Sitting of 1 March 1895

Preamble
The House met soon after Two of the clock.

SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
On the Motion for Second Reading,
MR. JAMES ROWLANDSwho had on the Paper a notice to move the rejection of the Bill, said, he fully realised the importance of moving the rejection of a Bill of this kind on the Second Reading. He knew he would be told that he ought to allow this Bill to go through Committee in order that it might be threshed out. When, however, they objected to the principle underlying a Bill, they were bound to oppose it and see whether the House endorsed that principle or not, His main point was whether the House was to give a private company the power to do what was known on the Stock Exchange as "watering" its capital. They now knew that the gas supply of London was an absolute monopoly. Mr. Livesey, in a lecture he delivered some months ago, said there was no such thing as competition. The Bill was supposed to be a very simple one. It asked the House to convert £2,000,000 of capital into £4,000,000 of capital, and to reduce the statutory dividend of the Company from 10 to 5 per cent. What was the history of this Bill? There had been at
146
one time a possible reason for the promoters bringing this Bill into the House, but that reason had disappeared. The reason at the bottom of this Bill had not been the multiplication of the capital or the division of the interest; the Bill had undoubtedly sprung from the ingenuity of Mr. Livesey. That gentleman had desired to develop his opinions in regard to the relations of capital and labour which he had carried out in his profit-sharing scheme, and had therefore desired that facilities should be given for placing one or two workmen upon the Directorate of the Company. The clause embodying this idea, however, had been dropped out of the Bill—he admitted through no fault of Mr. Livesey—but because the shareholders, backed up by the majority of the Directors, were against him. With its disappearance the reason for bringing the Bill before the House had also disappeared, The promoters of the Bill would, of course, make the most they possibly could of the advantages of the scheme now proposed. He ventured to say he understood fairly well both the auction and the sliding scale clauses. By Clause 15, the statutory standard was 3s. 6d. per thousand feet, and he thought that all these statutory standards were ridiculously high, whether in the case of the London Gas Companies or such Companies as the Liverpool Gas Company. The Gas Company had its powers already, and should not, he contended, ask the House to re-affirm its statutory dividend. It was argued that the consumer was perfectly protected because of the working of the auction clause. This was a very wise provision, but he ventured to say that not more than £800,000 of the capital had been submitted under that clause. He might be told that there was some more capital which had to be submitted under the auction clause, and he admitted it. But what was the gross sum? £600,000, and not £600,000 to be put on the market to realise all that it possibly could, but only such a sum as would realise, with all the benefits of the auction clause, £600,000. He was not going into the question of the conversion of Stock; that was largely a question for the stockholders themselves. The real reason for the promotion of the Bill was to facilitate the sale of Stock by its conversion into one single Stock. That was

147
not a question on which the Company ought to come to Parliament. Let them look at the matter from a public stand point. They were asked to convert the Stock and give it a face value of double the nominal value. Supposing that the conditions of lighting changed, and this stock went back to somewhere approaching its original value, the persons who had bought off the present holders would consider that they had bought the capital value on the face of the Stock; and if at any time the authorities should want to buy the undertaking, they would consider that some system of confiscation was taking place if they did not get the full face value. He thought it was a very serious thing indeed for the House to interfere in a transaction of this kind. The promoters had issued a statement of their reasons for introducing the Bill, and among them he found—first, that they pointed out that consolidation of the stock made the market value go up. He admitted that, and would ask the House whether that was not giving a bonus to the whole of those who at present held the stock. But the next reason given was contradictory of the first, because the promoters pointed out that in Paragraph 3 of the Bill power was given to enable consumers and those in the employment of the company to buy any unissued stock at the then market price of the company's stock. They expressed a desire that, those small holders might be created, yet first of all they forced up the stock to its highest value. Before he sat down he wished to appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to seriously consider, from a public point of view, what he intended to say on the question. The right hon. Gentleman might feel justified in supporting the Bill. At any rate he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would very closely consider whether it was really to the interests if the community at large that the proposed change should take place. He had not raised the question of the dividends of the company, but he should probably do so at a later stage if the Bill passed. He had mainly devoted his attention to the principle underlying the Bill, and he hoped the House would reject it in the public interest.
MR. F. G. BANBUBYsaid, he would not follow
148
the hon. Member for Finsbury into a discussion of a clause that was not in the Bill, but he would endeavour as shortly as possible to put the true reasons and the true objects of the Bill before the House. The hon. Member stated at the opening of his speech that only the interests of a particular class, and not the interests of the whole community, would be benefited by the Bill. He did not think the hon. Member really understood the effect of the Bill. At the present time there were three classes of stock in this company, and it was proposed to consolidate them into one stock, and to reduce the statutory dividend from 10 per cent, to a statutory dividend of 5 per cent., at the same time doubling the stock, the effect of which would be that the dividend would remain exactly the same, the actual capital would remain the same, and the company would gain no advantage whatever as far as regarded both capital and dividend. The hon. Member was under a delusion in supposing that the capital of the company would be increased by the Bill. The capital, of course, would be doubled. Suppose, therefore, the ordinary stock stood at 300, if the Bill passed it would stand at 150. It was quite possible that the new stock would command a higher premium in the market, and that would be an advantage to the community, as he would show. There was £600,000 or £700,000 of fresh stock to be issued by auction. It was very evident that if they wished to raise £15,000 and the stock stood at 150, they would have to issue only £10,000 'in order to get that £15,000, but if the stock only stood at 100 they would have to issue £15,000 nominal capital to obtain £15,000 money. That being so, in the event of the County Council wanting to buy the company, they would have to buy up a less nominal amount of stock than if they had to raise £15,000 of stock, which could only be obtained at par. In that way the capital of the company would not be increased, and when the new stock was issued they would be able to obtain a larger amount of money with a smaller amount of capital than at present. In the event of the County Council, or any local body, therefore, buying up the company, the amount of nominal capital they would have to deal with would be

149
smaller than if the Bill did not become law. The hon. Member had spo about watering the stock. He did think the hon. Member, knew what watering meant. It was issuing new capital for which no money was raised, and it would rank for dividend with the original stock; whereas, in the present instance, while the amount of stock was doubled, the statutory dividend was also halved. Therefore, there would be no larger amount of money required to be earned by the company to pay the statutory dividend. The hon. Member had stated that certain portions of the existing capital had not been raised by tender. That might be so, but the present Bill would not affect this in any way. The stock would remain the same as now. The effect, of the Bill on the consumer would not be at all a disadvantage, because it would enable the company to borrow money at lower rates. Its effect on the shareholder would be that he would have a better market for his security, while the Bill would really be an advantage to a purchasing body. Under those circumstances he failed to see why the House should object to read the Bill a second time.
MR. G. HOWELLsaid the hon. Member for Peckham had shown that the Bill was absolutely unnecessary, for he had endeavoured to prove that it was not going at all to change the existing condition of things. The hon. Member was quite right, from this standpoint, in not discussing the history of the Bill. When the clause which had been referred to was struck out, it seemed to him that all reason for the Bill, even if any had existed before, had gone. Again, if there was to be no change in regard to either the capital or dividend of the company, why on earth should the House have been troubled with this jugglery of finance? The first clause of the Bill was—
"To convert the capital of the Company entitled to the said standard 10 per cent, dividend into double the nominal amount to be entitled to a standard rate of dividend of 5 per cent., being half the present standard dividend."
Exactly, they were going to double their stock, and a person holding £400 stock wul d in future, if the Bill passed, receive 5 per cent, on each £200 instead
150
of 10 per cent. on the £400 as now. It was true that this would not affect the shareholder, nominally he would remain in the same position; but there was something behind this. Ten per cent. in the present state of the market looked a very large sum. There were few businesses or companies that could now pay the 10 per cent.; yet this company was paying 13 per cent. But the promoters of this Bill, though halving the stock, would make the dividend appear as only 5 per cent., a reasonable amount. If the County Council or any other body came forward with proposals to purchase the Company, the Committee upstairs dealing with the matter would, no doubt, thought the promoters of the Bill, regard 10 per cent, much too high as a basis of purchase, especially in view of the possible competition of the electric light in the future. But if the Gas Company came before the Committee with a 5 per cent, basis, though their share capital had been doubled, it would look such a modest sum that the Committee might feel inclined to pass it. A Committe should not be called upon to deal with the principle of this Bill. The House owed a debt of gratitude to its private Bill Committees for preserving it from being tainted with corruption. And it ought to protect those Committees, and ought not to leave them to deal with delicate questions of this kind. The House itself ought in future to watch very carefully any Bills brought in affecting gas, water, or other monopolies. In the case of Gas Companies all competition had been done away with by mutual arrangements in order that their power of earning dividends should not be interfered with. The House would do well to reject the Bill. There was no real reason for it. The promoters had practically abandoned the only reason for its introduction, and so far as working men were concerned, they were now in a position to say "Thank you for nothing." The principle that a working man should be entitled to buy the stock of the Company in which he was employed was good, but in this case it could not be applied; and it was cheap patriotism to ask the House to sanction a Bill, the original object of which was by no means carried out in its provisions.
MR. H. KIMBERsaid, the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill had argued that it established a monopoly. If they were to discuss the question whether Gas Companies had a monopoly they had better review the whole of their Legislation relating to these Companies since 1847. But the Bill established no monopoly of any kind. Since auction clauses and sliding scales had been put in Gas Bills, Gas Companies were partners with the public, and the public got the better share of the profits. What was the fact? The last speaker said the shareholders got 10 per cent.; but it must be remembered that £309 had to be paid for £100 worth of stock. The name of Mr. Livesey, the Chairman of the Company—a man who for single-mindedness of purpose and friendship to the working classes had no superior, and whose Company was the pioneer in giving cheap gas and establishing a system of profit-sharing—was a voucher for the fairness of the Bill towards the working classes. The Bill provided that the three classes of stock into which the capital of the Company was divided should be, unified. That unification of stock would no doubt make it more valuable, and he was at a loss to know why the shareholders in a Joint Stock Company were not to be allowed to get any natural improvement in the value of their property when it injured nobody else. For the purposes of unification it was proposed to read each £100 of stock as £200. But that would not fix either the market value or the intrinsic value of the stock, and therefore no harm was done to anybody. It had always been the practice of the House to allow joint stock companies, whose enterprise had built the foundation of the mercantile prosperity of this country during the past half century, to rearrange their capital provided no hardship was indicted on the public. But it was not the only object of the Bill. The hon. Member opposite said the Bill had its origin in a clause for the purpose of enabling working men to be placed on the Board, and that as that clause had since been withdrawn, he, as a friend of the working man, objected to the Bill. But what did the Bill do for the working man? It provided for the division of stock into small sums; and thus an industrious and thrifty
152
working man, who was able to save £5, would, if he invested it in the stock of the Company, become a partner with his masters and have a right to vote at the meetings of the Company. Further, they found that the Company took upon themselves a very onerous responsibility at their own expense for the purpose of saving a great deal of trouble to the poor holders of stock in the transfer of that stock. It enabled them, without the expense of a trust deed, to take from their workmen a simple direction in writing as to the persons to whom after their death the stock was to devolve. It enabled the Company to deal, after a man's death, with his stock as well as any money derived from the profit-sharing system, and to place them in a very inexpensive manner among the relatives or other appointees of their workmen. But, even if the Bill did not contain these beneficent provisions, and only contained the clauses dealing with capital, he maintained that the House would be justified in accepting it on principle. There were several reasons why this Bill should go before Committee. Power was given in it for the issue of £600,000 additional capital already sanctioned, in an improved manner, which would benefit the company and the public by reason of the unified character of the stock. It would increase this in volume, and there would be the benefit of the appreciation which the markets always gave to a large volume of unified stock. They would get a much larger sum of money for a much smaller amount of nominal capital, and what were the provisions in the Bill relative to that? It was not to be offered to the public until some of it had been offered at the market price in the previous week to the workmen of the company and the consumers, so that they, so to speak, were to have the first pull. The hon. Member had spoken of the dividend being 13 per cent., but considering the price which would have to be paid for the shares by auction, the dividend was only about 4 per cent. He trusted that the ordinary course would be pursued, and that the Bill would be allowed to go upstairs to a Committee.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)said, his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury had given long and careful

153
attention to these gas questions, and was justified in calling the attention of the House to some of the provisions in this Bill. The points upon which the discussion had occurred, were what would be the financial effect of the various proposals; whether they would benefit the consumer or the public or how much benefit there would be to the shareholders. The House must, however, have had some difficulty in following some of the arguments, although those of the hon. Member for Camberwell wore very lucid indeed. The usual procedure was to send these matters to a Committee for consideration, and he did not think that any grounds had been shown, either by the Mover or the Seconder of the Amendment, for the rejection of the Bill, for distrusting the ability or the impartiality of any Committee that might be appointed by the House to consider this question. Every Session questions quite as difficult as these were submitted to Committees. The hon. Member, however, was warranted in bringing the matter before the House, because whenever companies came to Parliament in circumstances such as these, they came, as it were, for a re-assertion of their Parliamentary title, and thereby were considered to have strengthened their position. Complaints by the consumers still existed, but they arose far more in the case of the north of the Thames Companies than in the case of this one, and the hon. Member for East Finsbury would remember that he headed a deputation which came to the Board of Trade from the vestries in North London stating a case against the Gaslight and Coke Company, upon which occasion he held this particular Company up as a model of what Gas Companies should be. His hon. Friend and the deputation had on that occasion asked for an enquiry, and he believed that the vestries had subsequently expressed a wish that the enquiry should be by a Select Committee of the House. If such an enquiry were to take place, it would afford an opportunity for dealing with the larger questions which the hon. Member had raised, and it was therefore still less necessary to ask the House to come to a conclusion upon those large questions now. For that reason, and reminding his hon. Friend that a Division might prejudice the case raised, he would
154
ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and allow the Bill to be considered by a Committee of the House.
MR. J. ROWLANDSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Bill read 2°.

QUESTIONS.

  THE PARISH CONSTABLES ACT.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary of the Local Government Board, whether the duty of making out lists of persons liable to serve, or recommending them to serve, as unpaid parish constables, under 5 and 6 Vict., c. 109, and the Parish Constables Act 1872, now rests with parish councils; whether the parish council can lawfully be summoned by the overseers to hold a meeting for the purposes set forth in Section 3, and whether the overseers are liable to the penalties referred to in Section 9, if they do not return lists, the preparation of which they have no power to control, and if they do not attend the special sessions to verify lists which they have now no power to return under Section 10; whether persons, selected and appointed by justices as unpaid constables, although not nominated by a parish council, can be fined for refusing to act or be sworn in; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will arrange that by special statute or by the Statute Law Revision Act, provisions of the law rendered useless by the Local Government Act 1894, or inconsistent therewith, shall be repealed this Session.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir WALTER FOSTER, Derby, Ilkeston): By the 35 and 36 Viet., c. 92, unpaid parish constables are not to be appointed unless the quarter sessions by resolution determine that it is necessary that one or more parish constables shall be appointed for the parish. Where such a resolution is in force the duty of the vestry in this matter has been transferred to the parish council. The overseers are not empowered to summon a meeting of the

  155
  parish council—the meeting must be summoned in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1894. It would appear that the overseers are still bound, where such a resolution is in force, to make a return to the precept of the justices, and in case the parish council have made out a list, and have furnished the overseers with a copy of it, the copy of the list should accompany the return. The overseers are also presumably obliged to attend the special sessions in such a case, in order to verify the list. The justices, it would appear, can only appoint the constables from the allowed list. Section 13 of 5 and 6 Vict., c. 109, which provided that any person appointed and not finding a substitute, should be liable to a fine, has been repealed by the 35 and 36 Vict., c. 92, which merely provides that the person chosen shall be bound to act as a constable, or to submit another person to the justices to be appointed in his stead. As regards the concluding question, I will communicate with the Statute Law Committee on the subject.

  SURVEYORS OF TAXES.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Lords of the Treasury will be pleased to recommend to the Civil Service Commissioners that the allowance of service from actual age, when reckoning the same for a Civil Service competition, granted to registered copyists, be extended to private clerks to surveyors of taxes, who perform analogous duties to those of copyists, and, though not admitted by examination, have to be certified as competent to the Board of Inland Revenue by the surveyor by whom employed?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham): The conditions of the employment by surveyors of taxes of private clerks do not differ from those under which many other uncertificated persons are privately engaged by certain officers of the public service who are allowed a lump sum for the purpose, and exceptional regulations could not therefore be made in the special interest of one class of such employés. Moreover, it is the essence of the rules under which certain persons are now given concessions in regard to age, that they have served the State as
  156
  soldiers or sailors or as persons with Civil Service certificates—a condition not satisfied in the present case. I am afraid, therefore, that the Treasury would not be justified in accepting my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked whether, in view of the fact that the duties of clerks had increased and that the correspondence they had to deal with was of a private and confidential character, the Secretary to the Treasury would not do something to remove the grave dissatisfaction that existed among the clerks.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he was aware that dissatisfaction existed, but it would be impossible to do what the hon. Member wished without doing it also for clerks in other departments who were in a similar position.

  NEWSPAPERS IN GAOLS AND DOCKYARDS.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that the authorities at Aldershot Gaol, on a recent occasion, refused permission to a man named Barry to supply his son, an untried prisoner, with a copy of Reynolds's Newspaper, telling him that he would be at liberty to supply him with copies of Conservative weekly journals; also that the police at Chatham Dockyard refused to allow the newspaper boys, under instructions from the authorities, to supply Reynolds's Newspaper to the sailors on board Her Majestys' ships; and, if this state of things be true, will he explain the reason for this action of the authorities mentioned?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,): I am informed by the War Office that there is no foundation whatever for the statement as to Aldershot Gaol, and that no prisoner of the name of Barry has been confined in the Aldershot Gaol during the last six years. I am also informed by the Admiralty that the statement that the sale of Reynoldg's Newspaper is not permitted on board the Depôt is without foundation. No such order has been issued either directly or indirectly, and no restrictions have been placed upon the sale of this paper to the men; and so far as the police are concerned,

  157
  newsboys, with permission of the Dockyard authorities, are at all times allowed by the police to enter the Dockyard, and no question is ever asked as to which newspapers they carry.

