Commons Sitting of 17 May 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, owing to continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Hastings Harbour Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time.
Tralee Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 2).
Colonel BOWLES reported from the Committee on Group 2 of Railway Bills; That the parties opposing the North Eastern Railway Bill had stated that the evidence of Captain John Whitby Dixon, R.N., was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Captain John Whitby Dixon, R.N., do attend the said Committee this day at Three of the clock.
Ordered, That Captain John Whitby Dixon, R.N., do attend the Committee on Group 2 of Railway Bills, this day at Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
Sir HENRY AUBREY-FLETCHER reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That the parties promoting the Metropolitan Pneumatic Despatch Bill had stated that the evidence of Thomas Waghorn Elford Higgens, Borough Surveyor, Town Hall, Chelsea, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said T. W. E. Higgens do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That T. W. E. Higgens do attend the Committee on Group E of Private Bills To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 4).
Mr. TATTON EGERTON reported from the Committee on Group 4 of Railway Bills; That the parties promoting the Cork Junction Railways Bill had stated that the evidence of Mr. William S. Green, of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Mr. William S. Green do attend the said Committee on Tuesday, May 23rd, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Mr. William S. Green do attend the Committee on Group 4 of Railway Bills on Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Liverpool Corporation Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Skegness Water Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
McConnell's Divorce Bill [Lords]. Reported from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table
Bill to be read the third time

PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Petition from Inverness, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS (PROTECTION) BILL.
  Petition from Yorkshire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from St. Leonard's-on-Sea, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MILK DEPOTS (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TEINDS AND FIARS PRICES (SCOTLAND).
  Petition from Inverness, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (MEDICAL DEPARTMENT).
  Copy presented, of Report for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 8th May; Sir Henry Fowler]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 167.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3375 and 3376 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  AMERICAN MAILS.
  Return ordered, "showing the number of days, hours, and minutes occupied in the transit of the Royal Mails, both outward and inward, carried during the year 1904 by Steamships between Queenstown and New York, between Southampton and
  608
  New York, and between New York and Plymouth. The Return to specify the names of the Steamers and to indicate by asterisk or otherwise those not carrying Mails under contract."—(Sir John Leng.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Proclaimed Meeting at Capatagle—Police and Mr. Roche, M.P.
  MR. ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has now received any further information in reference to the action of the police at the Capatagle meeting; and whether he will take steps to secure that accurate information shall be supplied to him in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have received the following report from the County Inspector of Constabulary, to whom this Question was referred:—"No violence was used by the police. Mr. Roche persisted in maintaining that he had a right to address his constituents and he was moved away from the crowd by my orders. I had first informed him that the meeting was proclaimed and that I had a copy of a proclamation which I would give him. I gave it to him when he had been moved about twenty-five yards away. He was not dragged, nor was he moved off his feet. One policeman held him by each arm. District Inspector Heard did not order his men to drag Mr. Roche down. I was the very first person to go to Mr. Roche and tell him he could not address the meeting, and when he began to argue that he had arranged two months before to address his constituents, I took hold of his coat and pulled him off the stile, about eighteen inches from the ground, on which he was standing. Mr. Heard, I think, also caught his coat and said he must come down. No roughness was used, when pulled he stepped off. I then told him he must move on and told the crowd to disperse. He was moved on as I have already mentioned. He was not moved fifty yards, not quite thirty yards. I heard him say, 'Is the county

  609
  inspector here'? I did not tell the police to let him go. When they had moved him from the crowd they loosed their hold of his arms. There were no reporters present or regular representatives of the Press. Mr. Roche says he held on to the platform. There was no platform. There was a proclamation posted on the wall opposite Mr. Roche, not twelve feet from him. Mr. Roche must have been well aware the meeting was proclaimed. He had been staying the night with Father Fahy, and I myself had told Father Fahy of the proclamation. The police did nothing that was not perfectly consistent with their duty in preventing the holding of the meeting, and no violence was used to Mr. Roche nor any rough treatment that could be construed as violence."

  Surgeons in the Royal Navy.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Amiralty whether it is intended to alter the conditions of service of surgeons in the Royal Navy by abolishing the present system of making appointments for twelve months only; and, if so, when details of the new scheme will be announced.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No change is anticipated in the present regulations, but the Question seems to be asked under a misapprehension, as appointments are not now made for twelve months only.

  Turbary Trustees on the King-Harman Estate.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state why the Estates Commissioners, in reply to a memorial, have refused to hear by counsel and solicitor the objections of a number of tenants on the King-Harman Estate to the appointment of certain turbary trustees; why have the Estates Commissioners selected as trustees parties named at private meetings from which the tenants generally were excluded; and whether he can state if the Estates Commissioners are prepared to make arrangements for a free election by ballot of turbary trustees by the tenants on the estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they did not consider that any useful purpose would be served by hearing counsel. Their negotiator and their inspector made exhaustive inquiries and held interviews with many persons, deputations, and largely attended meetings of delegates and persons interested as to the persons to act as trustees and the methods of selecting them. After full consideration the negotiator and the inspector recommended the persons who were finally approved of by the Commissioners in a scheme which was sanctioned by the Lord-Lieutenant.

  Report of Medical Officer of Health for the Parish of Uig, Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate if the medical officer of health for the parish of Uig, Island of Lewis, will be requested to send in his report in future sufficiently early to enable the county medical officer of health to include it in his annual report.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) It is desirable that reports of the nature referred to should be sent in early, and the Secretary for Scotland will request the Local Government Board to communicate in this sense with the local authority.

  Annual Income of Trusts appointed under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the annual income of the respective trusts appointed under the provisions of The Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I am unable at present to give the information desired by the hon. Member. The Scotch Education Department, however, have already made arrangements for obtaining it, but it cannot be completely obtained till the close of the financial year at May next. When this is done the Department will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Sunday Duty of Glasgow Female Telephone Staff.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a

  611
  memorial from the female telephone staff at Glasgow protesting against being called on duty on Sunday; and, seeing that the male staff are anxious to take up the duty, will he consider the expediency of making such arrangements as will release the female staff at Glasgow from Sunday work.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have received the memorial, and I informed the memorialists in October last that I see no good reason for relieving them of the Sunday duty, which comes round to each operator about one Sunday in every eight.

  Holidays in lieu of Bank Holiday—Case of Mr. Alexander, Telegraphist, of Manchester.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the arrangements made in the telegraph department providing that if the staff work on bank holidays they receive a day in the winter as compensation, and of the rule that if an officer falls sick and cannot perform duty on the dates selected in the winter as his compensation days for bank holiday he loses the holiday, he will state if he has had the circumstances attending the bank holiday periods of Mr. Alexander, telegraphist, of Manchester, laid before him; and, if so, whether the local decision in his case was in accordance with the usual regulations.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Mr. Alexander appealed to me in March, 1904, and I personally considered the matter. I am not prepared to reconsider my decision, which was in accordance with the general rule applied in the case of an officer who falls sick when on leave.

  Inquiries for Next of Kin of the late Helen Blake.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state whether any sums of money have been allowed out of the estate of the late Helen Blake, for the prosecution of inquiries in Ireland as to the next of kin of the deceased; and, if so, by whom these inquiries were conducted, where, and when; and if he will state the sum expended on them.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) No sums of money have been allowed out of the estate of the late Helen Blake for the prosecution of inquiries in Ireland as to the next of kin of the deceased.

  Drainage Charge on Holding of Mr. Lawrence Hughes, of Derrycassan, County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Board of Public Works in Ireland is pressing for a drainage charge alleged to be due on the holding of a Mr. Lawrence Hughes, of Derrycassan, Ballyconnell, county Cavan; and whether, in view of the fact that this farm is practically undrained, the Board will send an inspector to make a report before further proceeding in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I have inquired into the circumstances of this case, and they do not appear to me to justify the suspension of the legal proceedings which have been instituted.

  Abstractors and Assistant Clerks in the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen.
  MR. REDDY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury the number of Abstractors (Old Class) employed in the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen, the number promoted, and the number in receipt of allowances of £20 per annum; the number of assistant clerks (New Class) in this department, the number eligible for promotion, and the number promoted; what prospects are held out to the assistant clerks (New Class) in this department, seeing that the allowances granted to the Abstractors (Old Class) in 1898 are not to be extended to them, and that the initial salary of an assistant clerk (New Class) is only £55 per annum.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) There are eight of the Abstractors (Old Class) with long service in the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen. Seven of these have received allowances of £20 per annum within the maximum scale of their class. Six of the Senior Abstractors have been exceptionally promoted to the second division.

  613
  There are twenty-eight assistant clerks (Abstractor Class), nine of these are qualified as regards length of service, together with the eight of the old class, for promotion to the second division. Assistant clerks (Abstractor Class) rise to a maximum of £150 a year, subject to an efficiency bar at £100. Under the Order in Council of November, 1898, they are eligible in very special cases, after not less than six years service, for exceptional promotion, when vacancies occur, to the second division.

  Immigrant Tax on Entry into United States, Calais, and Boulogne.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if all alien passengers landing in the United States have to pay the two-dollar tax levied on immigrants for the expenses of the immigrant service, or if it is confined to such immigrants; and if an admission fee is levied on all passengers landing at Boulogne and Calais.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) All alien passengers, except citizens of the Dominion of Canada, Cuba, or Mexico, have to pay the two-dollar tax on entrance into the United States unless in transit to some other country. A fee of 1 fr. 75 c. is levied on all passengers landing at Boulogne and Calais, excepting persons holding through tickets to Belgium and Germany.

  Uncertified Deaths in Ireland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of uncertified deaths in Ireland for each year since 1900.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The numbers of deaths from uncertified causes in Ireland were as follows:-

  In the year 1900

  26,614

  In the year 1901

  20,527

  In the year 1902

  21,461

  In the year 1903

  21,873

  In the year 1904

  22,481

  Punishment of Refractory Chinese Coolies in the Transvaal.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for
  614
  the Colonies if he will take steps to ascertain whether in some of the compounds in South Africa Chinese who refuse to go down the mines unless paid 2s. per day are tied up to a pole by their pigtails and then thrashed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) If the hon. Member will satisfy me that there is even a prima facie authenticity in this story I will make inquiry respecting it.

  British Indians in Cape Colony—Language Question.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bill recently introduced into the Cape Parliament limiting traders to the use of certain European languages will, in effect, inflict any disability on British Indians resident in Cape Colony which is not inflicted on Yiddish-speaking aliens; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttleton.) I would point out that the provision in the Bill as introduced is not compulsory, as suggested in the hon. Member's Question. I am not, therefore, in a position to say whether the Bill will have such an effect, until it is passed and a case of the kind arises under it.

  James Cox, late Inniskilling Fusiliers.
  MR. J. P. FAERELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of James Cox, a shoemaker, who enlisted at Longford, on 18th August, 1882, in the Inniskilling Fusiliers, and was subsequently discharged after four years and ninety-eight days service at Port Lewis, after an attack of fever, as medically unfit for further service, and who received a pension of 6d. a day down to 1896, since which he got nothing; and whether, in view of this man's circumstances, he will cause some grant to be made to him or restore the pension of 6d. a day for a time to tide him over present illness.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) This man's application for a renewal of pension has been considered

  615
  by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, who state that he is not eligible for any further grant. There is no fund from which he could be awarded assistance.

  Alleged Dissatisfaction among Men of the Army Service Corps at Longford.
  MR. J. P. FAREELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst the men of the Army Service Corps stationed at Longford in consequence of the manner in which an officer treats the men; and whether he will undertake to convey to this officer that excess of disciplinary zeal of this kind is not desirable.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Diciplinary questions of this nature rest entirely within the discretion of the local military authorities, with which I am not prepared to interfere.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Militia Training—Lanarkshire Regiments.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the advisory board in connection with the Militia regiments have come to a resolution that it is desirable that county Militia battalions should be trained in the counties to which they belong; and, if so, will he arrange that in future the 3rd and 4th battalions Scottish Rifles, and the 3rd and 4th battalions Highland Light Infantry, which are the four battalions connected with Lanarkshire, will be trained as heretofore at Lanark instead of at Irvine, where they have been ordered.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): Training arrangements are in the hands of the General Officers Commanding in Chief, who must necessarily be guided by various considerations when deciding on the locality most suitable. A general principle is that training should, if practicable, take place in the locality of the unit at least once in three years.

  Native Labour in the South African Mines.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received information in reference to the circular of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, dated 17th March, in which it was stated that in future no natives would be recruited in Basutoland and Orange River Colony, except for a period of not less than twelve months; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I have now received the report of the executive committee of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, dated 13th April, which contains the following statement:—"Instructions have been issued to the agents of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association in Cape Colony, Orange River Colony, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Rhodesia that in future natives must be engaged for a period of twelve months for underground work, and in the Transvaal and Swaziland for a minimum of eight months. This will remove the disadvantage previously experienced of the boys' engagements expiring shortly after they have received sufficient training to enable them to perform their work satisfactorily." Previously the minimum period in the case of Basutoland and the Orange River Colony was four months. But the natives arriving from their homes and offering their services locally are to be engaged for a minimum period of three months. I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Will not that tend to limit the number of Kaffir labourers engaged in the mines?
  [The Answer was inaudible.]

  Indian Army Administration.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India in regard to the correspondence on the subject of Indian Army administration which has recently passed between His Majesty's Government and the Indian

  617
  Government, whether he will say if the subject matter of that correspondence has, so far as concerns the respective authority and responsibilities of the members of the Governor-General's Executive Council, been fully considered by the Council of India here, pursuant to the procedure prescribed in Sections 23 and 24 of the Statute (21 and 22 Vic.) of 1858; and will that correspondence, or its essential portions, be placed before both Houses of Parliament at an early date, together with any dissents that may have been recorded by members of the Councils of India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODBICK, Surrey, Guildford): As I stated in answer to a Question on the 4th instant†, the subject of Indian Army administration is now under the consideration of His Majesty's Government. The provisions of the Act of Parliament mentioned in the hon. Member's Question, with regard to the Council of India have been and will be, as a matter of course, strictly observed. Papers will be presented to Parliament without avoidable delay, but I am unable at present to name any date for this.

  Metropolitan Police—Regulation of Motor Traffic.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the instructions issued to the Metropolitan Police with respect to persons driving motor-cars on public highways recklessly or negligently or at a speed which is dangerous to the public within the Metropolitan Police area.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): The police orders on this subject are voluminous and set out fully the duties of drivers of motor-cars under the Motor-Car Act and the regulations thereunder, and also under the Highways Act and the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, which give additional powers to the police. The police are instructed to use their utmost endeavours to check furious or reckless
  † See (4) Debates, cxlv., 917.
  618
  driving and to secure the enforcement of the law. In particular, they have instructions from the Commissioner to take proceedings under Section 1 of the Motor-Car Act in all suitable cases in which, though the statutory speed limit is not exceeded, cars are driven recklessly or negligently or at a speed dangerous to the public. In the more crowded districts they proceed under this section, when necessary, for such offences as driving on the wrong side of refuges or driving too rapidly over foot crossings.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Do the same instructions apply to the parks?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: No; I think they are under the park regulations, but that is a point I will inquire into. I have taken great care in regard to the action of the police under my control in London.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have recently on several occasions been informed by the Metropolitan Police that no instructions have been issued to them to pay any particular attention to motorcar traffic?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I was not aware of that fact, and it is contrary to what I have heard and to the instructions I have given.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are motor-cars quite immune if they have coronets on them?
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: Is it not the case that the ten-mile-an-hour limit applies to the parks?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I think that is so.

  Motor Traffic.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the New Forest whether he will consent to withdraw his notice of Motion relating to the increasing number of accidents occasioned by motor-cars, in order that this matter may be fully discussed by this House.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I understand that the Vote for the Local Government Board is going to be put down for an early day, Thursday week or fortnight, and the day previous to its being taken I shall be glad to withdraw my Motion.
  MR. SOARES: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes a full discussion as to the administration of the law as well as to the necessity for new legislation?
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I am perfectly in accord with the hon. Gentleman in wishing for a full discussion of the matter.

  Police Pensions.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing the inconvenience to which police pensioners are sometimes subjected in connection with the signing of their life certificates, and seeing that a section sergeant is authorised to sign a pensioner's paper from the Army or Navy, he will consider the advisability of adding police section sergeants to the list of persons authorised to sign police pensioners' life certificates.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The rules now in force as to the signing of police pensioners' life certificates were framed after consideration of those relating to military and naval pensions, and I see no occasion to alter them. The list of attesting authorities gives a wide range of selection—including police officers of or above the rank of station sergeant—and I understand that it is an extremely rare thing for any inconvenience to be caused.

  Heavy Motor Traffic Order.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will withdraw the Order permitting heavy motor-cars weighing up to twelve tons and permitted to travel at a speed not exceeding twelve miles an hour, in view of the danger to road bridges and the damage by vibration to buildings, cellars, pipes, mains, and sewers.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): With regard to the speed to which motor-cars weighing up to twelve tons are restricted I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question of the 8th inst.† No information has at present reached the Local Government Board which would justify the withdrawal of the Order to which he refers.

  Metropolitan Pneumatic Despatch Bill.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the promoters of the Metropolitan Pneumatic Despatch Bill are proceeding with the Bill, which was set down for consideration by a Select Committee on the 16th inst.; and, in these circumstances, what course he proposes to take to give effect to his views in regard to the Bill.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The Pneumatic Despatch Bill having been read a second time, it is open to the promoters to proceed with it before a Select Committee. I understand that it will be opposed by the London County Council and the Corporation; and I have informed the promoters that I must reserve my liberty of action on the Third Reading, if the Bill is reported by the Committee. The course to be taken would naturally depend upon the form in which the Bill was reported by the Committee; but if the local authorities above-named oppose the Bill on the Third Reading, I should feel it my duty to support them.

  Holidays in the Post Office Engineering Department.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General why the holidays of a number of men employed in the engineering department of the Post Office have either been reduced or taken away altogether; is he aware that certain classes whose qualifications for holidays, since 1897, was twelve months service, have now been informed that a four years qualification is necessary; will he state the reason for this change,
  † See (4) Debates, cxlv., 1115.

  621
  and whether it is his intention to enforce the four years qualification for the annual leave upon other grades employed in the postal service.
  LORD STANLEY: The men to whom the hon. Member refers are "gang hands" employed, not on any permanent engagement, but taken on and discharged as occasion may require at the market rate of wages for work in telegraph and telephone construction. Some of these men had been given annual leave after twelve mouths continuous service, although there was no proper authority for it. I have now, with the concurrence of the Treasury, authorised annual leave on full pay for those who have been continuously employed for four years or more; but I see no reason for continuing an irregular privilege to men with less than four years service. I have no intention at present of altering the existing rules as to leave in other branches of the service.

  Post Office—Unestablished Linemen's Grievances.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a number of unestablished linemen who have been employed upon linemen's duties in the engineering department of the Post Office for many years, with a prospect on appointment of going to a maximum of 40s. per week, have now been informed that the maximum has been reduced to 38s. per week; is he aware that this is looked upon as a distinct breach of faith; and can he state how many appointments have been made to the class of senior linemen for the provinces, and what will be the ultimate number of provincial senior linemen.
  LORD STANLEY: As already explained in my former Answer to the hon. Member, the maximum pay of the general body of established linemen has been reduced for new entrants concurrently with the introduction of a class of senior linemen on a higher scale. No promise of appointment has been given to the unestablished linemen and there has therefore been no breach of faith. The question of appointing thirty men to the class of senior linemen
  622
  is now under consideration. This number will ultimately be considerably increased.

