLES HOBEHOUSEwished to know whether, in consequence of the lamented death of Colonel Garsia, any, and if so what, alterations had taken place in the manner of the appointment and control of the Director of Military Prisons. This official was essentially an army man, and he had control of men sent temporarily from the Army generally for some purely military offence. He would like to hear whether that office was to be entirely dissociated from the Home Office and handed over to the War Office, or whether the unfortunate system of dual control was to be continued.
MR. LOUGHwished to raise a question as to the arrangements recently made by the Prison Commissioners for carrying out executions—and especially of women, in a great prison in the North of London which was originally intended to be used only as a house of detention. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would be a ble to make an announcement that no executions would be carried out in the prison at Holloway in the future. That prison was situated in a very respectable locality, and the value

1447
of property had been greatly reduced by reason of executions taking place within its walls, and if the right hon. Gentleman could give the pledge he had suggested it would be gratefully received in the North of London, and would afford much satisfaction to many supporters of the Government as well as to himself.
MR. JOHN HUTTONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to the very large increase, in Yorkshire at all events, in the number of committals to prison for vagrancy and in the punishments far idleness in the prison itself. In the year ended the 31st March, 1901 the committals in the North Riding numbered 1006; in 1902 they were 1223, and in 1903 they had risen to 1521. The figures regarding committals for vagrancy in these three years were respectively 190, 306, and 547—a marked and rapid increase. In the same years the punishments for idleness were respectively 52, 57 and 617. This great increase occurred exactly at the time that the nature of the punishments in prisons had been mitigated, and he was afraid the reason for it was to be found in the fact that vagrants now regarded the prison as so much more comfortable than the casual ward. He would like to know whether this increase of committals was common all over the country or was confined to the North of England. Prisons were now so much more comfortable than casual wards that vagrants endeavoured to get convicted in order that they might be sent to prison. As a matter of fact, the dietary in the casual wards in the North Riding was considerably less than in the prisons; and whereas four pounds of oakum had to be picked in the casual wards only two pounds had to be picked in the prisons. The tread-mill and the plank bed had been abolished and the dietary had been increased. The removal of those restrictions and punishments had undoubtedly had an effect on vagrants, who deliberately committed offences in order that they might be sent to prison. Surely, that ought not to be. Surely, the prison ought not to be made so much more comfortable than the workhouse. He did not think that they could expect .guardians to raise the comfort of the
1448
casual wards in order to compete with the prisons. Vagrants should not be dealt with by the poor-law at all, but by the State. They were a class of people who went about threatening poor people in country villages and wayside houses. They were dealt with very severely in every other country, and he thought the time had come when the House should take some steps to compel them to work, or, at all events, to prevent them going about the country causing annoyance and injury to its peaceable inhabitants.
He wished to direct the attention of the Home Secretary to the punishments for idleness in prisons; and he maintained that, in doing away with the plank bed and flogging, a very great injury had been done to prison discipline. The abolition of flogging took away from the justices the great power they possessed of maintaining discipline in prisons. He had been Chairman of a Visiting Committee for many years, and the very fact that they were empowered to inflict the cat enabled them to maintain discipline among a class of men who were frightened by nothing but the prospect of being flogged. For the class of vagrants to which he referred, and who might be committed to prison for seven or fourteen days, there was now nothing in the way of punishment. They knew they could not be flogged, and that their diet could not be well diminished; and when brought before the magistrates again they only got another seven days. He thought the time had come for the Home Secretary to seriously consider whether, in the interests of prison discipline, it would not be better to restore such disagreeable attributes of prison life as the plank bed and the cat.
Then as to short sentences, he had been opposed to them almost all his life. They were neither restrictive nor reformatory. If a professional criminal were committed for seven days he cared nothing about it. He enjoyed the rest and the warmth. If a first offender were committed he came out with the tar brush of the prison upon him. He ventured to suggest that it would be in the interest of the State if short sentences under twenty-eight days were entirely done away with. If a man did not deserve imprisonment for twenty-