  THE CROAGH DISPENSARY COMMITTEE.
  MR. J. MAINS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) how many meetings have been held by the Croagh Dispensary Committee, Ballycastle, North Antrim, during the past year, and what has been the average attendance at each meeting; (2) if the secretary always writes the minutes, or does the medical officer perform that duty; and (3) if it is true that some of the members have never attended any meeting since their election by the board of guardians?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Secretary to the Dispensary Committes reports—(1) that five, committee meetings have been held during the past year, the average attendance at each meeting being 3·4; (2) the secretary always writes the minutes when present, and to his knowledge the medical officer never does so; (3) two of the members of the committee have never attended any meeting since their election by the guardians.

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  MR. J P. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the distress in Goleen (a portion of the Schull union), and what remedy he purposes applying to it.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have called for a special report as to the condition of the district referred to in the question. Meantime I may observe that the guardians of this union have already informed the Local Government Board that a loan for obtaining seed potatoes would not be required in the union this year.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received representations from several districts of Western Donegal, other than those mentioned in recent statements of his and included in the
  158
  Glenties union, testifying to the existence of acute distress in these places; and whether he will be so good as to direct that action shall promptly be taken to meet the requirements of those cases, and secure that the destitute people in those localities shall share in the benefit of the relief works which are about to be started?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have received several representations from districts in West Donegal, other than those included in the Glenties union, and inquiries have been made from time to time regarding the condition of the poorer classes in these localities. The Local Government Board are of opinion, however, that although there may be sporadic cases of destitution in the mountain districts and along the coast, yet they have no reason to think that the ordinary Poor Law will be unable to deal with any such cases that may arise. The Board's Inspector will again report in the course of a day or two on the condition of portions of Western Donegal.

  DEFALCATIONS OF CESS COLLECTORS.
  MR. C. DIAMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland— (1) whether anything has been recovered from the estates of the brothers Gumming, county cess collectors, Monaghan, who were defaulters to a very large amount; (2) whether the sureties have paid anything of the heavy deficit; (3) whether he is aware that one of the Cummings is in a large way of business as owner of mills, and possesses a well-stocked farm, and that the other carries on a public-house in Ballybay; and (4) whether there is any method of compelling the grand jury of the county to make some effort to recover some part of the moneys either from the defaulters or their sureties.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The secretary to the grand jury, has written as follows in reply to the several inquiries in this question:—
  "(1) A very considerable sum has been already recovered and lodged to the credit of the County Treasurers on foot of the defalcations of Henry Cumming and Thomas Cumming, Barony Constables. (2) Portion of the money recovered was levied from the sureties. (3) Both the defaulting Barony Constables have been adjudicated bankrupts at the instance of the County Treasurers; and the Bankruptcy

  159
  Court is in possession of all their property, and is now realising it. The man who carries on the public-house in Ballybay is not liable as principal or surety. (4) Two of the sureties have also been adjudicated bankrupts. Another surety owns freehold property against which the claim of the County has been registered as a mortgage. Two farms have been put up for sale, but the sale had to be adjourned for want of bidders, and the farms remain on hands. Everything is being; done that can be done to realise the amount still due, and it is believed that the greater part of it will be recovered."

  KEW GARDEN EMPLOYÉS.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will extend to the employés in the Royal Gardens, Kew, the improvement in emoluments recently conceded to the employés in the Royal Parks inside the Metropolitan area?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HERBERT J. GLADSTONE,): This question has already been under my consideration; but the details of the arrangements, consequent on the increase of the minimum wage, are not yet quite settled.

  SUSPENSION OF AN IRISH POST MASTER.
  MR. J. MAINS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General on what date was Mr. M. S. Philson, Postmaster, Omagh, suspended; what were the charges on which he was suspended; and, has there been any inquiry; if so, will he state what is the result?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,): Mr. Philson, Postmaster of Omagh, was suspended on the 20th November last. The charges on which he was suspended involved irregularities of account, and these have been the subject of prolonged inquiry; but, having regard to Mr. Philson's explanation, and also to the fact that between two printed forms of direction with which he had been supplied, there were, undoubted inconsistencies which may have led him into error, I considered the case to be not free from doubt, and so he was allowed to resume duty.

  DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
  160
  the jurists appointed some five years ago to adjudicate on the claims of the bondholders and others in connection with the Delagoa Bay Railway have come to any decision; and, if they have, whether their decision is that the railway shall be sold by auction to provide funds for paying the amount due from the Portuguese Government to the claimants.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative. The exchange of documents has been effected, but the pleadings must take place before the Tribunal of Arbitration can pronounce judgment.

  MARYLEBONE WESTERN NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. T. SNAPE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that Mr. J. H. Rawlins applied last July to the managers of the Marylebone Western National School to inspect their last report and statements of receipts and expenditure, under Article 89 of the Code; that, in consequence of the delays interposed by the managers, the Department wrote to them on 10th October, and again on 8th November, ordering them to produce the whole of the original report; and that Mr. Rawlins wrote to the Department on 5th February that he had not yet been shown the copy of the statement of receipts and expenditure; and, whether, seeing that the production of these documents under Article 89 of the Code is a condition of the payment of annual grants, he will mark his sense of the conduct of the managers by withdrawing the whole or a portion of the grant, in accordance with article No. 92 of the Code; or, if not, what steps he will take to secure the prompt observance of this article of the Code?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND, York, W.R.,): The statements in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, are substantially correct. It is a condition of annual grants that school managers must submit the report and accounts to inspection, and permit copies or extracts to be

  161
  made from them. The managers of the school finally showed Mr. Rawlins the complete report on the 5th January, but still withheld the accounts. On the 19th of February, however, they informed the Department that they would submit the accounts to him whenever he liked to call.

  THE REDEMPTION OF RENT ACT, 1891.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the decision in the Irish Court of Appeal in the case of Mairs v. Leckey, practically reversing the Land Commission in this case; whether he is aware that many precisely similar cases have been ruled against the tenants, on the assumption that Mr. Justice Bewley's decision was right in Law; and whether, if tenants so decided against have no redress, he will take care to deal with their cases in the Land Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has been drawn to the decision of the Irish Court of Appeal in the case of Mairs v. Leckey, substantially reversing the decision of the Land Commission. The question decided arose under the Redemption of Rent Act, 1891, and, no doubt, other cases had been decided on the assumption that Mr. Justice Bewley's view, now reversed by the Court of Appeal, was right in point of law. I think he will see that it is impossible to give a remedy for those who have suffered from decisions in previous cases. I am glad to think that the number of the earlier cases covered by the decision is not very large. But in regard to the last paragraph I have only to say now that I hope the hon. Member will not be disappointed on Monday.
  MR. R. M. DANEasked the Chief Secretary whether he could see his way to put provisions in the Bill to enable those who had suffered to bring their cases into Court again, and when the text of the Bill would be available?
  Mr. J. MORLEYdid not reply.

  THE COMMANDEERING TREATY.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, what was the date of the Convention between Sir
  162
  Henry Loch and President Kruger abolishing the commandeering of British subjects; whether that Convention requires the ratification of the Boer Volksraad in order to become law; if, at the late meeting of the Volksraad in February, that body postponed the consideration, of that subject to its summer meeting; and whether the British subjects who were forcibly commandeered for the campaign against Malaboch in August last have ever received the pay for the services which the Boer Government promised Sir Henry Loch they should receive?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The Commandeering Treaty was signed in February 1895. The Treaty requires the ratification of the Volksraad before it becomes law. I have already more than once stated that its consideration has been, in the ordinary course, postponed until the ordinary Session of the Volksraad; but that, meanwhile, the undertaking of the President of June last that British subjects shall no more be commandeered for personal military service remains in force. I am not aware that the Government of the South African Republic made any promise to Sir Henry Loch in regard to the pay to be given to those who were commandeered.

  LONDON LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, what subordinate or other officials of the Postal Service are responsible for proper neatness of dress on the part of the London letter carriers, and for their wearing the prescribed uniform provided for them out of public money?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: Detailed instructions are issued from time to time, having for their object to secure neatness of appearance on the part of the London Postmen in the wearing of their uniforms, and it is the duty of the Postmasters, Inspectors, and other Superintending Officers to see that these instructions are duly obeyed.

  THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  163
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can now inform the House what course the Government intend to take with regard to the Christian Brothers?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have informed the hon. Member for Tyrone and other gentlemen that the question affecting the Christian Brothers and other questions have been referred to the National Education Board as a preliminary stage to further consideration of what can and cannot be done.
  COLONEL NOLANasked when the decision of the Board would be known?
  MR. MORLEY: It is impossible to say. The note is in the hands of the National Education Board and in the preliminary stage, and how long it will remain there I have no means of saying.

  IRISH BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION.
  MR. T. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is his intention to deal with the question lately referred to the Irish Board of National Education by a Bill, instead of by an Amendment of the Rules of the Board, as indicated by his reference?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, it was certainly not his intention to proceed in this matter by way of legislation. The Lord Lieutenant had the power to sanction, or to refuse his sanction to any alteration of the Rules proposed by the National Board; and it was the method which he proposed to adopt in effecting any change that might be necessary. What he promised to the hon. Member for South Tyrone was that, if a change was sanctioned, it should not come into operation or be made effective without the House having an opportunity to express an opinion upon it.

  THE CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Congested Districts Board have spent the money they undertook in May, 1894, to spend upon the improvement of the landing-place at Glassabeg, County Kerry; (1) whether any improvement has as yet been made to the landing-place at Brandon Creek, and whether the work promised in connection with the pier itself has been
  164
  carried out; (2) if the works on Blaskett Islands have been begun, and what is going to be done towards providing a landing-place on the mainland opposite; (3) when the works at the proposed new pier at Ballymore, Ventry Harbour, will be commenced; (4) and whether, in view of the distress prevailing in these localities, owing to the want of employment from which the labouring classes are suffering, he will use his influence with the Congested Districts Board to have those of these works remaining undone proceeded with immediately, so as to relieve the people pending the opening of the ordinary spring work?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The works referred to in the first paragraph have been completed at an expenditure of £6 less than the cost estimated by the Congested Districts Board. The works mentioned in the second paragraph are practically completed with the exception of the removal of some rocks in the harbour, and this work cannot be done until the summer. The works at Blaskett Island will be carried out as soon as the islanders have given an undertaking to render certain assistance in the matter to the Engineer of the Congested Districts Board. The Board have postponed for the present the consideration of the proposed works at Ballymore, and on the mainland opposite Blaskett Islands.

  DAY AND EVENING SCHOOLS.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the rule laid down in the Education Department letter of 10th November, 1894, as follows, is applicable to Scotland as well as to England, and, if not, he will extend the benefits of this rule to Scotland: "A child who has passed the total exemption standard named in the bye-laws, and is so exempt from the legal obligation to attend school, may be recognised as a scholar in an evening school, notwithstanding that such scholar continues to attend a day school."
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. O. THEVELYAN,): The provisions both of the English Education Acts and of the English Evening Continuation School Code are different from those of Scotland. The Scotch Code, Article 5, lays down clearly the rule on this point in the case of

  165
  Scotland, namely, that a scholar exempt from the legal obligation to attend school may, while earning a grant in a day school, also earn a grant in an evening school in a special subject not taught in the day school.

  THE ALTERATION OF QUESTIONS.
  MR. C. DIAMONDasked a question in reference to the manner in which questions were handed in to clerks at the table, and the way they were dealt with there. He asked the Speaker whether or not, when a question was put in a form not approved by the authorities of the House, some communication might be made to the Member putting the question before it was printed and circulated in order to arrive at some settlement of its terms. He did not wish to criticise the method in which the questions were altered, but he thought that it would tend to facilitate matters and prevent repetition if an indication could be given to a member that the question as laid before the clerks at the table was not considered to be in proper form.
  MR. SPEAKER: Wherever possible that is done, and in nearly all cases immediate notice is given to hon. Gentlemen if the question is irregular. There is every desire to consult the feelings of hon. Members by giving full notice of an irregularity.
  MR. C. DIAMOND: Several objections have been taken to questions of mine, and I have not had any communications on the matter. I am, therefore, only speaking from my personal experience.

  THE IRISH LAND BILL.
  SIR A. K. ROLLTTasked the Chief Secretary whether, in the Land Bill which he proposed to introduce, there would be provisions as to evicted tenants, or whether that question would be dealt with by a separate Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think it will be extremely inconvenient to answer a question on Friday with reference to a Bill that is coming before the House on Monday.

  THE PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked a question with reference to the rules of the House as to
  166
  bringing up new Bills on a First Reading. He had remarked, during last Session of Parliament especially, and also in this Session, that Ministers when they introduced Bills no longer went to the bar of the House, while other hon. Members were expected to comply with the formality. Since he had been in the House he had heard some of the highest authorities insist on the necessity of equality of Members on all occasions; and he respectfully ventured to bring this matter before the Chair now in order that this habit might not become crystallised into a custom. Would it not be better, therefore, that Ministers should be asked either to comply with the regulations of the House, or that steps should be taken to have the regulations altered?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the House wishes it, I shall take care that Ministers are not allowed to curtail their journeys to and from the bar.
  SIR A. K. ROLLIT: Will the same rule apply to other Members?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think any rule should be applicable to all.

MOTIONS.

  RELIGIOUS OPINIONS (PBOSECUTIONS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Gourley, Bill for the Abolition of Prosecutions for the Expression of Opinion on Matters of Religion.
  Bill presented, and read first time; to be rend a second time upon Friday, 15th March, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Seton-Karr, Bill to Amend the Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) Acts.
  Bill presented, and read first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL.
  On Motion of Sir C. Cameron, Bill to put an end to the Establishment of the Church of Scotland, and to deal with the Public Endowments thereof on the occurrence of vacancies.
  Bill presented, and read first time; to be, read a second time upon Wednesday, 27th March, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE QUALIFICATION REPEAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. A. C. Morton, Bill to repeal the Law respecting the Qualifications of Justices of the Peace.
  Bill presented, and read first time; to ho read a second time upon Friday next, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir A. K. Rollit, Bill to amend the Public Health Acts with respect to Sewers.
  Bill presented, and read first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

  FARM SERVANTS' HOLIDAY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Napier, Bill to give Powers to Parish Councils in Scotland to fix provisionally Holidays and Half-Holidays for Farm Servants in Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, l5th March, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

  HYPOTHEC (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Provand, Bill to amend the Law of Hypothec in Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 11th March, [Bill 152.]

  LEICESTER ELECTION WRITS.
  The Select Committee appointed to consider and report upon the recent Election and Return for the Borough of Leicester was nominated of:—Mr. Secretary Asquith, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Balfour, Sir James Carmichael, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Curzon, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. T. M. Healy, Sir Henry James, Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. MacNeill, Sir George Osborne Morgan, Sir John Mowbray, and Viscount Wolmer.
  Ordered,—That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered,—That five be the quorum.
  Ordered,—That the Clerk of the Crown do produce to the said Committee copies of the writs issued for holding elections for the said Borough and the Return thereto.—(Sir Henry James.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,),in intoducing a "Bill to amend and extend the Law relating to Factories and Workshops," said, it was a measure which covered a wide area of ground, and involved the consideration of a number of not very closely connected technical details. The Bill was framed in what the Government believed to be the spirit which had animated the whole of our Factory Legislation. The aim and intention of that Legislation he understood to be to provide for all classes of workers to whom it applied those reasonable conditions of safety for life and health which were in fact observed by wise employers and well-conducted undertakings. But what he might call the standard of safety arose from time to time; and it had been recognised by all parties in the State that it was the duty of Governments and of Parliaments to recognise the advance of public opinion, to recognise what he might describe as the quickening of the public conscience in this matter, which, by general consent, could not safely be left to individual initiative and enterprise. The Government proposed in this Bill to extend in certain directions the existing law, and to make provision for some cases with which that law in its present shape did not attempt to deal. For the purposes of exposition he would group the provisions under two or three heads. First, he would call the attention of the House to certain provisions proposed for further safeguarding the life and health of the workers in factories and workshops, and for improving the sanitary conditions under which they worked. He would begin with the question of overcrowding. To allow a factory to be overcrowded was already an offence; but the term "overcrowding" was vague and elastic, and permitted, as experience showed, of different interpretations in different trades and in different parts of the country. The Government had come to the conclusion, after consulting practical men, and after taking the advice of Her Majesty's Inspectors,

  169
  that it would be desirable to lay down a statutory definition of "overcrowding" which would be applicable to every factory and workshop in the country. The proposal was, that in all factories and workshops there should be a minimum 250 cubic feet of space for every person, and 400 cubic feet of space for every person during overtime. Further, that the Secretary of State should be empowered to add to this minimum in hours during which artificial light was employed. That provision would make the law uniform, and it would not impose any practical hardship on the employers of labour, while it would secure sanitary conditions in this important respect. Next, there were some points under the same general head relating to machinery. The law at present prohibited children from cleaning machines in motion, and the Government thought that that prohibition ought to be extended from children to young persons. Many accidents of a serious, and some of a fatal, character had been due to the carelessness or inexperience of young persons in cleaning machines. Further—but the Government did not think it fair or advisable to apply this provision to the factories already in existence—it was proposed that in all new factories where there were self-acting machines, such as the cotton looms, the machines should not be allowed to run out within 18in. of any pillar or fixed structure in the factory. A large number of melancholy accidents were due to the narrow space left between the extreme minimum of the machine and the fixed structure towards which it moved, and many children and young persons had been crushed. This was not a provision to which the manufacturers of the country would object. Then, as to the dangers from fire, which were perhaps more common in workshops than in factories, there were provisions in the Act of 1891 which, in effect, left the duty of seeing that adequate means of escape were provided to the sanitary authorities. Experience of the working of that Act showed that the duty had been very largely neglected by those on whose shoulders it was intended to lie. The Government, recognising the difficulties in the way of enabling one of Her Majesty's Inspectors to require structural
  170
  changes, proposed that a court of summary jurisdiction should, on the application of an Inspector, be empowered to make an order for the provision of movable fire-escapes, not involving structural changes, wherever, in the opinion of the court, the premises were not sufficiently protected in that respect. Next, as to certain provisions in relation to dangerous premises and dangerous machines: the law at present was very defective, not in the matter of inspection, but in the matter of affording a speedy and adequate remedy. The Bill first dealt with premises which were in an unfit state either for manufacturing processes generally, or for the particular process carried on. Power was given to a court of summary jurisdiction, on the complaint of an Inspector, and on being satisfied that any manufacturing process could not be carried on without danger to health, to prohibit the premises from being used until the necessary works had been carried out to put them in a proper condition. This provision was strictly analogous to those in the Public Health Acts with reference to insanitary dwelling-houses, the operation, of which had been found most useful. In the same way the Bill dealt with the case of dangerous machines. He had had cases brought to his notice—particularly in the Sheffield cutlery trade—where grindstones, known or reasonably suspected to be dangerous, the breaking of which was often attended with serious consequences to a large number of persons, went on being worked without there being any effective power to stop them. When the injury had been done, action both civil and criminal could be taken, but the law at present provided no means of preventing the injury. The Bill proposed that powers should be given to a Court of summary jurisdiction to act on the motion of an inspector, and to require such machines to be disused until they had been put into a proper condition, or, if incapable of that, to be disused altogether. The Government thought this matter to be so important that they proposed to go further, and to enable the magistrate, when a complaint had been made, to make an interim order ex parte, until the complaint could be heard in the regular way. Next, as to the question of accidents, still falling within the

  171
  first category. There were somewhat technical provisions to simplify and extend the law in relation to the notification of accidents. Every occupier of a workshop or factory was to be required to keep a register of accidents open to the inspection of Her Majesty's Inspectors and the certifying surgeons. That provision would be of great benefit in tracing injuries to their causes. There was, further, a provision, to which he attached very much importance, that power should be given to the Secretary of State—a power already possessed by him under the Coal Mines Act in relation to accidents in mines—to direct an inquiry to be made into any accident in a factory or workshop. So far he had been dealing with the internal arrangements of factories and workshops; he now passed to the question of out-work. That was a subject to which much attention had been drawn in connection with what was called "sweating.'' There was a general opinion that our Factory Legislation would be imperfect unless it not only dealt with the arrangements of factories and workshops themselves, but also put some check on the occupier evading his legal obligations by getting his work done outside, where inspection could not penetrate and the law could not be enforced. By the Act of 1891 the Secretary of State was empowered to order that in certain trades the occupier of a workshop or factory should keep lists of the names and addresses of his out-workers, which lists were to be open to inspection. The right hon. Gentleman opposite exercised that power in respect of one trade; and he had done so in respect of one or two others. The result, on the whole, had been very satisfactory, because by means of the new inspectors' assistants it had been possible in a large number of cases, especially in the East End, to track these "sweaters" to their dens. But the law was far from adequate to meet the case. Various proposals had been made. One was that the occupier of a factory or workshop who gave outwork, should be made absolutely and personally responsible for the sanitary conditions in which the work was done. He had given great attention to that proposal; and although he was entirely in sympathy with its object and intention, he believed that that broad
  172
  and general regulation would be impracticable. In the shawl trade, for instance, work was given out in London, and the shawls were often made in very remote parts of the country. It would be altogether unreasonable to require that a trader in London or a large manufacturing town should not give out-work, except at his own risk and peril, to be done in one of these remote places, in relation to the actual conditions of which lie could have no knowledge, and exercise no control. The Bill took a somewhat milder course, and one which in practice would be more effective. Power was given to the Secretary of State to schedule or order that the provisions which he was about to describe should apply to certain classes of work—where the evil was supposed to exist, and in certain areas to be prescribed. In those cases the law would be as follows:—It having come to the knowledge of one of Her Majesty's Inspectors that out-work was being carried on in an insanitary place, his duty would be to give notice to the employer. Then, after one month, if the employer continued to give outwork to be done in the place, and the place were proved to be insanitary, the employer would be liable to a penalty. The employer would be in this position—that, having received notice, he would be responsible either for putting the place in a proper sanitary condition or for discontinuing to employ the people who worked there. That was an obligation which might be fairly imposed; and, indirectly, it would have the effect of destroying to a large extent the sweater's trade. He would now pass to another head altogether—the provisions of the law which dealt with the period of employment and the hours of labour. Here the question of overtime came in. There are two kinds of overtime—legalised overtime, arid overtime which, in the existing state of the law, was illegal, but which the machinery at the disposal of the Executive did not permit of being found out and punished. There were two kinds of legalised overtime, under two sections of the Act of 1878. The first section (53) dealt with trades where the goods were liable to be spoilt by the weather, or where the trade was subject to sudden press of orders, or to a press of work at recurring seasons of the year. The law allowed to women and young

  173
  persons two hours overtime a day, provided that overtime was worked not more than five days a week, or 48 days in a year. Under Section 42, which dealt with perishable goods, the law allowed overtime to women only, and in this case the overtime was restricted to five days a week, or 96 in the year. He was afraid it was impossible to abolish overtime altogether, at any rate, as regarded women; but the Government proposed to take as long a step in that direction, as might be practicable, by prohibiting absolutely for the future overtime in the case of young persons; and if this Bill were passed the effect would be that no person under 18 would be allowed to work overtime. In the case of women, with whose power of work it was not proposed to interfere, the Government thought the hours at present allowed were undoubtedly long, and it was proposed, under Section. 53, to reduce them from five days to three, and from 48 days in the year to 38, and under Section 56 to 60 days a year. Experience showed that that would not involve any interference with the actual course of business, for there were few businesses at all, and he might say no well-conducted business, where, in any emergency, overtime was required to be worked for a longer time. Another point in relation to overtime was the overtime allowed to male young persons. Then he came to cases in which the provisions of the law as to the hours of women, young persons, and young children, were evaded by giving out home-work to be done after hours. That was a common way of escaping and infringing the provisions of the existing law. The Government proposed to deal with these cases by prohibiting altogether home-work for children employed in factories and workshops; and, next, to provide against any woman or young person employed for full hours in a factory or workshop taking home work or being afterwards employed in a shop, which was a very common thing. He could not pass from this head of the subject without alluding to an omission in the Bill which was certain to excite some comment. The Bill did not contain any provision for raising the minimum age at which children could be employed. The House would remember
  174
  that, under the Act of 1891, the employment of children under 11 was prohibited. Many (including himself) thought that the minimum age ought to be raised from 11 to 12. The proposal, if not advocated, was at least assented to by the representative of the British Government at the Berlin Conference, and, as far as the Government were concerned, they would be most happy to see it enacted. It-might be asked why had they not introduced a provision to that effect in this Bill? Their reasons were purely practical. In the first place the regulations as to the school-age and the age of employment for children in factories and workshops were in a state of great confusion, and required to be simplified and made uniform. The Government had given a great deal of attention to the subject and would like to consolidate all the provisions relating to it and bring them into harmony with one another. The Government thought a separate Bill for the purpose would be more appropriate than the present Bill, which only touched one side of the problem. There was another serious practical difficulty. He had had careful inquiries made into this subject in all parts of the country, and he was assured that a proposal to raise the age—after only two years experience of the 11 years limit—from 11 to 12 would excite strong and determined opposition from masters and men, and more particularly from men employed in the textile industries of Lancashire and Yorkshire. They would say:—
  "You have taken advantage of a time when trade is depressed and wages are low to deprive us of earnings which go to the maintenance of our families."
  Although he did not agree with them, he would be most happy to see the provision introduced; but he was anxious to make this, if he could, a non-controversial Bill, and did not wish to sacrifice the chance of passing what he thought was a useful and beneficial Bill, as he feared he should if he attempted an angry and protracted controversy on a particular point. But if the Government discovered there was anything like a general disposition to adopt the age of 12, and insert it in the Bill, they would be in hearty sympathy with it, and would only be too glad to have their hands forced. He now came

  175
  to another important subject—the extension of the Factories Acts to industries not now within it. He had expressed the opinion more than once that our factory Legislation should cover the whole area of industry, and, although that was perhaps in the nature of an ideal to be gradually attained, he thought they ought, as far as they could within the limits of what was practical, to get closer and closer to it. This Bill proposed to bring under the Factories Acts for the first time several industries at present outside its scope; and first and foremost were laundries. At present the only enactment applicable to laundries made it incumbent on an Inspector, if it appeared to him that a laundry was in an insanitary condition, to give notice to the sanitary authority, who must take action upon it. In practice this provision had been found to be of little value. He would state in two or three sentences why laundries ought to come within the scope of the Factories Act. In the first place, engines and machinery were used to a large extent in some laundries, and the fencing of the machinery was frequently neglected, and numbers of accidents were caused in consequence. Again, in steam and other laundries there was a needlessly high temperature, due partly to lack of ventilation and combination of heat and humidity, which arose from the stoves for heating irons, which were kept in the ironing rooms, where they ought not to be. Then there were in laundries excessive hours of work. Careful investigation had been made in all parts of the country, and he found that work often went on in laundries for 66, and even 85, hours a week. In many laundries there were no regular meal times. Working all night was not uncommon, and in many parts of the country ironers worked from Friday mornings until midnight on Saturday. By proper organisation of work, double shifts and expedients of that kind, he saw no difficulty in accommodating laundry work to the ordinary statutory conditions. At any rate, an experiment would be made, and if this Bill were passed some laundries would be treated as factories and other laundries as workshops under the Factories and Workshops Act. The only conditions by way of exemption were that the Act should apply only to laundries carried on by
  176
  way of trade, and not to laundries where the persons employed were members of the same family. Beyond these exemptions he did not see his way to go. He proposed now to refer to another trade, or set of trades at present exempt from the operation of the law—namely, docks, wharves, and quays, and also building operations where machinery was employed. This was a sphere of industry in which accidents often occurred, serious and sometimes fatal; and the Government thought docks, wharves, and quays ought to be brought within the provisions of the Act, certainly as to the fencing of machinery, the notices of accidents, and inspection. He wished now to refer to the tenement factories, which were very common in Sheffield and that part of the country. In these factories one person was landlord of all the rooms and provided the power, and he let off the rooms to different occupiers, occuping none of the premises himself. One of the sub-occupiers hired a room, used the power provided, and sometimes worked for himself or employed a few men under him. The result was, no one being the occupier, in the technical sense, of the building as a whole, it was impossible to enforce the Act. Under the present Bill the owner of the premises would be made responsible as to the sanitary conditions, fencing of machinery, lime washing, posting up of abstracts and notices; and the schedule contained provisions peculiarly applicable to the grinding industry carried on in Sheffield, which had been agreed upon, and if carried into law would prevent a large number of avoidable accidents. Lastly, in dealing with new trades to be included in the scope of the Bill, he came to bakehouses.
  MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEYasked whether Section 8 of 1891 would be applied to tenement factories.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHsaid, no doubt the section might be applied, and it was very desirable that there should be special rules in such cases. With regard to bakehouses the present state of the law was unsatisfactory. Some of the provisions of the law as to sanitary and other matters applied only to towns of over 5,000 inhabitants, and others only to bakehouses which had been opened

  177
  since June 1883. The Government proposed that these provisions should be applied to all bakehouses, existing and future, wherever situated and whenever worked. He passed now to the special provisions for particular industries, and he came first and foremost to a question interesting to lion. Members for Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire namely, what was commonly known as the "particulars" clause. Hon. Members representing those districts were aware that the Act of 1891, by Section 24, required that in the case of certain classes of workers paid by the piece the employers should supply the operative when giving out the work with sufficient particulars to enable him to ascertain the rate of wages which he was entitled to be paid for the work. This was a very useful provision, but it had been found inadequate. The right hon. Member for Bury introduced a Bill last year which proposed to amend the law on the subject, and their Bill, he would see, differed from his in being somewhat more comprehensive in character. In the first place, it was confined to a limited class of workers—in the cotton trade, only to weavers, winders, and reelers; and in the worsted, linen, and jute trades, to the weavers only. He proposed to extend it to every worker in every textile factory where payment was by the piece. In the next place, the existing law was defective as to the form and extent of the particulars required. The Act did not say whether particulars were to be verbal merely or in writing, though, he confessed, it was manifestly the intention of the Act that it should be furnished in writing. This had given rise to a certain amount, of trouble, and there had been, still more difficulty in regard to how many particulars the Act required. They proposed to define all these matters. They required the, employer to furnish two sets of particulars to the men; in the first place he was dealing, of course, only with people paid by the, piece—he was to furnish particulars of the rate of wages applicable to the work, and in the next place he was to furnish particulars of the work given out to the individual workman to whom that rate of wages was to be applied. The particulars under each of these two heads were to be furnished in writing at the time when
  178
  the work was given out. Special provision was made that it should be in writing, and not in symbols, as the latter were liable to misunderstanding. The provisions he had named were subject simply to two exceptions. As to the rate of wages, where the particulars were equally applicable to all workers in one room they might be exhibited on a placard, providing that the placard contained all the particulars as to the rate of wages and nothing else; and then, as to the particulars of the work to be done, that might in appropriate cases be ascertained by what was known as an automatic indicator, which was well known in. the spinning branch of the cotton trade. In order that these indicators should not be misleading, they proposed to make special provisions of a highly-technical kind to secure their accuracy. He thought that when the law was amended in that way it would give satisfaction both to the employers and employed in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and would remove many harassing difficulties which had arisen as to the construction of the existing section. He passed from that to the special provisions inserted dealing with dangerous trades. By these they proposed that where a certificate was given, under Section 8 of the Act of 1891, that a trade was dangerous to life or health, the Secretary of State, by the special rules which he was empowered to make, might prohibit the employment or limit the period of employment of any class of workers engaged in that trade. He had found in framing these special rules that in connection with the lead industries and other dangerous trades he had been very much hampered by not having the power to prohibit altogether certain classes of people from engaging in certain, processes; and some of the, most valuable recommendations of the Departmental Committees which had investigated the conditions of these particular industries he had not been able to carry out because he had not possessed the powers which they were now asking for. The powers were not at all likely to be abused or to be used in any sense that was oppressive or injurious to the liberty of trade, and he recorded his own most deliberate opinion that it was absolutely essential to the health and life of the workers. He would mention in passing some points of detail. They

  179
  proposed in the case of textile factories, where a great deal of humidity was engendered by the operations of the trade, as was the case especially in linen factories, to bring them under the provisions of the Cotton Cloth Act, 1889. They had heard a good deal of the condition of things in Belfast from this cause, and he had been much shocked to find what a large amount of preventable mortality and illness existed. Mr. Osborne, the gentleman who had been intrusted with the execution of the Cotton Cloth Act, and who was one of the ablest men in the service of the Crown, speaking with a special knowledge of Belfast, was able to report that a large amount of this mortality was due to precisely the same conditions against which the Legislation of 1889 had been directed, and, if a similar scale of temperature as that described by the Act of 1889 could be applied to the linen industry of Belfast a very great change in the condition of things would soon lie brought about. By arrangements and negotiations made with the employers and employed of Belfast, he was happy to say very large and beneficial changes had been already introduced; but he hoped the House would pass this provision into law, so as to enable them in future to apply it to all the textile industries. There was another small point relevant to the same subject; they proposed that in workshops and factories, where wearing apparel was made, the law should in future provide that the temperature should be kept at not less than 60 degrees. The House was probably unaware, as he himself had been until the matter was specially brought to his notice, how large a number of workshops there were in London, such as those where dressmaking was carried on, in which there was no heat of any kind provided for the workers. The women and girls very often arrived at these places in wet clothes; there were no means of drying them, and they carried on their work all through the day without artificial heat of any kind.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: Why limit to clothing factories?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, it was so limited in his proposal because it was only in those cases they had evidence that serious evils existed. He thought it would not
  180
  be desirable to make any hard and fast rules, except where a clear case of necessity was made out; but, of course, if it could be shown that there were other industries in the same condition, he should be very glad to include them. There were also special provisions as to places where arsenic and other poisonous substances were made or used. In future, wherever cases of illness occurred from lead, or arsenic, or phosphorus, or anthrax, it would be the duty of the occupier of the factory to give immediate notice to the inspector or certifying surgeon, and it would be the duty of the medical officer who attended to the case to give notice to the chief inspector in London.
  MR. W. P. BYLES: Will anthrax include diseases arising from handling wool?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that was what he had in his mind. Then, lastly, they proposed that all the workshops in the country, not only future, but existing, workshops should be registered. It was absolutely essential to the efficient carrying out of the law under this section that annual returns should be made in all factories and workshops of the persons employed and of the particulars as to age and sex. Their proposals, briefly recapitulated, were these:—First, as to factories and workshops, where either the premises were unfit for use or any process or machine was dangerous, the law would make full provision for the safety of the workers, and it would be simpler to apply and easier to enforce. For that purpose they proposed the compulsory registration of accidents and the giving of power to the Secretary of State to make inquiry which would render the evasion of the law more difficult and the hushing up of injuries impossible. As to the outwork, they proposed to prevent the present abuses and ultimately to penalise the giver-out of work if he continued to send it to insanitary places. As to overtime, they had prohibited it altogether for young persons and reduced it for women. As to homework, which was a peculiarly noxious form of overtime, they had prohibited it for children and regulated it for women and young persons, so as to secure that no person protected by the law should work during the 24 hours for a longer time than the law at present permits. As

  181
  to the new industries, such as laundries, flocks, harbours, tenement factories, the construction of buildings and bakehouses, they had brought them for the first time within the scope of the law. They had made special provision for dangerous trades and textile industries; and by providing for the registration of workshops throughout the country, they took the best step they could take to secure the efficient administration of the law. He trusted that this might be regarded as a matter of equal concern to all parties, and when this Bill reached, as he hoped it would, the Second Reading, they would be able to thresh out its details in a practical spirit in one of the Standing Committees upstairs.
  SIR J. E.said, he did not think, with regard to the age limit, that the Home Secretary had fully stated to the House the obligation entered into at the Berlin Conference. It was five years since that Conference, and although it was quite true that we had entered into no international obligation, yet there was no doubt we pledged ourselves at that Conference to a certain course of action in our domestic Legislation, which it was impossible for us to depart from without incurring a certain amount of just censure and odium. The composition of the British Plenipotentiaries to the Berlin Conference was not in any sense of a Party character. It included men of all political Parties and of great commercial experience—men who represented the employers and the employed, including the hon. Member for Morpeth. The British Plenipotentiaries found that in almost all particulars the factory legislation of this country was of a far more stringent character than that which prevailed in the countries on the Continent, and one of their objects was to persuade those nations to bring up their legislation to our level. But in that general superiority of British factory laws there was one exception—that children in this country were permitted to go to work at a much earlier age than in most European countries. A pledge was unanimously given by the British Plenipotentiaries, however, acting under instructions from the Government, that 12 years should be regarded as the minimum age at which
  182
  a child should be allowed to work in factories or workshops in England. Under those circumstances he desired to ask the House and the Government whether our national character would not suffer if another Factories and Workshops Bill was passed without any provision in it to raise the age of the work-child to the minimum prescribed by the Conference. He was perfectly aware of the opposition which had in-induced the Home Secretary to abstain from inserting such a provision in this Bill. He greatly regretted that opposition, but it should be pointed out in fairness that at the Conference the textile trades were strongly represented, and that those representatives assented to the pledge to which he had referred. He knew that the Lancashire people had long complained of the unfair competition of the Indian factories, in which child labour was permitted to an extent which was not allowed in this country. He could only say that, in his official position when he was Under Secretary for India, and in his position as a private Member, he had always done his utmost to get the age of the child-workers in India raised, and he should never rest until the benefits which had been extended to English children in this respect were extended to the children of India. It was, no doubt, a deplorable circumstance that, with new industries springing up in India, the Government of India should allow those industries to grow up under conditions which had been found to be intolerable in this country. If the people of Lancashire were so keenly sensitive, of unfair competition in India, did it never occur to them that we ourselves were equally subjecting Continental nations to unfair competition by permitting child-labour in our factories at a younger age than was allowed in the textile factories of those countries? He hoped, however, that before long a better frame of mind might be brought about on this question among the textile workers in Lancashire and other parts of the country. And with the idea of reaching some practical result in the matter, if possible, he would readily undertake to introduce a clause dealing with the point before the Bill left the House, and would submit it to the judgment of the House in the same way as the hon. Member for Morpeth submitted

  183
  a similar clause four years ago. When the clause in the present Factory Act was under discussion the hon. Member appealed to him as a Member of the Government to support it, and he did so. He would now make a similar appeal to the hon. Member for Morpeth to give like support to the clause which he intended to introduce when it came before the House. He trusted they would be able to show the Government that opinion in that House and in the country was so strongly in favour of raising the minimum age of the child-worker that they would feel justified in giving their support to the clause when it was introduced.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he had heard the statement of the Home Secretary with satisfaction. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having been able to make that statement, and on having had the opportunity of proposing some further progress in factory legislation. This kind of legislation was not of a humdrum character; it was of practical value, and large numbers would derive benefit from it. There was scarcely any subject more interesting to trace than legislation in reference to labour. Comparing the conditions of textile labour in this country now with those of 60 or 70 years ago, it was impossible not recognise that that legislation had been most valuable and beneficial. But it was desirable to proceed with all such legislation by degrees and with caution, for they could not proceed with it against the opinion of those whom it directly affected and unless backed by public opinion, which had made great progress on those questions since 1891. As to raising the age of the child-worker, the instincts of everyone would be in favour of carrying it out if possible. They must be guided to a great extent in the matter by persons who had direct knowledge of the subject, and among those there was difference of opinion. Moreover, the interests and the necessities of the, persons affected must be regarded, and the matter deserved most careful consideration. He hoped it would be dealt with in a practical spirit, and yet with all regard to the feelings of humanity. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the advance which was to be made in respect of the "particulars" clause of
  184
  the existing Act. It was said in 1891 that if the manufacturer was forced to give particulars he would have to disclose the secrets of his trade to his rivals, and that his business would thereby be imperilled. But none of these fears had been realised. No instance had been mentioned of injury caused by the disclosure of the facts known as "particulars." By extending the benefit of the clause to all textile trades and by making it more definite great good would, in his opinion, be effected. The proposal for automatic registers would, he thought, be accepted by both employers and employed. The provisions of the Cotton Factories Act of 1889 with regard to temperature and humidity in sheds had proved to be defective in some respects. It was true that the Home Secretary had a power to alter the conditions of atmosphere and humidity in any given place to which the Act applied, but he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had exercised the power. [Mr. Asquith indicated that he had.] Then the right hon. Gentleman had not exercised it to such an extent as to give general satisfaction. The application of the power was most urgently needed in places where a great amount of sizing took place. He was therefore glad to know that this question was to be further dealt with.
  MR. HENRY MATTHEWSsaid, that when he was at the Home Office his advisers warned him against any attempt to lay down a statutory definition of overcrowding. What would be gross overcrowding in a workshop in a town might not be overcrowding at all in a village workshop which enjoyed an abundance of air. To lay down a hard-and-fast rule on the subject was therefore thought formerly not to be quite wise. He doubted whether it would be expedient to entrust to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction cases involving the question whether particular premises or machines were dangerous to be used. Questions of that kind were rather technical, and he thought that they could be dealt with better in the way of administration than in the way of judicial proceeding. He also had some hesitation about accepting the change which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make in respect of overtime.

  185
  The clauses against overtime in the Act of 1878 were settled after a full and most elaborate inquiry into the conditions of almost every trade in the country, and were adapted carefully to the wants of different trades. Where was the evidence justifying an alteration in those provisions? As to the age at which children ought to be allowed to work, he agreed with what had been said by the Home Secretary. It would be very injudicious to handicap factory and workshop children as compared with other children. If the age at which a child was allowed to earn his own living by work was to be altered it ought to be altered for all industries, and not for some only. The large step which the Home Secretary proposed to take in the direction of extending factory legislation not merely to industries for the manufacture of products for sale, but to all industries, was a very great innovation, which might lead them further than they intended to go. If they brought under the Factory Acts an industry like the laundry industry, where could they stop? They might have to extend the law next to domestic service and field labour. There were, of course, clauses in the Factory Acts that might be applied to all industries without mischief, but he doubted whether the provisions as to regular hours and fixed times for meals could be universally applied. The sanitary clauses of the Act of 1891 already applied to laundries, and, no doubt, that was beneficial, but he was not sure that a further application of the Act to those places would be wise. The work in a laundry was necessarily unequal. In a cotton mill the flow of work was perfectly regular, and it could be confined within given limits; but in a laundry, especially in the country, the work was often necessarily crowded into three or four days in the week. Instead of applying the Factory and work-shop Acts en bloc to an industry such as that, they would do better to select for application particular and suitable provisions for preventing danger from machinery or overwork. There was another large class of laundries with regard to which they would be bound closely to watch the provisions of the Bill—he meant convent laundries, which were carried on in this country and very largely in Ireland. With
  186
  regard to special provisions, he had always felt that to prevent a workman from being able to ascertain for himself what wages ought to be paid was a fraudulent thing on the part of the employer, and that at whatever risk, almost, Parliament ought to compel this information to be furnished; and accordingly he should be glad to extend the scope of the particulars clause, at present limited to weavers, winders, and reelers in the cotton industry, to other classes if they had not under the existing Act been able to obtain particulars. He should raise no objection to extending Section 8 of the Act of 1891, relating to dangerous trades, in the manner the right hon. Gentleman had indicated; but it seemed to him there would be difficulty, and perhaps danger, in the application of the large power's which the right hon. Gentleman had asked for. For instance, under the power to prohibit the employment of certain classes of persons in certain employments, the influence of a Trade Union might be brought to bear to prohibit the employment of women in certain classes of work, although there was no reason to think those employments were in themselves either dangerous or undesirable. So long as the right hon. Gentleman was at the Home Office he should have confidence that the section would be used in a proper way. Section 8 had not, perhaps, been used so largely as it might be. His own intention when the clause was drawn was, that it should cover, for example, dangerous conditions arising from excessive humidity. The value of the section was, that it was elastic, and enabled any regulation made under it, as applied to a particular industry which experience proved to be inexpedient or unwise, to be altered without going to the House of Commons and going through the elaborate machinery of a Bill. As to the returns to be made to the Home Office, he was afraid the unhappy owner of a factory or workshop was somewhat overburdened already with returns, and that any additional duty imposed in this way would lead to the work being done loosely arid inaccurately. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having introduced a Bill which would be beneficial and useful, and assured him that, on the Opposition side of the House, he would

  187
  receive nothing but assistance in carrying the measure into law.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLAwas satisfied that, if the Bill fully carried out what the Home Secretary had stated, it would be welcomed on both sides of the House. There were a few particulars to which he desired to draw attention. And first with respect to the cleaning of machinery in motion. It was quite right that should not be done by children or young persons, but the provision might be carried a little further. Some most distressing accidents had resulted from the cleaning of machinery by women. He had seen the dress of a woman—he had seen the hair of a woman caught in the machinery and torn off her head before any intimation could be made to the engine-house. It was from the dress and the hair of a woman that the danger arose, and he hoped when the Bill got into Committee that they would extend the operation of that clause to the case of women. He did not agree with right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the sufficiency of the overtime clause in existing Legislation. If one referred to the evidence given before the Royal Commission by Her Majesty's Inspectors it would be seen that the system was almost universally condemned, from the way in which the privilege of working overtime was abused. Take the millinery trade: women and young persons were worked overtime to a scandalous extent long before any notice reached the factory inspector, in overcrowded rooms, with the fumes of gas, and under conditions most injurious to the health of the women and young persons employed. The simple pretext for overtime was to carry work home to be done after the factory was closed. It was an attempt to evade the law. On the question of raising the working age of children, he had always been, he was afraid, in advance of the House, perhaps somewhat in advance of the country. When he came into the House first the age for half-timers was eight years of age, and it had been steadily raised to 11, He believed it was as much in the interests of the parent as of the children that the age should be raised to 12. The whole of industrial Europe was ahead of us on this question. France had adopted 12 years, Germany 13, and in Switzerland he
  188
  believed 12 was the minimum, and in one canton 14 was the earliest age at which the child was allowed to be sent to work. In this country we had too much of child labour in competition with adult labour, and it was in the interest not only of the children, but of the parents themselves, that the age for half-time should be raised to 12 years. These views, he was glad to say, were also held by many manufacturers in Lancashire and Yorkshire. He believed that half-time labour was not cheap as some people thought it was—and it was against the interest of the nation, who, of course, desired to see a race of strong and healthy people, and altogther wrong to put children of 11 years of age, as was the case now, or of eight years, as was the case down to 1874, into a mill at six o'clock in the morning to work for six hours. That was a monstrous thing to do, and it was not to be wondered at that the children in the districts where this employment largely prevailed grew up poor, rickety creatures, and turned out very diminutive and inferior men and women. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would take the necessary steps to raise the age to 12 years for half-timers, if he could so without imperilling the Bill. They ought not to handicap one class of industry, but it ought to be made the uniform law throughout the country that no child under 12 years of age should be employed in any industry, and if the right hon. Gentleman moved a clause to that effect he should certainly give it his hearty support. He sincerely trusted that when the Bill went to the Grand Committee they would thresh it out in the businesslike manner in which that Committee always dealt with factory legislation, and make it a useful, workable measure, and a further extension of that beneficent legislation which had been a fruitful source of good to this country.
  MR. J. BURNSdesired to join in the general congratulations which had been offered upon the main features of the Bill introduced by the Home Secretary. He should like briefly to address himself to three or four points in the measure. First, with regard to the question of registration, he sincerely trusted that the registration of factories and workshops would be carried out in a thorough, satisfactory and minute

  189
  manner. The statistical examinations, which must necessarily follow from the registration of factories and workshops, would throw a very considerable light upon a number of facts necessary to be in their possession in connection with the consideration of the factory problem, if they were to deal with it in a satisfactory way. The Home Secretary must make up his mind that he would receive a great deal of opposition from certain quarters against the idea of registering factories and workshops, but he must be prepared to meet that. Although the Bill was wide and comprehensive, and, perhaps, more humane in many provisions than previous Factory Bills, he sincerely regretted that, on the question of out-work, the Home Secretary had not made up his mind to abolish homework altogether. If, some 15 or 20, years ago, it had been said that this was impossible, he could have understood it, but the evolution of industry and the rapid elimination of the middleman during the last 15 or 20 years had considerably reduced the amount of homework or outwork in competitive industries. He remarked that, however strict might be the penalty upon homework, however vigorous the enforcement of sanitary conditions, the very fact that work was allowed to be done in domestic workrooms and under home conditions, under any circumstances, led to an evasion, not only of the principle of a Factory Act, but to an evasion of the very elements of sanitary supervision. The Bill dealt with the question of homework in a very modified way, and he hoped in Committee it would be strengthened in the direction he had indicated. He congratulated the Home Secretary upon having determined to take children entirely from noxious work and dangerous trades. Here, again, the right hon. Gentleman would have to be prepared to meet opposition against this drastic provision. They would have parents dragged in, and the poor lone widow again brought to the front. He would appeal to the Home Secretary, however, to remember that there had never yet been a Factory Bill passed in that House but, unfortunately, many operatives, and particularly female operatives, had been put forward to protest against the raising of the age limit for the employment of children, or any
  190
  proposal for the removal of children from dangerous trades. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, in this matter, stick to his guns, so that, in future, they should not hear, as they had done in the past, of sad and distressing cases resulting from white lead poisoning, together with other diseases, too frequently caught by immature lads and girls who ought, at their ages, to be at school or in the playground. He desired to ask the Home Secretary whether he could inform them at this or some subsequent stage the age at wich he defined a "child" who was to be withdrawn from noxious and dangerous trades? He was glad that the Bill abolished overtime for young persons. On the question of laundries, he ventured to differ with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Matthews). He thought the right hon. Gentleman's view of the laundry question was hardly up-to-date. For instance, he told them that a laundry should be differentiated from many other industries, on the ground that laundry work was very unequal, intermittent and fluctuating. But why was the washing more unequal than the making of linen? Was it not entirely due to the fact that laundries, for some reason, had been exempted from factory and workshop legislation, and from many sanitary provisions, which had hitherto applied to the textile trades? The washing of linen, he contended, was more permanent than the making of it. He happened to represent a district in which there were four of the largest steam laundries in England. Generally speaking, they gave employment to their people fairly regularly—certainly more regularly than carpenters or bricklayers were employed. But those poor girls, because the. Factory Act did not apply to laundries, were frequently kept at work until a very late hour sometimes, indeed, until one o' clock in the morning. He was glad that, the Bill dealt with the docks. It had hitherto been a reproach that the dock labourers, who were peculiarly subjected to dangerous conditions of employment, should not have the Factory Acts made applicable to them. Again, he should like to know to what extent the baker was to be dealt with in this particular Bill? Of course, one did not expect that the Home Secretary would

  191
  deal with the question of underground bakehouses, but if he could do so all sides, and particularly London Members, would rejoice at it, and give him their help. He might mention that 96 per cent, of the bakehouses were underground in many London districts. These underground bakehouses should be abolished as soon as it was practicable to carry out such a reform. Then where baking was done continuously, there should be a system of working by shifts, there being, say, two or three shifts. He should like to say a word or two on tenement workshops. He happened to have worked for some years himself in a tenement workshop in High Holborn. It was, he thought, an instance of many tenement workshops that existed in Birmingham and the Midlands. He trusted that rigorous steps would be taken against the men who in tenement workshops frequently had two or three boys and one or two girls at work, and who were able to impose upon his own children conditions of toil and ventilation that no Act of Parliament would allow an employer to impose upon other men's children in a large factory. The Home Secretary did not refer to the nail and chain-making trades. He had witnessed the moral and physical degradation to which girls and boys engaged in nail and chain making were subjected, by the frightful conditions which prevailed, and he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman would at once raise the age to 14 at which boys or girls should be allowed to enter a nail and chain factory, the whole of the adult operatives in the Black Country would bless him. There was one point on which he must press the Home Secretary, and it was whether he would provide in the Bill for what was known as continuous working at dangerous or semi-dangerous trades. Gasworks owned by municipalities, and at which continuous work was carried on, had voluntarily and partly through the pressure of organised public opinion, adopted eight-hour shifts. Such was the case with sewage works, similarly conducted, and he was glad to see that many chemical manufacturers had adopted the system of an eight-hour shift. That system had been generally adopted by railway companies with regard to signalmen, and he could not
  192
  understand why it should not be compulsorily imposed upon every manufacturer engaged in a dangerous trade. If the Home Secretary had any difficulty in meeting the bogie of foreign competition, the best thing he could do was to say:—
  "Well, gentleman, we recognise the objection that foreign competition must be considered, and as a means of getting out of the difficulty we will at once convoke an international conference to see whether the Governments of all the countries of Europe cannot make up their minds as to an international maximum working day for dangerous industries, with a view to adopting a general reduction of hours."
  There was just one other point he had to touch upon. The right hon. and learned gentleman, the Member for Bury, at the outset of his speech made a few remarks which were eminently Lancastrian in their object. The right hon, and learned Gentleman said, of course, the House sympathised with every attempt to raise the age at which child labour should commence. They all agreed with it, and the operatives agreed with it, but it was a difficult question and must be carefully interfered with; why carefully?—not out of respect to the parents. Unfortunately the working-class children had been too frequently the victims of their own mothers' and fathers' selfishness and ignorance, and in many parts had been sacrificed to the drunken and dirty habits of their parents. He trusted the Home Secretary would recognise that fact. The hon. and learned Member for Bury said there were two sides to the question. There were two sides, the human and the inhuman side, and he believed no man who demanded that children under 14 years of age should go to work had ever in his own person as a lad of 9 or 10 years of age realised the difficulty and the disadvantage of getting up at half-past four on a winter's morning, taking the train or walking through the streets, possibly wearing bad boots, starting work at six, leaving off at five or five thirty at night, and then rushing home, and attending night school. It only too frequently happened that in this way a child debilitated for ever his physical constitution. It seemed to him a mockery to talk about solutions of the unemployed question when we allowed children of tender years to work, and

  193
  there were unemployed hundreds and thousands of lads and girls over 18 years of age willing and capable to do work. He would raise the age of child labour and withdraw from the labour market that infantile competition adult labour was subjected to. Why they should hesitate to abolish half-time labour right off the reel he did not know: why they should hesitate to raise the age to 14, at which children should be allowed to work he could not understand: but of 172,000 half-timers, 153,000 were employed in four districts in Lancashire, Yorkshire, and two other districts. There were only a few hundreds in London, Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield, and other big cities. Let the Home Secretary take the bull by the horns, let him deal with half-timers as Lord Ashley in the other House dealt with the factory question 30 or 40 years ago. If the right hon. Gentleman did away with half-timers he would have on his side the whole of the schoolmasters, all the men who were anxious to solve the unemployed problem, and every one who realised what a danger it was to England that children should be sent into the workshop at the early age at which they were now sent. He hoped the Home secretary would stiffen his Bill, for if he did that he would add another testimony to the good work he had done since he had been in office, not the least piece of which was the introduction of this generally admirable Bill.
  MR. OLDROYDthanked the Home Secretary for the very clear way in which he introduced the Bill, and expressed his intense satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to take up so complicated and difficult a question. The Bill, so far as one could at present judge, seemed to have been conceived in a liberal spirit, and if it it became law it would ensure the application of the factory and workshop regulations to a larger number of industries than they had ever been applied to before. The measure would give further relief to children and young people engaged in different trades from the pressure of long hours—indeed it would certainly bring about an improved condition of things in factories and workshops generally. Considerable reference had been made in the, course of the Debate to the question
  194
  of the employment of short-timers. He had always been an advocate of the abolition of short-timers, for he believed that half time labour was deleterious to the health of children, and was conducive to the deterioration of the race. He did not merely entertain theoretical opinions on the matter, he carried his opinions into practice. The firm with which he was connected had during the last 40 years, and he believed for a longer period, rigorously excluded from their works all half-timers. With regard to the question of the age limit for children he would not enter into the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University as to whether the honour of the nation would be sullied if the House were to pass Factory Legislation without dealing with the matter; but he was glad that on the last occasion the subject was before Parliament they were able at all events to advance the limit from 10 to 11 years. At that time he advocated an advance to 12 years, and he regretted it was not done; and if the Home Secretary substituted 12 for 11 in the present Bill he would most heartily support the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham referred to the point of submitting to the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction the question as to what machinery was or was not of a dangerous character. He felt there was some possibility of a difficulty arising as to the various and conflicting decisions that would be given by these Courts on the point; and that there was a danger also that the decisions of the magistrates might in some cases be prejudiced by self-interest; still he thought it better to leave the question to some such authority rather than to the sole arbitrament of the factory Inspector. He was gratified with the way in which the Home Secretary proposed to deal with "the particulars" clause, in his Bill. The, right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury referred to the clause, and expressed his satisfaction that it was to be more severe and rigid than the clause in the Act of 1891. He was aware that there had been considerable difficulty in the administration of that clause; and he would like to know from the Home Secretary whether there was any provision in the Bill to prevent

  195
  certain cases of evasion which he had in his mind. It was found in several cases which had arisen under the operation of the clause that particulars had been given in conformity with the Statute, but the work that had been done was not in conformity with the particulars. In weaving, weight of cloth was determined by the number of picks per inch put into the loom. Case had come into court in which, for in stance, 30 picks per inch were put into the particulars, the wages being based on the number of picks. But it was found that 35 picks were put into the loom, though the particulars gave the number as 30, and the magistrates refused to convict on the ground that the additional number of picks were put in by accident rather than by design. To this decision the magistrates were led by the plea of the manufacturer that the putting in of the additional pick entailed a greater loss to him—by giving more weight than was required in the cloth—than the small saving in wage secured by paying for 30 picks instead of for 35 picks. But it was shown in one case that the additional number of pick were put in by design; that 35 pick per inch were required in the cloth, and that by collusion between the manufacturer and the manager 35 picks were really put in, though the number was given as 30 in the particulars. In that case the maximum penalty was imposed but in other cases the manufacturer got off on the plea that the additional number of picks got in through inadvertence, and that they, therefore, really suffered, though there was a strong presumption that the greater weight of cloth was intended, and thus the workers were defrauded of their earnings to the extend of 10 or 15 per cent. He hoped the present Bill would provide effective machinery for stopping those frauds on the workers. With regard to tenement workshops, he very much appeciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea; and he trusted that when the Bill was printed it would be found to contain effective provisions for punishing those persons, who under the cloak of the home employment of their own children were able to avail themselves of child labour and thus compete at an advantage with others engaged in the same industry in larger workshops which came under the
  196
  operation of the Factory Acts. He hoped the stringency of the Bill would be such that when it became law there would be such that when it became law there would be no more evasions of the intention of the Legislature to reduce the amount of child labour to reasonable limits. The general consensus of opinion favourable to the Bill which had found expression during the Debate might be accepted as a sufficient guarantee that the Bill would be received with warm approval by the country.
  MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, that in bringing forward this Amendment of the Factory Act, within four years of the passing of the Act of 1891, making the third Amendment of the Factory Laws during the past six years, the Home Secretary had very wisely refrained from uttering any disparagements of previous attempts at Lagislation on the subject. The true reason for the introduction of the Bill was, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that we have to be constantly bringing legislation up to the rising standard of safety. He confirmed what had been said by previous speakers that the Home Secretary had wisely used his opportunities in evolving from the country's stores of accumulated experience a large and generous measure which would be a valuable acquisition to our social Legislation. He desired to know, with regard to the requirements of cubic space for the purposes of health, whether the clause applied to existing factories or only to new factories. With regard to the age limit for children it had been said that the opposition to it sprang entirely from selfish motives, and that the elements of progress and education were in favour of it. That was not the case, because he had a very vivid recollection of the passing of the Act of 1891, and he remembered that one of the weightiest communications received by the then Home Secretary was from the School Board of Bradford, which urged very strongly that the age should not be raised at all. Bradford was not a Conservative town, Bradford was not an unenlightened place, and it was not a place otherwise than devoted to the interests of education. It had stood in the forefront of progress in matters of technical education, having been one of the first towns to found a great technical college, and yet, it was

  197
  found among those who sent the most urgent petitions to the Home Secretary against the raising of the age. For himself he was hound to say that, not coming from Lancashire, and not representing a constituency from which he received any kind of pressure in either direction, he was perfectly free to vote, and always should vote, in favour of any restriction of child labour which did not seem to him to interfere with the general prosperity of the country, and was not opposed by any large section of the people. But the discussion that day was an instructive commentary on the heroies that were indulged in in 1891, and it was interesting to remember all the strong things that were said upon that occasion as to not raising the age from 10 to 12, and to remember at the same time the shrinkings that took place when it was proposed as a result of the sudden and unexpected victory of the then minority to translate into actual execution the proposals that had been demanded demanded in such loud tones, and such hyperbolic language As regarded overtime, the right hon. Gentleman proposed considerable changes. His right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Matthews) reminded the House that the existing provisions for overtime followed upon an extremely minute and careful inquiry. He was speaking of the famous Royal Commission upon which the Factory Act of 1878 was founded. What they wanted to understand before they got into Committee on this Bill was whether these similar provisions had been founded on a similarly exhaustive inquiry, and were not likely to be objected to or to be worse or more detrimental to trade than were the provisions of 1878. The Home Secretary was a little hard on Sheffield and upon that honest industry which was practised at the grindstone. They knew that the grindstone was a dangerous machine, liable to have hidden defects, and to fly to pieces suddenly, scattering death in many directions. But the grindstone was not the only machine winch was capable of becoming dangerous. This was not the only machinery in which there was a danger that what might be called the equipment of the industry might be so starved as to constitute a daily and hourly danger lo the workpeople engaged.
  MR. ASQUITH: The provision applies to all dangerous machines.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that if it applied to all dangerous machines, he thought it a very good provision. Section 8 of the Act of 1891 would probably have been applied to the grindstones had it not been discovered since it passed that owing to the grindstones being generally in places where there was practically no occupier, or at least only an occupier against whom it was no use to proceed, Section 8 of that Act was useless for that purpose. For that reason he wished to know how far the Home Secretary in extending Section 8 of the Act of 1891 was going to make it applicable to the case of the tenement factories. If he did make it applicable to them he would be making an extremely useful extension of the Factory Act. In the case of outworkers there were two or three things the House would have to be careful of. Was this a campaign against female labour? Was it an attempt to restrict the supply of labour? In either case he believed the House would only proceed in the direction to which it was invited with the utmost care and considerable hesitation. He believed that the purpose of the Home Secretary's provisions was at all events ostensibly to secure the sanitary surroundings of the places where the out-workers were employed. They had an authority already responsible for these sanitary surroundings, namely, the Local Sanitary Authority, and he should have thought the better policy would be to increase and stiffen the responsibility of the local Sanitary Authority. If they laid parallel and concurrent responsibility upon the occupier of some other place, which might not be situated in the district of that Sanitary Authority, they would do very much to undermine that responsibility which everyone, would seek to enforce. As regarded home work, was that a campaign of the same kind? They knew of many excellent persons who were engaged in doing their utmost to restore and revive what were called cottage industries. Were they to continue to be allowed, because the persons engaged in those industries did not spend any portion of the day in a factory or workshop? Again, how were they to enforce the provision against home work; because it

  199
  would be a serious step indeed if they were to make practically the private house of a person, who is neither the occupier of a factory nor the conductor of a workshop, for the first time liable to the inspection of the Factory Inspector. He hoped that the new requirements as to statistics and notices would be such as would secure uniformity in the various industries of the country. As regards the dangerous trades to which it was proposed to extend Section 8 of the Act of 1891, it might be a right thing to prohibit the employment of women or children by the executive power, but when that section was drawn up they had regard to the fact that Parliament would prefer—and he should believe Parliament would prefer—that if the labour of any particular class was to be interfered with, it should be done, not by executive action, but rather by the authority of Parliament itself. Section 8 of the Act of 1891 was intended to enable the Minister of the day to bring up the regulation requirements as regards machinery and processes to the best and latest standard of efficiency and protection. He would conclude by saying what he once before had occasion to remark, that the Home Secretary presided over what was, after all, the real Labour Department of the country, and they would see in every clause and line of this proposed Statute a much more active interference with, and regulation of, a larger number of industries, and a much greater amount of excellent public work done or proposed to be done, than they saw or ever would see in the essay-writing and statistic-collecting bureau in another place. He felt sure the House would do its utmost to assist the passing of this Bill.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, BUXTON,), thought the Home Secretary might well congratulate himself on the cordial reception of his Bill by all sections of the House. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench had referred to the question of overtime, and had deprecated the idea of dealing with the matter, chiefly on the ground that a Royal Commission came to certain conclusions which were embodied in the Act of 1878. But public opinion had
  200
  advanced very considerably in the last twenty years, and everyone admitted—though they might not go to the full extent of desiring that overtime should be prohibited—that public feeling had certainly come to the conclusion that further steps ought to be taken in the direction indicated in the Bill. And the intention was in the future to prohibit young persons being employed on overtime at all, and in the case of women to limit the number of days and number of hours during which they might work overtime during the year. Information in the possession of the Home Office went to show that while in some cases the existing powers were abused, it might be taken as a general rule that they were not exercised to the full extent. That was a strong argument in favour of limiting the powers where it showed that they were used and abused by the worst employers, while they were not used at all by the good employers. In answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, he said it was distinctly provided in the Bill that the overtime worked by women was limited to a certain number of hours, whether the work was done at home or in the factory. The hon. Member for Sheffield asked whether the provision in regard to overcrowding applied to existing factories. Certainly, and the reason for introducing it was that it had been the general rule of the Department to treat 250 cubic feet as a minimum; and it was thought better if that had been the rule of the Department, that it should be made the absolute minimum, not only for existing factories, but also for workshops throughout the country. He attached very great importance to the step proposed to be taken in the Bill to deal with the question of outworkers. The hon. Member for Battersea said they ought to abolish out work, but that could hardly be done at the present time. There was no attempt to abolish home work, but what they wanted to do was to improve the conditions under which that work was carried on, and to bring the worst class of places up to a better sanitary standard, so that better conditions would surround the workmen. They did not, however, see their way to abolish it altogether. The hon. Member for Sheffield seemed to think that this might be applied to the abolition of

  201
  cottage industries, but it must be recollected that provisions of the Bill would apply to special classes of work only Although some few persons might suffer from these proposals, yet he believed that the general bulk of the working classes, and those engaged in particular industries, would derive great benefit from them. At any rate, their condition in the East End of London would be greatly improved. The right hon. Member for East Birmingham said that he was in favour of the registration of workshops, because it would provide more statistical knowledge on this subject; but under this Bill there would come under the supervision, of the inspectors a very large percentage which hitherto had escaped their attentions. Of course every care would be taken in the application of the new conditions, and he assured the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill would not in any degree injure the laundry trade. With regard to the Docks, they would be brought under the Factory Law as regarded the reporting of accidents and the general system of factory inspection, but the question of hours would not apply because they employed no women or young children. Then there was the point which had been raised about half-time employment. On general principles they were strongly in favour of raising the age, but whether that should be in the Bill or not was a matter of expediency—whether they should risk the danger of losing the Bill, which contained many admirable provisions, by inserting a proposal which might lead to considerable opposition. They were gratified to find a desire that this particular provision be inserted, and if there was a consensus of opinion in its favour he had no doubt the Government, which was entirely in the hands of the House in this matter, would have no objection to its insertion, provided, of course, that it would not interfere with the passing of the Bill.
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOXsaid, he wished to make one or two remarks with regard to the industries of the North of Ireland. He felt sure the operatives in that part of Ireland would feel indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the advantage which they would derive from this Bill. But there was one thing in it which might give
  202
  rise to some misapprehension. As he understood the Bill, it proposed to give the Secretary of State power to prohibit the employment of women and children in dangerous trades. The linen industry had been scheduled as a dangerous trade, and he wished to know whether the Executive was to have the power of enforcing in one department of the textile industry stricter regulations than prevailed in the others. No doubt the Bill would remove many of the dangers co which the workers were now exposed, and while both employers and employed in the North of England would welcome the enforcement of stricter sanitary regulations in the linen mills, yet he thought they might have some objection to the Executive possessing the power of prohibiting the employment of women and children in a manufacture in which they were so much more largely engaged than men.
  MR. R. W. HANBURY, in referring to the practise of sweating, said that one of the worst offenders in that respect was a Department of the State—namely, certain departments of the Wai1 Office. The Government Departments ought to set an example in this respect, and he hoped that they would be placed on the same footing as any other factory, and liable to the same inspections. These regulations, however, would have to be carried out very carefully or they would have a tendency to drive work out of the country, for while the right hon. Gentleman might exercise a judicious control over the work which was sent out of the factories, he did not quite see how he could exercise such control as would prevent, work being sent out to foreign countries. That was where they would find the real danger. He knew, as a matter of fact, that a great deal of work had been sent out of the country and was carried on in sweating dens in France, and practically done by prisoners in French gaols, who had been hired out by contractors. The right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had referred to a consensus of opinion that the age of children ought to be raised; but he hoped the Bill would not be wrecked by trying to make any change of that kind. If that were done it would overweight the Bill and place more in it than it could carry. The hon. Member for

  203
  Battersea had spoken somewhat violently upon this subject, but he seemed to be guided not so much by the humanitarian point of view, as by the competition between child and adult labour. It was hardly fair to Lancashire operatives, who had to contend with Indian mills and import duties laid upon Lancashire goods, to lay an additional burden upon Lancashire labour; but it would be very different if one suggestion that had been made could be carried out, and if you could establish throughout the Continent one set of hours, and, still more, if you could bring about a rise of wages among operatives abroad. The competition would then cease to be as unfair as it is, and Lancashire operatives would be willing to raise the age of the children employed. In these days a good deal was said in favour of technical instruction as against book-learning; and it was about the best technical training you could give to get the children set to work. [A laugh.] He expected that laugh; but surely it was about the best way in which you could give technical training. It might be that there was a good deal of physical deterioration in manufacturing towns, but it was largely due to other causes than half-time employment; and as to the age of employment, great advances had been made in raising it from eight to nine, and then from nine to eleven. The temperature of mills he believed to be one of the smallest of the causes operating to the detriment of the workers. He heartily wished the Home Secretary success in carrying the Bill.
  MR. S. WOODScongratulated the Home Secretary in producing an excellent Bill, the details of which would gladden the hearts of thousands of workers. As to the extended application of the particulars clause, he knew of a factory in which there were 500 female workers; their weekly wages for the same work varied from 14s. or 16s. to 8s. or 9s.; and yet, if they made any inquiries, they would endanger their employment. There ought to be printed statements showing what they would receive for their work. The registration of workshops and factories would he a good departure. There had been a great outcry against what is known as sweating, and the revelations of the inspectors, especially of female
  204
  inspectors, showed the enormous extent to which it was carried on. Registration was a step in the right direction, because it would enable sweating to be discerned and a remedy applied. He was pleased with the unanimity with which the Home Secretary's statement had been received, and glad that the Bill was not to be discussed from a Party point of view. He hoped that in Committee hon. Members would give all the aid suggested by their experience to make the Bill valuable for the protection of the working classes.
  SIR K. TEMPLEsaid, he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman below him (Sir,J. Gorst) to say that the restrictions and limitations upon certain classes of labour were not equal as between Lancashire and Bombay. We knew that the competition between these two parts of the British Empire was very keen, and if that competition was to be fair, surely the limitations and restrictions upon labour ought to be equal also. If there were restrictions here which did not exist in India, the sooner Her Majesty's Government took up the question of equalisation the better. When he was Governor of Bombay he took up the question of the limitation of labour under certain conditions. Although he did not stay long enough to see very much accomplished, yet since his time he supposed some progress must have been made. His right hon. and learned Friend now said that something had been done by his successors, but possibly they had not clone enough, and something more could be done in the way of equalisation. If so, he was sure that the able Secretary for India would not fail to take the matter up.
  Bill presented accordingly and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

  TRUCK ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITH, in asking for leave to introduce a Bill to Amend the Truck Acts, said the House was aware there was a great feeling of grievance among the working classes as regarded deductions from their wages in respect of fines, materials, tools, and matters of that kind. Although, from

  205
  the information he had received, he did not think it would be possible to make all deductions of every kind illegal, because there were some trades in which it was necessary and even to the advantage of the workpeople, that they should be able to buy materials or tools from employers, yet he was satisfied that the existing state of things did impose hardships very nearly to extortion, and in his judgment some remedy ought to be provided. It was proposed to provide that for the future a contract between a workman and an employer for any deduction from wages, whether for fines, materials, tools, machines, standing-room, or other matters of that kind, should he illegal and unenforceable except under two conditions. The first was that there should be a contract in writing, signed by the workman; and the second, which was much more important, was that the contract should he held to be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Thus, if a poor woman employed in needlework were obliged to pay an employer for needles and thread higher prices than those at which they could be bought at a retail shop in the neighbourhood, their cases might at once be brought before a magistrate, and it would be held that the charges were unreasonable and therefore illegal. But it would not be satisfactory to leave workmen or workwomen to seek their own remedy. They were too poor, and unorganised trades too dependent, and the penalties even of success, let alone of failure, would be too grievous. Therefore it was thought better and desirable to extend the provisions of the Truck Act of 1887, and to make it the duty of the inspectors of factories and workshops, when cases of this kind were brought to their notice, to take them before the magistrates. These were the main provisions of the Bill. There was another to the effect that no payment of this kind, or anything in the nature of Truck, however reasonable, was to be authorised or allowed unless particulars in writing were supplied to the workman or workwoman at the time when the contract was made. The Bill was printed and would be circulated at once.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONthought that the Bill would probably meet the mischiefs which appeared to exist in a few cases. But the House
  206
  must be careful not to carry it too far. An instance came under his notice the other day where it was discovered that there had been some tools which workmen had been obliged to pay a very high price for sharpening; and it appeared that, if this work was allowed to be done by the employers, the work could be more efficiently undertaken and at a much less cost. It was therefore in the interest of the workmen not to prohibit such a transaction.
  Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

  SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND)BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Monday next read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn, and leave given to present another Bill instead thereof.
  GRAND JURIES (IRELAND)(NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Hayden, Bill to amend the Grand Jury (Ireland) Laws. Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Sir G. O. Morganreported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir Julian Goldsmid to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures; and that they had appointed Sir George Osborne Morgan to act as Chairman of the Standing Committeee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Sitting suspended at five minutes before Seven o'Clock.

  EVENING SITTING.
  The Sitting was resumed at Nine of the Clock.

  THE POST OFFICE AND NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
  SUPPLY—Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. J. W. BENNproposed—
  "to leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'a Select Committee be appointed to consider the proposed draft agreement between the Postmaster General and the National Telephone Company, and report with reference to the monopoly which may thereby he created; the granting of telephone licences to municipalities and generally on the future policy of the Post office with reference to the extension of the telephone service.'"
  Having expressed regret that the Post master General could leave to the accident of the ballot and the energy of a private Member the provision of an opportunity for discussing this important matter, the hon. Member said the agreement in question grew out of a policy which was declared in March, 1892, by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer The desire was to make the telephone service more useful in the country, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "The trunk lines will he taken over by the Government, leaving to the localities the working of the local exchanges. If thin is done, I believe the public will be better served than if the Government take over the whole business because there will be a competition in the localities to serve the public as well as it can be served."
  The right hon. Gentleman further said the local authorities might, be willing to undertake the telephone business them selves, and he saw nothing contrary to the Government policy in such a proposal. In a Treasury Minute of 23rd May it was said—
  "the intention is to meet, as far as possible, the views of municipal authorities."
  The next step was the Telegraphs Bill,
  208
  which was introduced in May and rushed through the House by June. The London County Council protested against the haste in passing that Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University asked that the reference to the Committee should contain the important words "and send for persons, papers, and records." Unfortunately those words were omitted, but the Select Committee, which consisted of two representatives of the Post Office and three representatives of the telephone companies, were evidently conscious of the omission, because in their report they said—
  "All the arrangements must rest with the Government, but the Committee think that the agreement should be laid before Parliament."
  The heads of the arrangements were initialled on 11th August, 1892, and he was very anxious the House should regard them as merely a provisional document and as in no sense a binding document. Although inquiries were made for it, hon. Members had not the privilege of seeing the document until 1894, arid when it was produced with the agreement in the midst of the holidays, when it was impossible for municipal authorities in the House to express an opinion. The agreement was only deferred after considerable pressure had been brought upon the Government. It was a very serious document, because it brought them face to face with a new and unrestricted monopoly which, in regard to the telephone service, meant increased charges, the killing of competition, the death of municipalised telephones, a vexatious interference with public rights, and, what was more important than all, the prospect of paying through the nose in 17 years' time for a gigantic property. The Postmaster General told a deputation of the London County Council that he regarded the agreement as a sealed and settled document; he said it was solemnly signed and could not be departed from. In reply to a deputation from the Association of municipal corporations, the right hon. Gentleman said that new conditions could not now be imposed on the Telephone Company. He submitted that the draft agreement could not be regarded in any such light. In the first instance it was an agreement between three

  209
  parties—the Post Office, the National Telephone Company, and the New Telephone Company—and what happened between the signing of the heads of arrangement and the presentation of the draft agreement to the House? The National Telephone Company absorbed the New Telephone Company, and thus the monopoly was created. He was certain that if the Committee which considered the question had been face to face with one company no such heads of arrangement would have been sanctioned, and he asserted that a company which endeavoured to get behind a Committee of the House of Commons by secretly buying up an opposition company was not entitled to any consideration at the hands of the House. It was perfectly ridiculous to regard the document as a solemn document when one of the parties to the agreement acted in such an extraordinary and improper manner. If the document was of the settled and sacred nature which the Postmaster General seemed to think it was, why was it not placed on the Table of the House in 1892, so that the municipalities might have an early opportunity of considering it. It was perfectly competent for the House to regard the document merely as a provisional arrangement, and he submitted that the subsequent action of the National Telephone Company deprived the heads of the arrangement of anything in the nature of a sealed and settled contract. The Postmaster General seemed to strongly deprecate competition. It was a very inconvenient thing to have two or three exchanges in any town or city, but it must be evident to the House that competition was the only protection the public had against high charges, and that if competition disappeared they must have clauses as to maximum charges, as to the limitation of dividends, as to the obligation of supply. In this case they had nothing of the kind. What was a very unfortunate feature of the case was, that the Post Office and the National Telephone Company had gone into partnership in a monopoly of a most objectionable kind. He thought it was a very important point in this question that they should know how much the public had to pay for the luxury of allowing the Post Office to be associated with the National
  210
  Telephone Company. The hon. Member then quoted the figures, showing the increased charges under the new arrangement with regard to long and short distances, and pointed out that the great bulk of the business—75 per cent.—had to do with the shorter and not longer distances. In Sweden the charges were much lower than here, and surely they could do in a country like England what was done in Sweden. What was proposed to be charged £10 to£20 in London was done in Manchester for £6 and in Stockholm for £4. The question which immediately concerned him was the charge in London. Other Members could speak for other parts of the country, but for London this was a matter of great importance. One-seventh of the business of the Company emanated from the Metropolis. The County Council looked on this as so grave a matter that they came to the conclusion that, as far as the local service was concerned, they could secure a much better service than that rendered by the National Telephone Company at half the price. If they looked on that entirely with regard to subscriptions it meant a saving of£50,000 a year. No wonder the County Council regarded the matter as one of great importance. They considered that the service was a disgrace to the country, and that it was due to this fact that comparatively few persons bothered with the Telephone Company. It was not, however, so much a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence as a matter of going back upon great principles. Some of them believed that municipalities worthy of the name should own and control enterprises having anything to do with the breaking up or the using of the streets. It was incredible that a new monopoly should be entertained for a moment. The telephone system might become not only a luxury, but as great a boon as the penny post itself. He should submit once more the proposition with which he started. He had said that this proposed agreement was distinctly contrary to the policy of the Government. Municipalities had not had an opportunity of considering it. He submitted that the agreement could not be regarded as validly and that it was wholly prejudicial to the best interests of the people at large. He knew it was difficult for those on the Front Benches

  211
  to conceive such a position, but this was just one of those occasions on which private Members might come to the rescue of the Front Benches. It was the duty of private Members who had an interest in municipalities to go into the Lobby in support of his Motion in order that this matter might be thoroughly considered, and one of the greatest monopolies ever proposed inquired into. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  CAPTAIN J. F. BAGOTin seconding the Motion, said, that in this matter they were behind every other country in the world. The development of the telephone in comparison with commerce was almost at a standstill, and the agreement which was being that night considered was looked upon with almost universal dissatisfaction by, he thought he might say, all their large towns and municipalities. Competition was entirely debarred and a gigantic monopoly was established. The Postmaster General stated that it was very desirable that there should be no Competition, and that it would be rather disadvantageous to the best interests of the telephone service. Surely the objections raised might very easily be obviated? He thought there was good cause for not looking upon the present agreement as similar to that made by the late Government three years ago. In the first place the position of affairs since that time had entirely changed. In the second place, the terms of the present draft agreement seemed to go beyond the Treasury minute, and they also seemed to go beyond the information which was given to Parliament by the responsible Ministers at that time. With regard to the first point, when the Postmaster General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government settled this question with the Telephone companies, there were two groups of companies in existence, and they held several licences. Since that time, the National Telephone Company had bought up and acquired all the others, and consequently had an entire monopoly. This made the present position entirely different from that of three years ago. With regard to the second point, that was that the present policy which was to be carried out by the Postmaster General differed in a very material respect from
  212
  the policy of the Ministers who made the arrangement three years ago. He would like to quote what was said on this subject of competition by the late Postmaster General. Speaking on March 22, 1892, he said:—
  "Wherever the Local Authorities are satisfied that a Telephone Exchange is desirable in their area, and the Government is satisfied that the licensees are in a position to carry out the undertaking, and that it is in the public interest desirable that they should have a licence, then it will be granted for that area."
  That was the policy of the late Postmaster General, and to that the policy of the present Postmaster General was diametrically opposed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackpool, speaking a few days afterwards, on March 29, said:—
  "It is because these Companies have amalgamated, and make no competition worthy of the name, that the establishment of a different system has become necessary, and the Government have intervened to secure the development of the system of exchanges and the connections with the trunk lines. There is no reason why new companies should not be formed to create new exchanges. I have not the least doubt that in a very short time we shall hear of the establishment of new companies and new exchanges. I know of two or three which are only waiting for the settlement of this policy to start."
  The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets had quoted a statement, which entirely carried out the quotations he had given, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government, who most distinctly said that there was nothing contrary to the Government policy in the suggestion made in the course of the discussion, that the Local Authorities might be willing to undertake the telephone business themselves. He thought those quotations distinctly showed, in the first place, that it was intended by the late Government, when they formulated this agreement, that free competition was desirable in the public interest, and that it should be carried out. They also showed that private Companies and Local Authorities should be granted licences, subject to the terms of the Treasury minute, and that the Postmaster General was determined to re-create competition where it did not exist. That, he contended, was a policy entirely different from what they understood to be the policy of the present

  213
  Postmaster General. There was no doubt that, under the present agreement, if carried into law, a gigantic monopoly would be established. They had been told that this was a rich man's question. The Postmaster General had said so in answer to a deputation from the County Council, and he appeared to think that the only people who used the telephone were those who could afford to pay for licences. That did not appear to be a very good argument. He thought that a question which was, undoubtedly, of the very greatest commercial interest, could not, in any sense, be looked upon as merely a rich man's question. Every working man and every poor man was surely just as much interested in every thing that affected the commercial supremacy of the country as a rich man. So far as the country was concerned, this question was of supreme importance. Anybody who had lived in America or Canada would know that almost every house was connected by telephone with the nearest country town, and he was perfectly certain that, in these days, when there was a great deal of depression in trade and agriculture, and when trade was said to be going out of the country towns, largely owing to the parcel post, which made it easy to send to London for an article, such communication was very necessary, and would he the cause of much more business being done in the country towns. At this time of day, when it was the universal opinion of the country that large private monopolies should not be allowed, it did seem to him that for the Government deliberately to create a new and important private monopoly, was a policy which he could not describe as anything but disastrous.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,)said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had dealt with matters he would have to refer to in the course of his remarks; but he could not help thinking that his speech would have been much more appropriate to the Telegraph Bill of 1892. The Amendment before the House dealt with three subjects. It proposed, first of all, to refer to a committee the agreement between the Post Office and the Telephone Company; secondly, it dealt with the question of municipal licences; and, thirdly, with
  214
  the future policy of the department. The first of these three points referred to what he might call the past history of the telephone question, and he proposed to deal with that first, because upon that subject he was sorry to say he could not agree with the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman introduced the matter in a temperate and moderate speech, and he hoped to be able to persuade him and the House of Commons that in this question of the agreement he had not had a free hand, and, whatever his views might have been with regard to the agreement, he was necessarily bound to accept and adopt it. That was a proposition he should do his best to support, and he was sure the House would listen to him while he gave his arguments. In the first place, before the question of this argument first came up, there were two companies which held licenses for the whole country unrestricted in the operations which they were able to carry out. The public had no doubt begun to feel that the telephone service of the country was inefficient and inadequate, and had recognised the inability of the companies adequately to provide both for the local systems and also for the trunk wire systems of the country, which would necessitate the expenditure of very large sums of money. The Government were alive to this fact, that the telegraph revenue of the country was being very largely interfered with, and they were also anxious to give facilities for the extension of the telephone service, which they recognised as necessary for the commercial interests of the country. The Government were pressed very strongly to take the whole system of telephones into their own hands. Hon. Members who sat in the last Parliament would remember that the hon. baronet, the Member for the College Division of Glasgow, in the month of March, 1892, brought forward a motion urging the Government to purchase the telephone systems, but the Government at that time did not see their way to a purchase. They had the experience of 1870 before them, when the Government of the day were forced to purchase the telegraphs; and when in undertaking a compulsory purchase of the telegraph systems they had to pay certainly twice, if not three times, their estimated value,

  215
  and in these circumstances the late Government very naturally and very rightly hesitated to adopt a policy which might have led them into an extravagant purchase of the telephones. They, therefore, developed the alternative policy, the policy which had been described that night—namely, to take over the trunk wire telephone system of the country, and to give certain facilities to the companies to develop the local areas, and by so doing to restrict the operations of the companies to the local areas, and enable them to supply a more effective service for the use of telephone subscribers. That policy was fully described in a Treasury Minute, and then the Telegraph Bill of 1892 was introduced. That Bill and the Treasury Minute were referred to a Committee of the House of Commons, and that Committee took evidence. He had no reason to think that any applications to be heard before the Committee were received from corporations, or that any application of the kind was refused. The suggestion that corporations were excluded from giving evidence was, as far as he knew, without foundation.
  Mr. J. W. BENNsaid, the House would remember that the right hon. Member for the University of London pleaded that there should be added to the reference to the Committee that they should have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and that the request was not assented to.
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEYsaid, that that did not affect his statement that, as far as he knew, no application to be heard was received from any corporation. He, therefore did not think it was fair to say that corporations were excluded from giving information. The Committee reported that "they had considered the Bill and made Amendments thereto," that in their opinion the responsibility for the details of the agreement with the Companies must rest with the Government, and that the Agreement should be laid before Parliament. He had asked the opinion of leading Members of the Committee, and he had been told by them that they intended no more than that Parliament should be informed of the result of the negotiations. [Cries of "Oh."] The report did not say that the Agreement should be laid upon the table of the House for the assent of the
  216
  House, and in the Act of Parliament no mention of such a condition was made. There was an analogous case to which he might draw attention. In the Telegraph Act, 31 and 32 Victoria, cap. 110, power was given to the Postmaster General to make certain contracts, and section 22 of the Act said:—
  "Copies of all contracts, agreements, and arrangements, from time to time made under the authority of this Act, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of the commencement of the Session next succeeding the making of such contract, agreement, or arrangement."
  These words were very like the recommendation of the Committee, and they had never been taken to mean that Parliamentary sanction had to be obtained to an agreement. They merely meant that Parliament should be informed of each contract or agreement made under the Act. The same view was taken by the Committee in their Special Report, and there was no foundation for the idea that they meant that Parliamentary sanction must be obtained for the agreement beforehand.
  MR. H. LABOUCHEREasked whether his right hon. Friend had not said, on more than one occasion, that the agreement would be laid on the table of the House and that the House would have an opportunity to discuss it?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEYreplied, that his hon. Friend's recollection was not quite accurate. He had explained frequently that the Agreement was merely the embodiment in a formal legal document of the arrangement entered into by his predecessor. He had always declared that the agreement was one which he was bound to carry out. The Bill then passed through Parliament, and the preliminary documents for carrying out the policy of the late Government were duly signed. The first section of the Act of 1892 declared that it was expedient to raise money with a view to carry into effect the scheme of the Postmaster General for the development of the telephonic system, and, in particular, with a view to provide main lines of communication. That clause, he held, was a Parliamentary sanction of the scheme of the Postmaster General, and it was impossible to say, after reading that section, that the policy of the late

  217
  Government and the Agreement signed by the late Government had not been recognised formally by Parliament. The heads of the arrangement had now been embodied in a legal document and the local areas had been settled between the Post Office and the companies. If it had not been for the time taken in settling the areas within which, for the future, the companies were to be restricted in their operations, the legal agreements would have been signed on August 11th before the present Government came into office. The settlement of the areas was a matter of great difficulty and complexity, and in regard to it the telephone companies had acted in a very straightforward manner. The view taken by the Government was that there was a contract entered into between the late Government and the telephone companies from which they could not honourably withdraw; that they were bound to carry that contract into effect; and that in the circumstances they could not consent to the agreement being made part of the reference to the Committee which had been asked for. He was not responsible for the terms of the agreement, and he was content to rest his case upon the fact that when he accepted office he found that agreement in exist ence. He could not honourably relieve himself from the obligations to carry it out. There had been misapprehensions as to the effect of the agreement. He had seen it described in the daily papers as a "monstrous" agreement, and it had been stated that the Post Office was about to establish a huge private monopoly. But there was not an atom of foundation for that statement, as the agreement created no monopoly. In fact, he thought he should be able to show that it precluded the possibility of any monopoly being acquired by the companies. Section 18 of the agreement of the National Telephone Company declared that nothing should prejudice the right of the Postmaster General to establish, extend, maintain, and work any system or systems of telephonic communication in such a manner as he should think fit, or to grant licences for telephones to any persons on such terms as he might think fit. That was a complete reservation to the Postmaster General not only of the right to establish telephones himself if occasion
  218
  should arise, but also of the right to grant to other companies or private persons licences to work telephonic systems in competition with the existing licensees. If the new agreement were not to come into operation the position of the National Telephone Company would remain practically the same as now, except that they would have control over the trunk wires as well as over the wires in the local areas. The effect of the agreement was that the Government took over the trunk wires and became responsible for them. The other matters dealt with concerned the interests of the telephone user much more than the interests of the Telephone Company. Fear had been expressed that this agreement might possibly interfere with the rights of local authorities and corporations in respect of their highways and streets. He thought Corporations were bound to keep in their own hands full control over their own streets, and they would be very unwise, in his opinion, if they allowed any private company or individual to acquire rights of interference over their streets. He was surprised the hon. Member should have made the statement that there was any danger in this matter.
  MR. J. W. BENNinterposing, explained that his point was that certain rights which, under ordinary circumstances, must be secured from Parliament by the National Telephone Company—an opportunity would be given to municipalities to be heard in such case— were under the agreement passed on by the Post Office without that trouble.
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: No, Sir; the hon. Member really has not looked into the question with his usual acuteness. The Post Office can confer no power upon the National Telephone Company, or any company, which is not subject to the absolute veto of the local authority.
  MR. J. W. BENN: I am quite aware, the power is subject. My contention is that power is secured from the Post Office without the necessity of coming to Parliament.
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: They have not got any power the exercise of which is not subject to the assent of the local authority.
  MR. J. W. BENN: I am aware of that.
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: Then what harm is done? The position was this. The local authority could either veto the action of the Company; they could, under Section 5 of the Act of 1892, impose conditions on the exercise by the Company of the powers conferred by the Postmaster-General; or they could do what, in his opinion, would be much wiser—namely, refuse to let the Company come into their streets. They could say, Such work as is necessary we will do; you shall pay for it at cost price, plus any percentage which may be necessary to cover an expense of administration. He made that suggestion to the Association of Municipal Corporations, and he was interested to find that the great Corporation of Manchester had previously, without his knowledge, come to terms with the Company, exactly on the lines of his own suggestion. He confessed, therefore, he did not see any hardship on the local authorities, because they had the matter absolutely under their own control. A reference had been made to the charges for trunk wires. No doubt the Treasury laid down certain charges, but they were only suggested charges and would be open to revision by the light of experience as to whether they were reasonable or unreasonable. On this point his experience was that the political and Parliamentary pressure brought to bear on the Post Office was much more effective than it ever would be over a private company with whom they could not get into contact.
  MR. T. LOUGHasked whether the Postmaster-General would grant a licence to the municipality if the municipality were not satisfied with the terms of arrangement with the Telephone Company?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEYwas coming to the question of Municipal Licences. Now, he strongly held that in all matters proper to them municipalities did their work much more effectively than the central Gavernment could, but there was a great distinction between telephones and such subjects as gas and water. Gas and water were necessaries for every inhabitant of the country; telephones were not and never would be. It was no use trying to persuade themselves that the use of telephones could be enjoyed by the large masses of the people in
  220
  their daily life. [An hon. MEMBER: "America."] He did not think his hon. Friend was aware of the fact that in the large towns of America subscribers had to pay £40 to £50 for the service which a subscriber in London obtained for from £10 to £20. He went further and said that in a town like London, or Glasgow, or Belfast, an effective telephone service would be practically impossible if the large majority of the houses were furnished with telephones, so great would be the confusion caused by the increased number of exchanges. He was not stating his own opinion, but that of experts. What was wanted was prompt communication, and if there were a large number of people connected with the various exchanges, and a greatly increased number of exchanges, you could not get that prompt communication on which alone the value of the telephone system depended. Another argument against a municipal telephone system was that it was in no sense a local requirement. Year by year the telephone system was becoming more and more a national means of communication from town to town, and it was no more local in its attributes at the present time than either the post or the telegraph. He did not think anyone would say that the municipalities should have local control of the telegraph and post office services. The telephone service was becoming not only national but international. They had already spoken from London with Marseilles, and before long there would very probably be telephonic communication with other large towns on the Continent. The view which he had stated that the telephone service was not local, but national and Imperial, had been confirmed in a striking way by that very Association of Municipal Corporations which had been quoted that night as opposed to the policy of the Department. They passed a resolution containing these words—
  "That the subject should be treated as an Imperial and not a local one."
  He ventured to think that the granting of municipal licences would be in effect treating it as a local and not as an Imperial one. Of course, he and the Government recognised that the House of Commons look a great interest in this

  221
  question, as did also the different localities. The Government were not disinclined that this question should be fairly and openly considered, and therefore he was glad to be able to announce that they were prepared to assent to a Committee with the object of considering the question of municipal licences, and also the question of the advisability of competition that had been raised and upon which he had said very little that evening. He was as strongly opposed as any Member of the House to the granting of a monopoly to the National Telephone Company or to any other company. He had resisted any attempt which might have been made to secure that end. He believed the monopoly ought to be in the hands of the Crown. He believed that the State who owned the monopoly was bound to provide, first of all, a reasonably efficient service, and, secondly, a reasonably cheap service to the public, either through itself or through its licensees. Therefore, if a case was made out in any locality that the service was either not reasonably efficient or not reasonably cheap, his opinion was that the Government would be bound to take steps to secure that such an efficient and reasonable service was provided. He did not want to prejudge this question. He had stated his own view upon it. The Government were willing that the matter should be considered by a Committee, and they proposed, instead of the words of the Amendment, to insert the following words:—
  "That a Committee shall lie appointed to consider and report whether the provision now made for the telephone service in local areas is adequate, and whether it is expedient to supplement or improve this provision either by the granting of licences to local authorities or otherwise."
  That would enable the Committee to consider the, arguments, pro and con, on the question of competition, and he thought the House would recognise that in agreeing to the appointment of that Committee they had gone a long way— in fact, the whole way—to meet the wishes of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment with the exception of the agreement, which they could not and ought not to consider other than a binding obligation on the Government.
  MR. A. CAMERON CORBETTsaid, so much dissatisfaction had been felt upon this subject that no harm could be done whilst nothing but good would result from the matter being fully and fairly investigated by an impartial Committee. He felt assured that no Committee of the House desired that any agreement made by the Government should be departed from, or that the House or the Government should ever fail to fulfil any obligation upon which it had entered. He wished to say a word or two on the objections which had been urged by the right hon. Gentleman to municipalities working their own telephone system. He had told them that telephones were not a necessity to the mass of the people. Well, all their municipalities were practically controlled by the working classes. If they did not wish to have the municipality controlling the telephone, then the municipality would not control them; but by allowing the municipality to get licences, they allowed the masses of the people in their cities to decide whether the telephones should be worked by the municipality or not. It had been stated that this was a nationol and not a local question. But as far as the licences granted in particular cities were concerned, this was a local question. The municipality of Glasgow was very anxious to have a licence to work its own telephone, but it was no less anxious that the Government should ultimately take up the telephones and work them on its own account. While, however, a licence was granted especially to work the Glasgow telephones, it was desired that the municipality should be the authority entrusted with the license. It had been suggested that where underground telephones were necessary, and where it was impossible for the municipality to entrust the control of the streets to any private corporation working for profit, that the municipality should lay these underground wires and take all the care of them. If the municipality was to lay the wires and take all the care of maintenance, there was no possible reason why the municipality should not take over all the undertaking and derive all the profit to be got from it. It seemed to him that corporations which had carried on their waterworks, gas, electric lighting, and, in some instances, their

  223
  tramways with marked success, should be able to administer this business in an effective way so as to give a cheaper and better supply to their citizens, and, at the same time, make it a source of profit to the rates. He felt perfectly assured that the municipality of Glasgow if it were entrusted with this work would do it better and more cheaply than a company, and would earn a profit rather than incur losses by doing so.
  SIR J. E. GORSTdesired to say a few words on policy of the Telephone Act 1892. It was quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that that policy became, not the policy only of the late Government, but of Parliament, because it was embodied in the Telegraph Bill which was considered by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and by passing the Telegraph Act Parliament adopted and placed its own imprimatur on the policy which the Government had proposed. But what was the policy of the late Government? So far from being an attempt, as an hon. Member had declared, to create a gigantic monopoly, it was really a successful attempt on the part of the Government to prevent a monopoly growing up. At that time the Government had indeed a monopoly in the telephones by law, but, in fact, it had not a single trunk line in its possession, but only a few insignificant telephone exchanges. The whole telephonic system of the country was gradually becoming absorbed by the companies, and there was a fear that by getting hold of all the trunk lines, the companies would acquire not a legal monopoly but a practical monopoly, which would have prevented the Postmaster General from using his own rights under the law without a claim for compensation which would have been very difficult to resist. Besides, the development of this business was making a very serious inroad upon the telegraphic revenue, and the taxpayer's interests were being very seriously affected by the laissez faire of the Government. Thus it was the duty of the Government to make such proposals to Parliament as would prevent the monopoly, which was the property of the nation, from being practically destroyed; and their policy was explained
  224
  in a Treasury minute dated May, 1892, and one of the clauses was as follows:—
  "Unless the trunk wires are in the hands of the State, a monopoly injurious to the public interest would inevitably ensue, to the advantage of the company which first laid down such trunk wires."
  Then it was stated most distinctly that it was the object of the policy to secure—
  "That expansion of the telephonic system which is called for by public opinion and the necessities of the case."
  It was necessary for the Postmaster General to take possession of the trunk wires, and, unless the Postmaster General was then immediately ready to establish telephonic exchanges and to buy out the existing interests of the companies, he had no other course than to make a fair and reasonable arrangement with the existing companies, and so prevent the enormous outlay of public money which would have been necessary for taking the telephones over. The existing companies had only 19 years unexpired of their licence—a period now diminished to 16 years—and although the companies strongly pressed the Government, in consideration of their giving up the trunk lines and entering into the agreement now being discussed, to extend the period, the Government refused. The temporary nature of the licence was in itself some protection to the public; but the Government, in laying this policy before the House, were not satisfied with that alone. They reminded the telephone companies and Parliament that the right of the Post Office to establish telephone exchanges had been reserved by Mr. Fawcett, and would be maintained.
  "The Department holds itself ready, as in the past, to comply with the reasonable demands of any town or district for telephonic facilities."
  Further, they pointed out that no other licence for the whole country would be granted, and that no application would be entertained for a licence to establish a telephonic exchange unless it were backed by a resolution passed by the corporation or other municipal authoritiy of the district, and they proceeded then to say that in this way competition would not be excluded, but a check would be imposed on the formation

  225
  of companies whose object was to force the existing licensees to buy them out. It was also to be distinctly understood that should licences be granted on other principles no other company, now or hereafter to be licensed, should have any ground of action for breach of contract or want of good faith on the part of the Postmaster General. What more could possibly have been done in the enunciation of the telephone policy to thoroughly protect the public and maintain the Postmaster Generals monopoly, while securing all reasonable facilities and advantages to localities? That policy was examined by a Select Committee and embodied in the Telephone Act of 1892. The agreement now under consideration was entered into under that policy; and he was glad that the Post master General had stated that the agreement could not now be upset even by Parliament. Parliament, of course, had power to do anything; but this was an agreement entered into by the Government of the State and a public company; and if Parliament were to upset such an agreement there would be an end to all public contracts and confidence. As to the future policy of the Government, that was another question, and he could only regret that, instead of that policy being determined by the Government themselves, it was given into the doubtful hands of a Select Committee. He should have thought that the system of administering the affairs of State by Select Committee had already gone too far. Sooner or later the Government would have to stop that course, and would have to assume its proper function of administering the affairs of the country.
  SIR JAMES M. CARMICHAELwas glad the Postmaster-General had consented to have this question investigated by a Select Committee. He held the opinion that no Government Department ought to enter into any agreement with any commercial body—whether it was an agreement between the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and a company in Uganda, or an agreement between the Postmaster General, and a telephone company—without having first subjected it to the review, the revision, the sanction, and possibly the rejection of the House. He said that without any distrust of the capacity or probity of the
  226
  Government—no matter of what political colour the Government might be. In fact it was the innocence of the Government that was their danger; because, when any body of men, trained in commercial life were brought into contact with a body of men trained in official life, it always followed that the commercial gentlemen got the best of the bargain. It was therefore advisable that all transactions of this sort should be first submitted to the House, which was supposed to contain highly-trained intellect in every walk of life. What he had said was well illustrated by the agreements with the telephone companies. The Postmaster General had said he felt himself in honour bound by any agreement entered into by his predecessor, and that he was bound to carry out the policy of his predecessor. But which policy was it? Because the policy embodied in the Treasury minute of 1892 was entirely different from the policy set forth in the agreement initialled by the late Postmaster General, and signed in full by the chairman of the Telephone Company. He gave his right hon. Friend credit for trying to reconcile those two policies, because he had introduced into the new agreement matter from the Treasury minute of 1892. He quite agreed with the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, when he said that the Treasury minute was a most admirable example of what a telephone policy should be. That minute contemplated agreements between the Government and telephone companies in the plural; it provided that the Government should take over the trunk line, so that there should be no monopoly, and recognised that there might be a system of competition within the same area. It enjoined that no licence should be issued until a resolution in favour of it was passed by the Corporation, or other Municipal authority, and evidence given that there was sufficient capital to carry out the undertaking. Was it to limit competition that these conditions were imposed? No, for it said—
  "In this way competition will not be excluded, but a check will be imposed on the formation of companies whose sole object is to force the existing licensees to buy them up."
  There the whole spirit of the Treasury

  227
  minute was a spirit encouraging competition. But when he came to the agreement, he found they did not contain one word of the articles set forth in the minute. There was no mention in the agreement of the right of the Government to grant competing licences. There was no hint that the companies could be subjected to any competition whatever. The principle of encouraging competition was entirely given away. It was understood that only two companies—the National Telephone Company and the New Telephone Company—were to be amalgamated, and that they were not to be subjected to competition. It was true that paragraph 18 of the new agreement, which was much broader in its scope than the old agreement, did retain to the Postmaster General the power to grant licences, and to make arrangements with other companies or persons, which would include corporations. But when the Postmaster General was approached by a Corporation to carry out that right which he retained, and on which he laid such stress, he declined to do so. An application was made to him by Glasgow. One would have thought that if any city could have fulfilled the two conditions laid down in the Treasury minute, the city of Glasgow could. If there was any area at all in which competition could be allowed, it was in an area of the size of Glasgow, which came next to London in proportion to population. The Postmaster General claimed that his policy was endorsed by the Telegraph Act of 1892, but when that Act was passed the agreement which he considered binding had not been before the House. The Act of 1892 endorsed the policy of the Treasury Minute of May 1892. If the Postmaster General would carry out the policy of the Treasury Minute, allowing free and healthy competition, see that the companies to whom he gave competing licences were solid and fit to compete, and allow corporations and municipalities to enter into competition, he would be satisfied.
  SIR C. CAMERON, expressed himself in favour of the nationalisation of the telephones. There was nothing antagonistic to the ultimate realisation of that in granting licences to municipalities. Until the nation was prepared to take the matter up, the
  228
  municipalities might be intrusted with the telephones. The ultimate assumption of the control of the system by the nation would be facilitated rather than impeded by municipal co-operation. What was wanted was free competition. Had the proposal of the Postmaster General been put in competition with a motion that in the opinion of the House, telephonic licences should be granted to municipal and other authorities, he should have voted for the latter. The House had, however, now either to accept the proposal of the Postmaster General, or vote for a Committee to inquire into the agreement. If the Committee were authorised to inquire into the expediency of granting licences to municipal and other authorities, the whole question of competition would be opened up, and by the decision of the Committee the policy of the Postmaster General would have to be guided. If it were proposed that licences should be granted to municipalities, and that there should be competition and not monopoly, he would vote for that and against a Committee, but when the Postmaster General offered a Committee, and the proposition of the hon. Member did no more, it seemed to him that the suggestion of the Postmaster General was in every respect worthy of support. From a Post Office point of view, it appeared to him that it was most important that they should have competition. The monopoly, it was argued, was about to be confirmed, but it would break down the moment that the policy of granting licences to municipalities and competing companies was adopted. He was utterly opposed to the views of the Postmaster General on the subject of the municipal working of the telephone. He entirely favoured, however, the appointment of the Committee to inquire into the subject of competition and the feasibility of granting these licences, and he strongly urged the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to accept the Government proposal.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN (St. Georges, Hanover Square), said, in the absence of the late Postmaster General, who, with himself, had been specially responsible for the policy adopted in 1892, he trusted the House would be willing to give him a few minutes of its attention. There were two matters which he thought might be entirely separated—

  229
  one was the agreement, the other was the policy to lie followed side by side with it. They might accept this agreement, and they might nevertheless carry out every single detail of the Treasury minute of May, 1892. That was the point which he wished to bring home to Parliament and to the country. The hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow had tried to show that the heads of the agreement made with the Telephone Company were not in accordance with the Treasury minute of 1892. He bowed to the independent judgment of the hon. Member, who thought that officials were incompetent to deal with the astute gentlemen of commercial companies, but he could assure him that every clause of this agreement was gone through with the greatest possible care, not only by the permanent officials of the Department, but also by himself and other responsible Ministers: and he must claim that he had also some commercial knowledge, and was not incompetent to form an opinion on a document of this kind. He had been present also at many of the negotiations, and they saw that in no single respect should the rights of the Government be interfered with, or the possibility of competition, when necessary, lost. He thought it was a mistake for the hon. Gentleman to compromise the reserved rights of the Government by stating that they were not reserved in this document. Surely it was unnecessary to put into the document that those rights were reserved by Parliament to the executive Government.
  SIR J. M. CARMICHAEL: It was put in to the agreement.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHENsaid, these rights were inherent in the executive Government. He thought he might state in the strongest possible way that the Postmaster General, the present Government, and the late Government held that view. Were the rights given away by the draft, agreement or by the heads of the agreement? Was there any private promise to the Company that the Government could not grant licences if it wished? The power remained to Her Majesty's Government to grant licences to municipal corporations, or to grant licences to other companies if they so chose, and therefore no attack upon this agreement could be made with regard to
  230
  any particular conditions. No examination by the Committee could strengthen the inherent right of the Government which had been retained, and, therefore, to upset an agreement which had been made in order to insure rights which existed, not with standing that agreement, was surely a course which the House of Commons need not take. He would ask the House of Commons whether it realised what it would mean by disavowing this document. Hon. Members feared that they had parted with certain rights, but if it could be shown, as it had been, that those rights were reserved to the executive Government the agreement need not be attacked for the purpose of securing to the municipal corporations the right to exercise the powers they desired to exercise. It would be the first time in the history of Parliament, he believed, that a document signed by the Government was repudiated by the House. It would be evading the law if they were to endeavour to get out of a contract which had thus been entered into, and it would at least be considered very sharp practice. The House of Commons ought not to enter on a course of this kind. He had shown that it was unnecessary to upset the agreement, and he now contended that it would be inexpedient. He felt strongly that in such a case the House would be embarking upon a course which if successful would make it very difficult to conduct negotiations in future. The late Government was as much compromised in this matter as the present Government. [Several hon. MEMBERS: "More so."] Yes, he frankly admitted more so. It was, however, with the present Government to settle the policy side by side with the agreement; but unfortunately, the late Government were no longer in a position to give effect to their responsibility. He frankly told the House that if they were still in power and a document signed by them was repudiated by the House he should hold that the Minister could no longer hold his position. He believed such a course, if adopted, would shake general confidence in the administration of public business. He wished to say just one word or two about the position outside the agreement. If was a question for Her Majesty's Government how far side by side with the agreement, and in virtue

  231
  of the rights which had been reserved under it and reserved to Parliament, they would or would not allow further competition. It must be borne in mind, however, that competition in the question of telephones stood on a different footing from competition in other matters, because of the confusion it must necessarily involve. There might be many industries in which five or six companies might exercise their business at the same time, but great confusion would arise if that number of companies—or even two companies—sought to conduct telephone business together in the same area. Still, he attached less importance to that point because the Government had offered to refer that matter to a Select Committee. The Committee, he gathered from the speech of the Postmaster General, would discuss a number of questions—how far competition should be introduced, how far municipal corporations should be intrusted with the exercise of certain powers, and he was not sure whether or not it would be within the scope of their reference to consider the question of the purchase of the telephones. He was inclined to think that the words "and otherwise" would enable the Committee to do so. He desired to say here that the late Government were entirely responsible for the non-purchase of the telephones two or three years ago. The policy of the Treasury minute had scarcely been impugned. By that policy they stood, and by that policy they hoped the Government would stand. With regard to the trunk lines he would point out to the hon. Member for St. Rollox that if the Government had not bought the trunk lines no Member from Glasgow could communicate with London except by the kind permission of the National Telephone Company.
  SIR J. M. CARMICHAEL: I am entirely in favour of the purchase of the trunk lines and of the Treasury Minute.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that then the hon. Member must be in favour of the agreement. ["No, no."] Could the hon. Member prove the slightest divergence between the two, except that the conditions expressed in the Treasury Minute had not been included in the agreement. He had put his views very candidly before the House, and he hoped the
  232
  majority of Members would be satisfied with the offer made by the Government. That offer was made with considerable reluctance, because the Government were anxious to maintain their own responsibility. The Committee would discuss the question of municipal licences, of competition, and if necessary, of the purchase of the telephones by the State. He hoped that hon. Members would be satisfied with that result, and would not go the length of upsetting this contract.
  MR. H. LABOUCHEREsaid, the real question, was whether the House ought to have the right to ratify or to reject this agreement. They did not quarrel with the Government for purchasing the trunk lines; but the agreement went a great deal further, and embodied all sorts of conditions and arrangements with the existing Telephone Companies. The report of the Committee on the Telephone Bill stated that the agreement was to be laid on the Table, and he entirely contested the Postmaster-General's statement that that simply meant that it was to be placed on the Table in order that the House might be advertised of the fact that the agreement had been made, It was impossible to conceive that such an agreement could possibly be made without being laid upon the Table of the House. The hon. Member for North Bucks, who was a member of the Committee on the Telephone Bill, informed him that he understood the Committee's report to mean that the agreement was to be submitted to the judgment of the House. It was said that the agreement had been initialled by the late Postmaster-General, and that, therefore, it was binding upon his successor. But that agreement was made with two separate Telephone Companies, the object being to prevent a monopoly and to create competition. Since then, however, one of the Companies had absorbed the other, and, therefore, the fundamental basis of the agreement no longer existed. His right hon. Friend the Postmaster General had given them a distinct pledge that this agreement should be laid on the Table of the House, and that they should have an opportunity of discussing it. But was he not trifling with the House if he led them to believe that an opportunity for discussing the matter was to be afforded? At any rate, that

  233
  promise involved the right of the House to expect that the agreement would not he ratified before they had a chance of approving it. He did not think it at all a good one, because it created a monopoly, and gave this company power to lay its system over any particular town without first obtaining the permission of the Post Office, which every other Company had to get.
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEYsaid, that, if the agreement had not come into existence at all, the company would have its licences notwithstanding, and would be in exactly the same position as under the agreement. Instead of being restricted to local areas, they would have licences over the whole country, trunk lines and all.
  MR. H. LABOUCHEREsaid, that might be so, but would any other company have got a licence? One of the terms of the agreement was that two or three licences should be swept away. He would tell his right hon. Friend what occurred with the late Mr. Fawcett at the commencement of the telephones. Mr. Fawcett had granted a licence to this telephone company, whereupon some responsible persons came to him in the Lobby complaining that they could not get a similiar licence. He represented to Mr. Fawcett the result of the interview, and that Gentleman fully agreed with him that in giving only one licence he was creating a monopoly, but stated that he should be ready to grant licences to persons who had a monetary basis. But under the late Postmaster General there seemed a tendency not to give them, and his right hon. Friend appeared to be following the same policy. By a clause in the agreement the licence had to be renewed every seven years; if it were not renewed then the company ceased to be a telephone company; but his right hon. Friend had said, "No one would dream of enforcing this." That was to say, that a huge monopoly would be created, and in the end the State would have to pay an excessive price for them as was the case with the telegraphs. This was one of the most watered companies existing, and he did not think they should encourage such watering of capital, and levying of rates, to benefit
  234
  capitalists and other objectionable people. He hoped his hon. Friend would stick to his guns rather than accept the offer which the right hon. Gentleman had made.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)said, it would be a most serious thing if the House of Commons repudiated an agreement which had been made by the Executive Government. The administration of the country depended to an enormous extent on the good faith of the Government and the good faith of Parliament. If Parliament interfered with that principle it would strike a blow which would affect questions far wider than anything connected with telephones. With regard to this agreement, he must say that if it was interfered with they would inflict great public mischief. He did not believe, however, that the House of Commons would do anything of the kind. It never had done it, and he did not believe it would do it now. As he understood the objection to the agreement, it was that the agreement had in some way or other deprived the Government of something which it ought to have. The Postmaster General said it did not, and that he could set up any competition that he liked. In this matter they had to take into account various considerations. He remembered perfectly well an estimate made by Mr. Scudamore that the purchase of the telegraphs would cost about £3,000,000, but ultimately it cost the Government £10,000,000; and at this moment the Government lost £500,000 a year by the telegraphs. It, therefore, required great caution in dealing with this matter. He thought the policy adopted was a sound policy. If they set aside this agreement the company would have a more complete monopoly than before. The Member for Northampton spoke of a poor company and watered capital, but he knew nothing about that. Let him observe that the first tiling the Committee would have to consider would be whether the provision made for telephone service in local areas was adequate—whether sufficient service was given at a proper price. If the Committee came to the conclusion that the service was not good, or that the

  235
  charges were too high, they would report against the company. What would be the consequence? Some other service would he given in place of the service which was inadequate. The company was, in fact, only acting as temporary agents for the Government, and if the Government were not satisfied they could give it in favour of some other persons. The Government desired to carry out the policy of the Minute of 1892. It commended itself to his hon. Friend because it recognised the right of competition, if competition were necessary. The first thing which the Committee would have to determine was, what was the position and action of the present company under its present conditions. The next thing to determine was whether, in substitution or supplement of the present service, and in response to the desires of other parties, licences should be granted to the local authorities or otherwise. What more could hon. Members wish the Committee to do? It was not denied that the House of Commons could do anything short of turning a man into a woman; it could, no doubt, repudiate the National Debt it had the power to do so, but it would not be advisable. It seemed to him, therefore, that everything which anyone could desire was included under the terms of the recommendation to the Committee which his right hon. Friend had offered, because it would have to determine whether they were or were not satisfied with the service as being adequate, or whether the service should be handed over to the municipalities or anyone else. The reference to the Committee would be—
  "to consider and report whether the provision now made for the telephone service in local areas is inadequate, and whether it is expedient to supplement or improve this provision either by granting a licence to local authorities or otherwise."
  The Government had reserved actually the power to grant licences to whomsoever it chose, to undertake the service itself, or to give it to some one else. It was a mistake to suppose that it had created a monopoly in this company There was no monopoly contemplated by the minute, arid no monopoly was created
  236
  by the agreement. He hoped in these circumstances that the House would adopt such a recommendation as he had indicated.
  MR. A. D. PROVANDpointed out that the contention of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion was to the effect that the policy of the present Government was not that of the last Government. They did not object to Parliament buying the trunk wires, but to the method by which the purchase was to be effected. The Treasury Minute was perfectly clear on the points of granting licences to local authorities and maintaining competition; and the policy of the last Government, as stated in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Postmaster General, was to the same effect. The objections taken were, to the policy pursued by the present Postmaster General, inasmuch as he refused to grant licences to local authorities; and also to the fact that the proposed agreement went altogether beyond the Treasury Minute. In the proposed agreement there were new charges to be made to the public which might be described as terminals. There was not a word relating to such a charge in the Treasury Minute, nor in the statements made to the House by the last Government, nor in the evidence given before the Committee of 1892. The Postmaster General had said that that Committee had considered the whole policy of the Government, and had approved of it. That was impossible, as they reported in the month of June, while the heads of arrangement were not initialled until the following August, and these were kept secret by the Postmaster General for two years after that, although asked for frequently in the House during that time. It was impossible that the Committee could report on anything more than was before them—namely, the Treasury Minute and the Bill—to neither of which had any objection been taken during that Debate, except as to the excessive mileage scale of the Post Office. The chairman of the National Telephone Company drew the attention of the Committee to the high mileage rates the Post Office intended to charge, and said that while many of the

  237
  company's present rates were 3d. and 6d., the Post Office would make them 6d. and 1s., that was to say, they would double them. The terminals would operate in this way: If, for example, London had a telephone licence, it could not send a message to Brighton unless Brighton had also an exchange, which would deliver the message free, otherwise the London message would he delivered through the present Company at Brighton, which would charge a terminal for doing so, The effect of that would lie to double the rate between London and Brighton. In Scotland the increase in charges would be enormous. Where the excessive Post Office mileage scale and the terminals both operated, many of the current rates would be not only doubled, but trebled. Competition would therefore be seriously checked by the proposed agreement. In many places such a large number of commercial men required inter-town telephone service, that they would not subscribe to any exchange which could not give it at least as cheap as at present, and this would be made impossible by the proposed agreement. The monopoly of the National Telephone Company expired with the Bell Patent at the close of 1890, but the monopoly had since been recrerated and maintained by the Postmaster General refusing licences to municipalities in order that they might compete. The National Telephone Company had no monoply, except that which was conferred on them by the action of the Postmaster General. The Treasury Minute expressly noted the inefficiency of single-wire telephone exchanges, and the necessity of a double-wire system, and the Telephone Company's own witnesses told the Committee in 1892, that the local exchanges in different towns must have double wires, otherwise the Government trunks would not give efficient service. One of the Telephone Company's witnesses said that the £1,000,000 the Government intended to expend would be useless unless they were connected with double-wire local exchanges. Nevertheless, the Postmaster General had refused to license municipalities, who would erect double-wire exchanges, and
  238
  proposed that agreement with a telephone company that had no double wires at all, except, a few in the Newcastle district; and, in the end, we should therefore have a system which the Treasury Minute had said was inefficient, and which was condemned by the Telephone Company's own representatives. If the Postmaster could amend his suggestion for a Committee by referring to it all that had occurred since the Act of 1892, the offer might be taken as satisfactory, but, if not, he recommended his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets to go to a Division. Down to the end of 1890 the National Telephone Company had an absolute monopoly. Since then they had no monopoly whatever except what had been created and maintained by the Postmaster General. He deprecated terminals which were now being charged, and said they were invented by the Agreement. There was no mention of them in the Treasury Minute, although it was claimed that it left a wide discretion to the telephone companies in the matter. Many other objections to the Agreement might be pointed out. The Treasury Minute said an efficient telephone service was impossible without double wires. The Post Office was refusing licences to Local Authorities who would have proper double wire and were making a bargain for 17 years with companies who had few such wires.
  MR. J. FLETCHER MOULTONonly wished to put quite clearly the position of those who thought it advisable that the inquiry should be somewhat widened, lest it should be thought that they were less particular about the good faith of the Administrative Government. The question to go before the Committee was not the question of the validity of the agreement, but the question of the nature of the proposals contained in it—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,interposing, said that that would be within the scope of the reference.
  MR. MOULTONexpressed himself as being quite satisfied. There were many things in the proposed agreement which required explanation, and it was most

  239
  important that the House should be made fully aware of the nature of these grants and their full scope. They had had enough experience in connection with Tramways and Gas and Water Companies to make them very careful how they granted any further monopolies.
  MR. J. W. BENNunderstood that the agreement was to be submitted to the Committee, and that its effect on the rights of the municipalities of large towns like Liverpool, Glasgow, and other places to establish systems of their own would be considered. In that case he thought he would not be wise in pressing his motion.
  MR. A. C. MORTONasked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would withhold the agreement until after the Committee had reported?
  MR. H. S. FOSTERsuggested that it could do no harm to hold the agreement over for another month. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the chairman of the National Telephone Company, at a recent meeting of the shareholders, stated that the agreement would be submitted to Parliament for approval. If that was so, what ground was there for supposing that the National Telephone Company would have any cause of complaint if Parliament desired to modify that agreement?
  MR. J. W. BENNsaid, he would be glad if the Postmaster General could see his way to accede to the request that the agreement should be held over pending the deliberations of the Committee, for the reason that he and those who agreed with him contended that the agreement laid on the Table did not in some respects agree with the heads of the arrangement.
  SIR W. V. HARCOURTexplained that what he said was that the effect of the agreement was to be before the Committee. As to the matter of form, the proper way in which the question would be put was to leave out all the words after the word "consider" in the Motion of his hon. Friend, and to insert words carrying out the suggestion made by his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General.
  240
  Question:—
  ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Put and negatived.
  Question proposed: "That those words be there added."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment:—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'consider,' to the end thereof, in order to add the words 'and report whether the provision now made for the telephone service in local areas is adequate; and whether it is expedient to supplement or improve this provision either by the granting of licences to Local Authorities or otherwise."—(Mr. Arnold Morley.)
  Question:—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  put and negatived. Words added.
  Question:—
  "That the words, 'a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether the provision now made for the telephone service in local areas is adequate; and whether it is expedient to supplement or improve this provision, either by the granting of licences to Local Authorities' be added after the first word 'That,' or otherwise."
  Put and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Ordered: That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report.

  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  The Select Committee was nominated of,—Mr. Baldwin, Marquess of Carmarthen, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Diamond, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Charles Fenwick, Mr. Frederick Frye, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Leake, Sir John Lubbock, Sir Blundell Maple, Sir Francis Powell, and Mr. Samuel Smith.
  Ordered,—That the Committee have power to send for Persons, Papers, and Records.
  Ordered,—That Five be the quorum.— (Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
  House adjourned at Five minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

Preamble
Private business only was done.
House adjourned shortly after half-past Four o'clock.