  Application for a Licence at the International Exhibition, Hammersmith.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether the attention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners has been drawn to the application recently made to the Kensington justices for a provisional licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors in connection with the land owned by the Commissioners at Shepherd's Bush, upon which it is proposed to erect the buildings of the International Exhibition; whether he is aware that the area covered by the lease is eighty-three acres, and that in the application referred to powers were asked for to sell intoxicating liquors in forty-four different places; and whether the Commissioners are now in a position to prevent any further application being made for such a licence.
  SIR LEES KNOWLES: The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have agreed to let an area of about eighty-four acres of land at Hammersmith for a long term of years for the purposes of an exhibition similar to that at Earl's Court or at the Crystal Palace. As regards the lands used for exhibition purposes, the Commissioners do not think it practicable to prohibit any application by the lessee for licences for the sale thereon of wine, beer, and spirits, in connection with the supply of refreshments. The recent application to the licensing justices to which the Question refers, was made by the intending lessee, and the Commissioners had no knowledge that any application was about to be made or as to the number of places in which it would be asked that liquors might be sold. The Commissioners have no power to interfere with the discretion of the magistrates as regards the granting of licences: but the settled policy of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as is, I believe, generally known, is to reduce, as far as possible, the number of licensed premises on their estates.

  Dalkey Income-Tax Dispute.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the collector of income-tax at Dalkey enforced payment of income-tax amounting to £3 8s. 4d. from Mr. Robert Armstrong, an evicted tenant in county Longford, in respect of a house, his property, in former place; and whether, seeing that the rent of this house is the only means of subsistence this man has, he will consider the advisability of giving instructions that this claim should not be pressed.
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension as to the facts, which are not correctly represented in the Question. The amount of tax due was £4 7s. 2d. in respect of arrears for two years, and this was collected from two tenants of Mr. Armstrong's, who paid immediately on application being made to them—all efforts having failed to obtain from Mr. Armstrong the amount due. Mr. Armstrong has declined to claim exemption, and, unless he does so, it is impossible to accord him any relief.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: If I induce this man to claim exemption will the right hon. Gentleman see that his claim is considered?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, but I do not know the exact position now. It may be that the time during which the claim should have been made is passed. I will look into it.

  River Riffey Floods.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to the formation of a drainage board for the district flooded by the River Riffey, he will direct the Secretary of the Board of Works at Dublin to forward the necessary documents for the signature of the inhabitants to Mr. Thomas Cuningham, Cam, Edgeworthstown.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on this subject on, February 28th† and April 13th‡. The persons desiring to form a drainage district should apply directly to the Board of Works.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: But the local people have taken all the steps they possibly can to get a drainage board set up. Will the hon. Gentleman assist them?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I will inquire.

  Dublin Law Courts' Clerkships.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state when the last open examination took place for clerkships for the Law Courts in Dublin; whether any, and, if so, how many, appointments have since been made to clerkships, and under what circumstances these appointments were made; and whether he can state how many of the present staff were appointed by open competitive examination and how many by other means.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: (1) The last open examination was held July 22nd, 1903. (2) Since that date six vacancies in junior clerkships have been filled, namely, one by open competition in Accountant-General's Office; one in Lord Chancellor's Chief Clerk's Office, and one in Chancery Registrar's Office by transfers of clerks from Land Judge's Office; one in Bankruptcy Court by promotion of Superintendent of Copyists under proviso in Section 73 of Judicature Act of 1877 exempting any person holding any office or clerkship at the passing of that Act from the provision with regard to open competition; and two in the Probate Office by persons appointed by the Judge assigned for the Probate business under Section 5 of Judicature (No. 2) Act of 1897. (3) Of the present staff of the Supreme Court, excluding Heads of Departments and Staff Officers, twenty-eight were appointed by open competition and forty-five by other means. The provision in the Judicature Act of 1877 which threw open all junior clerkships to open
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 1490.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxlv., 87.

  625
  competition preserved their patronage to the then existing Judges, and the persons appointed "by other means" represent those who were appointed by patronage both before and since that Act, including appointments by the Judge assigned for Probate business under the Act of 1897.

  Maconochy Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to explain the delay in the issuing of vesting orders to the tenants on the Maconochy Estate, county Longford; and whether he can indicate when the turbary trustees will be empowered to deal with the 1,300 acres of mountain and bog on this property.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): This estate is being dealt with in order of priority. It will in due course be inspected and reported on, and the question of turbary will be fully inquired into.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this agreement was signed sixteen months ago?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not aware of that, but I am aware there has been a great deal of delay which I am afraid is unavoidable.

  Alleged Incitement to Boycotting at Drummullan
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a meeting held on the 17th March last in Drummullan, under the auspices of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, Mr. Rickard, of Cookstown, made a speech advising the people to boycott a Mr. Bell, of Coagh, who was charged at the same meeting as being responsible for extra police having been brought into the town to preserve order; and whether, in view of the fact that official notes were taken of the language used, and the fact that Bell has suffered loss, he will say what action, if any, he intends taking in the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the Question. Official notes of the speech, however, were not taken at the meeting, and I am advised that in the circumstances a prosecution against the offender could not be sustained.

  Irish Agricultural Department— Veterinary Branch.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of recent expressions of local feeling in Ireland as to inequality in the treatment of the Agricultural Department's officials, he will obtain a Return showing the names of the officials transferred from the Veterinary Department to the Agricultural Department, giving, in each case, the amount of salary immediately prior to transfer, the amount immediately after transfer, and the amount now received; also indicating the date of any increases or decreases.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The information asked for will be embodied in a Return which I will obtain and forward to the hon. Member in a day or two.

  Lough Neagh Drainage.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will, before the forthcoming debate on arterial drainage, cause to be circulated amongst the Parliamentary Papers the instructions to, and other correspondence with, Sir William Binnie, who has been commissioned to report on the Lough Neagh drainage question.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The only instructions to Sir Alexander Binnie in this matter are contained in a letter addressed by the Irish Government to him on April 25th. His reply, dated May 1st, completes the correspondence. I have sent copies of these letters to the hon. Member; it is not at present proposed to lay them on the Table.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Seeing that the Treasury gave the instructions to Sir William Binnie will it not pay the expense instead of placing it on Irish funds?
  MR. WALTER LONG: It will be paid out of the Development Grant.

  Domiciliary Police Visits at Athenry.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland at what hour the police have entered the houses of the people in the neighbourhood of Athenry; whether they entered houses without the consent of the proprietors; and, if so, by what authority this was done; what was the object of the police in making these domiciliary visits.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed that police have entered houses in the neighbourhood of Athenry in the day time and at night no later than 10 p.m., in two or three cases up to 10.30 p.m., when inmates were not in bed, and with their consent. The object of the police in entering such houses was to make general police inquiry with a view to the prevention and detection of crime.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask by what right the police enter the houses in the country, and is it lawful for the police to lay down a rule that the occupants shall not go to bed before 10 p.m.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Answer to the last Question is in the negative. I have already told the hon. Member that the police entered these houses with the consent of the inhabitants.
  MR. DILLON: Has the right hon. Gentleman not stated already on the authority of the police that they never entered houses at an hour when the people ought to be in bed. We are informed that they entered between 10 and 10.30.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he had already given two or three Answers on this subject. The information he had received was that the police did not enter the houses at a time when the people were expected to be in bed, and further information showed that they entered with the consent of the occupiers. In no case did the police force their entrance into the houses. They had a right to obtain any information they could, provided
  628
  that they entered without the use of forcible means.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Have the people a right to prevent the police from entering the houses?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not called upon to explain the general law of the land. As far as I know no force was used by the police in entering the houses.
  MR. DILLON: How much force would be required to enter a cottage in an Irish country district?
  MR. WALTER LONG: By using the word force I did not intend to suggest that it was necessary violently to attack the people, but I meant to convey the fact that the entry of the police was made with the consent of the people occupying the houses.
  MR. BLAKEasked whether the consent of the occupants was asked before the police entered, or whether, when they found a door which was not barred, it was opened by the police without any intimation to the occupant or a request made for consent.
  MR. WALTER LONG: That is a legal question.
  MR. BLAKE: No, it is a question of fact.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of that Question.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked whether if a meeting is called at Athenry for the purpose of explaining to the people their legal right to resist the forcible entry of their homes at any hour of the day or night by police without legal warrant, he will undertake that such meeting will not be suppressed by force?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Committee of Defence.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury can he state what is the present composition of the Defence Committee;

  629
  of how many members it is composed; and how those members are appointed; is it the practice to admit to its proceedings on the footing of membership persons other than members of the Committee, such as the Permanent Under-Secretary for the Colonies and the Attorney-General; are such persons allowed to vote as members, and are the confidential documents of the Committee communicated to them; and is this communication irrespective of their having taken, or not, the Privy Councillor's oath of secrecy; is it proposed that the confidential documents of the Committee, in the keeping of the Prime Minister for the time being, shall be retained by him on his leaving office; or is it intended that he shall either hand them over to his successor as Prime Minister or leave them in charge of the secretary of the Committee to be communicated to that successor.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I hope that my hon. friend will allow me to say, without disrespect to the ten Questions put to me, that I really think almost every one was answered, and answered more fully than would be proper in reply to a Question, when I made the two speeches on this subject last Thursday. There are two Questions which I think were not specifically dealt with, and these are whether the confidential documents of the Committee are communicated to the Permanent Under-Secretary for the Colonies and the Attorney-General, and to gentlemen who have assisted us from time to time when the subjects brought before the Committee were of a character on which their advice could be of great importance and value. When these two gentlemen attend they act as members of the Committee; but of course that does not mean that documents not relating to the subjects under discussion by the Committee are communicated to them or entrusted to their custody. Then the hon. Member seems to think that there is an impropriety in any gentleman being asked to attend the Committee who is not a Privy Councillor. That is not regarded as a bar. I need not say that I made it abundantly clear that the reports of the proceedings of the Committee and the
  630
  minutes of meetings and the various documents from time to time submitted to it are left for the perusal of our successors should they desire to see at what conclusions we have arrived, and why we have arrived at them.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for asking yet another Question. Looking at the great importance of this new constitutional body, do I understand that the documents will be left in the charge of the secretary, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell me of how many members the Committee is composed, and how they are appointed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member was not present when I made my second speech. If he reads it he will see that I dealt at considerable length and in detail with that point. Perhaps he will refer to that speech, and then, if he remains unsatisfied on any point, he can put a Question to me. The House knows that a permanent office, as it were—not a very large one—has been created which is quite irrespective of the incoming or the outgoing of Parliamentary Ministers. It is with the secretary of that permanent body, now responsible for their keeping, that the documents will be left when any Ministry goes out of office.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I understand from reading the right hon. Gentleman's speech that the Prime Minister is the only absolutely necessary member of the Committee. Of how many members is the Committee composed and how was it appointed? The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that I can add to what I have said before.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: May I ask, as to the occasional members of the Committee who do not attend regularly and are not Privy Councillors, whether a distinct pledge is taken from them equivalent to the Privy Councillor's oath that they will maintain an absolute secrecy as to all that takes place in the Committee or in connection with its proceedings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that any formal ceremony is necessary. It is understood, of course—and this follows from the very nature of the Committee—that the deliberations are of the most confidential character. The Permanent Under-Secretary for the Colonies, for instance, has in his hands every day the most confidential documents and is absolutely trusted by successive Governments. As for the Attorney-General, I do not know what secret he does not know. Certainly, though he is hardly ever, by the practice of the Constitution, a Privy Councillor, it has never occurred to any one to think that the Attorney-General for the time being, as a member of the Government, cannot be absolutely trusted with any secret.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: What is the style of the Committee? Is "The Committee of Defence" its proper name?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, that is its familiar and affectionate name. I believe "The Council of Imperial Defence" is the true style and title of the Committee.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  Amendment again proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'one thousand nine hundred and ten,' and insert the words 'until Parliament shall otherwise determine.'"—(Mr. Lambert.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'one thousand nine hundred and ten' stand part of the clause."
  MR. DILLON MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.) rose to appoint of order and reminded the Committee that when last under discussion this Amendment had been ruled out of order on the ground that it made nonsense the clause. He thought it was
  632
  extraordinary at the time that the House should have been debating for two hours an Amendment which would have made nonsense of the Bill, but he had since examined the Act and this Bill, and he thought that he could satisfy the Minister in charge of this measure, who did not appear to examine the Amendments at all, that the Amendment was perfectly in order.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member need not continue, I think, because the hon. Member for South Molton has now put down another Amendment which brings this Amendment into order.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)hoped that the Committee would now be able to deal with the Amendment before the House in a more placid spirit than was shown at the close of their proceedings the other day. He had hoped they would have been calmed by the withdrawal of the Amendment, but he gathered that with further consideration the hon. Member would see his way to withdrawing the bone of contention, and thus saving the House the time occupied in debating and dividing upon it.
  He had been violently assailed on the ground that a breach of faith had been committed. He hoped it would now be felt that the language was too violent. The view he had taken of the permanent or transitory character of this Act had always been the same, and if hon. Members would look back—he did not advise them, however, to take the trouble—to his various utterances on previous occasions, they would see he had always held that it was a matter of absolute indifference whether the Act remained temporary or was made nominally permanent. It was certain that that nominal permanence would not survive any far-reaching or comprehensive treatment of the rating question, which certainly deserved the attention of Parliament. The difficulties were themselves an indication of the urgent need there was for Parliament to try to bring order into the chaos, and justice into what was perhaps the injustice of our existing system. When that was done partial

  633
  legislation like that contained in the present Bill would in the nature of the case vanish and be absorbed in the wider and more logical and comprehensive treatment which they hoped to see some day attempted by this House. On the other hand, if the Act were temporary, and were not supplanted by the wider measure, it was certain that the arguments which had convinced the present Opposition that they ought not to resist its extension would have equal weight with their successors. Whatever Party was in office and whatever Party was in Opposition, the same arguments would lead to the same results; and it would be felt that until the matter could be dealt with as a whole it would be folly not to renew a measure which did, however inadequately, deal with one particular injustice of the rating system. Therefore it was absolutely immaterial from the point of view of general policy what decision the House came to on this Amendment.
  But it was said that it was not fair of the Government not to put on Government tellers in order to retain the Bill in its original shape. That was a novel argument entirely and absolutely inconsistent with the views constantly expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. How many times had they not made passionate appeals to the Government to leave the House to go its own way undiverted from the paths of rectitude by the artificial methods of guidance which the system of Party organisation provided? Those who had made such appeals had no right to say when the practice was adopted that an outrage had been inflicted on the principles of Parliamentary management or on their particular interests. As to the way in which he himself should vote, though it was not a matter of the smallest practical importance as to what decision was ultimately arrived at by the House, he proposed to vote for the Bill as it was introduced. He desired in no sense to exercise pressure of any sort. He hoped this explanation would tend to remove the alarm and bitterness that found expression last Wednesday.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that in charging the Government
  634
  with a breach of faith he had meant nothing personally offensive. He referred only to an official breach of faith with reference to a Parliamentary understanding across the floor of the House, which, if not adhered to, led to complaints which disturbed the peace and procedure of the House. Some of the remarks just made by the right hon. Gentleman were certainly open to controversy, both as to their accuracy and as to their bearing on the present situation. This was not the case of an Amendment to a Bill which was before the House for the first time, and in regard to which the House might reasonably exercise its independent opinion without Government pressure. They had to remember that the Bill, although introduced as a permanent measure, was made a temporary one very early in its career. Whatever justice this Act did to the agricultural community it left undone an act of justice to the urban community. The policy of a temporary Bill was to put pressure on the Government of the day, whether it be Liberal or whether it be Conservative, to deal with that other part of the question which it left untouched. The Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was the representative in the House, had years ago pledged itself to refer the matter to a Royal Commission, and it did so. That Royal Commission took a large amount of evidence and in due course reported to the House, and he believed the Report it presented was one of the ablest Reports ever drawn up upon the question. There were no doubt differences of opinion among the Commissioners, but all sections of the Commission recognised that the urban community had strong claims for relief and recommended legislation. So far as regarded reducing that recommendation into a practical shape, he thought that the Report drawn up by two distinguished servants of the Treasury, Sir George Murray and Sir Edward Hamilton, represented a practicable solution of that difficult question. He laid no blame on the Government because they did not in 1901 introduce legislation founded upon the Report of the Committee. They were in the midst of a great war. When the Renewal Bill was introduced it was introduced as a permanent measure, but it was converted into a

  635
  temporary measure by an agreement across the floor of the House, and when the Bill went into Committee the Amendment giving effect to that agreement was put and at once carried.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The arrangement was made by means of Question and Answer.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid the point never came before the Committee as a controversial question. But he was bound at that point to interject a parenthetical observation that, in his opinion, the Government ought during the last four years to have dealt with this question. It would have been a better thing for them and for the country at large if they had devoted some time to the solution of this grave and important problem. But for some reason they had not done so, and in due course the time had arrived for this Act to berenewed. The Government thereupon put into the mouth of the King a statement that a measure would be brought before Parliament to renew the Act as a temporary Act. He took it that that was a pledge on the part of the Government that its temporary character would be retained. Then the catastrophe occurred the other day, when an hon. Member on his side of the House, not speaking in any representative capacity for those who sat on that side, but speaking for himself as a consistent supporter of the Bill from the very first, and as one who supported it at a time when it was most fiercely contested, wished to make it a permanent measure. What they had to complain of was, that the Minister in charge of the Bill, instead of saying that the Government introduced it as a temporary measure, and would support it as such, and could not, therefore, accept the Amendment, gave a very broad hint to hon. Members on his own side of the House to vote for it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No. Can the right hon. Gentleman quote any passage of my speech which can be thus interpreted?
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid it might be his imperfect interpretation, but he certainly did interpret the right hon. Gentleman's words as an invitation, to Members on his own side of the House to support the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had told them that the difference between them was a purely academic one. The question was, should they make the Bill temporary or permanent? He differed from the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think the question was purely academic. The Bill, at the present time, did not rest on a permanent basis, and it did not require assent in another place for its termination. But he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill would have to be renewed until the Government insisted that there should be a general settlement of the whole question. He felt that the injustice to the urban ratepayer was heavier than to the agricultural, for in some places the urban rates were two or three times the amount of the agricultural rates. Now, however, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to give his great personal example in voting against the Amendment, he trusted that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member for South Molton would agree to withdraw it.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid that if the Prime Minister was going to vote against his Amendment he was afraid it was not going into the division lobby. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not think his own Bill was good enough to be made permanent or till Parliament should otherwise determine. He had placed him in a predicament by forsaking his own Bill. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, he had forsaken the principle upon which it was introduced in 1896. Of course, if he were going to vote against the Amendment and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton were going to vote against it, he was afraid it would be no use his running his head against a brick wall of the big battalions. He regretted very much that both Front Benches were taking the view that his Amendment was one which ought not to be embodied in the Bill; he believed it ought to be. Still, if the

  637
  Prime Minister were going to vote against him, he could only say that rather than be beaten in the division lobby he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, because after all that had been said and done he should not like to see the House divide and the Amendment beaten. The other day it was ruled that it was a nonsensical Amendment and out of order, and he was glad to know that the Chairman had seen fit to put it from the Chair, because, instead of it being nonsense, he believed if it were inserted it would be about the best bit of sense in the Bill. He could, however, only repeat himself and say that, after the statement of the Prime Minister, he must ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that if the hon. Member thought they were all going to agree to the withdrawal of his Amendment he could tell him he was very much mistaken. There was no earthly reason in any single argument he had yet heard why it should be withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton said the other day there had been a breach of faith on the part of the Government, but did he remember what occurred in the discussions in the past? Did he remember the furious opposition which the Bill encountered in days gone by—he might say the savage ferocity which was directed against both the Bill and its authors, directed against the Bill not in. its permanent form but in its temporary form. It was agreed to be made temporary on the Second Reading of the Bill, not for the reason alleged by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy the other day, not because pressure was put on the Government of that time by the borough Members. It was nothing of the kind, and he would tell them exactly what did occur. A number of Lancashire borough Members came to him in the Lobby, and said,—"Now, look here! We will support you through thick and thin in whatever you do in regard to this Bill. If you make it permanent we will support you, but at the same time we shall be glad if you think it right to let it be temporary. Bat please understand this: so for from wishing to put the slightest pressure upon you, we will support you, whatever course you take."
  638
  Now, that was what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy called pressure being put on him by the borough Members. His reply to those Lancashire gentlemen was that he did not think it mattered very much whether the Bill was temporary or permanent, for he had already announced on the First Reading that a Commission would be appointed to inquire into the whole question, that it would report, he presumed, within a reasonable time, and that in all probability, if other things did not stand in the way, legislation would soon afterwards be introduced. The only reason why that had not been done long ago was, so far as he knew, to be found in the tremendous amount of time which had been devoted by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to opposing and obstructing the measures which the Government had thought it necessary to proceed with first. As he had pointed out, the whole of the opposition which they had to contend with in those days was directed against the Bill not in its permanent form but as a temporary measure. How on earth were they to know that the Opposition—the leaders and the rank and file—were going to take the course they had done on this occasion, after their great recantation. [Cries of "No."] Yes, it was an absolute recantation of their previous opposition, and they had every right to suppose that they would abstain from that opposition, whatever form the Bill might take in the future; and to tell them now that the mere decision of the Government to leave the voting on an Amendment to make the Bill permanent—a Radical Amendment, by-the-bye—was a sufficient ground for their change of attitude, was to tell them something which, with all due respect would not wash for a single moment.
  He did not want this Amendment to be withdrawn, and he said that in the interests of the boroughs. They had had ten years experience of a temporary measure, and it had led to nothing being done in the interests of the boroughs. Why was that? It was said by Gentlemen opposite that it was too much to expect any Government to interfere with a temporary measure before its time had expired. He held that the Government was entitled to interfere with any

  639
  measure of that kind if it thought fit, but he was bound to say at the same time that there was some force in the contention. On the other hand, if they made the Bill permanent—permanent, that was to say, until the whole question could be dealt with—then they would have forthwith such an agitation on the part of the boroughs for a change in the law which would give them fair and equal justice, that he would defy any Government, he did not care from which Party it was drawn, very long to resist it. That was the ground on which, in the interests of the borough Members, quite as much as in the interests of Parliamentary convenience, he believed it would be right and proper to support this Amendment. He believed, also, it would be in the interests of the country at large, of the agricultural community as well as of the boroughs, and, above all, in the interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the measure should be carried in the form suggested by the hon. Member for South Molton. He had some conversation with that hon. Member the other day, and he was certainly surprised at the course he had now decided to adopt. It was asserted that he (the Member for Sleaford) had "nobbled" the Prime Minister.
  MR. DALZIEL: No; the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid the hon. Member offered to withdraw that expression if he could tell him he knew nothing beforehand about the intentions of the Government. Now, he would tell him exactly what happened that afternoon. Just before the Amendment came on he left his place and asked the President of the Local Government Board what he was going to do in regard to it. The reply was that he thought he would leave it an open question, and he was asked if he approved of that. He said at once, of course he did, and that he was very glad to hear it, for, as far as he was concerned, he should certainly support the Amendment, whether it was left open or not. Later on he saw the hon. Member for South Molton, and told him he would support his Amendment with all the forces at his command. Now at the last moment, to his intense surprise,
  640
  and to his very great disgust, the hon. Member, who he had thought really did mean business, and who he had hoped was indulging in something more than mere Party electioneering, proposed to withdraw his Amendment. All he could say was that so far as he had any weight he should object to the withdrawal, and should do his very utmost to get the Amendment carried.
  MR. DALZIELthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the tribute he had paid to the authenticity of the remarks he made the other day. They now found themselves in a very peculiar and interesting position in regard to the Bill. The Prime Minister, in regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Molton, was going to take a different course to that adopted by the President of the Local Government Board. The Government had brought in a Bill which they had declared to be of a temporary character; now they left the whole principle of the Bill practically to the "vote as you please" decision of the House. That was not a course which any Government should take in regard to its own Bill. The Prime Minister had reminded them that he had often been appealed to to leave the voting open. That was not the point. His contention was that it was the duty of the Government to make up their minds definitely on this question and not, by withdrawing the Whips, to leave the matter open to their supporters. He thought he saw the reason why the Government had taken up their present attitude. Sooner or later—later rather than sooner—he expected there would be a general election, and the right hon. Gentleman was anxious, while still defending the honour and dignity of the Government, to allow the agricultural Members to vote for making the Act permanent and the borough Members to vote for making it temporary, so that when they were called upon to face their constituents they would be able to point with virtuous pride to their votes. That was, he believed, the sole reason for the Government allowing their supporters to "go as you please."
  He did not think this should be made a permanent measure; it was originally passed as a temporary one,

  641
  and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would deny that had he not conceded the demand that it should be made temporary its passing would have been endangered. So great was the opposition to it among his supporters that he doubted if it could ever have been passed as a permanent measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had urged that they should make the Act permanent, because then the urban constituencies would rise in revolt and something would have to be done—it was to be the last straw which would bring about an agitation which would compel the Government to deal with the demands of the urban districts. Well, he could not accept that view; he held, on the contrary, that if the measure were temporary it would obviously be the duty of the next Government to deal with the urban question, so that the whole problem might be solved. He had never altered his opinion that this Bill was unjust and unfair; that it was a bribe to a particular class of the community, and he was opposed to making it permanent, both on that ground and because such a step would make it more difficult to obtain consideration for the claims of the urban districts.
  MR. MILDMAYdid not agree that if this Amendment were carried the result would be that all prospect of a comprehensive scheme of rating reform would vanish. It must not be forgotten that personal property escaped paying rates in consequence of the annual renewal of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and, seeing that the annual renewal of that Act had not compelled the Government to deal with the whole question of rating reform, he submitted that the argument of the hon. Member opposite would not hold water for a single moment. They were now voting as to whether this temporary expedient which did justice to agriculturists should continue until a comprehensive measure of rating reform was brought forward. He was strongly in favour of this. He believed many Members representing agricultural constituencies on the other side of the House were also strongly in favour of it, and he hoped they would vote against
  642
  the proposition for the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsupposed that after the speech they had just had from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford it would be too much for them to hope that the matter would be terminated by the unopposed withdrawal of the Amendment. He thought there was every reason why an emphatic protest should be made from that side of the House against the attitude of the Prime Minister on the question. He protested against the right hon. Gentleman treating the question of the temporary or permanent character of the measure as one of no practical importance. He did not wish to take up the time of the Committee with points of order, for, of course, he accepted the ruling of the Chair that the new Amendment placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for South Molton had put the firs; Amendment in order. But it seemed to many of them a very open question whether the enormous change proposed by the Amendment was really within the title of the Bill. He was not saying it would be in the power of the Chairman to rule that it was outside the title of the Bill, but he did suggest that a change of the kind proposed was as near being so as legitimately it could possibly be. It was a Bill to extend an Act which was a temporary Act, and yet the object of the Amendment was to make the Bill permanent. That appeared to him to be very like a violation of the ancient and established practice of Parliament. In any case he protested against the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister that it did not signify, and that it was the same thing greatly to extend or diminish a proposal before the House. Sir Erskine May pointed out that there was an essential distinction when in his book on Parliamentary practice he said that the modification of a notice of Motion was permitted if the amended notice did not exceed the scope of the original Motion, and, if a Motion were proposed which differed materially from the terms of the notice, on an occasion of that kind it could only be made with the consent of the House. This was, it was true, an

  643
  Amendment to a Bill, but he thought the Committee ought to be guided by the spirit of those observations. If this subject were to be considered from the point of view of the general question of local taxation, he must ask the Government whether it was their intention or not to bring forward in the present session of Parliament the measure relating to valuation promised in the King's Speech.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said that with all due respect to the noble Lord he was bound to say his two points of order had nothing whatever in them. He had told them that in his opinion the title of the Bill would not allow of such an Amendment. But it was a Bill to extend the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURTCE: I said it ran as near the line as possible.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESdenied that it went as near as it possibly could; it was a long way off. It was a Bill to extend the Agricultural Rates Act. They might extend it ad infinitum. They might extend it until Parliament otherwise determined—which was what the Amendment proposed—or they might extend it until all eternity. Then with regard to the other point raised by the noble Lord, he would point out that Amendments in Committee and notices of Motion were not on the same footing. It was quite right that there should be no extension in the case of a notice of Motion laying down an important principle which the House came prepared to discuss and hear discussed, but it was quite different with Amendments in Committee. Of these no notice was required, and indeed they often became necessary in consequence of what had happened in the course of the debate. He did think the Opposition were ungrateful in complaining because the Government were allowing their followers to vote as they pleased—a vote that was according to the dictates of reason and logic—in respect of an Amendment moved from the opposite benches; and their suggestion that the Government on previous occasions had rejected their appeals to allow their followers freedom
  644
  of action made their present complaint doubly ungrateful. What sort of encouragement was it to a poor Government to be told that they were always doing wrong, and if they were to find that when they did right it was not to be accepted as being right?
  The Prime Minister had said—and said truly—that this was an academic question. Whether this Act was made permanent or whether it remained, as introduced, a temporary one, the question would still have to come up for settlement when the whole rating question came to be dealt with—for the Act, whether permanent or temporary, would disappear in the general scheme of settlement. He was disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford that it was better for the Act to be made permanent. If they made the Act permanent there would be such an agitation from, the boroughs as could not be resisted, and he pictured to himself the awful prospect of Birmingham marching on London, and Manchester revolting, and both being led through Lincolnshire by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford. The President of the Local Government Board told the Committee on the last occasion that he would not vote either for or against this Amendment. In his (Mr. Bowles) anxiety to be led by his leaders he had very grave doubt on that occasion as to which way he should vote, or whether he should vote at all. To-day that doubt had been dissolved. The Prime Minister had said his opinion was that the Bill should be maintained by logical minded persons in the shape in which it now existed, and consequently the Amendment of the Member for South Molton should be rejected. That determined his action, and he should vote with the Prime Minister with a satisfaction only tempered by the regret, he felt in not following the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid he rose for the purpose of expressing his surprise that if this matter was of no practical importance the Prime Minister should have taken the course he had. Why the Amendment had not been resisted by the Government from the first he could

  645
  not understand. The Bill would have been through Committee last Wednesday but for this Amendment having arisen. If the Bill were altered there would need to be a Report stage, and some of them who were borough Members and who felt keenly the injustice of making this a permanent Act would feel compelled to attempt to alter and improve the Bill in that stage. They did not wish to waste time over the Amendment at all, and he for one acknowledged that the agricultural interest required consideration, but on the other hand it was a matter of importance to the towns that the question should automatically come up for discussion from time to time. The right hon. Member for Sleaford had said that the boroughs would be so roused by feelings of injustice that they would make the life of the Government intolerable if they did not deal with the question of local taxation. He was glad to have from the right hon. Gentleman an acknowledgment of the injustice which the boroughs were suffering at the present time. For himself he hated the wrangles that went on between town and country. If the Bill were made temporary and renewed from time to time the matter would come up at successive periods, causing the question to be raised whether the time had not then arrived to deal with the question of rating on a wider basis. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be rejected.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid as a borough Member the only thing that induced him to make up his mind one way or the other was the effect which this matter had on the subject of local taxation. The subject was one which they should have tackled before this. There was a great grievance in the boroughs and other parts of the country. He was not alarmed about the marching up of the towns on this subject. He did not think that would be very effective, but he thought they should have now and again a debate such as this to raise the question of local taxation. If the Agricultural Rates Act were a permanent measure the question might possibly be relegated to some time in the distant future, and he would rather
  646
  run the risk of having a debate on the subject occasionally, because he thought it would hasten a great national change in the system of taxation about which he was very keen.
  DR. HUTCHINSONsaid he thought the speech just made reflected almost identically the opinion on the Opposition side of the House. The right hon. Member for Sleaford twitted the Opposition with a change of opinion within the last eight years. He was perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman would realise the fact that fighting for a principle was one thing, but when that principle had been defeated and the change had been in operation for several years, it was quite a different thing to upset the arrangements that had been made. Had he been in the House when this Bill was fought originally he should have fought it as strongly as his friends did. But after nine years of its operation, when new contracts and arrangements had been entered into, it was a different matter. It was unthinkable that in the present state of affairs they could by one stroke of the pen stop this Bill at the moment. They might have their heads in the clouds, but they must remember that they had their feet on the ground, and as men of common sense they had to deal with affairs as they were at present. They did not want this Bill to be permanent, and there was a good deal of common sense in the remark of the Member for Islington as to the periodical bringing up of this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford argued to-day for the relief of the farmer. The small farmer paid perhaps £100 in rent and £15 in rates. If the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious to relieve the farmer, surely the £100 was a much bigger question. But the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the landlords, like the other monopolists, wanted to throw the burden on the ratepayers. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to relieve the farmer he could surely find an opportunity.
  MR. CHAPLIN: What opportunity have I?
  DR. HUTCHINSON: Make your opportunity. You know the House better than I do.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I do not know how I can reduce my rents more than 70 or 80 per cent., as I have already done.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: That is an example to other landlords.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is outside the present question.
  DR. HUTCHINSONsaid he regretted if he had gone outside the narrow limits of the debate. He hoped the Bill would not be made permanent.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL PRYCE-JONESsaid inasmuch as he supported most loyally the Government in 1896 in passing this Bill, and inasmuch as he had defended it in his own constituency and in certain parts of Wales, he would state why he could not see his way to support the Amendment. Although he represented boroughs, he loyally supported the Government in passing the measure because he saw a great opportunity of doing some good for his agricultural friends, but he thought a great mistake—he would not go so far as to say a breach of faith—would be committed by the House of Commons if they made the Act permanent. There could be no doubt that the towns required relief in local rates, and the occupier of agricultural land had been greatly aided in the last few years. In his own county of Montgomeryshire, one of the smallest in the Kingdom, agricultural land had been relieved of some £12,000 to £15,000 in rates per annum since 1896, and he hoped his Radical agricultural friends in the constituency would not forget that at the next election. He therefore appealed to hon. Members who represented county constituencies not to go back upon the pledge given in 1896 that the Act should not be permanent.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not think his hon. and gallant friend need trouble about his constituency, because he understood it was one of the constituencies which was to
  648
  be redistributed out of existence. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford would see that the general feeling of the House was in favour of making the Bill a temporary one. After all, the Government was anxious to avoid troubles on difficult questions, and even the next Government would desire to avoid the settlement of the local taxation problem unless forced upon it. He was certain the next Government could not renew a measure of this kind without at the same time extending relief to the towns as well. He did not join with those who condemned the Prime Minister in leaving this an open question. He was only sorry that what the right hon. Gentleman had done now had not been done before. Many a time in Committee propositions which did not commend themselves to the judgment of the House as a whole, were carried simply because the Government did not see their way to treat them as open questions. Upstairs the Government were constantly defeated, but no one ever dreamt of treating the questions there as questions of confidence, with the result that the Bills came out in a much better form than they went in. It was a great misfortune that Governments did not more generally follow the practice which the Prime Minister had adopted on this occasion. He did not think the present case was one in which the practice should have been initiated, but he was glad that the Prime Minister had had the courage to leave anything an open question. If a similar course had been adopted in regard to many matters in such measures as the Licensing Bill and the Education Bill those measures would have issued from the House of Commons not in the shape they finally assumed, but would probably have effected a settlement of difficult problems which now had been left open or even exacerbated. He hoped that in future the Government would leave more of these matters to the judgment of the House.
  MR. TENNANTsaid there was a disposition to suppose that every member of the Opposition who opposed the Bill eight years ago was now converted to the principle of this measure. He was an example to the contrary

  649
  He regarded the Bill on its first introduction as immoral, and he regarded it so still. The fact that one set of people were poor and required assistance did not make it right to pick the pockets of another set of people. The Bill rested on expediency then, and it rested on expediency now. The Prime Minister no doubt thought it expedient that the present Government should remain in office, but that did not make their remaining in office any the more moral. The Bill rested on no solid foundation, and he should be glad to see it made temporary in order that it might come up for reconsideration at the first opportunity.
  MR. LOUGHsuggested that borough Members on the other side might assist the House in coming to an immediate decision. This matter was of serious importance to
  London, inasmuch as London, while receiving only £2,000 under the Bill, contributed at least £500,000 or £600,000. He had no desire to continue the discussion if it was understood that borough Members opposite were going to take the reasonable view indicated by the hon. Member for North Islington. Agriculturists were getting all that they could ask in the temporary renewal of the Bill, and they should at any rate leave to the representatives of boroughs, on whom the burden of rates was pressing with far greater severity, the hope that when the matter came up again something would be done for the towns as well as for the rural districts.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 266: Noes, 80. (Division List No. 161.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Ffrench, Peter

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Field, William

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Caldwell, James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cameron, Robert

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Alhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Allsopp, Hon. George

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Austen, Sir John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Crombie, John William

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Graham, Henry Robert

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

  Cullinan, J.

  Grant, Corrie

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Delany, William

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

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Benn, John Williams

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Harrington, Timothy

  Bill, Charles

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bingham, Lord

  Dillon, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Black, Alexander William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Blake, Edward

  Doogan, P. C.

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Helder, Augustus

  Boland, John

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bond, Edward

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G,

  Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrw's Bghs)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Emmott, Alfred

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bull, William James

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Johnson, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O' Doherty, William

  Stroyan, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  O'Kelly James (Roscommon, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Toulmin, George

  Lamont, Norman

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Langley, Batty

  Parrott, William

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Percy, Earl

  Tuff, Charles

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tuffnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Leng, Sir John

  Purvis, Robert

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Rea, Russell

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lough, Thomas

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

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

  Lundon, W.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Renwick, George

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  M'Crae, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Runciman, Walter

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

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

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Schwann, Charles. E.

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

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mooney, John J.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Young, Samuel

  Murphy, John

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sheehy, David

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Myers, William Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Spencer.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  NOES.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Garfit, William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bowles, Lt-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hardy, Lawrence (Kent, Ashford

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Cavendish, R. F (N. Lanes.)

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

  Maxwell, W. J., H. (Dumfriesshire

  Chapman, Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Milvain, Thomas

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Montagu, Hon. J Scott (Hants.)

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Moore, William

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lambert, George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

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

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  652

  653

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Randles, John S.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Younger, William

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Tollemache, Henry James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Chaplin and Mr. Mildmay.

  Spear, John Ward

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CHANNINGsaid a great deal of misapprehension had existed in the minds of hon. Members opposite as to the attitude of many members of the Opposition in respect to the renewal of the Agricultural Rates Act, to the enactment of which they offered, in 1896, the most strenuous opposition. While not only ready but anxious to renew that Act at the present time, he did not abate by one jot or tittle the position he then took up. The arguments advanced in opposition to the Bill in 1896 had even more force to-day, when it is more clearly seen how unequally and unjustly it operates. The case for renewal was absolutely plain to everyone familiar with agricultural districts. In the case of freeholders it would be unjust to withdraw the relief, an equal injustice would be inflicted on leaseholders the terms of whose leases had not expired, and in the case of many farms where rents had not been altered and where there had been no previous abatements of rents owing to estates having been managed for many years on a uniform system of moderate rents. But that did not in the least diminish the objections entertained by himself and his friends to the principle of the Act. While it might be to the convenience of present or future Ministers to have four years in which to think over the question of local taxation, he personally would have been glad to see the Bill renewed year by year until a final settlement was arrived at. Whatever Ministry was in power within the next year or two, local taxation would have to be dealt with in a broad and comprehensive spirit. Supposing there was a change of Ministry he did not believe that tenant farmers would surfer in the least in respect of any relief to agricultural rates. The speeches of the late
  654
  Sir William Harcourt on this question in 1896 had been greatly misrepresented and misunderstood by agriculturists. What he denounced was that while the tenant farmers were the men who had really suffered from the depression the Bill relieved tenant farmers only incidentally and indirectly, its real effect being to pass a vast sum of public money more or less rapidly into the pockets of the landowners. Those speeches were, in his opinion, the greatest speeches on the real issues of land tenure reform ever delivered in Parliament. Sir William Harcourt affirmed the proposition that the question of rates was of vast importance to the tenant farmers but that the Bill relieved the wrong men, and in the wrong way. Looked at as an income-tax on actual profits, a rate even of 2s. 2d. to 2s. 6d. in the £. was extremely serious. According to the farm accounts brought before the Agricultural Commission, the average rate of profit during the depression was so low that the amount of the rates was in some cases far greater than the profit which the tenant farmers had been able to draw from their farms for years past. The continuance of the relief of rates was therefore a question of vital importance to them.
  But no answer had been or could be given to the charges brought against the principle of the Bill. It rejected the tremendous case which the town manufacturers and tradesmen had for relief, men who were employing a large amount of labour, incurring great risks and making profits often as small or smaller than the farmers. It was grossly unjust to impound the first great surplus of the present Ministry for the benefit of a particular class. Under the present land tenure tenant farmers were obliged during the depression not only to pay rents which represented far more than was economically possible for the land to produce, but they were compelled owing

  655
  to the weakness of their position to pay the whole of the rates out of their own pocket and were unable to transfer any of the local burdens to the landlords whose land they held and on whom those burdens were supposed on bargaining to rest. That had been proved up to the hilt. The only inference to draw from this was that this measure was and always would be a Landlords' Relief Bill. He challenged anyone on the opposite side of the House to attempt to traverse this contention that as the law stood and if economic forces were left to take their course the relief afforded by this Bill would go to the landlords. This was unavoidable and the whole of this money had gone and would go into the pockets of the landowners. Where there were abatements at the time this took place, at once. He had been assured that this was the case in regard to two large estates in the Midlands. And a large landowner had told him that this would of course be done on his own estate. They were not to be blamed. The process was inevitable, and would operate at each revision of the rent. In the case of other land, when the value came up for review and the land was sold, this relief would go straight into the pockets of the landlords when the whole of these economic considerations and laws came into effect in governing the bargains between landlord and tenant and the sale of agricultural land to new purchasers took place. The dole provided for in this Bill added so much percentage to the annual and the capital value of the estates of the landlords. Those were the objections which the Liberal Party had maintained and would maintain to this measure. They were willing to renew it now because they recognised that agricultural land earned a very low rate of profit and the withdrawal would work injustice but they did so in the hope, that a Ministry would soon be in power which would deal boldly and conclusively with this question of local taxation; and, as regarded agricultural land, would see that the right men received the relief, and that it was distributed in the right way, and whether by a division of the rates between the owner and occupier, or by some direct form of tax upon the owner, so as really to relieve the pressure and burden
  656
  of rating upon those who really needed the relief.
  He should like to have seen the renewal of this Act limited to a shorter period than four years. This was a question which ought to be dealt with speedily, and although they might acquiesce in this Bill they would remember that the Prime Minister had told them that nothing in this Bill limited the absolute right of Parliament to deal with this question and no constitutional obstacle stood in the way of any Ministry dealing with local taxation before four years expired. They should in the near future revise and amend this Act in such a way as would make the relief go to those who had born the burdens of agricultural depression in past years, and who were entitled to receive relief in the future. He hoped that duty would be undertaken before long and carried out in a spirit which would make the agriculturists realise that they had as sincere friends on the Opposition side as amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had alluded to the Report of the Commission upon Local Taxation. He had served six years on that Commission, and what he wished to point out was that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire seemed to forget that the Commission agreed that the Agricultural Rates Act was in itself just and fair and might take either a permanent or temporary form; and that it would hold its place when they had a general reform of the system of rating. Although when this matter was first debated suggestions were made as to the relief being given to the landlords, yet if the hon. Member for Northamptonshire adopted what the Royal Commission thought was right from an impartial point of view, he would be obliged to say that after an impartial inquiry the Agricultural Rates Act had been agreed to by the Commission as an Act right and just in itself. If they were going to support the recommendations; of the Royal Commission, which he entirely endorsed, they must certainly allow that this Act, whether permanent or not, was an Act which must always take its place in any reform of local taxation.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the joint Secretaries of the Treasury, in a separate Report, stated that the agricultural rates grants would be dispensed with under this scheme, and their Report was not at all favourable to the particular proposals which they were now discussing. It was clear, therefore, that they did not accept this as a satisfactory solution.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As a final solution.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid this question ought to be considered comprehensively, and, admitting the rates on arable land to be unfair, yet these grants should not be continued to occupiers of land without more consideration being given to others under a reform of the incidence of local taxation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have forgotten the Report which he himself drafted. The impression he gave to the Committee was that the Report of the Commission was in favour of this Bill as a permanent measure.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid the Commission was in favour of this Bill as it stood, having regard to the existing conditions.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that hon. Members on his side of the House claimed that the whole thing should be readjusted and reconsidered. The Commission never gave any absolute opinion as to the justice of this as a permanent settlement of agricultural rating. He did not think its supporters claimed that it was more than a temporary expedient to get over what they considered the distress of agriculture at the time. He did not think anyone put it higher than that. The case of his friends and himself was that it was unfair as between the agricultural and the town population, and unfair as between one agricultural class and another. One point which was forgotten was that since the Report of the Commission was given the grievance had been aggravated as between different classes by the passing of the Education Act. In Surrey the rate had gone up nearly 1s. There
  658
  were districts in that county that never paid a penny for education before which were now rated 11½d. Farmers were only assessed now upon half the rateable value of their farms. Who had to make up the difference? The local tradesman, the artisan, and the manufacturer. After all, it was nearly as important from the point of view of the community that local industries should be kept up. In some cases they had almost been crushed out by the rates. There were cases in the West of England where the rates made all the difference between continuing industries and closing them up. Not only did they get no relief, but they had to pay an increased burden of taxation because of the reduced liability on the agricultural land.
  This Act was very unfair as between one class of agriculturists and another. The branch of agriculture which had suffered most seriously during the last few years had been that of arable land. There the labour was much more expensive, and the returns were not as profitable as from grass land. Hundreds of thousands of acres had gone out of cultivation in the East of England. He was told that there were thousands of acres of arable land in the East of England where no rent was paid now, and farmers were complaining that they could not make the tithe rates. What happened in those districts under the working of the Act? He would take Essex and Cambridge—cases of arable land districts. In Cambridge most of the land was arable—370,000 acres being arable land, and 120,000 acres grass land. In respect of the arable land the total relief was 8d. per acre. Contrast that with Somerset, where they got 6s. per acre on arable land. He was not surprised that the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Somerset supported the Act. Was that really fair? In Cambridge there was a struggling agricultural community which could hardly make both ends meet. The tithe was pretty high, and they got only 8d. an acre. He did not mean to say that there had been no agricultural depression in Somersetshire, but it was nothing as compared with the depression in the eastern counties. In Essex there were 510,000 acres of arable land, and there the

  659
  relief was 1s. 5d. per acre. Contrast that with the rich land of Chester, where rents were exceedingly high, running up to £2 and £3 an acre. The land was such in Essex that they could hardly pay tithe of 1s. 3d., whereas in Chester they got 3s. 5d. He did not think that was fair, and to say that this had been regarded by any responsible person who had entered into the question as a fair settlement of the question of rating in agricultural districts was to say a thing that could not possibly commend itself to any portion of the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had taunted the Opposition by saying that they had not opposed the Bill with the same savage ferocity which was shown seven or eight years ago. The Prime Minister had taunted them with having seven or eight years ago spent all night in opposing the Bill, while now they were content to spend only a couple of days. He wished to point out that only three or four Amendments on the Bill would be at all relevant and within the limits of order, and, therefore, they could not spend more time on it with the tenacity which was shown years ago. Once a Bill was an accomplished fact they could not contest it in the same way as when originally proposed. When it was only a question of renewing a contentious Bill they could not fight in the same way. Hon. Members opposite fought the Ballot Act with what might be called savage ferocity at the time it was brought forward, but new it was renewed every year without a word being said. Why? Because the principle had been established, and it was very difficult from their point of view to go back to the old procedure. The same thing applied to the Irish Land Act. The Party opposite fought that strongly, denouncing it as spoliation, robbery, and outrage, but they had gone on to legislate on the same principle, and to increase the reductions in rent by Bills which they had themselves introduced.
  A great deal had been heard lately as to the desirability of introducing some change for the purpose of restoring the prosperity of our agricultural industries, especially in connection with arable land,
  660
  because it produced more labour. This was an Act of Parliament which did not give a fair share to arable land. If the Government wanted to give a grant of £1,500,000 at all, why not distribute it on the industries that were languishing? When considering a question of this sort, the Government ought to pay some heed to the various classes of agriculture in this country. If Shropshire was anything like Essex it would get 1s. 6d. per acre, while Cheshire, a contiguous and very prosperous county, would get 3s. 6d. An hon. Gentleman opposite made an enthusiastic speech in support of the Bill, and he was quite right from the point of view of his constituents. He thought the hon. Member had voted for making the Bill permanent, but did he mean to say that this made a fair settlement of the problem? Since there was a grant of —1,500,000—he, frankly acknowledged that it could not be recalled—would it not be fairer to distribute it in such a way as to encourage the rather languishing agricultural districts, instead of those which were prosperous? He was perfectly certain that agriculture was not worse than certain industries followed by local tradesmen. He could speak from experience in regard to industries in his own district, and he knew that they had been hit very hard by local taxation, and yet there was no relief given to them at all. There was in the old days a cloth industry in the West of England, which was purely a myth now. It was once a prosperous industry, but it had been crushed out partly by high rates. Evidence was given before the Commission by manufacturers in the West of England to the effect that one of the questions they had to deal with was that of heavy local rating. They had to pay not merely the ordinary poor rate and the education rate but also the general district rates. Hon. Members opposite might say that the ratepayers got lighting and other conveniences, but, after all, these were only the essentials of civilisation in the district. It was not as if they were getting a contribution from the locality, and it could not be said that they were getting anything like a return. It was true that they were all getting a return from the rates, although it was not always very obvious.

  661
  He very much regretted that the Government had not faced this matter. He was afraid it was too late to make an appeal to them now. They had had the Report of the Royal Commission before them—the Report of men representing all shades of opinion—and even those who believed in the Agricultural Rating Act acknowledged that it was only a very small part of a very difficult problem. They acknowledged, too, the grievances of local rates in other districts. He protested against the renewal of this Bill for the third time without their making a real effort to tackle the whole question. He was not going into the question of mandate, but, at any rate, the Government had a mandate to deal with this question. But, instead of that, they roamed into all sorts of questions which nobody expected them to deal with, and they left on one side problems of this sort which were awaiting settlement, and which everybody expected they were going to tackle.
  This was one of the greatest problems of the hour. He knew that there were constant sneers at the local authorities because they were running up debts and rates, but he asked hon. Gentlemen who had sat on municipal coprorations or county councils whether, with the best will in the world, they had ever been able to keep down the rates? The rates went up and up in spite of everything. He had sat for years on a county council and had been returned, with others, as an economist. But what happened? At the end of three years it all ended in the rates being increased by 2d. or 3d. in the £. That was the case with the London School Board, when hon. Gentlemen opposite said that that body was buying pianos and providing dancing classes, and that all those sort of things should be cut down. But what was the result? Twopence or threepence were added to the rates. It was the irresistible tendency of things. The essentials of civilisation were driving them to greater expenditure. Take education; the legislation of the present Government had added a great deal to the education rate. He was not at all sorry that the Education Bill had compelled people who had
  662
  never previously contributed one penny towards education to pay their share. Everything seemed to conspire to increase the burdens on the community. He knew little towns where the people considered whether they should not, on account of the heavy rates, abandon everything to the mortgagees. East Ham was only the spokesman of many districts. There was a real danger of the people being taxed out of all their income. He was not going to suggest a remedy; but he held that people who had got the means and who at the present moment escaped responsibility from local taxation should be compelled to contribute acording to their means. These were matters which he would like to see the Government dealing with. The Government talked of being in power for another two years, but instead of going for the redistribution of the constituencies, let them redistribute the burdens.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was travelling very wide of the question before the Committee. Clause 1 dealt with the question of the continuance of the Agricultural Rating Act; and the hon. Gentleman must not introduce another subject.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the whole problem was whether the House was to continue this Act, and what he argued was that they should deal with the whole problem of local taxation. One of the reasons for the line of argument which he took was that the Government had the Report of the Royal Commission before them, and the reason why, in the first instance, the Act was made temporary was because that Royal Commission, sitting at that time, were agreed that the grievance was not purely agricultural.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he would point out that the hon. Gentleman was using an argument against the principle of the Act.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the whole principle of the Bill was contained in the first clause, and if that was to be contested at all then there was a

  663
  right to give reasons for contesting it. This was the proper place to discuss whether the Act should be continued. Really, the Government, instead of legislating in this form, ought to deal with the whole problem. It was a serious problem and year by year the Government had done nothing to settle it, and if his friend went into the division lobby he should vote with him.
  MR. SPEARsaid he could assure the hon. Gentleman that those who were interested in the continuance of the Agricultural Rating Act were anxious that something should be done in the interests of the trading classes; and when the time came for the accomplishment of that work he would find them ready to support that reform. They felt that the Agricultural Rating Act was a measure of simple justice, dictated by the greatly reduced paying power of the agricultural classes, and they did not think for a moment that it would interfere with the readjustment of the whole basis of local taxation. The hon. Member seemed to think that they were indifferent to the claims of the towns, but he would point out that the real relief of local rating must lie in placing on the Imperial Exchequer more of the expense for the maintenance of the roads, police, and sanitary arrangements than had hitherto been the case. Education should also be paid for by the Imperial Exchequer; and that principle was acknowledged to a certain extent in the Education Act of 1902. The hon. Gentleman considered that the advantages of the Agricultural Rating Act did not come to all classes of the agricultural community with equal advantage. That must necessarily be the case in a Bill which applied to a mixed community, but the divergence was not so great as his hon. friend seemed to think. The hon. Member apparently believed that the advantage applied almost exclusively to arable land; but that was an error into which those who did not understand agriculture were apt to fall when they spoke to practical men.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was against the whole principle of the relief of the agricultural interest; but what
  664
  he had said was, that if relief was to be given it should fall to the distressed districts.
  MR. SPEARsaid he was bound to admit that mixed farms had been less unprofitable than grazing farms.
  AN HON. MEMBER: How about milk?
  MR. SPEARsaid that there was a vast area of grazing land which was not available to produce milk, or, if it were produced, the farmers could not sell it. Mixed farming had been less unprofitable than grazing land, and, therefore, there was not much in what his hon. friend had said as to the difference of benefit falling on different kinds of land. There was the Poor Rate Exemption Act, which was renewed every year, and he only claimed that the Agricultural Rating Continuance Bill was an extension to the farmer of a measure of similar justice as was given by that Act to tradesmen. He rather wondered that the hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke so strongly when this little act of justice was done to agriculture and was silent every year when the Poor Rate Exemption Bill was before the House. He (Mr. Spear), however, rose to say that those who supported the Agricultural Rates Act recognised that the trader had a grievance, and to urge the Government to deal at the earliest possible moment with the whole question of the alteration of the basis of local taxation. When the present basis was formed there was nothing practically but real property on which to levy rates for local expenses, but since then personal property had grown at least three times in value to real property, and yet the owner of personal property, in respect of that property, contributed nothing to the cost of the roads, police, and sanitary matters, although enjoying the advantages from the outlay quite as much as though he were the occupier of real property. The evil effect of that was that it tended to drive away capital from the development of British industries and caused it to be used in developing other countries When a scheme

  665
  was brought forward to deal justly with the claims of the trading classes in the towns hon. Members would find those who supported this Bill equally anxious to do justice to the trading classes.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he believed the hon. Member for Carnarvon was wrong in stating that farmers in Somerset received 6s. an acre relief in rates on arable land. He ventured, however, to submit that it was an entirely fallacious argument to put this question forward. The question they were considering under this Bill was not relief on one kind of land or another. As he took it, the essence of the Act, and the only ground upon which he supported the original Act of 1896, was that it was an attempt to relieve the unfair burden of taxation from falling entirely on one kind of property which could least afford to bear it. The question should be looked at from one point of view only, namely, that it was unfair that one form of property should bear the whole burden of local taxation while other forms of property entirely escaped, and upon that ground he would certainly not be a party to opposing the continuation of the Bill for another four years.
  MR. BENNsaid the Committee ought not to vote for the continuance of this Bill without some more definite assurance from the Government that it would deal with the whole question. The hon. Member for Tavistock said when the time came he and his friends would be very glad to assist the boroughs. When would that time come? There was a very specific recommendation by the Royal Commission, namely, that in making the recommendation for the continuance of the arrangement embodied in the Act of 1896 they must not be regarded as in any way minimising their important proposals for altering the incidence of taxation which all classes of ratepayers felt, and that it was a matter of urgent necessity that practical effect should be given to those proposals. That recommendation provided some comfort at the time to the ratepayers of London, whose case had become critical. One very important item on the rating paper was occasioned by the Agricultural
  666
  Rates, Act. London contributed one-fifth of the extra taxation, or £467,000 per annum, in order to keep this Act in operation. London got back as its share of relief a paltry sum of £3,000, which meant that the ratepayers of London had to pay 3d. in the £ in order that this Act might be continued. It was a monstrous thing that London, overburdened as it was many other respects, was called upon for a further period to contribute to this fund. He was quite in favour of giving assistance to distressed agriculturists, but the distressed borough ratepayer should have at least some word of comfort from the Government. It was a most serious mater for London. The increasing rates of London were driving industries away, and if the ratepayers could be relieved of even this 3d. in the £ it would be useful work. Other boroughs would also be glad of the benefit. He might give the figures relating to Devonport, which were equally striking, and he hoped that before proceeding to a division the President of the Local Government Board would be able to say something for the comfort of London and the other boroughs.
  MR. TOULMINsaid he should like to join in the protest against the complacency with which the Government had introduced this Bill, and continued an injustice which was done to the boroughs. The Government had a very lively feeling towards the landlords in the country but a complete indifference to the injustice which was being done to trade, labour, and manufactures in the towns. It might be necessary to readjust the form in which the rates fell upon a community, but the rates were local charges and there was no reason why one locality should be called upon to pay another's rate. He could see no reason why the State should give to one locality more than it gave to another. There might be a necessity for a readjustment within a locality of such matters as lunacy and education which might beregarded as being of national concern; but if these services were to be readjusted they should be readjusted all round both for town and country. It appeared to be nothing

  667
  but gross favouritism that one particular class should be picked out for a dole. The manner in which it was done, too, was most unsatisfactory. It did not do justice as between one farmer and another, or as between one parish and another, or as between one county and another.
  *MR. CATHCART WASONwas understood to say that the essence of the Report on Local Taxation was to do away with the old scriptural maxim, "To him that hath much shall be given, and to him that hath little, even that little which he hath shall be taken away." The Government had been many years in office, had had the Report of perhaps the most able Commission that had ever been appointed before them for years, and had never made the smallest attempt to give effect to its recommendations. It was very painful for hon. Members of this House to constantly hear of doles being given to this class and to that. If the suggestion that had been made by the hon. Member for Tavistock had been adopted there would have been a great simplification of this matter. The agricultural people would have been satisfied and the hon. Member for Devonport would have had no reason to complain if it were recognised that certain charges ought to be national charges. In that way only could this question be got rid of and cease to be a recurring one. The crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland certainly derived great benefit from this Act, but even there there was much discontent among the cottars and villagers at the incidence of the rates. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs spoke of a 10s. rate in some parts of Wales, but the rates in some parts of the constituency that, he represented largely exceeded that sum, and if it were not for this Act many of his constituents would find it absolutely impossible to carry on owing to the heavy charges levied in respect of education, poor rates, and charges for lunatics, the latter charge being a most onerous one, and which should be borne by the nation. He trusted that the whole question of rating would be seriously taken up in the near future, whichever Party might be
  668
  in power, and dealt with, not only with regard to the continuation of this Act, but with regard to the whole question of rating as between town and country.
  *MR. A. K. LOYDsaid as an agricultural Member he desired to emphasise the fact that agriculturists would join all other classes of ratepayers most cordially in urging that the rating of the country be put upon a satisfactory basis. It was a great mistake to suppose that agriculturists were completely satisfied with the working of, or the benefit conferred upon them by, this Bill. There was no grievance existing so far as the urban ratepayers were concerned which was not still shared by the two sets of ratepayers who received relief under this Bill. The agricultural ratepayer had still all the grievances that the urban ratepayer had, and the grievance which he had been relieved from was one which he had in excess of those he shared with them. It must be remembered that the agricultural ratepayer was rated not only on his house and buildings but upon what might be described as an implement of his trade; he was rated on his land, which was no part of his housing, but simply part of his stock-in-trade. That was a tax in addition to those he bore in common with the urban ratepayer, and that was the grievance which was pointed out by the Royal Commission upon Agricultural Depression, on whose Report the Agricultural Rates Act was based. Then as to the clerical tithe-owner, he, too, shared to the full the grievance of the urban ratepayer in respect of his house and buildings. The injustice in respect of which he had benefited under the Tithe-rating Bill was that of being assessed not only on his house and buildings but on his salary, and that without any deduction for the expenses to which he was put in earning that salary. A great deal of confusion had arisen and immense injustice to the parsons from the blunder pointed out by the present Lord Lindley, then Master of the Rolls, of treating the parsons' income from tithe as realty instead of as profits, under which head alone they were rateable under the Statute of Elizabeth. The case of Reg. v. Christopherson, decided in 1885, exposed that

  669
  blunder and showed that it was as an "inhabitant" and not as an "occupier" that the parson was ratable for tithe, and if that had been borne in mind it would have been clear also that the parson was entitled to have a deduction of the necessary outlay in earning the profits so rated. When in 1840 all other personalty was exempted from rating the parsons' income from tithe was left rateable, and without any of the deductions to which as profits it was entitled. He was grateful to hon. Gentlemen opposite for having come round to the view that, however bad it might be, this Bill was not a job to give a dole to a particular class but an effort to deal with a very difficult subject. If it had been a bribe, as represented on platforms outside the House, no lapse of time could justify hon. Members in voting for its continuance. The fact was they recognised that, though far from a perfect Bill, it was really an honest attempt to deal with two real grievances acknowledged by strong Royal Commissions. Agriculturists were not less anxious for a reform in rating than the urban ratepayers, because they thought this was a defective method of dealing with the evil from which they suffered, and that it left them at the present time just as badly hit so far as their dwellings and buildings were concerned as other ratepayers. Therefore, there was no coolness on the part of the agricultural ratepayers in pressing the Government to go on with rating reform. The Committee must remember, however, that though this had been delayed for ten years that period had been one of enormous activity, both foreign and colonial. He was anxious to see such a Bill passed through, but he did not remember any time when the Government could have brought it in. A Valuation Bill was acknowledged to be a condition precedent to a Rating Bill, and last year when a Valuation Bill was brought in what happened? Although it was a symmetrical Bill framed on the considered advice of the experts of the Local Government Board, based on the Report of the Royal Commission, when it was brought in there was found to be such tremendous opposition from all parts of the country that the Bill was dropped. He hoped, however, to see that Bill revived in a form which would be acceptable to the
  670
  Boards of Guardians and the public generally.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down illustrated what had been characterstic of several of the speeches they had heard, namely, that although the hon. Gentleman was in favour of this Bill he did not regard it as entirely satisfactory. He himself was one of those who were impatient with regard to this Bill. He thought it was unsatisfactory because it was unjust, and if it was unjust it ought not to be considered for a moment either as a temporary Bill or otherwise. If they thought it was fair on the whole, it was, as a temporary measure, on the whole satisfactory; but if it was not just, then it could not be considered to be satisfactory under any circumstances. He held the same view as he had always held, namely that it was unfair as between the districts; that it was unfair to those who found the money and that it was unfair to those who received it. He would not speak of the liability of personalty to rating in the same way as realty, although of course under old statutes it was ratable. But almost insuperable difficulties arose in regard to the rating of personalty, and in consequence it was not persisted in, nor could any appeal be made on behalf of the land because these burdens were attached to the land. The proposals of this Bill were in the first place unjust as between the different localities. Let them take the case of London. London contributed between £460,000 and £470,000 a year towards this money, and she received £3,000 out of it. How could that be said to be fair. It could not be justified at all in any way, and the very mention of those figures would show what an enormously important proposal the proposal of this Bill was, because £500,000 or nearly £500,000 from London was an enormous contribution. That was about the amount that had been spent annually on London improvements during the last twenty years, and this money was being diverted from that and other useful purposes for the benefit of other parts, though no fairy was prepared to come forward and give

  671
  London £500,000 for the purpose of effecting such improvements as had been made during the last twenty years. The case of London was typical of that of other towns, and, therefore, he need say nothing more as to the injustice as between urban and agricultural districts. But when the money was given it was unjustly distributed, and he quite agreed with what had been said that it had been distributed rather in the sense of giving to those who had and taking from those who had not. For instance, the tradesman in a country village would suffer by his rates being made higher, whereas the farmer beside him, who was in a much more prosperous position, had his lowered.
  MR. SPEARsaid the tradesmen's rates would not be higher except in the case where the expenditure of the local board had increased since the passing of the Act.
  SIR ROBERT REIDagreed, but said the tradesman derived no benefit from this Bill, and a scale had been established by which he paid on a larger scale. The Act not only distributed the money unjustly but imposed a higher scale of payment on the tradesman, and therefore the hon. Gentleman would admit that he was correct in his observation when he said that as regarded those who found the money the Act was unfair. It was unfair in another sense also. He did not know how many years ago it was since the principle of Imperial grants in relief of rates was discussed in the House, but some years ago it was pointed out in the House by Mr. Hunter, who was then a Member, that Imperial grants were grants taken from the poorer classes of taxpayers in the majority of cases, and, as they were bestowed in relief of rates, they were bestowed in relief of a burden which was laid on those who were better off. Mr. Hunter then conclusively proved that when money was taken out of Imperial funds and bestowed in relief of rates, that money was taken out of the pockets of those who were less wealthy to put it into the pockets of those who were more wealthy, and in that sense this Bill was unjust. He had always
  672
  opposed this Act and should continue to oppose it.
  Why had not the subject of local taxation been taken up before? The Report of the Royal Commission was four or five years old, and there had been plenty of time between then and now to have dealt with this subject. When it was dealt with there would be no difficulty raised so far as the Liberal side of the House was concerned, because they were in favour of some proper reform of local taxation. He did not doubt that on many points they would come into line with the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, but at the same time all would agree that this was not a question which anyone could hope to take up with a view to obtaining the unanimous assent of the House. They had obtained some very valuable information from the Royal Commission, and it was, in his opinion, a very great pity that the Government had not brought in this very necessary Bill. So far as the Bill now before the House was concerned, he maintained that it was an unfair Bill, and that being so he should vote against it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURthought that in the present instance the hon. and learned Member would admit that he was speaking for himself alone and not for his colleagues. The Bill was described as being unjust and should, therefore, be thrown out. But that was not the view which had been taken by the Leader of the Opposition. He did not think that under these circumstances it was necessary for him to go at length into the fundamental arguments for or against the Bill, but he would say a few words in reply to the latter part of the hon. and learned Member's speech. As he had before pointed out, only four or five years had elapsed since the Royal Commission on Local Taxation reported, and in that period the circumstances had not been favourable for taking up so difficult a question. There must be a surplus at the Treasury sufficient to increase largely the contribution from Imperial to local funds, and such a surplus had not occurred. He thought that was admitted upon all sides. [Cries

  673
  of "No, no !"] Again, before the rating question was dealt with, valuation must be placed on a more uniform basis. Last year the Government brought in a Valuation Bill which met with a great deal of opposition, and, though there was another Bill in an advanced stage of preparation, its passing must depend on many doubtful circumstances. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were not so willing to pass even an unopposed Government measure as to give any great hope that such a controversial subject as that of valuation could be easily dealt with. There was a general consensus of opinion in favour of renewing these Rating Acts, and yet a whole day had been spent on the Second Reading. A whole afternoon last week was devoted to the Committee stage, and it seemed extremely likely that they were going to spend another afternoon before it was passed through Committee.
  SIR ROBERT REID: Surely the right hon. Gentleman makes no suggestion of obstruction?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that when measures on which there was agreement were to be discussed at such length the difficulty of introducing a Valuation Bill, with all its contentious questions, was obvious. Whichever Party introduced a Rating Bill it would be found to be one of enormous difficulty, and he doubted whether any attempt to reform the rating system would have any chance of success in the first year of its being made. But the question was becoming more and more urgent, and he hoped that within the four years for which the Act was being renewed an opportunity would be found either by the present Government or their successors for dealing with the question.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not said something a little more satisfactory in regard to the Valuation Bill. He had not given them much comfort in that respect, but instead of that they had received from the right hon. Gentleman a lecture, addressed to those on their side of the House, upon the assumption that they did not understand the extreme difficulties and complications of the question of local government and
  674
  local taxation. Really he thought they might have been spared those observations. Surely it was common knowledge that they all recognised that this was a question of extreme difficulty. The Government had informed them that the question of valuation lay at the root or this subject, and he should like to know why the Government were not proceeding with the Bill which they had undertaken to introduce. A Bill of this kind ought not to be mentioned in the King's Speech unless there was some intention of proceeding with it. It had been stated in the lobby that this Bill was going to be brought in elsewhere. Even if the Government were not hopeful of passing the measure surely they could introduce it in another place, and in that way have the question discussed. He protested against the history of the transactions in this House given by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this Bill. He understood that he did not actually accuse the Opposition of obstruction, but he used an expression which suggested that there had been a considerable amount of time wasted in the discussion of this measure. What happened the other day was entirely owing to the unusual course of action taken by the Government in regard to an Amendment moved from the Opposition side of the House, when all of a sudden the right hon. Gentleman announced his intention of accepting that Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that statement had been made three or four times and he had repeatedly contradicted it. The Amendment alluded to was never accepted by the Government.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid the Government announced that they were going to leave an important principle in the Bill an open question, and the result of that sudden change on the part of the Government led his right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton to move the adjournment of the debate because the Opposition were so entirely unprepared for such an entire change of front on the part of the Government. Then there came questions of order which led to further episodes, and he thought they had a right to protest against the charge that the

  675
  Opposition had caused any delay. In regard to the charge of obstruction he did not think that the Government had any cause for complaint at all in that respect.
  MR. DALZIELsaid most Members on the Opposition side of the House, and many on the other side, would associate themselves with the protest which the noble Lord had just made to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. Anyone who had listened to the debate would indignantly repudiate the suggestion that there had been a single speech made which was not a useful speech. This was avowedly one of the most important Bills which the Government had brought forward. On the present occasion they were practically adopting the principle of a measure which, when it was first brought forward, created much discussion. The debate had been in no sense obstructive. A great proportion of the time of the debate was occupied owing to the attitude of the Government towards an Amendment moved at an earlier stage. He would point out that one useful result of the debate had been that the right hon. Gentleman himself had been converted, because the other day he said that if a division was taken on the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Molton he would clear out of the House. When the division took place he supported the Opposition Members, so impressed had he been by the arguments against the Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that since he made the statement referred to the hon. Member for South Molton adopted the course which he suggested, and offered to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he would leave the House to judge whether that was a serious explanation on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He maintained that it had not the remotest bearing on the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, having stated that he would take no part in the division, afterwards voted against the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman did so because he recognised that the force of opinion was stronger than he had supposed. They now saw that the
  676
  promise to deal with the urban question was one made for Party purposes in order to get the Bill through. They ought to be grateful to the hon. Member who initiated this debate because, if it had been productive of no other result, it had called forth the speech of the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the Government, although they had been ten years in office, had not been able to find a single hour in which to deal with the grievances of urban ratepayers. The right hon. the Gentleman, told them that he was not going to deal with it. He said it would take two years to do so, and that meant, of course, that the present Parliament was not going to deal with it. But the Government had found time to give and to continue doles to their agricultural friends in the House and out of it. Hon. Members on his side would not be afraid to take that issue when the time came in the constituencies. The Government had shown an utter failure to appreciate the importance attached to this question throughout the country. They had passed this Act for the benefit of the agricultural class, but they had done nothing whatever to pass a Bill which would benefit the other portions of the community. If there had been any serious intention to pass the Valuation Bill which was introduced last session they could have got it through. If it had been sent to a Grand Committee upstairs, instead of the Aliens Bill on which time was wasted, it would, he assured the right hon. Gentleman, have been passed without any difficulty. It was owing to the mismanagement of public business by the Government that the Bill was not passed. The Committee had heard the further declaration that, although the measure dealing with valuation was mentioned in the King's Speech, the Government were still engaged in drafting it. Did that indicate any real intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to pass the Bill this session? Three months after the beginning of the session the were still considering the drafting.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is practically ready.
  MR. DALZIEL: If it is practically ready will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when it will be introduced.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: You cannot discuss the details of the Valuation Bill on this clause.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he had not mentioned a single detail of the Bill. He was asking information about its introduction because that had an important bearing on the value of this clause. The Government were simply playing with the question of rating and had no serious intention of dealing with it. That was a fact which they would take note of at the proper time in the constituencies.
  SIR MARK STEWARTsaid it was all very well to say that the Government had not brought in a Valuation Bill and a Rating Bill. Hon. Members knew that the one must precede the other. He should like to know when the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, or any other Member, thought the Government ought to have brought in those Bills. They had special Bills to bring forward, and they had carried them. When they brought in an Education Bill, and a Licensing Bill, they were told that they had no business to do so.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Question before the House.
  SIR MARK STEWARTsaid the Bill they were now discussing was a practical measure brought in with the object of relieving a very distressed community. He entirely differed from the observations that fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries as to the occupiers of land having no right to relief from Imperial taxes. Many occupiers of land were amongst the poorest and hardest working members of the community. Those who spent their time amongst agriculturists knew how poor they were, and the difficulty they had to make ends meet. The House and the Government were to be congratulated on having passed the Agricultural Rates Act.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the Opposition Members had been taunted by hon. Gentlemen opposite on account of the line they had taken with regard to this Bill. It was because the President of the Local Government Board suddenly accepted an Amendment moved on the Opposition side of the House proposing to make the Act permanent that there had been so much discussion. That Amendment raised a storm which lasted during the whole of the first day the Bill was in Committee. It irritated Members representing town constituencies into making speeches in opposition to the Bill. He thought those who represented agricultural constituencies had a right to say something as to the position they had taken for or against the Bill. Some of his friends had gone against this Bill absolutely, but he must admit that their arguments were not altogether fair. When this Bill was brought in it was on two pleas. The first was the unfair and unequal incidence of the rates. There was no question that in hundreds of instances there was an unfair incidence in the case of agricultural lands. But, as soon as that was proved up to the hilt, the supporters of the Bill said that agriculture was distressed and that relief should be given to it. That was quite true, but the way the Bill operated was to relieve the rich ratepayers and to oppress the poor. It was the land which could afford to pay the highest rent that got the most relief under this Bill, and he could not help saying that that was not the right way to relieve agriculture. In certain cases, small market gardeners were relieved; but not in the great bulk of cases. Whole tracts of land had gone out of cultivation in. Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, and Essex which were almost entirely arable and the lowest rented, and where it was most difficult to collect the money. There the agricultural population had been driven out of employment, and the land had only been relieved to the extent of 6d. or 8d. per acre, while other rich land in other districts had been relieved to the extent of 6s. or more. The hon. Member for Tavistock had said that the mixed farmers had done best. He quite agreed; but he would point out that the arable land was the most important to the

  679
  community because it employed more labour than the pasture lands where only a few shepherds were engaged. He quite agreed that this Bill relieved agriculture to some extent, but it did it in the wrong way. However, though he believed the clause under discussion might have been much better drafted, he would support it, because it was much better than if nothing at all had been done for agriculture.
  He hoped that there would be an assured promise from the Government that the whole question of rating would shortly be taken into consideration and dealt with in a comprehensive manner. The House ought to get some information as to the possible date on which such a measure would come on. Those who represented agricultural constituencies in different parts of England realised that agriculture was not well treated as regarded rates, and that this Bill did not relieve agriculture in the way it ought to do; and that a proper readjustment of rates in towns as well as in the rural districts would do more for agriculture than this Bill would do. Hon. Members who represented town constituencies might rest assured that all those who represented agricultural constituencies would be at one with them in pressing on the President of the Local Government Board to give a pledge that he was going to take the whole question of local taxation in hand very shortly. The hon. Member for Tavistock had spoken of the Poor Rate Exemption Act which was annually renewed.
  MR. SPEARsaid he had always voted for the renewal of that Act, but he thought that there was a much larger inequality under that Act than under the Agricultural Rating Act.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he quite agreed that the hon. Member did not think he ought to oppose the renewal of that Act; but he would point out that it was one thing to oppose an Act which was renewed periodically, and which had been only ten years in existence altogether, and another thing to oppose an Act which had been accepted, as a principle of law, since 1837.
  680
  What the hon. Member for Tavistock wanted, seemingly, was to ask for a general readjustment of the rating system by a side issue on the principles of an Act which had been practically obsolete since 1837, and which had been done away with because it was found that it would not work. Could it be imagined that anybody would be so insane as to go on such lines as that in order to get an agricultural grievance altered? He did not want to tread on everybody's coat tail; but the hon. Member for Berkshire, who was not satisfied with the discussion on the Agricultural Rating Act, pointed out that tithe was not real property, and that the Poor Rate Exemption Act of fifty years ago did away with rating on personal property. He believed that tithe was not personal property, but there were others who considered that tithe was neither "fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring," although it had always been treated in the way of rating as real property. He did not want to go into a subject which was raised so freely on the other side of the House; but he thought that the best way out of the difficulty was to get an assurance from the Government that they would deal with the whole question at an early date, and therefore he recommended his hon. friend to accept this clause. The Government had tried to readjust matters, but they had only succeeded in introducing confusion worse confounded, and trouble would be stirred up as between town and country. Every question which this Government had brought forward had caused strife. He would not oppose this clause so long as this was a temporary measure; but if hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies kept up the agitation for a readjustment of local rates they would get something done in that direction.
  MR. HARWOODsaid he did not think the House had been fairly dealt with, on the whole, in regard to this Bill. There was agreement that the agricultural business was suffering from a grievance in regard to rating, and they were told that this Bill was to remedy that injustice. But they were

  681
  also assured that as soon as possible the whole question of local taxation was to be put on a scientific footing. The Royal Commission went into the whole matter and made a Report with a view to settling the question; but now they were informed that there was no hope of that being done, and that the idea had been abandoned. That was hardly fair to those who had acknowledged that the urban ratepayers had something to complain of. Now it was neither proposed to deal with
  the whole question nor to give the urban ratepayer any compensation. That was not fair to the urban ratepayer. Either they must deal with the whole question and put both sets of ratepayers on a fair footing, or else give the urban ratepayer some relief as well as the agricultural ratepayer.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 244; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 162.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Crean, Eugene

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hay, Hn. Claude George

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Crombie, John William

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

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Helder, Augustus

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hoult, Joseph

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Hozier, Hn. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Austin, Sir John

  Denny, Colonel

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Edwards, Frank

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Lambert, George

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lamont, Norman

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N. R.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Bill, Charles

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bingham, Lord

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Boland, John

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Finlay, Sir R. B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bull, William James

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Butcher, John George

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A (Glasgow

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W

  Malcolm, Ian

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gardner, Ernest

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Garfit, William

  Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

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

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hain, Edward

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Halsey, Rt Hn. Thomas F.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Renwick, George

  Thornton, Percy M

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Tuff, Charles

  Murphy, John

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Myers, William Henry

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Webb, Colonel William George

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Percy, Earl

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wills, A. Walters (N. Dorset)

  Perks, Robert William

  Smith, Rt. Hn. J. Parker (Lanark.

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

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Spear, John Ward

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Younger, William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Purvis, Robert

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Randles, John S.

  Stroyan, John

  Rankin, Sir James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Johnson, John

  Roche, John

  Benn, John Williams

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Runciman, Walter

  Black, Alexander William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Langley, Batty

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Burns, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cameron, Robert

  Lloyd-George, David

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  M'Crae, George

  Toulmin, George

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Villiera, Ernest Amherst

  Delany, William

  M'Kean, John

  Wallace, Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  O'Dowd, John

  Willams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parrott, William

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Harwood.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Russell

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

  Reddy, M.

  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  GOVERNMENT SHIPS BILL
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Beading read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PKETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that in order that every ship flying the British flag might be furnished with proper papers, and that proper regulations might be made for the government and discipline of the men on board, it was necessary that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act should apply to it if it were a merchant ship, or the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act if it were a ship of His Majesty's Navy. A ship to which the Merchant Shipping Act applied must be the property of a British subject. But for the purposes of that Act His Majesty the King was not a British subject; and the law officers of the Crown had, therefore, come to the conclusion that certain ships which were the property of the Crown could not be registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, and, on the other hand, could not be brought under the Naval Discipline Act unless manned by the Royal Navy. The consequence was that certain ships, such as the hospital ship "Maine" and the distilling ship "Aquarius," which were Government ships but did not form part of the Navy, as well as ships in the service of other Government Departments, being manned by civilians, were able to enter only British ports abroad and not foreign ports. The object of the Bill was to remove this disability. Ships owned by Government Departments were the property of the Crown, and the Bill proposed to give to the Crown the privileges which were conferred on British shipowners by the Merchant Shipping Act, and thus enable the Admiralty and the other Government Departments to apply to any ships that were in their charge and were the property of the Crown such regulations as were necessary to enable those ships to obtain the necessary status in foreign ports, and to maintain proper discipline on board. He hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading, and then, if there were any points of detail which hon.
  686
  Members wished to raise they could be dealt with in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the Bill appeared to raise serious constitutional questions upon which the House would doubtless be glad to hear the Attorney-General. He did not rise to oppose the Bill; but he thought it was a very serious thing to give to the Admiralty power to make regulations in respect to these ships, in other words, to legislate without coming to Parliament at all. He hated legislation by reference, but this kind of legislation appeared to be even more objectionable.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he should have explained that it was proposed by the Bill that these regulations were to be made by Order in Council. He was prepared at the Committee stage of the Bill to provide that before these regulations had effect they should be laid on the Table of the House, so that the House might have the opportunity of expressing its opinion upon them.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that after midnight was not a good time for considering such questions. The Bill appeared to give the Admiralty power to pick and choose from the existing, statutes.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that was because there were terms in the Acts in reference to the Board of Trade and so on, which would not be applicable.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the proposed method of procedure was open to so much objection that he asked the hon. Gentleman to consider whether it was worth while to persevere with the Bill in its present shape. The House ought certainly to have a list of all the ships that would be affected by the Bill. The matter had come on somewhat unexpectedly, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would agree to withdraw the Bill for the moment.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the Secretary to the Admiralty had led the House to suppose that the Bill would apply only to a particular class of ships which were almost part of the Navy, and he mentioned that there was a difficulty about certain ships having proper papers, and that when they visited foreign ports the fact that they were not under the Naval Discipline Act led to inconvenience; but, if anybody looked through the Bill and examined it, they would find that it applied to all ships belonging to Government Departments, which embraced an enormous number of ships manned by civilians and which were not part of the Navy at all. They would have men who were civilians in every sense of the word brought under the Naval Discipline Act, and he hoped the House would not accept this without further explanation. Possibly it would be beneficial that the Admiralty should have power in some cases to apply the Naval Discipline Act, but the Bill applied to all ships employed by Government Departments, including ships employed by the Board of Trade, harbour tugs and so on. If the Bill was to stand as it was he should have to oppose it, because it would cast upon many of his constituents, who were purely civilians, the onerous conditions of the Naval Dicipline Act.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid this had been carefully thought out, and no man would be engaged except under the Merchant Shipping Act and if it were proposed to place him under the Naval Discipline Act in case of war he would have the option of re-engagement. The whole object of the Bill was to avoid the necessity of employing costly naval ratings in Government ships which were now manned by civilians.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that was not the purport of the Bill at all; there was no mention about war.
  MR. PRETYMAN: It would be put into the regulations, which would be laid before the House.
  MR. KEARLEYpointed out that other Departments than the Admiralty had
  688
  been taken into consideration, and it was the intention of the Bill that ships owned by any Government Department should, at the option of the Admiralty, be put under the Naval Discipline Act. The "Maine" and the "Aquarius" were doubtless manned mainly by blue-jackets and naval artificers. His case was that, unless these powers were curtailed, very important civilians would come under the Naval Discipline Act. If the Secretary to the Admiralty would assure him that that would not happen, he should not be so much disposed to oppose this Bill. At the present time many of the men employed in his constituency readily stated their grievances, but under this Act they would scarcely be allowed to open their mouths.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid they had been told that the groundwork of this Bill was the discovery that had been made that His Majesty the King was not a British subject. He should have imagined himself that anything open to be done by British subjects was most certainly open to His Majesty the King to do. The hon. Gentleman said that a British vessel must necessarily be owned by British subjects, but there were plenty of British ships flying the British flag which were owned by foreigners. This Bill gave the Government power in regard to any ships under the control of any Government Department, not merely to put them under the Naval Discipline Act—and that would be hard enough although it was a considered system of naval discipline, and so was the Merchant Shipping Act—but it proposed to allow the Government to take whatever it liked out of the Naval Discipline Act and the Merchant Shipping Act, and leave what it liked, and to do this without the authority of the House, except the general authority given by this Bill. Under the Naval Discipline Act the men could be deprived of all civil rights, and, therefore, a measure of this kind should be watched with the greatest possible jealousy. To allow a Department to pick and choose in this way was a proposal which he wondered could be seriously made. They must know what the rules were to be in detail, and they should make certain that no wrong would be done to the men. This measure

  689
  placed the whole thing in the hands of the Executive Government, and he strongly objected to it. What he objected to most was the power given by this measure of making new rules. This Bill was contrary to all constitutional principles. If the Government wanted to impose regulations let them bring them down to the House, and put them into a schedule. He did not think they ought to give the Government such enormously unlimited power as was proposed in this Bill.
  SIR ROBERT REIDthought the objections which had been raised to this Bill were not at all unreasonable, and this was not the first time that his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn had stood up for constitutional principles in opposition to the revolutionary proposals of the present Government. It was a cruel thing that instead of proposing the conditions and rules they were now proposing under this Bill that the Government should be able to declare what conditions should apply to these men. The Bill said that the Government were to be limited in making these regulations, and Clause I said—
  "For the purpose of prescribing the papers to be carried by these ships, and regulating the employment of persons on board these ships, and the discipline of persons so employed."
  Therefore, it was clear that the Department was to make rules in regard to the terms of employment and discipline, and the hon. Member for King's Lynn was in error in supposing that they must be taken either from the Naval Discpiline Act or the Merchant Shipping Act, for they could take any set of rules they liked.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he quite understood that, for they would be able to take out what they liked, and they might take other rules.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that that was a very remarkable power to be given to any Department. If those two Acts did not suit them they might bring in something which was not in the one Act or the other. It was quite true, as the hon. Gentleman had said, that the provisions had to be laid before Parliament,
  690
  but as a matter of fact the value of that requirement was not very great. In regard to what subjects was this great power to be given? In the Naval Discipline Act, and the Army Act, Parliament year after year enacted the regulations which applied to sailors and soldiers, and now it was proposed that for the vessels to which this Bill applied any regulations might be made law by Order in Council. Surely that could not be right. It was no good saying that the opponents of the measure were conjuring up an evil, and that they knew that these powers would not be abused. If there was any constitutional precedent for what was now proposed it ought to be stated. The fact was that the Government proposed to regulate the terms of employment and the discipline of persons on board a particular class of ships, and they ought to tell the House what they proposed. What were to be the terms of employment and what was to be the discipline? Then they would know whether they should assent to the Bill or not. They ought not to assent to the making of laws in this matter by Order in Council. He hoped that hon. Members on both sides of the House would indicate to the Government that this was not a good constitutional principle.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said he had listened with great interest to what his hon. and learned friend had stated as to the principles of the Constitution. He wished to state why this Bill should now be carried to a Second Reading, and any matters of detail left to the Committee stage. The Merchant Shipping Act, of course, contained a code of regulations for vessels which did not belong to His Majesty, but there was no provision to meet the difficulty that had arisen. If the vessels were not to be under the Merchant Shipping Act, the only alternative was that they should be under the Naval Discipline Act in its entirety. It might be said, why not set out in the Bill those portions of the Merchant Shipping Act and the Naval Discipline Act it was desired to apply? But the Merchant Shipping Act consisted of 748 sections.
  SIR ROBERT REID: Not applicable to this subject. There are not five so applicable.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he differed profoundly from his hon. and learned friend with regard to the number. If they were to set out in the Bill all the sections it was desired to apply, it would certainly make the Bill a very long one and might lead to protracted debate. All they wanted was power to make reasonable regulations for the government of these ships which would enable them to visit foreign ports without putting them under the white ensign. Hitherto when these vessels had visited foreign ports they had been put under a commissioned officer and had been subject to the Naval Discipline Act. They thought that unnecessary. There were a number of vessels of this kind in regard to which it was not necessary that they should be under the Naval Discipline Act, and some provision must be made for them. The right thing was to give power to His Majesty by Order in Council to make such provision for the government of these vessels as seemed fitting and proper. Every point which could be taken in Committee as to restricting the power to make these regulations so as to prevent the possibility of abuse would be most fully considered; but he hoped the House would not be led by any of the phantoms which had been conjured up to refuse a Second Reading to a measure which, he was quite sure, would in every way prove beneficial.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading stated that the object of the Bill was to allow these ships to go into foreign ports, but the proposals went beyond that. It was a Bill for regulating employment and discipline in these ships.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he himself had never stated that the only object was to enable ships to visit foreign ports. Difficulty had also been felt as to the enforcement of discipline on these vessels to which the Merchant Shipping Act did not apply. Did anybody desire that powers should not be given to the Government
  692
  in that matter. Some provision must be made, and they would welcome any reasonable precautions to prevent the possibility of abuse.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked the hon. and learned Gentleman if he had any objection to put in a schedule to the Bill the particular regulations that would apply.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that matter would be considered, but he thought that, in determining what regulations should apply, very minute and prolonged examination would be wanted. Experience might show from time to time that it was desirable to vary the regulations, and it would, in his judgment, make the measure less valuable if they had a cast-iron framework of regulations in an Act of Parliament that could not be altered except by passing another Act.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Are the regulations framed?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he did not know; but he would undertake to bring the regulations before the House when they were framed. It was very necessary that such a power should be contained in this Bill.
  MR. BLAKEsaid he agreed with his right hon. friend below him that the power asked for was a power not applicable to the Merchant Shipping Act. Why should not this careful and prolonged examination to which the Attorney-General referred be made, and the result submitted to the House? Parliament was asked to accord an absolutely unlimited power of regulating the discipline as well as the employment of persons on these vessels. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General said it would be much more convenient not to have cast-iron regulations in an Act of Parliament, but to allow modifications to be made from time to time by an Order in Council. But that might be said of any Act which interfered with the liberty of the subject. He did not see that there was any special, case for giving this extraordinary power in this particular instance.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid he could not understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he talked about the liberty of the subject, for no man was to be compelled to go under the regulations. He suggested that the Bill might be read a second time, and the regulations brought up and inserted on the Committee stage.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he was unable to imagine what had taken place that ships of this class should suddenly be put under new regulations. The House was entitled to some explanation as to any difficulties that had arisen in controlling the crews of these vessels. These vessels used to sail under the white ensign. When they did that in what way were they distinguished from the ships belonging to the Royal Navy?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: They were under the same discipline.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: We want to know why on earth it was necessary to make this change?
  MR. PRETYMAN: Purely as a matter of economy. The object is that the expense of the present system may not be continued.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid that when the hon. Gentleman came down and said that he wanted this Bill because of the economy which would arise from it, surely he did not mean to say that a large number of men employed on these vessels had been disrated.
  MR. PRETYMANwas understood to say "No."
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the reply of the hon. Gentleman showed more than ever why the Bill should be carefully considered. There was a large number of civilians on board these vessels who probably did not want to be brought under the Naval Discipline Act, and these new regulations came in somewhere between the Naval Discipline Act and the Merchant Shipping Act. Why were not these new regulations placed before the House? They ought to be discussed with the Bill and in connection with
  694
  the Bill. The Government apparently wanted the House to vote this Bill in the dark. They were going to alter the status of a large number of British subjects who, up to the present, were under the ordinary law. The case for the Bill, he believed, had been exaggerated. The difficulties which had arisen in the past had been got over; they very seldom arose. These men would be very amenable to discipline, and would be as well under the control of the officers if rated under the Merchant Shipping Act as under regulations of which they knew absolutely nothing. Really, to ask the House to pass a Bill to authorise the King in Council to alter the status of men in civil employment who did not wish to come under the Naval Discipline Act, without the Admiralty having first drawn up the new regulations, was a totally improper proceeding.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

EVENING SITTING.

  WEST INDIAN COLONIES (ADMINISTRATION).
  *MR. LAMONTsaid he rose to call the attention of the House to the affairs of a group of colonies to which their attention was but seldom directed. The West Indies, which had been mentioned in a recent debate in connection with the abandonment of the naval base at St. Lucia, as having been the scene of some of the greatest naval battles in our history, by reason of their ancient sorrows had been the battlefield in this House on which repeated contests had been fought out between the forces of two opposing schools of political economy. What he wished the House to consider was whether there might not be causes for these calamities more deeply seated than those suggested by discussions on the Sugar Convention or upon the bounty question, which had caused those calamities to occur again and again and thus to retard that prosperity which was the rule under the British flag elsewhere. They had seen depressions

  695
  sweep over the West Indies so prolonged in duration, so acute in their character and so constant in their repetition as to almost reveal the paradox of a chronic crisis. Commission after Commission had been appointed to inquire into these calamities, with various terms of reference, with various results, and making various recommendations. The most recent was that in which the right hon. Member for Berwick was a prominent member. That was appointed in 1897. That Commission made very important investigations and important recommendations which had mostly been carried out. An earlier Commission was that which was constituted under Sir Robert Hamilton in 1893–1894 to inquire into the condition of Dominica, and that Commission also made recommendations still more important in their character, which had been partially carried out. The earliest Commission—to which he intended to allude—was appointed in 1884, and it made recommendations of the very highest political value, hardly any of which had been carried out. The Report of the 1884 Commission remained to-day as true, as practical, and as urgent as on the day on which it was written, and it was idle to recommend further inquiries into the condition of the West Indies until those recommendations and the principles imderlying them had been carried into effect.
  Two great themes ran through all the three volumes of the Report of this Commission. The first was the expediency of bringing the West Indian Colonies more closely together, and the second the desirability of inter-colonial free trade with a tariff in common between the whole of these Colonies, a tariff as low as was compatible with revenue purposes. He wished to persuade the House of the vast importance of these reforms in order to make these colonies not only more prosperous, stronger, and more united, but more self-reliant, and that we should never be able to do so long as each island was under a separate Government. Inlands, some of them not larger than those which he had the honour to represent in the House, certainly not richer, and some not more populous,
  696
  were burdened with all the paraphernalia of the Government of a first-class European State. Governors, colonial secretaries, chief justices, auditor-generals, commandants, attorney-generals, and solicitor-generals were simply jostling one another in the West Indies. Now, governors and chief justices were well enough in moderation; colonial secretaries and attorney-generals, doubtless, had their uses; even solicitor-generals were all very well in their proper place; and he would venture to remind the House that he had the honour to represent a constituency which was a good judge of solicitor-generals and of their proper place. But surely one of each of these dignitaries should be sufficient for a population of 1,500,000. At any rate, one law officer per 100,000 of the population was an altogether excessive allowance. But that was not all. Each island, or each group of islets, had its own separate tariff, imposed, not only against foreign countries and the mother country, but against the other West Indian Colonies, and in the case of the Windward Islands against the other islands in the same colonial group. The West Indies were, in short, the protectionists' paradise; so many islands so many scientific tariffs, and he supposed it ought to be so many scientific tariffs, so many self-sustaining empires. But the West Indies were the reverse of self-sustaining in any sense of the word. He would give the House an instance or two of the conflicting tariffs. Flour, for instance, in Jamaica was subjected to a duty of 8s. a barrel. In Antigua it was 6s. 8d. a barrel, and Trinidad it was 3s. 4d. a barrel. In the Island of Jamaica the ad valorem duty imposed averaged 17 per cent., in the Windward Islands 7½ to 15 per cent., while in Trinidad it averaged 5 per cent. Trinidad was the best in most respects as hers was the lowest tariff, although hon. Members opposite might hold that that of Jamaica was the best because it was the highest tariff.
  But in many respects the position was even worse now than it was twenty-one years ago. Two of the worst results of the present system were an excess of highly-paid officials and a chaos of

  697
  tariffs. A third was the inadequate and unsuitable character of the system of education. There was still no scientific and technical training, and it was only within the last seven or eight years that there had been any agricultural education, either primary or secondary, and the fact that there was any at all was due to the Report of the 1897 Commission, and the able and splendid work done by Sir Daniel Morris. The present system had two defects—it stopped short at secondary education, and agricultural education was confined almost entirely to children of the peasant and artisan class. He wanted scientific training for the captains and non-commissioned officers of industry as well as for the private soldiers. The backwardness of the sugar industry was due to the apathy displayed regarding higher education. The responsibility for providing such education had lain, not with the planters and landowners, but with successive Governments. The 1897 Commissioners recommended the establishment of central factories for turning out a modern class of sugar, but he submitted that it would be useless to establish such factories unless in the first place they established central factories for turning out a modern class of men. It would be impossible for the West Indies to compete with the skilled men turned out by America and Germany until they had scientifically trained chemists for work in factory and field. No one colonial Government could take up this great problem, but if there were a strong central Government for all, it would be quite in its power to deal with what was the crying need of the islands and set up a central technical University for all the West Indies. Such a University should take over the work of the present Imperial Department of Agriculture and affiliate to itself the various secondary agricultural schools, which had been established in the islands as the result of the recommendations of the 1897 Commission, and it should also take over for the purposes of teaching the experimental stations which had existed for some years in the islands. At present the young men of the middle class had only two professions to follow, they either became doctors or lawyers in colonies glutted with law and medicine.
  698
  They should have the opportunity of education in the great industries on which the prosperity of the colonies must for all time depend.
  The Colonial Secretary would have appreciated, he thought, the importance of having a central West Indian Government to deal with during the mail contract negotiations. He might be congratulated upon having stumbled on the right solution by accident, if he might say so without offence, of having no contract at all. It would be for the benefit of all concerned; it would probably result in more frequent and efficient service, and would be no injury to the Royal Mail Company, while at the same time other lines would be induced to compete for a share of the traffic and thus bring about a system of free trade in mails which would have all the benefits that free trade and fair competition brought. The case for administrative federation could not be better put than it was by Sir Robert Hamilton in his Report of 1894, in which he recommended for the British Antilles an administrator with specially delegated powers, and through whom communications with the Colonial Office should pass. The federal capital should, however, not bein either Barbados, Trinidad, or Jamaica, because it would undoubtedly create jealousy in those two islands which were not selected for the seat of the capital. It should be located in one of the lesser islands, St. Lucia, for instance, and there it would be some compensation for the loss of the naval base. But wherever that capital was located the Government should have a large steam yacht to convey the Administration from time to time to the different islands. The 1897 Commissioners considered the necessity of a steam yacht as a great argument against federation. It depended, he thought, on whether Britannia ruled the waves, or whether it was the waves that ruled Britannia. He believed that Britannia ruled the waves, and that, to the first maritime power, the calm and placid waters of the tropics formed not an insuperable barrier, but a cheap and easy means of communication. The best form of government would be a strong central Administration, under a benevolent despot. Difficult as it was to find such a man, it was still

  699
  more so to find a benevolent oligarchy, and to an oligarchy government in some of the West Indies closely approximated. This was why so little attention had been paid to one of the most important recommendations of the Commission of 1897. Among these, and recurred to again and again by the Commission, was the settlement of peasant proprietors on the Crown lands. In spite of neglect by local governments—notably in Trinidad—some progress had been made in this direction, but there should be an organised plan of settlement on suitable areas with extension of means of transport. But instead of this the Crown lands had been given out on no definite plan or system, and, as a rule, no means of transport had been provided for the peasant proprietors, and the result had been an uneconomic system of squatting which had been of no advantage to the colonies, no advantage to the great established industries, nor to the squatters themselves. Having outlined the policy which he believed this House should take with regard to the West Indian Colonies, he thanked the House for the indulgence shown to a new and nervous Member. He asked for no Imperial grants, and rather deprecated that form of assistance. Such grants reminded him of the action of the heraldic pelican drawing blood from the breast for her young, an action generous to the verge of Quixotism, but at the same time indicating some lack of fertility of resource on the part of the pelican. The policy which he advocated was one which he believed would conduce far more largely to the lasting prosperity of those ancient colonies. He begged to move.
  MR. CALDWELLseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to extend federal institutions in the British West Indies, in order to improve and to cheapen the administration of those colonies."—(Mr. Lamont.)
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the admirable speech of his hon. friend showed that they should have in him an
  700
  acquisition to the debating power of the House. Not only did his speech contain good matter, but it was relieved by an amount of humour which showed that he, at all events, would be able to treat serious questions in a pleasant fashion. If he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice on the Paper, it was not because he differed from the speech of his hon. friend in any way, but for reasons which had been discussed in previous Parliaments. The remedies would, he thought, have to be more drastic for the evils his hon. friend had pointed out. As regarded those evils, he agreed with him entirely, and if he had any criticism to make, it was that he had spoken as though the problem was still one of the sugar industry, whereas now, happily perhaps, sugar had receded into the background as regarded production in the West Indies, and other commodities had taken its place. His hon. friend had gone very far in the direction in which he would ask the House to go still further, when at the beginning of his speech he asked for colonial free trade; and although his hon. friend dwelt on free trade in the West Indies, he did not think that he intended to limit it to the West Indies. Judging from the reasons he gave, his hon. friend desired to have free trade between the West Indies and the Dominion of Canada. That meant free food in the West Indies, where at present the taxation was levied mainly upon food. All desired to cheapen the Government of the West Indies and to take away from the Colonial Office any patronage which was mere patronage exercised to the detriment of the islands. But the main evil was the oligarchic system of government, and the throwing of taxation entirely upon the working classes for food and clothing. The remedy suggested meant giving up a large proportion of the present Customs revenue of the island. It did not mean giving up the present Customs revenue levied upon the export of cotton goods from this country to those islands, which was a substantial portion of their revenue. The revenue was mainly raised upon the food and clothing of the working classes, that upon clothing, which consisted of Manchester cotton goods and in a secondary degree, of slop clothing. Although

  701
  the West Indies sent us a larger value of cocoa than the amount of Manchester cotton goods which we sent to them to clothe their working classes, the amount of those cotton goods was far larger than the amount of sugar they sent to us.
  To what did those facts point? They all wished to cheapen and improve the Government of the West Indies. The patronage had not always been so well exercised that it could be regarded as a credit to the Empire. He did not wish to attack the Colonial Secretary or his predecessor, or any particular Colonial Secretary, but during the time the present Colonial Secretary was at the Bar he probably became aware of the scandals of certain legal patronage in the West Indies which had certainly led to at least two lunatics being sent, and within the knowledge of that House there had been another suspected of being insane. The Colonial Office thought he was mad.
  There was next the remedy of further federation, a remedy which he believed the West Indies, generally speaking, were agreed about. But federation upon what terms? There his hon. friend stopped short; he condemned what he called, and rightly called, the oligarchic system of the present government, and he suggested that one great official from home—one despot—would be the remedy. If they could not introduce a government for the people in the West Indies he (Sir Charles Dilke) admitted that such a proposal was infinitely better than the existing system of government, but he should be sorry to admit there were not at least some of the islands fitted for more democratic government. He doubted whether it would be wise to aim at uniformity in the government of the islands. The matter was discussed in this House in 1896 and 1897, and the then Colonial Secretary supported the oligarchic system. Some of them then asserted that either a benevolent despot or some democratic system of government, in some, at all events, of the islands, would be better than the oligarchic system, but the Colonial Secretary defended the oligarchic system as being the best. In the West Indies as in Ireland those who had declined
  702
  to trust a representative body of people had attempted the opposite plan of killing Home Rule by kindness. A system of doles had been given by those afraid to trust the people, and whenever any attempt had been made to widen the suffrage, the answer had always been "Look at Haiti." Anything was better than the elective system such as existed in many of the islands at present, and which was a mere shadow of an elective system among a very limited class, whose own interests were different from the labouring class, which formed the majority. Members were apt to look upon Barbados as having the most liberal Constitution of the islands, yet in Barbados he believed less than one in 120 of the inhabitants formed the electorate. It was a mere pretence of an elective system, and was in fact an oligarchy, a government by a small body of persons whose interests, notably in taxation, were different from those of the great majority. It would be impossible to maintain a system which levied more than a half of the whole of the expense of this unduly costly government on the food and clothing of the people if there were a wider electoral basis. Experimentally he thought a more democratic system might be tried in some of the islands, and he agreed with his hon. friend that if they could not, or would not, widely extend that system, then the plan which his hon, friend proposed was infinitely better than the present one.
  It would be impossible, with a High Commissioner, to maintain such a fiscal system as that in the islands at the present time. He would quote the opinion of one who was formerly Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and had intimately studied the question from the Government point of view, and carried weight in the House. He referred to Mr. Leonard Courtney, who had just published a new edition of his book called the "Working Constitution," in which he used the following words with regard to the West Indies—
  "The Governors were from early times associated with representative institutions which sometimes claimed to control taxation. Had the claim been effectually established responsible government must have followed. When

  703
  it has been found impossible to overcome the … local Assemblies by other means they have been suppressed."
  Of Jamaica he said—
  "In 1900 Mr. Chamberlain placed the nominated members of the Assembly in a majority."
  Of the West Indies generally Mr. Courtney said—
  "Where the character of the mass of the population forbids the establishment of throughly democratic principles the determination of authority oscillates between government from at home and government by a privileged racial minority. The existing political organisation of the West Indian Islands cannot be regarded as permanent. Some movement must be expected either towards a clearer establishment of the authority of the delegate of the Crown or towards fresh experiments in responsible government.
  With those words he entirely agreed, and he thought the time had come when they must face the fact that a more drastic remedy than merely federation was required, and that the time had come to try a democratic government in the islands ready for it; and, if not, to adopt the benevolent despotism suggested by his hon. friend. Take the two great islands doing the largest trade. Jamaica and Trinidad exported about the same amount of products. Jamaica exported about £2,250,000 worth, of which sugar was less than £250,000. Trinidad's exports were £2,500,000 sterling, of which sugar was less than £500,000. They had already reached the time, therefore, when sugar had taken a back place. As the peasant proprietors increased in numbers more and more attention would be paid to fruit and to products like ginger and arrowroot. In the case of Jamaica there were already 120,000 persons holding less than ten acres apiece. His hon, friend spoke of the decline in the prosperity of the islands. The decline was often taken for granted, but it hardly bore examination tried by the test of figures. Look at the money the islands were raising by taxation at the present time of so-called ruin as compared with the period of slavery and so-called prosperity. In the most palmy days of the sugar industry the total revenue of the islands was under £500,000 sterling a year; now it was £2,500,000 sterling, and was rapidly increasing. That enormous
  704
  revenue was raised under an oligarchic system, and the only way to get rid of such a fiscal system was to give place to democratic interests. Far more than half of the taxation was levied from Customs, and chiefly upon the necessaries of the poor, except in Jamaica, where it was only a third, thus reducing the average to a half. The average duties mainly raised upon food and cheap clothing were 15 per cent., taking the whole islands through.
  Then look at the grievances of the working population. A large portion of the money, for example, raised in Trinidad from taxation was spent in introducing the destitute alien to compete with the native population. In South Africa the Kaffir had not been made to pay directly for bringing the Chinaman in, and in this country the destitute alien came in without being paid to do so, but in the case of the British West Indies, as M. de Lanessan, the French Minister of Marine, had pointed out, there was a working population taxed upon the food and other necessaries of life to bring in the people who were to compete with them in their land. His hon. friend had very properly suggested that although he was opposed as he (Sir Charles Dilke) was to a policy of doles, this country owed the West Indies some consideration on account of the sudden cessation of local expenditure on our Navy and Army, which from loans besides that from taxes, since 1896 amounted to £1,500,000 sterling. He moved as an Amendment "That no change in institutions of the British West Indies will be satisfactory which does not recognise the predominant interest of the majority of the taxpayers in the administration of the colonies."?
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'no change in the institutions of the British West Indies will be satisfactory which does not recognise the predominant interest of the majority of the taxpayers in the administration of the Colonies.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke)—instead thereof
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  *MR. MALCOLMsaid he should have liked the honour of seconding the Resolution, because, although he did not see eye to eye with his hon. friend, he was exceedingly glad that the question should be open for discussion, and he made no secret of the fact that he should have liked to have been the first to congratulate his fellow-countyman upon his excellent first appearance in the House. It was most appropriate that on his first appearance he should have delivered so excellent a speech upon a subject of which he was so well entitled to speak by virtue of his intimate connection and acquaintance with the West Indies. No one who heard the speech could doubt that his earnest desire for the federation of those islands was dictated by the wish that they should become a stronger part of our Imperial organisation by reason of that union which was supposed always to give strength. All were anxious to see the West Indies stronger than they were at present, less dependent upon the mother country, and more largely inhabited by the white races of energy and initiative. Especially was that the case when these islands of the Carribean Sea were likely to assume, in the immediate future, a position of gigantic international strategic and commercial importance consequent upon the making of the Panama Canal, and to become, as they were in the days of Cromwell and Nelson, once more the nerve centre of our maritime power in the future. Not only so, but these islands of the Carribean Archipelago were outposts, as Captain Mahan told them, of the Panama Canal itself as surely as Aden was an outpost of the Suez Canal. The fact that Nelson went to the protection of those islands, and risked the security of the English Channel in so doing, afforded a gauge of the value set at that time upon the West Indies, isolated as they were from one another in the days of sailing ships, and a measure of their enhanced importance now that could be united by a service of fast steam vessels.
  706
  He agreed with his hon. friend that these islands should be kept strong. The question was, would federation do this? Could a legislative bond enacted by this country cement together many islands of greatly varying conditions, different creeds, and widely different states of prosperity? The only common basis for federation that he had been able to discover was the common basis of complete dependence on the mother country. He could not say he had found them anxious to advance with a stride to legislative and financial independence. On the contrary, their first impulse in times of pressure, or at times likely to lead to pressure, was not to help themselves but to come to the British Treasury for assistance. Nor could he wonder at it: for the black population had no true sense of independence and, since the abolition of slavery the white population had been, to use a vulgar expression, spoon-fed by the British Treasury. In addition, nature seemed to have heaped up all her horrors and poured them down upon the head of these islands, and the vitality of both white and black races seemed to be totally unable to cope with them. Nothing would disturb the inhabitants of the West Indies more at the present moment, when all the islands were financially sick, than to think that anything was being done to weaken their hold on the heart and purse of the British Treasury. The idea of a Federal Legislature under a beneficent despot might be dismissed as impracticable. Questions of distance and climate militated against any scheme of a great central administration. The second scheme of Federation was that of grouping, with a Federal Legislature super-imposed upon local Legislatures in the different islands. This plan left Jamaica practically as at present, grouped Trinidad with British Guiana, and the Windward and Leeward Islands with Barbados. Outside the Treasury difficulty, which would always abide, this plan had less inherent difficulties than the system of a central federal administration. But even under the grouping system, the residents in British Guiana would probably declare it to be a thousand pities that their colony should be grouped with Trinidad, seeing that British Guiana had prospects of gold and diamonds

  707
  before it, and might shortly become so rich that it would have to be treated under quite a different system; while the people of Barbados would object to the alteration of the second oldest Colonial Constitution under the British flag. In any case it would be very difficult to destroy the local Legislatures or to super-impose upon them the federal central body suggested by the Resolution; and his hon. friend would probably agree that it should not be done without the consent of the great majority of the inhabitants of the islands.
  He doubted whether much economy would be effected by federation. There would probably be scores of letters of protest against every proposal to abolish any of the existing posts. The residents and natives were extremely proud of their officials; and, even if many of the smaller posts were dispensed with, it was questionable whether the necessary work could be done by fewer men in the trying conditions that obtained unless much larger salaries were paid. It was not actual administration that cost so much in the West Indies, but education, poor relief, and the distribution of medicine. He admitted that the West Indies were not in a satisfactory state at the present time; but the proposal to extend to them responsible government could not be entertained in view of the slight interest of the inhabitants in political life. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Baronet opposite was mistaken in the figures he had given to the House.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the figures he gave purported to be the numbers on the electoral roll.
  *MR. MALCOLMsuggested that possibly 16,000 had power to vote, but only 1,600 exercised their power. At any rate very little political interest was shown by the black inhabitants of the islands. If the solution suggested by his hon. friend of a federal central authority was wrong, and if the solution of the right hon. Baronet was equally inapplicable, then least of all were the West Indies likely to gain strength through the policy of the Government at the present time in abandoning St. Lucia as a naval base and denuding the West Indies of British white troops. In warning the Colonial
  708
  Secretary against this strange military and naval change, with the permission of the House he would read an extract from a letter he had recently received from a resident proprietor in Jamaica, as follows—
  "The military advisers of the Army Council seem to have forgotten the Gordon riots, and the Bedwell troubles which took place not long ago; and only just now a man who calls himself Prince Mackaroo or some such name has been disposed of, after asking the Negroes for 600 men to enable him to introduce reforms. So long as the police are backed by white troops these things can be dealt with, but no longer. People in England are apt to think that all police are like the wonderful police of London; and yet when the Hyde Park railings were thrown down even they had to confess themselves unable to cope with the mob. The worst to be feared there was for a few panes of glass; here it would be murder and arson."
  He also quoted the following from a New Orleans paper as showing how the matter was looked at from a purely outside point of view—
  "The garrisons of British troops are to be entirely remove and the colonies permitted to do without military altogether or provide it themselves. While the withdrawal of Imperial troops from Canada and Australia would cause little trouble, as both those Commonwealths are amply able to safeguard their own borders by local troops, with the West India Colonies the case is entirely different. In every one of these islands the black or coloured population exceeds the whites by twenty or thirty to one. The whites fear, and with justice, that with the troops removed the colonies would always be in danger of uprising of blacking against the whites, and with the former in such over-whites, and with the former in such over the situation, as they may very well be. People who are familiar with the race problem in the Southern States can readily sympathise with the fears of the people of the West Indies. … It seems incredible that the British Government should meditate such a supreme act of folly as the withdrawal of all troops from the West Indies with the conditions in the islands such as they are."
  This particular policy of His Majesty's Government was the least likely of all to contribute to the strength of the West Indies. His own solution would be to wait until cotton-growing and other industries in the islands could enable them to pay their way before altering the Constitution. He would then like to see the Government enter into negotiations with Canada in order to find out whether some of the islands, at any rate, could not be better administered by that great Dominion than they were by the home Government.

  709
  If the West India Islands were attached to Canada they would form something like a southern zone for the Dominion. The reorganisation and the revitalizing of the West Indies would result; and the alteration would add enormously to our Imperial strength on the strategic highway of the world and in the commercial centre of the New World.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that no one could visit the West Indies without feeling that nature had been unusually prodigal to them, or without desiring that they should attain a prosperity commensurate with the gifts of nature. These islands, as some of the oldest and most interesting portions of our Colonial Empire, had a claim on the sympathy and the interest of the mother country. He agreed with the view that when the Panama Canal was made a streams of oceanic traffic would pass through these islands, and a chance would come to them which they had not for a long time enjoyed of being associated with the great trade movements of the world. His hon. friend had dwelt upon the desirability of improving the financial condition of the islands, first, by the simplification or consolidation of the Administration, and, secondly, by the abolition of tariffs between the different islands. One could scarcely conceive anything more absurd than that there should exist high tariffs, or, indeed, any tariffs at all, among islands which ought to be regarded as one fiscal entity. It was difficult to understand why the home Government should have allowed these duties to grow up, for they must have the effect of interfering with the tree exchange of commodities among the islands.
  The other question was whether a considerable saving might not be effected in their executive and judicial administration. He might explain that his own personal knowledge was confined to Jamaica, and that he regarded British Guiana as being in a somewhat different position from the other islands. Many of the islands were too small to require the sort of civil administration which we now gave them. That, he thought, particularly applied to the judicial administration. He did not see why, instead of having an official who was
  710
  called the Chief Justice for each island, they could not have a somewhat simpler and more comprehensive judicial organisation, which, while having competent police magistrates for the local work would give a better kind of law by way of appeal, and allow the highest judicial officers or Court to travel about from island to island and administer civil justice in that way. In the same way they would have a more efficient Executive Administration if they organised it on a larger scale and brought a certain number of the islands into a comprehensive scheme. There would doubtless be objections on the part of individual islands; they would not want to be deprived of the kind of importance they now possessed; but he would meet that line of argument by saying that any economies that were effected in this way, and they might be considerable, ought to be devoted to improving the islands themselves in the way of railway improvements, modernising methods of cultivation, and so forth. A good deal might be done in this way for education, and more might be done for the industrial and technical instruction of the negroes. The great difficulty of the islands was the imperfect quality of the labour. If they gave the natives a better industrial instruction it would give them a permanent upward movement, the result of which would be felt in many directions, and would have a far-reaching effect upon their prosperity and the character of the population. He trusted that the Colonial Secretary might be able to hold out some hope that these economies, which would have to q, carried out with consideration and tacto might be effected. So far as Jamaica was concerned, he did not think any apprehension need be entertained at present of danger to society by reducing the number of troops. The population was peaceful and contented, and he should be surprised to hear that those who knew the islands thought it was in any danger of relapsing into a state of disturbance.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There were the Trinidad riots.
  MR. MALCOLM: Only six weeks ago there was this trouble with a so-called prince.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he did not mean to suggest that we should altogether withdraw white troops. Those who knew what the great capabilities of the West Indies were, and recognised that we owed something not only to the white but also to the negro population, would feel that we had a serious duty towards the islands, and that we must not forget that they constituted a valuable and interesting part of our Colonial Empire.
  *MR. RANDLESsaid the House was indebted to the mover of the Resolution for bringing so interesting a subject forward. It was a misfortune that they did not devote more time to considering the particular interests of the different colonies in detail, as they were enabled by this Motion to do to-night in reference to the West Indies. It was not difficult to make out a good case for the reduction of official expenses and charges or for the abolition of tariffs between the various islands, or an improved system of higher education. He very much appreciated the line of argument adopted by the mover of this Motion up to the point of the remedy he suggested, which he thought was hardly sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. A benevolent despot might be an ideal remedy if it was a practical one, but he did not think that it would meet the case. The alternative suggested in the Amendment seemed to him to be altogether too drastic for the present time. The quotation which had been given from Sir Robert Hamilton to the effect that the time was not yet, in his opinion pretty much met the case. Hon. Members hardly appeared to realise the varying conditions of these islands. Scarcely any two of the islands in their conditions were alike, and their prosperity was also very varied. Some of the islands had found it possible to change their cultivation of sugar into more profitable growths. Other islands had not found this to be possible, and the islands best adapted for the growth of sugar were not always best adapted for cocoa or bananas. There was also a great difference in the population. Some parts of the population were more impregnated with modern ideas, and other islands were absolutely
  712
  indifferent as to progress. Consequently any cut and dried scheme would be likely to prove a disappointment.
  In regard to what had been said about responsible government, he should like to know if this House would attempt to veto any wild scheme that it might be within the power of some enterprising contractor to make with such a form of government. Take, for example, what actually occurred in Newfoundland. There it was shown to be possible for a large contractor to practically get the whole island at his disposal. A large majority of the people there wished the veto to be put upon what amounted to nothing less than the sale of the island to a railway contractor by the Government, but the Colonial Secretary was not favourable to the exercise of that veto. Newfoundland was a responsible self-governing colony, and ever since the conclusion of the contract the people of the colony had been paying large sums of money in trying to get rid of that most unfortunate contract. That might easily be the case with the larger measures of self-goverment which had been suggested. Take the religious question. That was a subject which even in this country divided them in their opinions, and caused bitterness even when they were able to discuss it from a broad point of view. They would be able to judge from that fact how acute the religious question might become in those Islands. As an illustration he might mention what had happened in the island of Guernsey in 1904. They passed a law for that island which placed the whole of the elementary education of the children under the control of the Anglican Church, and it was ordained that the doctrines of the Church of England should be taught in all the elementary schools. What was more, this was agreed to and approved by the Privy Council on the advice of the Member for East Fife, then Home Secretary. He gave that as an illustration to show that the veto could not so easily be imposed when they once granted responsible self-government except under very exceptional circumstances. Those were some of the practical difficulties which would arise if the Amendment was carried. He thought they

  713
  must endeavour to improve the government by the steady infusion of the popular and representative element, so that the best men available, irrespective of colour, should be utilised in the government of these islands.
  *MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he had listened very carefully to the speeches of the mover of the Motion and the mover of the Amendment, and he had failed altogether to notice any discordant note whatever in them. The hon. Member for Buteshire laid great stress upon the necessity of simplifying the Administration in those islands, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest Dean only carried them a step further with regard to the self-government of those islands. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Buteshire did not give them more details about the enormous material and the great cost of the Administration, and no doubt the reason was that he did not desire to occupy too much time. Nevertheless the main point of his argument throughout was the great waste of material and money upon the salaries of officials in those islands. He desired the House to look at this question even from the point of view of the task imposed upon the Colonial Secretary. The amount of work and responsibility thrown upon the Minister who happened to occupy that important position was something overwhelming and appalling. If instead of the vast amount of corresponidence he had at present to deal with over every little local affair in the West Indies, he had a Governor-General to deal with those matters, the right hon. Gentleman's task would be enormously lessened and the affairs of those islands would be conducted very much more in harmony with the wishes of the people. He had no objection to the governor having a steam yacht, because in those islands a yacht would practically be his motor-car. He thought that the suggestion which had been made to hand over the West Indies to the Dominion of Canada would involve them in considerable trouble and was not worthy of a moment's consideration. The West Indies were at the present moment of enormous importance, and would be of still greater importance in the future. He thought
  714
  The hon. Member for Buteshire had rendered an extremely valuable service by bringing this question before the House and giving them such an extremely instructive speech upon this important subject.
  *MR. LAWRENCEpointed out that the disproportion between the whites and the blacks in all those colonies was very great. Up and down the West Indies the electors would be blacks. It would be well to look outside to see how other countries met the great black question. In the Southern States of America, where the question was acute, it had been made acute by extending the suffrage to the blacks. As things were, there was, practically speaking, little racial feeling at all in these islands. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen had been for a few days in Jamaica, and he wished to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman had said about there being no racial feeling there. He had met an American engineer in that island, and he said that any man, woman, or child might go up and down that island, night or day, without any fear of injury, but he could not say the same thing of the Southern States. He thought that was a very high compliment to their institutions, which for several centuries had been gradually evolving themselves to their present state. He agreed that in some of the islands this oligarchy which had been spoken of was not at all perfect in its operations; and when they considered the great difficulty which they had to face, namely, that there was only a very small minority of whites and a great preponderance of blacks, it was clear that they could not lay down any hard-and-fast rule, and notions which were formed here were not always suitable to be carried out on the Spanish Main. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had referred to the present system as being prejudicial to the advance of the system of peasant proprietors. That certainly was not true in regard to many of those islands. He thought the important question was whether these people should not devote themselves more to the exportation of goods than the mere cultivation of provisions. In British Guiana there was an enormous exportation of goods to the great advantage of

  715
  the community, whereas in Jamaica, an island where there was the largest amount of small proprietors, the amount of their export trade was practically nil.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid they exported from that island, in fruit alone, about £1,500,000 in 1904.
  *MR. LAWRENCEsaid that was not grown by the small proprietors. Apparently in the case of right hon. Gentlemen opposite this was an instance where a little knowledge was a dangerous thing. He had been informed that a large company which had introduced the banana industry in Jamaica was contemplating going back to sugar production, and this in regard to an estate which had grown bananas for many years. He thought that showed that it was not by any means true that the production of sugar was receding. He congratulated the hon. Member for Buteshire upon his speech, but more that he had to approach the subject of the West Indies under more favourable auspices than those of recent years. The hon. Member had spoken of the educational advantages of Germany and Louisiana, and had made a comparison in regard to the backwardness of education in the West Indies. He wished, however, to remind the hon. Member that both those countries were strongly protective in regard to the sugar industry. After the abolition of slavery, the West Indies had to contend against the slave-owing sugar grown in Brazil, and then came the bounty system. He agreed that considerable economy might be effected by amalgamating certain islands under one Government, and particularly in reducing the judicial establishment. The islands had every reason to complain of the class of men sent out there to fill the legal posts. He knew lawyers, who, though they never had a brief in this country, blossomed into Judges in the West Indies. It was time to see that men fit to fill the posts were sent out, and that they gave a good year's work for a good year's salary.
  *SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he had listened with very great interest to the speech of the mover of this Motion, and he associated himself
  716
  most heartily with the views which he had placed before the House. The late Lord Carnarvon had in his mind some scheme for federating these West Indian Colonies, and nobody could doubt the immense advantage that would be derived from an uniform Customs tariff. It was an open question as to how far it would be possible to combine all the West Indian Colonies under one Governor-General. But the four groups of islands which formed the Lesser Antilles, contained a population which did not exceed some 600,000 or 700,000, and he thought they would gain very much if they could be placed under one Administration. It did not much matter where the seat of Government was, because the time of the Governor would be spent mostly in his yacht. He hoped the subject of the government of the West India Islands would have the serious attention of the Colonial Office, for he felt sure that if the islands were to be made happy, contented, and prosperous, it was not by maintaining large garrisons there, but by good government and efficient administration.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington)said that with the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in the abstract he had no quarrel at all. Although kindly and generous, the proposal was impracticable. The system had been tried in America of giving in comparatively uncivilised communities equal rights of voting to the coloured population, with the result of greatly embittering racial feeling and tempting the whites to action practically cancelling the advantages. The working out of the native problem in South Africa also illustrated the impracticability of the proposition; and he respectfully said that the right hon. Gentleman had not made out that part of his case, and, indeed, had hardly tried to make it out. With the right hon. Gentleman's other suggestion, that a benevolent despotism should be established, he was much more in agreement; but neither did he think that a practical proposal at the present moment. They must, after all, have regard to the feelings of the islanders

  717
  themselves; and the right hon. Gentleman was well aware that some of those colonies formerly enjoyed what was practically self-government. In Barbados the white population had decreased very much. Between 200 and 300 years ago there was a white population both actually larger than at present, and relatively larger in proportion to the blacks; and the Barbadians of Charles II.'s day had a very stout view of their Parliamentary privileges and resented the idea of being governed by this country without consultation. About 1660 or 1670 they actually made a suggestion, which was, perhaps, the first mention of Imperial federation, that certain members of their own Parliament should attend the Imperial Parliament. Jamaica had had elective representative institutions since 1662, with the exception of a few years. It would not be possible for this Parliament to express an intention of governing these islands as despots when the most considerable of them had enjoyed representative government for so many years. It was not the fact that the interests of the negroes were neglected by the so-called oligarchies. If we were free to take action without regard to history or tradition, there might be a good deal to be said for making the government of these islands more autocratic; but the House would not find it practicable in view of their history to make so violent and revolutionary a change.
  With much of the general tenor and many of the sentiments of the mover of the Resolution he had no quarrel, and he desired to identify himself with the compliments the mover had received on the ability with which he presented his case. No doubt the "man in the street" supposed that the West Indies were a group of islands similar in character and homogeneous in population; and when such a man, looking superficially at the matter, learned that there was a separate Government in Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, the Windward Islands, and the Leeward Islands, and that there were three separate Governments in the Windwards and five in the Leewards, he was startled, and thought unification was not only necessary, but should be at once provided for. But the premises were not
  718
  quite accurate. There was a very wide geographical separation of these islands. It took four days to get from Jamaica to Barbados; and when they spoke of a benevolent despot situated in Barbados having effective knowledge of Jamaica, the colonies might present an argument to which there would be little answer. It would be regarded as a very extraordinary proposal if they were asked to federate the Isle of Man with Madeira, but the distance was not very much less from Barbados to Jamaica than it was from the Isle of Man to Madeira. Communication was not at all good; it cost money to make it better, and the House of Com-Commons did not like paying large subsidies to the West Indian Islands in addition to those which it already gave. Moreover, there were very great historical differences. Barbados and Jamaica had, from first to last during the two to three centuries in which they had been British colonies, been entirely British; Trinidad was in origin a Spanish colony; and British Guiana was once a Dutch possession. In several of the colonies, in Dominica and St. Lucia, for instance, a French patois was talked, and there was therefore great difference of language. The products differed and the systems of law varied in the islands. These were all very substantial differences. But he did not wish for a moment to deny that there was very much community of interest and of sentiment in the West Indies as a whole.
  The proposal of appointing a Governor-General had a great attraction to many people at the present time. He had been pressed to appoint Governor-Generals in West Africa and East Africa, and now in the West Indies. He had no doubt that it would be a great relief to the Colonial Office if a distinguished man of the type, say, of Lord Cromer, could be induced to take such an office and remain for a long time in one of these great regions to carry out a continuous and definite policy. He had looked into the matter with great care and anxiety, because the idea was an attractive one; but his personal opinion was that these proposals were premature simply because of the physical obstacles in the way. Until they had railways, or, at any rate, good roads, the difficulty

  719
  of getting about these great regions would be immense, and the burden of travelling placed upon the Governor-Generals would be almost intolerable. In the West Indies communication was not sufficiently good to make it easy to travel; and whereas, among a number of different communities, speaking different languages, with different institutions and different kinds of commerce, they wanted a man to spend a continuous time in their midst, they would have a man who would only be able to spend a few weeks sporadically throughout the year in one or other of the islands.
  The authorities on this subject, it would be noted, were very reserved on the point. It was perfectly true that in 1884 a Royal Commission did recommend, not the federation, but the unification, of Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Dominica, and Tobago; and some advance, at any rate, had been made towards carrying out that recommendation. Then in 1894 Sir Robert Hamilton went rather further, and recommended an administrative union which might ultimately lead to federation; but it was very important to note that that able administrator concluded his Report with the proviso that, if any union of these colonies was to be achieved, in order that it might rest on a solid basis it must come as a spontaneous growth from within the colonies themselves. Then in 1897 another very strong Royal Commission was appointed, and the Commissioners—Sir Henry Norman, the right hon. Member for Berwick, and Sir David Barbour—were against federation altogether and spoke of it as doubtful economy. They spoke of the possible union of Barbados, the Windward and the Leeward Islands, but only when an improved system of steam communication had been in existence for some years. He wished the House to understand that union was the policy of His Majesty's Government, a union, however, not forced upon the colonies, but one which they hoped would come from within and result from various administrative operations. It was said very often that sentiment should not be allowed to militate against cash results, but he thought that it would be useless and unwise to disregard
  720
  the sentiment of the islanders in dealing with this matter, and it must be remembered that these islands valued their traditions and history all the more because they were more prosperous and distinguished in former times.
  The aim of His Majesty's Government was not to coerce the colonies into accepting federal government, but to promote measures of administration from which union might naturrally spring. The Imperial Department of Agriculture had done some admirable work in promoting a feeling of unity, and an annual agricultural conference was held. There were some common regulations in regard to public health, such as in respect of quarantine matters, and they had endeavoured to obtain some uniformity in Customs, but the difficulties were extremely great owing to the financial necessities of the islands. The land tax being the utmost that could be imposed, it was not possible to raise the required revenue without resorting to duties on imports, but, as a fact, these were imposed for revenue purposes only. There had been no suggestion during the debate of any other system of taxation. Economy of administration had been effected by the loan of expert officials by one island to another, and in this liberal way had assistance been given to poorer neighbours, and links of unity had been established among the populations of the different islands. These were, of course, gradual and patient operations; but he believed it would be wiser to let amalgamation work out in that way and to let the expression of the desire come from the colonists rather than to endeavour to impose it as a policy upon them.
  A word or two should be said in reply to allusions to cost of administration. The right hon. Member for Aberdeen had referred to the excellent work done by a Judge whom he mentioned, and while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking he referred to the Colonial Office list to see what salary this excellent lawyer and efficient administrator received, and he found that this gentleman, who might be called Chief Justice, received about a third of the amount paid to a London magistrate£500 a year. It must be allowed that

  721
  his services were given at a cheap rate. There were a number of such cases of salaries ranging from £700 to 81,000 per annum—in the smaller islands rarely more than £800. The Administrator of Dominica, distinguished among the Leeward Islands as having a kind of Home Rule of its own, joined to great administrative qualities high financial abilities, and his salary was £1,000. That could not be considered exorbitant. There were a number of officials, but their salaries were not high, ranging from £300 to £400 a year, and he doubted whether with amalgamation economy could be effected in this respect. The Royal Commission of 1897 gave a dubious note on this question. Efforts to cut down some offices had met with consideration. In the Leeward Islands the number of Supreme Court Judges had been reduced from three to two, the reduction meeting with unanimous opposition, and in St. Vincent the treasurership had been abolished and the work put on the Administrator, with the result that the latter was overweighted with office work and unable to visit the outlying districts of the island.
  The Government agreed in principle that it was desirable to have unification, but the present moment was not an opportune one for moving in the direction of a constitutional change. The colonies were still writhing under the economic losses and physical distresses from which they had suffered in recent years, and the Government thought that the endeavours which were being made to reconstitute the fabric of economic prosperity had better not be interrupted by constitutional experiments. Progress was being made in regard to agriculture, sugar, fruit-growing, and other industries of that kind, and political conditions should be left at rest for a short time. The adoption of the principles of unification would be better achieved by patiently waiting for a while before further proposals were made. He hoped that this Motion would not be pressed to a division, for the Government would be unwilling to oppose a policy of unification.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he had not got anything
  722
  to add to the debate which was of any great value or novelty. The Report of the Royal Commission of which he was a member had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. He had very pleasant recollections of the Commission eight years ago. It was true that the Commission did not report in favour of the federation of the West Indies as a whole. But the primary object of the Commission was not to inquire into the question of federation. They were sent out to deal with the acute economic distress that prevailed at that time in the West Indian Islands, and to recommend substantial remedies for that state of things. It was only from that point of view that they looked at the question of federation. He was glad to think that the acute distress had been very much ameliorated since those times. The Report of the West Indian Commission did distinctly encourage a beginning in unification. How far matters might be more ripe for a step towards federation than they were at the time the Commission was in the islands he was not sure. It was quite possible that if the Commission reviewed the circumstances of the islands as they were to-day they might report still more in favour of federation than they did some years ago. Certainly, after going through the islands for two months, the impression left on his mind was that he had seen more Chief Justices than he had ever seen in his life before, or was ever likely to see. The Colonial Secretary had said that these Chief Justices, or some of them, only had small salaries—that was to say, the title was an imposing one, but the salary was the reverse of imposing and was not to be regarded as a great burden on the colony. He thought it would be better to have a Supreme Court, or a Supreme Judge, highly paid and supreme over a large area, rather than a number of comparatively poorly paid officials who were supreme in the particular area that was entrusted to them. What they wanted was, not many men, but a few very good men. He thought if one added up the total population and resources of the smaller islands, and then counted up the list of the officials required to administer them, he would come to the conclusion that the total official element was

  723
  somewhat top-heavy. If that was so, it ought to be the object of the Government to see what could be done to make a beginning towards some federation, or, at any rate, of the smaller governments. It was true there were difficulties; but he did not think the difficulties, considering that some of the islands were so small, were any reason why they should not be more brought under the same Government than they were at the present time. Nor was the difficulty of distance of very great importance. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on the difficulties of travelling, he ought rather to have dwelt on the delights of travelling among that group of islands. He could not imagine any place more delightful for yachting, apart from the season of the hurricanes. The travelling involved would not take an excessive time, and would certainly add to the delights of the post.
  It would not be the desire of any section of the House that they should be harsh in imposing upon what were, after all, very old colonies anything which was really offensive to the sentiment of the colonies themselves; and he agreed especially that in the case of Barbados, which had got a very ancient Constitution and set great store upon the independence they enjoyed, they had to take account of the sentiment which was very deep in the feelings of the people. He was satisfied that increased economy and efficiency would be gained, at any rate, with respect to the Windward and Leeward Islands by some step towards federation. He agreed with the Colonial Secretary that it would be desirable to encourage as far as possible any tendency in the sentiments of those groups to draw together. He was sure he interpreted the speech of the Colonial Secretary correctly in saying that he, too, wished to encourage some step towards federation, and that the right hon. Gentleman's whole tone was not unsympathetic to the Motion. If that was so, he hoped the Colonial Secretary would lose no opportunity of encouraging that sentiment, and if he came before the House with any proposal towards the federation of some of the islands it would be received with every sympathy and approval by the House.
  *MR. LAMONTsaid he was quite satisfied with having made his Motion and with the interesting discussion to which it had given rise. He wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary for his sympathetic speech, and was glad to hear from his own lips that the policy of the Government was unification. He asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that after what had been stated it would be very ungracious on his part to press his Amendment, and, therefore, he asked leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  HEAVY MOTOR-CAR REGULATIONS.
  MR. GARDNERsaid he wished to call attention to the Heavy Motor-Car Order, 1904, dated the 27th day of December; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Heavy Motor-Car Order, dated the 27th day of December, 1904, permits traffic for which the large majority of the highways of the country are unfit, is likely to be oppressively burdensome in cost to the local authorities, and dangerous to foot passengers as well as all other users of the highways, and ought to be annulled." He said he remembered the patience with which many hon. Members sat for hours to get a Motor-Car Bill through. It was passed, although not altogether with the approval of the whole House, because it was believed that it would bring about an improvement in the then existing state of things. It was not to be wondered at that a clause like Clause 12 had passed through without observation as to what its real effect would be. He did not think that anyone had the least idea that it gave power to the Local Government Board to issue the regulations of which he complained.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present—
  The House was adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve of the clock till To-morrow.