1449
eight days, it would only do harm to himself and cause expense to send him to prison at all. It would be much better to let him off altogether. He hoped the Home Secretary would be good enough to consider that very important matter.
Then as to the position of prison officers, they were probably the most worthy class of officials employed by the State. Those men felt that the terms of their engagement were not entirely satisfactory. They had very difficult and responsible employment, but they could not get full pensions until after forty years' service, whereas policemen and other officials obtained a pension after twenty-five years' service. The late Home Secretary said that he hoped to improve the position of the warders, and that he would consider whether or not an improvement could be effected in their rates of pay which would enable them to receive increased pensions. He should like to ask his right hon. friend whether he was prepared to consider the proposal of his predecessor. He knew his right hon. friend had only been a short time at the Home Office, and that it was impossible for him to be acquainted with all the details; but he hoped his right hon. friend would give his most careful consideration to the points he had mentioned.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,)said that the increased estimate was partly due to the fact that the prison population had increased during the year, but it was mainly due to the improved dietary which the House had sanctioned. The local authorities had been unable to assign any reason why there had been an increase in the prison population, but, sad to state, there had been, during the last three years, a steady growth in prison population.
MR. FLAVINasked if that applied to Ireland.
MR. COCHRANEsaid he was not alluding to Ireland, and he was glad to know that the prison population was declining in that country. They had taken every possible means to find out what the
1450
reason for the increase was, but they had been unable to fix on any particular cause. It was put down to the extension of borough limits, the activity of the police, and to the by-laws, which imposed penalties being carried out with greater activity, and to the greater competition which drove men out of employment. They must always expect fluctuations in their prison population, but while there had been an increase in that population, there had been no increase in serious crime, which was, on the contrary, steadily decreasing. In 1880, the number of persons committed at assizes and quarter sessions was thirty-seven per 100,000 of the population. In 1902, the proportion was only twenty-three per 100,000.
Further, a good many more persons had been committed in default of paying fines. He had heard of instances where the person fined arrived at the prison with sufficient in his pocket to pay, but preferred not to pay. It was curious, and he did not profess to be able to explain it. His hon. friend alluded to the number of cases of misbehaviour in prisons, and also the number of paupers sent from workhouses to prisons. That might be due to some ex, tent to the fact that the conditions of prisons had been rendered, by the consent and full cognisance of the House less harsh than they had been in the past. As to the difference between prison dietary and the dietary in casual wards, it was a mere matter of a few ounces of bread. He agreed with his hon. friend that prisons were not the most appropriate places for vagrants, and it was quite conceivable that some better method might be found of dealing with such short-sentence prisoners. Being imprisoned for a short time did not act as a deterrent. He was glad to be able to inform his hon. friend that the offences committed in prisons in his hon. friend's district were in excess of the average number for the country. Offences in prisons had not increased in the ratio mentioned by his hon. friend. During the period from 1895 to 1898, the average number of offences committed in prisons was 147 per 1,000 of prison population, whereas the prison offences committed in 1889

1451
averaged only 132 per 1,000. He thought, therefore, that there must be exceptional circumstances connected with the prisons in his hon. friend's district to account for the great increase which had taken place there.
His hon. friend pointed out that more oakum had to be picked in a casual ward than in a prison. He thought his hon. friend was under a slight misapprehension. No doubt a certain number of pounds had to be picked in a workhouse, but it depended whether the task was enforced or not. He believed it was not always enforced. In addition, mechanical means were allowed in workhouses but were not allowed in prisons. As to the pensions of warders, one was always inclined to think one's own children the most deserving, and he thought that the warders had a great call on their sympathy; but over them all was the Treasury, who stood in loco parentis to the children of all the Departments. If they succeeded in obtaining increased pay for the warders undoubtedly a claim would he put in on behalf of men engaged by some other Department, who might be equally deserving. Therefore, much as he admired the loyal and earnest manner in which the warders carried out their duties, he could not, with the eyes of the Treasury upon him, give any undertaking.
With reference to executions at Holloway, the execution of females was now a very rare occurrence, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would believe that his right hon. friend the Home Secretary was paying attention to the matter. As regarded military prisons he was sure they all deplored the loss of Colonel Garsia, who did so much for military prisons. Under his guiding hand military prisons, which had been so injurious to the prestige and morale of the Army, had been so reorganised that soldiers were now able to return to the ranks untarnished in reputation by not having to associate with ordinary criminals.
MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid as to executions at Holloway he was sorry he could not give a definite answer yet. He fully understood the strong feeling which existed in Holloway on the point, but he could not undertake to say that executions should not take place at that prison. He would say, however, that unless they found means by which the
1452
death sentence could be carried out in such a manner as to be absolutely unobservable from anywhere around, executions would not be carried out there. The only other alternative would be to transfer the executions to Pentonville, which would necessitate the creation of a female staff in that prison, which would be very undesirable. He was sorry he could not say at that moment that no further executions would be carried out at Holloway, as he was still considering the matter. He would certainly give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that they would not be carried out, there, except under proper conditions.
And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

POST OFFICE SITES [EXPENSES].
Resolution reported—
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all sums payable by the Postmaster-General under any Act of the present session to enable His Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire lands in London and Bristol for the public service, and of all expenses incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of such Act."

NEW BILL.
  TRUSTEE ACT (1893) AMENDMENT (No. 2).
  Bill to amend the Trustee Act, 1893, ordered to be brought in by Sir Alexander Henderson, Mr. Charles Seale-Hayne, Mr. Vicary Gibbs, and Mr. Perks.

  TRUSTEE ACT (1893) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  " To amend the Trustee Act, 1893," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. (Bill 208.)
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock