Sitting of 24 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

  SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAM-ROAD BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOUR BILL

    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords].
(Queen's Consent signified.)
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LEA BRIDGE DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords].
A verbal Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
ABERDEEN JOINT PASSENGER STATION BILL [Lords].
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].

    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    LEIGH-ON-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
    YEADON AND GUISELEY GAS BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time

GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION, AND GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILLS.
Ordered, That the Order [14th March] that Five be the quorum of the Select Committee be read, and discharged.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 294.]
PETITIONS.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from London, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
BYNOE, CHARLES AUGUSTUS.
Petition from Charles Augustus Bynoe, for inquiry into his case by a Select Committee; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Petition from Barking Town, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
OUGHTON, MATILDA.
Petition of Matilda Oughton, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1845.
Petition from Aberdeen, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Fifty-fourth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DEATHS FROM WINDOW CLEANING ACCIDENTS.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 2nd June; Mr. Provand]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 291].
  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
  Copy presented,—of Orders made by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, altering certain Polling Districts and Polling Places within the Parliamentary Divisions of Normanton, Otley, and Rotherham [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  Copy presented,—of Reports from University Colleges participating in the Grant of £25,000, made by Parliament for "University Colleges in Great Britain" (1899) [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2320 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented of Report No. 262 (Barbados, Annual Report for 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS).
  Copy presented of Report No. 12 (Anguilla, Report on Vital Statistics) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  JAMAICA.
  Copy presented of Report on the Finances of Jamaica, by Sir David Barbour, K.C.S.I. (in continuation of [C. 9177] February, 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  JAMAICA.
  Copy presented of Further Correspondence relating to the Finances and Government of the Island of Jamaica (in continuation of [C. 9177] February, 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented,—of Deposits in Naval Savings Banks, and the Payments thereof, and the Interest thereon, etc., during the financial year 1897–8 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF 65).
  Copy ordered "of Treasury Minute, dated the 19th day of July, 1899, stating the circumstances under which certain Civil Servants have been retained in the Service after they have attained the age of 65."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 292.]

  IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES FUND.
  Copy ordered, "of Treasury Memorandum, dated the 14th day of July, 1899, on the Financial Position and Prospects of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 293.]

QUESTIONS.

  NAVAL BARRACKS.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the approximate total number of officers and blue-jackets of the Royal Navy the naval barracks built, building, or proposed under Naval Works Bill to be built will accommodate; and what is the approximate total number of officers and men of the Royal Marine forces the Marine barracks built, building, or proposed under the Naval Works Bill to be built will accommodate.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The approximate total number of officers and men of the Royal Navy to be accommodated in the Naval Barracks, built, building, or proposed to be built, is 14,517. The corresponding number in the case of the Royal Marines is 7,433.

  KEYHAM DOCKYARD WORKS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he can say when the contract time for the completion of the works on Keyham Dockyard extension expires; and what amount of work in proportion to the whole work has up to this time been done.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The contract time expires 30th June, 1903. Up to the present time rather more than one-fourth of the permanent works under the contract have been completed, in addition to the temporary works, including the coffer dams, stagings, railways, and workshops, etc.

  MILITARY LABOUR IN IRISH BARRACKS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that civilian labour is being generally displaced in Irish military barracks, and particularly in Cork, in the building trades, and replaced by military labour; whether the average wage of the district is paid to the military men employed on permanent work in the Cork barracks, as is required by the fair wages resolution of the House

  65
  of Commons; and whether it is intended to continue the employment of military labour in place of the regular qualified tradesmen of Cork and other places.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Incidental repairs of barracks are, under the Queen's Regulations, entrusted as far as practicable to the artificers in regiments. The payments to them amount to from 2 to 3 per cent, of the whole sum expended on these services. They receive the rates of pay laid down in the Royal Warrant. But, since they also have board, lodging, clothes, and other privileges, it is not easy to compare their emoluments with the earnings of civil life. It is intended to continue the present practice.

  EXPANDING BULLETS—MARK IV. AMMUNITION.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the condemnation by the Committee of the Peace Conference of bullets constructed to expand on impact, and the failure of Mark No. IV. ammunition at Bisley, the War Office will issue instructions that Mark No. IV. shall not be used in South Africa, and will take immediate steps to supply the troops in South Africa with other ammunition.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member appears to be mixing up two distinct questions in respect of Mark IV. ammunition. As I have already stated to the House, no action will be taken in consequence of any discussion that may have taken place at the Peace Conference, until we have received the final report of our representative. But in consequence of the recent enquiry into Mark IV. ammunition, it is intended to use that ammunition at foreign stations for practice purposes only.

  SIERRA LEONE.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, as Sir David Chalmers' Report upon the disturbances in the hinterland of Sierra Leone has been for some time in the Colonial Office, he will consent to lay it upon the Table of the House before the Vote for that office comes on for discussion.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, ): As I stated the other day, the Papers were laid in the week before last, and the printers will be urged to use all possible expedition in order that the Papers may be in the hands of Members before the Colonial Office Vote comes on.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES DISPUTE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, inasmuch as the Governor stated at the closing of the Newfoundland Legislature on the 19th July that no legislation had been asked for or enacted regarding the modus vivendi which expires this year, he has considered the situation which will arise in the absence of any Act of the Newfoundland Legislative enforcing the modus vivendi, and whether Her Majesty's Government propose in the absence of any such Act to take themselves, and without the assent of the colony, any coercive measures to enforce it upon the colonists; whether Her Majesty's Government have communicated or propose to communicate to the Government of Newfoundland the Report of the Royal Commission; and, if not, on what grounds; and whether he proposes before Parliament separates to make any statement with reference to the questions pending between France and this country in regard to Newfoundland.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole question of the fishery on the so-called Treaty Shore of Newfoundland is under the consideration of the Government in connection with the Report of the Royal Commission. I may observe that there will be time to obtain the necessary colonial legislation before the commencement of the next fishing season. The Report has not yet been communicated to the Government of Newfoundland. I do not expect to be in a position to make any statement before the close of the session.

  SPIRIT TRADE IN NIGERIA.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the fact that the prohibition of the importation of spirits by the Niger Company into Northern Nigeria has been effective for the purpose, and has tended to the better government of the territory, he will continue the existing system of direct

  67
  prohibition of importation; and whether he will maintain and, if possible, extend the Company's regulations by which no one is permitted to sell spirits unless he has obtained a licence costing at least £100.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already stated in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Western Denbighshire that the exclusion of spirits from Northern Nigeria will be maintained. The best means of controlling the sale of spirits in those parts of the territories now under the administration of the Royal Niger Company into which their importation is allowed will be carefully considered.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is it not the case that, while the importation of spirits is now prohibited by legislation in Northern Nigeria, in future its regulation will depend on the Administration?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware whether it is prohibited by legislation, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the prohibition will be effective.

  BRITISH INDIAN TRADERS IN GERMAN AFRICAN POSSESSIONS.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that the Governor of German South-West Africa has issued a very stringent edict prohibiting the extension of credit to natives; whether this edict and the introduction of the German Gewerbsteuer, or tax upon commerce, are specially directed against British Indian traders in the Gorman African possessions; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the imposition of the Gewerbsteuer, two Hindu firms have been recently driven to withdraw their operations from German South-West Africa; and whether he intends to move Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to represent to the German Government the injury inflicted upon a large number of British subjects engaged in trade in German possessions.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): No information has reached Her Majesty's
  68
  Government on the subject. Inquiries will be made in Berlin as to whether anything is known of this edict.

  IMPRISONMENT OF A BRITISH SAILOR AT BILBAO.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the case of Daniel Scott, a British sailor, imprisoned for seven months without trial at Bilbao, Spain, concerning whom inquiry was made on 6th July; and if Her Majesty's Government have been able to obtain his release.
  MR. BRODRICK: The formalities in connection with the trial of Daniel Scott have not yet been completed, but he was released on bail on the 15th instant.

  THE IMPRISONED ARMENIAN PRELATES.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of proposing to the Signatory Powers joint action by the representatives of those Powers at the Sublime Porte, in accordance with Articles 61 and 62 of the Berlin Treaty, with the object of securing the release from incarceration in St. James's Monastery, Jerusalem, of the Armenian Archbishop and the bishops exiled from their sees in Asia Minor, all of whom are ecclesiastics of irreproachable character, and have committed no crimes under Turkish or other law.
  MR. BRODRICK: I explained the circumstances attending the detention at Jerusalem of these prelates in my answer to the hon. Member's question on the 15th ultimo. I can only add that Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the facts of the case call for the issue of any special instructions to Her Majesty's Ambassador.

  OUTRAGES ON BRITISH SUBJECTS IN TURKISH ARABIA.
  MR STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Porte has liquidated the claims of subjects of Austria-Hungary and the United States for damage done to their property in Turkey; and whether, in these circumstances, the Secretary of State will con-

  69
  sider the advisability of discontinuing verbal and written applications to the Porte, and will adopt other methods for securing payment, without further delay, of the claims of British merchants whose houses and shops were looted in 1896, and also of the pilgrims (British subjects) who were wounded and robbed by brigands in Turkish Arabia in the years 1892, 1893, 1895, 1896, and 1897.
  MR. BRODRICK: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. In reply to the second paragraph, I can assure the hon. Member that the claims mentioned have continued to occupy the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and are at the present moment the subject of negotiations with the Turkish Government.

  FOREIGN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
  MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Reports on the subject of University Education in foreign countries have been received; and, if so, when they will be distributed to Members.
  MR. BRODRICK: Some of the materials have been received, but the papers are not yet complete for presentation to Parliament.

  LIGHT FOR LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in the new lighthouse by the Fastnet, near Cape Clear, it is intended to provide oil gas; whether it is intended to use coal gas in the new lighthouse at Blackhead; whether it is admitted that the light of either oil or coal gas is superior to that of electric light in a fog; and whether, seeing that the largest lighthouse in the world is the gas lighthouse on Tory Island on the north-west coast of Ireland, it is intended that that type of light should in future be used in all lighthouses under the control of the Irish Lights Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): It is intended to provide a powerful biform oil light at Fastnet and a mineral oil light at Blackhead. I am not prepared to express an opinion on the relative merits of oil or coal gas and electric light. I
  70
  understand that the Commissioners of Irish Lights do not contemplate extending (at any rate, at present) the Tory Island type of light to all lighthouses under their control.

  CHAINE MONUMENT, LARNE HARBOUR.
  MR M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Irish Lights Commissioners has been called to the unhealthy and dangerous position of the lighthouse-keeper at the Chaine Monument, Larne Harbour; whether he is aware that the person in charge thereof for the time being cannot get any rest or sleep there; if he will state the height at which the keeper has to work this light and the length and breadth of space he has for his accommodation; and whether inspection and inquiry will be made in the interest of the health of the men in charge.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, (a) that they are satisfied that the accommodation for the light keeper at the Chaine Memorial Tower, Larne Harbour, is not in any way unhealthy or dangerous; (b) that the keeper is not permitted to sleep whilst on watch, but can sit down if he wishes to do so; (c) that the height of the tower is about ninety feet, while the light-room is twelve feet high, and has a diameter of six feet four inches. It does not appear to me that any further inquiry is necessary.

  STOCKBROKERS AND THE STAMP DUTY.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the effect of Clause 13 of the Finance Act, 1899, in the operations of provincial stockbrokers who do not belong to any stock exchange, compelling them when buying stock for a client through a stockbroker to pay for the stamp a secon time; and whether he can do anything to relieve them from this hardship.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): If the hon. Member will refer to the reply which I gave to a question asked by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness on the 14th instant, he will see that I have been considering whether it will be possible to devise a

  71
  plan by which payment of the double duty may be avoided. I hope to be able in a few days to arrive at a decision in the matter.

  CHILDREN WORKING UNDERGROUND.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would grant a Return showing the number of children working underground during the year ending 31st December last (or ending on any more convenient date) who were during that year between twelve and fourteen years of age; such Return to show also the educational standard passed by these children and the number of hours per week worked by them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The statutory Returns made by owners of mines do not show separately the number of children between the ages of twelve and fourteen employed below ground, or give the other particulars mentioned in the question, so that the information for which the hon. Member asks could only be obtained by applying separately to every owner. As experience shows that complete returns can never be obtained except in cases where they are required by law, I am afraid that I do not see my way to granting the Return. I may, however, point out that the hours of labour for the children in question are definitely limited by the Acts, and it may be said generally that no boy is employed underground until he has passed the local standard of total exemption from school attendance.

  OBSCENE EXHIBITIONS AT SEASIDE RESORTS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the display of obscene pictures by means of the penny-in-the-slot machines on the shores of Southport, Blackpool, and several of the other popular seaside resorts; whether he is aware that these machines have been suppressed at Rhyl; and whether he could see his way to urge upon the various local authorities the necessity for suppressing these indecent exhibitions.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: My attention had not been called to this matter, but I am aware that some of the pictures exhibited in mutoscopes on Rhyl sands were withdrawn, objection having been taken to them on the score of indecency. At Blackpool the police were instructed to visit and inspect the machines in question, but found nothing which would justify criminal proceedings. I have no reason to suppose that at other places the local authorities are backward in enforcing the law against obscene exhibitions.

  THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD AND THE RE-HOUSING QUESTION.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now communicated further with the London School Board and with the Education Department on the subject of making provision for displaced occupiers of houses acquired by the School Board in Bethnal Green; and whether he can inform the House of the result of such communications.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: May I at the same time ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in accordance with his promise given on the 30th June, he has inquired into the allegation that the London School Board, by acquiring what is known as the Wood Street site in Bethnal Green in two portions, each consisting of less than twenty houses, evaded the obligation to re-house the persons displaced; can he now state the result of his inquiries; is he aware that, by the Educational Department Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill now before Parliament, the London School Board is seeking powers to acquire nineteen more houses in Bethnal Green; and what steps does he propose to take to prevent what appears to be an evasion of the law.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I am in communication with the Education Department and the London School Board on the subject referred to in the first paragraph of the question, but I have at present no information to impart. As regards the point raised in the third paragraph, I appreciate its importance, and I am considering, in consultation with the authorities concerned, whether there should not be inserted in this Bill pro-

  73
  visions with special reference to the re-housing of persons displaced, or liable to be displaced, in Bethnal Green under the various powers taken by the School Board in recent years.

  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY REHOUSING SCHEME.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has approved a scheme submitted by the South-Eastern Railway Company for re-housing persons displaced under the powers of the company's Act of 1897, which scheme involves the demolition of some thirty-four or more houses inhabited by the labouring class near Abbey Street, Bermondsey; and, if so, will he say what steps he has taken, in view of the overcrowded condition of this district, to compel the South-Eastern Railway Company to provide accommodation elsewhere during rebuilding upon the site for the persons (some 300 in number) who will be thus turned out of their homes.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have approved a re-housing scheme under the South-Eastern Railway Company's Act of 1897, and in order to carry it out some houses occupied by the labouring class near Abbey Street have to be demolished. These houses were not acquired under the Act, and there is no statutory duty upon the company to re-house their inhabitants. But I may say that the displacement of these persons has been one of the circumstances which I have carefully considered in settling the scheme. I believe that the scheme is calculated to do the best that circumstances will permit for the labouring class in this particular neighbourhood. It is a complicated question which I cannot go into now, but if the hon. Member cares to call at the Home Office some officer of that Department will be happy to explain the whole matter to him.

  HOUSE ACCOMMODATION IN SOUTH-WARK.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a Report of St. Olave's District Board of Works, from which it appears that there were hundreds of applicants, including forty policemen, for a four-roomed house in the district which
  74
  recently became vacant; and whether he will very carefully consider the utter insufficiency of the existing house accommodation in Southwark when he is called upon to exercise his discretion in sanctioning schemes for the re-housing of persons displaced under statutory powers in that part of London.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The fact referred to by the hon. Member is but one instance of the sort of conditions which I have always to consider when any question of re-housing is before me. I need hardly say that, if a re-housing scheme in Southwark is submitted to me, I shall, as always in the past, take into consideration the state of house accommodation in the district affected.

  VIVISECTION.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what rules are laid down with regard to the granting or signing of certificates dispensing with the use of anæsthetics in vivisection experiments; whether there is any limit to the number of such certificates which one person may sign, or to the number of experiments upon different animals which may be performed by the person holding one such certificate; whether the Home Office authorises or allows certificates to be signed by the operator himself on his own behalf; whether Dr. Poore, whilst holding the office of inspector, has signed certificates in his capacity of professor of medical jurisprudence in University College, London; and whether there is any regulation requiring that the dates shall be specified for the performance of experiments under the various certificates dispensing with the use of anæsthetics, in order that the Home Office inspector may have knowledge of the time and place at which any experiment on living animals is to be performed.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: All the conditions which are attached to the signing of the certificates mentioned in the first paragraph of the question are laid down by law, viz., Sections 11 and 12 of the Act of 1876. There is no limit to the number of certificates which an authorised person may sign; and the law places no limit on the number of experiments which may be performed under one

  75
  certificate but it is the practice of the Home Office, in addition to the fact that all certificates expire on the 31st December of the year in which they are granted, to limit the number, and this is always done in the case of serious experiments in which the use of anæsthetics is wholly or partly dispensed with. The possibility indicated in the third paragraph would be directly contrary to the proviso in Section 11 of the Act. The answers to the last two paragraphs are in the negative.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Does Professor Poore sign the certificates?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I am informed that it is not the case that he does so.
  MR. PAULTON: Then how is it that the statement appears in the Report of the Inspector? Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire as to its accuracy?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Yes. I was only aware five minutes ago that the Report Seemed to indicate this, and, of course, I have not had time to inquire.

  PRISON LABOUR.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state in how many prisons, local and convict, the treadmill and crank are now used in the discipline of such respective prisons; and whether it is the intention of Prison Commissioners to supersede these methods of punishment in all prisons in England, in view of the fact that no such instruments are employed in Ireland, Scotland, or any other civilised country; and, if so, can he state when their use will finally be dispensed with in English prisons.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Tread-wheels are used in thirty-three, and cranks in eleven, local prisons, but solely for productive purposes. Cranks have never been used as a form of labour in the four convict prisons. Occasionally in the past they have been made use of as a means of punishment for prison offences, but are now very rarely resorted to. I cannot at present make any promise as to the discontinuance of these forms of hard labour in the prisons where they exist.

  MRS. MAYBRICK.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many years has the convict. Mrs. Maybrick now served in penal servitude; and whether, seeing that her conduct in prison has been uniformly good since conviction, and that no extra punishments have been incurred by her through insubordination, he will take this case into his consideration with the object of recommending the gracious exercise of the Royal clemency in her behalf.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Mrs. Maybrick will have served ten years on the 6th of next month. I am not able to hold out any hope of exceptional treatment in this case.
  MR. DAVITT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread and almost universal sympathy in America for Mrs. Maybrick?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have heard of no reasons for exceptional treatment or clemency being shown in this case.

  VACCINATION EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case brought before the Pontypridd Police Court, in which the magistrates refused to grant the application of the Reverend William Griffiths, Ph.D., for a certificate of exemption under the Conscience Clause of the Vaccination Act, although Dr. Griffiths had tendered such evidence as entitled him to the exemption provided by the Conscience Clause of the Vaccination Act; and whether he will call upon the magistrates of the Pontypridd Police Court to furnish Dr. Griffiths with a certificate of exemption under the Conscience Clause of the Vaccination Act.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I am informed that it is the practice of the court in question to require some reason to be given on oath in support of a statement of conscientious objection; and that the magistrates, after hearing Dr. Griffiths, were not satisfied that he had a conscientious belief within the meaning of the Act. The question whether or not the magistrates exceeded their jurisdiction in

  77
  requiring the applicant to give reasons is one of law which, I am advised, might be raised and determined in a superior court. I have no power to direct the magistrates to issue a certificate of exemption.

  MARGARINE FACTORIES.
  MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Return relating to margarine factories, ordered two months ago, is yet complete; and, if not, who is responsible for the delay in this matter.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): The English and Scotch portions of this Return have been received and I am only waiting for that which relates to Ireland. I have asked the Irish Government to furnish it as quickly as possible.

  WILBY TOWN ESTATE SCHEMES.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the Commissioners have definitely decided not to proceed further with the Wilby Town Estate Scheme dated 13th July, 1898, on the ground that it is opposed by the Wilby Parish Council. Whether he is aware that the intention of the Wilby Parish Council was not to oppose the proposed scheme but merely to criticise certain of its provisions; and whether, under those conditions and in view of the fact that the Wilby Parish Council, whilst maintaining its protest against the original scheme of 1869, is prepared to accept the new scheme as a compromise subject to certain alterations of detail, the Commissioners will reconsider the matter and allow the scheme to pass through its remaining stages.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): (1) The Commissioners have stated that they will not proceed with the scheme. (2) The Parish Council have opposed the scheme as proposed. (3) The Commissioners cannot consider the alterations desired by the Parish Council to be matters of detail, but if they will now accept the scheme as a
  78
  compromise without alteration the Commissioners will proceed with it.

  TELEPHONE AT MULLINGAR.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a local telephone exchange has just been established in Mullingar; and whether, in view of this fact, the postal authorities will meet the wishes of the people by erecting a trunk line to Dublin as soon as possible.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The Postmaster-General has not received any application for the extension of the trunk telephone system to Mullingar. In view of the distance between Dublin and Mullingar, the cost of the circuit would of course be very heavy; while the receipts would not be likely to justify the expenditure. It might, however, be possible to provide a circuit under a guarantee from the National Telephone Company, who have established the local exchange.

  MOYVORE LETTER CARRIER.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, will he explain why the departure of the letter carrier from Moyvore Post Office, in the County Westmeath, has been altered to 10 a.m. on Sundays, one hour after his arrival, although the inhabitants of the district petitioned against this alteration, by which they were unable to reply to their letters, unless by sending to one of the neighbouring post offices or letterboxes, thus involving further Sunday labour; whether he is aware that the petition was signed by the clergy of both denominations as it was impossible for the letter carrier to attend divine service anywhere, and that the neighbouring post offices and letter-boxes are not cleared till 2 p.m., or after; and whether, in the new arrangements the same privilege as to time of Sunday closing may be extended to Moyvore district as is enjoyed by those surrounding it.
  MR. HANBURY: No recent alteration has been made in the time of departure of the letter carrier from Moyvore Post Office on Sundays, and there is no trace of the receipt of any recent petition

  79
  on the subject. The present hour of departure (10 a.m.) has been in force for some years, and is in accordance with the general rule under which rural postmen are permitted to return from the end of their walks on Sundays in the forenoon, in order to release them and all concerned from duty at an early hour of the day. There is an afternoon collection on the walk of another postman at two or three letter-boxes in the neighbourhood of Moyvore, which is an exception to the rule above referred to, but this does not appear to the Postmaster-General to afford sufficient ground for disturbing the Sunday arrangements at Moyvore.

  DUBLIN TELEGRAPH STAFF.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether a revision of the Dublin telegraph staff took place last year in connection with the Tweed mouth Committee's Report, under which the clerks' class was increased by six with the authority of the Treasury given in May, and six sorting clerks were promoted to fill these positions on 15th September last, the appointments carrying the increased pay only from that date; whether, seeing that the usual practice in larger offices is that the increased pay is given to the promoted officers from the date of the Treasury sanction being given to make the appointments, he can say why the Dublin officers were not treated in the same way; and will he see that they are so paid.
  MR. HANBURY: In the circumstances, instructions have been given for these promotions to take effect from the date of the Treasury letter sanctioning the revision.

  TELEGRAPH OFFICE FOR BELLEWSTOWN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the inhabitants of Bellewstown asked for the establishment of a telegraph office about a year ago, and offered the usual guarantee asked for by the Post Office; and whether he can explain the cause of the delay, and say when the office will be opened.
  MR. HANBURY: The delay in establishing a telegraph office at Bellewstown
  80
  has arisen from the unwillingness of the sub-postmaster to undertake telegraph work. A new sub-postmaster has now been selected. It cannot be stated definitely when the office will be opened, but no time will be lost in completing the extension.

  GRANTS TO IRISH RAILWAYS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state when the Return granted on the motion relating to Treasury and local grants to Irish Railways will be in the hands of Members.
  MR. HANBURY: As soon as the county borough of Dublin have replied to a question addressed to them, the requisite information will be in the hands of the Treasury, and the Return will then be issued without delay.

  PRESS TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGES.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, at whose instance and for what reasons the Manchester Post Office recently gave sudden notice to the Lancashire evening papers limiting the despatch of telegrams relating to the test cricket match at Old Trafford to private messages; why the intimation was held back until almost the eleventh hour, thus subjecting the press to great inconvenience; and why the messages could not have been received at the nearest telegraph office instead of having to be sent three miles to the General Post Office in Manchester; and whether a similar intimation has been given with respect to the great golf match at Ganton, nine miles from Scarborough, where, contrary to previous usage, the Post Office refused to put up instruments on the ground.
  MR. HANBURY: The notice referred to was given in pursuance of instructions from headquarters. The reason for limiting the despatch of telegrams from the Old Trafford Cricket Ground last week to private messages was that the telegraphic facilities at the cricket ground office were inadequate to admit of the press work being telegraphed from the ground, there being only one wire. The Department does not itself provide

  81
  extensions of the wires to cricket grounds, etc., but requires those on whose behalf such extensions are made to defray the cost and provide suitable office accommodation. Intimation that press-work could not be dealt with at the cricket ground was given to the principal news agencies as soon as the final decision of the cricket ground committee not to increase the number of wires was known, and at once to any reporters who gave notice of their intention to report the match. The press-work could not be dealt with at any telegraph office nearer to the cricket ground than the head office, as no office nearer to I the ground had sufficient facilities for the purpose. In the case of Ganton, to which the hon. Member also refers, no offer has been made to the Department to provide office accommodation on the golf ground, or to defray the cost of extending the telegraph wires. There has been no such refusal as that referred to.

  POSTMEN AND BANK HOLIDAYS
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in the event of a Bank Holiday occurring during an assistant postman's annual leave (such Bank Holiday being paid for as overtime), the officer is entitled to an extra day in lieu thereof.
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir.

  MOUNTED RURAL POSTMEN'S ALLOWANCES.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will grant a Return of the total number of rural postmen who have an allowance made to them for horse-keep in the form shown on the Paper this day.
  MR. HANBURY: The Return could be given, though the labour involved in preparing it will be considerable; and the information if given in the proposed form would be almost useless. The mere number of allowances at the different rates tells nothing unless the details of the work to be done are added.

  A MISSING IRISH TELEGRAM
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, is he aware that an important telegram in reference to the
  82
  trial of Sergeant Sullivan, of Mulranny, for alleged forgery, was despatched by Mr. William O'Brien from Westport Post Office to Mr. Valentine Kilbride, Dublin, the solicitor for the plaintiff, and was never delivered; what is the meaning of the explanation of the disappearance of the telegram offered by the Post Office in the letter of the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, that the telegram in question failed in transmission upon the wires between Westport and Dublin; has there been any similar failure in transmission upon the wires in other cases; and, if such failure occurred, why was not notice sent at the time to the sender; and, have the Post Office authorities inquired whether Sergeant Sullivan, the defendant in the action, was in Westport at the time the message was handed in, and whether he or any other member of the police force had access to the telegraph office on that day, or had any opportunity of ascertaining the contents of the telegram.
  MR. HANBURY: The telegram form shows that this message was apparently despatched from Westport to Dublin, but there is no trace of the receipt of the telegram in the Dublin office. It is a case in which it is difficult to decide where the blame for the failure rests, and the non-delivery is much to be regretted. There have been similar failures in transmission, but they are of rare occurrence. It is the practice, whenever a telegram fails to be delivered immediately, to advise the sender; but in this case it was not known before the attention of the Department was called to the matter by letter that failure had occurred. The Postmaster of Westport believes Sergeant Sullivan was not in Westport at the time the message was handed in. Neither he nor any of the police force could have access to the telegraph office, or in any way ascertain the contents of the telegram.
  MR. DAVITT: Is it not the fact that another telegram, sent by Mr. O'Brien on the same day, was delivered?
  MR. HANBURY: I believe so.
  MR. DAVITT: Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire into this very disagreeable matter?
  MR. HANBURY: We have made all the inquiry the Post Office can possibly make. The only other inquiry that could be made, perhaps, is one that might be addressed to the constabulary authorities, as to the whereabouts of Sergeant Sullivan on that particular day.

  SPECIAL TELEGRAPHIC DUTIES.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether it has been the practice to send telegraph clerks from the Southampton office to perform special duties at Epsom, Salisbury, Ascot, and Henley when public events require additional telegraphic facilities, and will he explain why they are now excluded from participation in these duties, the telegraph staff being recruited from offices much more distant; and whether the Postmaster-General could restore the privilege to the Southampton clerks, seeing that, as compared with former years, they will suffer pecuniary loss.
  MR. HANBURY: It is the practice to send telegraphists from the Southampton office for duty in connection with special events. Four telegraphists were so sent to Salisbury for the race mooting held there on the 4th, 5th, and 6th instant, and two to Sandown Park on the 14th and 15th instant. The Southampton telegraphists are in no way excluded from participation in these duties when they can be spared from their own office. At certain times, however, it is found that they cannot be spared.

  TELEPHONE WAY LEAVES.
  MR. CALDWELL: On behalf of the Member for North-East Lanark I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the way-leave powers delegated by the Postmaster-General to a licensee under the Telegraph Act of 1892 can be exercised without the consent of the local authorities in such case.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster-General, by the agreement with the National Telephone Company of 1896, is required, at the request of the company, to authorise the company, within the areas already assigned to them, to exercise certain way-leave powers which are conferred upon him by the Telegraph Acts. These powers were, by
  84
  Deed Poll dated March 23rd, 1899, delegated in a great number of places; and a, copy of the Deed Poll has been sent to each such place. In some places, notably Bedford, the local authority appears to have been advised that the way-leaves could be exercised without the consent of the local authority. That, of course, is not the case; and, under the Act of 1892 and the Agreement of 1896, the special consent of the local authority is required in each case.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: May I ask whether the way-leave powers granted to the National Telephone Company by local authorities terminate with the licence of the company?
  MR. HANBURY: Certainly.

  EXTRA POLICE IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Clare, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of extra police in Clare, and what is their cost; and whether, in view of the peaceable state of the country, they can be dispensed with.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The number of extra police in the County Clare is forty men, and their cost to local rates amounts to about £1,350 per annum. These forty men are employed exclusively in affording special protection to certain individuals, a duty which cannot be performed by the normal or free force of police in the county; and so long as the necessity for such special measures continues to exist, the extra force cannot be dispensed with. I may add that there has been a reduction of 103 men in the extra force of Clare since the present Government entered office, and that this large reduction is equivalent to a saving to local rates of about £3,550 per annum.

  BALTIMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have, at a large cost, constructed the railway to Baltimore, and whether the want of connection to deep water, as originally and subsequently intended, has interfered

  85
  with the utilities of the line for the benefit of the fisheries; and whether he can influence the Congested Districts Board and the Cork and Bandon Railway to financially co-operate in having this railway perfected.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The plans for this railway, which was built by the Government at a cost of £56,700, did not include the provision of a pier as suggested. As regards the second paragraph, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous question of the 10th inst. on the same subject.

  CORK UNION DISPENSARY DOCTOR.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, that the Local Government Board authorise a charge on the rates of Cork Union of £346 a year in payment for substitutes for dispensary doctors when on leave other than sick leave, the doctors having hitherto always paid their own substitutes. I beg also, on my own behalf, to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution recently adopted by the Cork Board of Guardians, protesting against the action of the Local Government Board in seeking to compel the payment of substitutes for dispensary doctors when on ordinary leave out of the rates; and whether, in view of the fact that this rule, if insisted upon, will place a new burden upon the ratepayers, he will suggest to the Local Government Board the desirability of re-considering their decision.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: In reply to these questions, I have to say that the order for the payment of substitutes for dispensary doctors when on ordinary leave out of the rates was made, not under the Local Government Act of last year, but under the 8th and 12th Sections of the Medical Charities Act, 14 and 15 Vict., c. 68. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the practice of requiring the doctors to pay their own substitutes, which appears to exist in the Cork Union, is not the general practice in Ireland. If, however, it can be shown that it is the established practice in the Cork Union, and understood as such by the gentlemen
  86
  appointed dispensary doctors in that Union, the Local Government Board are quite ready to consider whether, consistently with the terms of the new Dispensary Order, to which they attach great importance, some arrangement cannot be made to meet the case, whether by rearrangement of duties or otherwise.
  CAPT. DONELAN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the Local Government Board have issued no such orders as are mentioned in the question?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No; only general orders.

  CASTLEREA SANITARY CHARGES
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from the Castlerea Rural District Council on the subject of the sanitary charges of the towns of Castlerea and Ballaghadereen; whether he is aware that the spreading of these charges over the entire rural district, instead of as heretofore only on the places concerned and receiving benefit, has created a very strong feeling amongst the members of the council and the ratepayers generally; and whether he will comply with the desire of the council and the ratepayers in favour of making the sanitary expenses excluded charges, and leviable only upon the places receiving advantages from the works in connection with which they were incurred.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The memorial referred to in the first paragraph has been received. A Supplementary Order was issued on the 17th instant, restoring the former areas of charge for special expenses in certain cases, which include the Castlerea and Ballaghadereen Water Supply and Sewerage schemes.

  IRISH LAND ACT RETURNS
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain how it is that now, three years after the passing of the Land Act of 1896, complete Returns of the land rental and encumbrances to which the fortieth section applies have not been presented to the House as required by that Act; whether he could see his way to at once present to the

  87
  House a portion of the Return, which has been in course of preparation during the past year, in order to expedite the work of solicitors and tenants entitled to purchase; and whether he would order an inquiry into the causes which have delayed Returns for three years which, according to the Act, ought to have been presented to the House at least two years ago.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Neither the Land Law Act of 1896, nor the Rules made in pursuance of Section 40 of the Act, require that the Returns in question shall be presented to Parliament. As regards the second and third paragraphs, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous question of Monday last on the subject.

  THE CENSUS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed, in the next Census Act for England, to take a census of the people and their occupations every five years; and whether a similar Act will extend to Ireland.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have no knowledge as to the matter referred to in the question.

  IRISH FISHERY CONSERVATORS' BOARD.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what representation the Lord Lieutenant will give county district councils on the Fishery Conservators' Board if they become contributory to the amount of £25 and £50 respectively per year.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Section 37 of the Local Government Act enables a district council, at the request of a Board of Conservators, to contribute to the expenses of the Board, and it is further provided by the same section that the number of representatives of the contributory district council upon the Board of Conservators shall be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant. Obviously, the question of representation of a particular district council upon the Board cannot be determined until the council has become con
  88
  tributory under the section, and every case of the kind must be considered on its merits.

  SALMON IN IRISH RIVERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there has been a decrease of salmon in the rivers Barrow and Nore for the past fifteen years, which has been estimated to be £30,000 a year; whether he is aware that this is mainly due to the destruction of spawning fish in the fresh water, and of fry by trawlers and drum nets at the river mouth; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held before the end of the close season, 15th April, at New Ross and Inistiogue to investigate the question and suggest a remedy.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries have no statistics as to the capture of salmon in the rivers mentioned. It appears to be a fact, however, comparing the quantities of salmon exported from Ireland to the principal English markets, that there has been a general falling off in the capture of salmon in recent years in Ireland. My information does not bear out the allegation in the second paragraph. I see no reason for directing an inquiry to be held in this particular case as suggested in the third paragraph; but I may remind the hon. Member that the subject of the inland fisheries and fishery laws in Ireland is about to be investigated by a Viceregal Commission.

  CLONES SUB-LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state at what date the Sub-Land Commission may be expected to sit for the hearing of cases in the Clones Union; and can he also say when the Chief Commission will sit to hear appeals for County Monaghan.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The dates for the sittings referred to in the question have not yet been fixed. Sittings will, however, be arranged on as early dates as possible having due regard to the claims of other districts.

  FAIR RENT VALUATIONS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Cavan, I beg

  89
  to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the great delay in fixing fair rents caused by the inability of farmers to supply the Sub Commissioners with certificates of valuation for standard years, in cases where holdings have been divided or consolidated holdings, with landlord's consent, have been separated since fixing last judicial rent; whether he is aware that the Irish Land Laws do not require the production of any such certificates; and if inquiry will be made with the view of providing some way of preventing the block at present existing in fixing fair rents in such cases.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Having regard to the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1898, and particularly of Section 55, a fair rent cannot be fixed unless the court is furnished with a certificate of the rateable valuation of the holding for the standard financial year, setting forth separately the valuation of the agricultural land and other hereditaments respectively comprised therein. In cases where holdings have been sub-divided or consolidated, even with the consent of the landlord, as indicated in the question, and when the provisions of the Valuation Acts have not been complied with, and the valuations of sub-divided or consolidated holdings have not been revised, the certificate referred to cannot be issued until steps have been taken under Statute 17 Vic, cap. 8, as altered by the Local Government (Adaptation of Irish Enactments) Order, 1899, to have the valuation revised at the next annual revision. When the Act of last year came into force the Land Commissioners issued a Memorandum to applicants to have fair rents fixed, in which they were informed that when circumstances such as those with which the question deals existed the Commissioners would be unable to fix a rent until steps had been taken by the applicant to have the tenement valuation revised.

  POOR LAW ANALYSTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. MACALEESE: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Armagh I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the appointment of analytical chemists in Ireland to the poor law unions for the
  90
  analysing of drugs, if he could state what qualification does the Irish Local Government Board require that they should possess, how many appointments have they sanctioned so far, and what is the full qualification of each chemist that has been appointed.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: In view of the importance of the duties the Local Government Board require in the case of persons who are not already public analysts under the Food and Drugs Act, educational attainments equal to those possessed by such of the Fellows or Associates of the Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland as have obtained the certificate granted by the Institute after examination in therapeutics, pharmacology and microscopy. The Board have sanctioned the appointment of one gentleman who possesses the foregoing qualifications but who has not hitherto acted as public analyst.

  IRISH NATIONAL LIBRARY.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Report of the Trustees of the National Library of Ireland (Kildare Street) for 1898 will be laid before Parliament; and whether the provisions for the library, which have long been asked for, will shortly be carried out.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Report will be presented to Parliament by the Science and Art Department, and will not pass through my hands. Perhaps my hon. friend would address his question to my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Council.

  PEACE PRESERVATION ACT—PROSECUTIONS IN COUNTY DUBLIN.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of a captain in Her Majesty's service, who was prosecuted and fined at the Coolock Petty Sessions, County Dublin, on the 10th instant, under the Peace Preservation Act, for having arms on his own land, on the ground that his holding was situated in a proclaimed district, namely the County of Dublin; and will he explain

  91
  why the County Dublin, which is, and has for years, been absolutely free from all serious crime, is still proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act, and whether the proclamation of the County of Dublin will be revoked.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. With regard to the second paragraph, it is a fact that the County of Dublin is subject to a proclamation issued under the Peace Preservation Act of 1881, which makes the possession of firearms without a licence to keep the same, illegal. That proclamation was issued in December, 1881, immediately after the passing of the Act, and successive Irish Governments since that date have not seen their way to withdraw the proclamation. It is not the intention of the Government, as at present advised, to revoke it.

  BELFAST TROUBLES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on last Saturday a stone was flung through the window of the house of Rev. Wm. Peoples, of Templemore Avenue, Belfast, and that the persecution of this clergyman is still kept up in spite of the closing of his church; and why the police are not instructed to put a stop to such proceedings.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: On the night of the 15th instant, the Rev. Mr. Peoples reported to the police that a small pane of glass in the window of his house had been broken. Mr. Peoples has been living in his house for the past four months, and has not during that period been subjected to annoyance. The stone was probably thrown by boys in rough play without any intention of breaking Mr. Peoples window. That gentleman has not, I am informed, suffered any annoyance since St. Clement's Church was closed four months ago. He moves freely through the district, and no particular notice is taken of him. The police have instructions to pay close attention to his house.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in
  92
  view of the opposition to the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill, he intends to proceed with that measure this session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): This Bill is one of those which I stated a few days ago would not be proceeded with if there is any serious opposition. I will make it my business to find out whether that is the case.
  MR. CALDWELL: There will be considerable opposition. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill confers no public money on Scotland, whereas a similar Bill for Ireland gives £21,000?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not a similar Bill.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS BILL, formerly SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
    LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
    GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL.
    GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
    SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES) BILL.
    STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL.
    With Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
Other Amendments made.
Schedule added as follows:—

ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

38 and 39 Vic., c. 63

The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875

In section two the definition of the term "food."
In section fourteen the words "offer to," and the words "proceed accordingly and shall."

Section fifteen.

42 and 43 Vic., c. 30

The Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879

Section ten.

50 and 51 Vic., c. 29

The Margarine Act, 1887

In section six the words "or with," and the words "not less than a quarter of an inch square."

54 and 55 Vic., c 46

The Post Office Act, 1891

Section eleven.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): I hope the House will allow this Bill to be now read a third time. It has, I think, been fully discussed both in Committee and on Report stage.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Bill be now read the third time." (Mr. Long.)
SIR JOHN LENG: The right hon. Gentleman will, I think, admit that those who have taken an interest in this measure have shown by their action this afternoon in not pressing the Amendments which they have on the Paper that they have no desire to unduly protract the discussion on it. But I must say there is a feeling that we should have some opportunity of saying a few words on the Third Reading, and, therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this motion of Third Reading.
MR. STRACHEY: While we have no desire to prevent the
94
Bill being read a third time, I do think we are entitled to enter a protest against that part of it which provides that an invoice is no longer to serve as a warranty. I make that protest on behalf of a large number of small retailers throughout the length and breadth of the country, who feel that they have a right to complain of the action of the Government in assenting the other day to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Sussex. That Amendment altered what had been done by the Grand Committee by the, no doubt, small majority of four, and against the desire of the Government. An invoice was then made to be an equivalent to a warranty. Unfortunately the Government thought fit not to resist this Amendment moved in the small hours of the morning, which undid that portion of the Grand Committee's work. The House was nearly empty, and hon. Members were tired, and, in consequence, the question was not fully or properly debated. I cannot help thinking that, had there been more Members present, many would have protested against the action of the Government in this matter. It is quite true the Government did not put on the Party whips to tell in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex——
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Are we to understand that the Third Reading is to be taken to day?
MR. CHANNING: I rise to a point of order. Am I not right in saying that, according to the Rules of the House, a motion of this nature must be adjourned if objection is taken to its being proceeded with? Personally, I feel that I must take that objection.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no such Rule, but in each case it is a matter for the House to decide. If there is a strong feeling against proceeding with a Bill it is not usual to persist with the motion. At the same time there are many cases where the Third Reading has been taken in spite of there being some objection.
MR. STRACHEY: I must say, with regard to the invoice question, it is most unfortunate that the Government gave way upon it. I would be the last to suggest that there might be any lack of

95
impartiality on the part of a county bench of magistrates who might be called upon to deal with cases under this Act, but on such a bench are found gentlemen interested in agricultural matters and in seeing that agricultural produce was properly protected, and some people might fear that, in such a case, the magistrates might not prove absolutely impartial. I repeat that I repudiate any such idea personally, but still I cannot help thinking that it would be far better for the Government if it had, in order to avert suspicion, given defendants a right in those cases to appeal to a jury, a course which is very much more necessary now in view of the fact that an invoice is no longer to be treated as a warranty. Again, I think there is cause of complaint as to the action of the Government in insisting on imposing the penalty of three months 'imprisonment for a third conviction. Here again the invoice question renders the decision come to more open to objection. It should be borne in mind that small shopkeepers in country districts naturally rely upon an invoice as a warranty. If they receive goods from firms supposed to be of good repute, they naturally feel safe in selling them; and it is unfair to these retailers that they should be rendered liable to imprisonment, not for their own carelessness, but for the misconduct of others, on whose word they ought to be able to rely.
MR. CALDWELL: I am sorry that the Government are pressing this motion for a Third Reading. There certainly has been some misunderstanding on this side of the House. Many hon. Members interested certainly did not expect the Third Reading to be taken to-day. Under these circumstances I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to second that.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
MR. LONG: I have no desire to press this matter unfairly, but it will, I think, be admitted that the Bill on Second Reading, before the Grand Committee, and again on the Report stage, has
96
received the most exhaustive and detailed consideration, and therefore nothing remains but to repeat over again the arguments already used against certain details of the measure. In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the opposition, as far as I am able to judge, comes from only a few hon. Gentlemen opposite, I hope the House will resist the Amendment.
MR. BRYCE: I regret to hear the words which have just fallen from the President of the Board of Agriculture. I think he ought to feel that in the long run it is much better he should give way. This is a step which can only be taken by the general consent of the House, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is very desirable the House should not lose its power in these matters. I therefore hope he will not persist in asking for the Third Reading of this Bill to-day. He must feel that the concessions which the Government made on Thursday night have been amply rewarded by the action of hon. Members in not to-day pressing the Amendments which they had on the Paper. The Bill is really an important one, exciting a large amount of interest throughout the country—an interest disproportionate to that which was borne testimony to by the attendance in the House on the Report stage. Some important alterations have been made in the measure, and one important provision introduced by the Grand Committee has been struck out. Under these circumstances, I think the House should have an opportunity of debating the Third Reading.
MR. LONG: After that expression of view by the right hon. Gentleman from the front Opposition Bench, and speaking therefore, I presume, in the name of the Opposition, I ask leave to withdraw my motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
As Amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
MR. DILLON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the

97
Amendments I have put down on the Paper do not show any desire on my part to prevent this Bill passing. It was carefully considered in Committee upstairs, and in some particulars, no doubt, substantially improved. But I regret to say that some of the chief faults in its machinery, to which I drew attention on the Second Reading, are still untouched. The first Amendment I have to propose is one which was fully considered in Committee, and therefore I shall only say a few sentences in regard to it. Its object is exceedingly simple. The Bill, as it at present stands, proposes to make the Chief Secretary for Ireland President of the new Department, and to associate with him a vice-president, to be appointed and removable by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State. I propose that the Department should have as President one who is not Chief Secretary. I do not wish the Chief Secretary to be directly associated with the new Department, and this will give it two characteristics which I judge to be very valuable—first, it will leave the Department more independence and initiative; and, in the second place, it will separate the Department from the ordinary political administration of Ireland, and thereby give it a better chance of getting into touch and sympathy with the body of the people. When I made this proposal in Committee, with, I venture to say, the universal support of Irishmen, the only argument advanced against it was that it was too far-reaching, as it amounted in effect to the cutting into two of the whole administration of Ireland, and destroying its centralised character. I accept that description of my proposal, and I certainly should like to see this new Department cut off from that portion of the administration which is responsible for police and justice, because it would thereby
be relieved from that odium and friction which a political Department of the Irish Government so often incurs. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word 'with,' to the word 'appointed,' in line 11, and insert the words, 'a president'"—(Mr. Dillon)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): I fully recognise that the hon. Member has no desire to obstruct this Bill. I am afraid, however, that, as in Committee, so now I am obliged to resist this Amendment. I do so on the ground, mainly, that the change is not a desirable one in itself, having regard to the interests of the Department it is proposed to set up. It would weaken the Department both in the House and in Ireland if the Chief Secretary were not included as its President. It is perfectly true that, at one time, there seemed to be a consensus of opinion that it would be desirable to have a Minister who should be independent of the Chief Secretary as head of the Department, but I believe I satisfied a deputation representing the Chambers of Commerce and others that waited on me that such was not the case, and that the presence of the Chief Secretary on the Department was, in fact, necessary to the successful working of the measure, and that our proposal would in fact give effect to their desire.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 78. (Division List, No. 292.)

AYES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M

Coddington, Sir William

Arnold, Alfred

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Arrol, Sir William

Boulnois, Edmund

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brassey, Albert

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Baily, James (Walworth)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Baird, John George Alexander

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

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

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

Curzon, Viscount

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Banbury, Frederick George

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Denny, Colonel

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Chamberlain. J. Austen (wore'r

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Chelsea, Viscount

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Bethell, Commander

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

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

Laurie, Lieut. -General

Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.

Finch, George H.

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning (Corn

Purvis, Robert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Pym, C. Guy

Fisher, William Hayes

Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.)

Rothschild, Hon. L. Walter

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lockwood, Lt. -Colonel A. R.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Flower, Ernest

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Gedge, Sydney

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Goschen, Rt Hn G. J. (St George's

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Graham, Henry Robert

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Malcolm, Ian

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Heaton, John Henniker

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

Helder, Augustus

Milton, Viscount

Tollemache, Henry James

Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.)

Monk, Charles James

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Valentia, Viscount

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Welby, Lieut. -Col. A. C. E.

Howell, William Tudor

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Whiteley, H. (Aston-under-L.)

Hozier, Hon. James Hy. Cecil

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wyndham, George

Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Wyvill, Marmaduke d'Arcy

Kenyon, James

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Kimber, Henry

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

King Sir Henry Seymour

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Knowles, Lees

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

NOES.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

Balfour, Rt Hn J Blair (Clackm.

Harwood, George

Pease, Joseph A. (Northum b.)

Billson, Alfred

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hazell, Walter

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Burt, Thomas

Horniman, Frederick John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Caldwell, James

Jones, David Brynmor (Swan.

Souttar, Robinson

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

Spicer, Albert

Carew, James Laurence

Labouchere, Henry

Steadman, William Charles

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd

Stevenson, Francis S.

Channing, Francis Allston

Leng, Sir John

Strachey, Edward

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crombie, John William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Tennant, Harold John

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Crae, George

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Davitt, Michael

M'Ewan, William

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Dewar, Arthur

M'Ghee, Richard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Maddison, Fred.

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Doogan, P. C.

Maden, John Henry

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Duckworth, James

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Moulton, John Fletcher

Woodall, William

Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Hudd'rsf'd

Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Yoxall, James Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Mr. Dillon and Captain Donelan.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

SIR CHARLES DILKE: I have to apologise to the House for moving an Amendment which is not on the Paper. But the circumstances are such that I think I am justified in doing so, as I had understood it would have been among the Amendments put down for Irish Members, while those Gentlemen thought I intended to
100
put it down. It was defeated on the Grand Committee by a small majority, and I believe it had the support of all Nationalists, with only one exception. The object of the Amendment is to make it necessary that the new Minister to be appointed under the Bill shall seek reelection on appointment. This matter of re-election has not been very frequently

101
argued in the House in recent years, but in 1869, when the late Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for west Monmouth, made his maiden speech, Lord Bury had asked leave to introduce a Bill to provide that Ministers should not have to seek re-election on accepting office. Mr. Gladstone, and many other leading Members of the House, made most interesting speeches, and the language used was most uncompromising, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth "vehemently dissenting" to the proposal. He declared that the choice of Ministers should be ratified by their constituencies. He and other Members who took part in that Debate pointed out how this matter especially affected Ireland, where cabals and Parliamentary in-intrigues were especially marked. The case of Judge Keogh and other cases were alluded to, and the opinion of Mr. Hallam was quoted as to the necessity of jealously maintaining the rights of the constituents. Not only did everyone who spoke on the Liberal side uphold the principle of maintaining the rights of constituents, but Mr. Henley strongly supported the same view from the other side of the House. He said he did not like "cutting the connection between the House of Commons and the constituencies. "That opinion prevailed, and the motion for leave to introduce the Bill was unanimously negatived by the House. The result has been that the fixed system has continued, and while leading Ministers have to seek re-election, under-secretaries and some secretaries of boards do not. It has been necessary when a new Minister is created, to consider on abstract merits whether the new Minister shall be sent for re-election or not. However strong the arguments may be on general principles in favour of sending a Minister for reelection, they seem to me to be vastly stronger in the case of Ireland. In the past, Irish constituencies have been liable to treachery on the part of their political representatives, and consequently the political condition of Ireland renders it necessary to maintain this principle in their case. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 1, line 20, to leave out from the word 'elected,' to the word 'Parliament,' in line 23, inclusive, and insert the words 'and shall be deemed to be an office included in Schedule H of The Representation of the People Act, 1867, in Schedule H of The Repre-
102
sentation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and in Schedule E of The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868,'—(Sir Charles Dilke)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The right hon. Baronet has argued this question on general principles, and referred to a Bill brought in by Lord Bury, which was not read a first time. That Bill, the House will remember, related, not to the case of subordinate ministers, but to the case of all Ministers holding office under the Crown. If the argument of the right hon. Baronet is one to which the House should attach weight at the present time, I think he will admit that we have been going wrong for a generation. For at least a generation there is not a single case of a subordinate Minister requiring to seek re-election on taking office. That seems to me to be a sufficient reply to the right hon. Baronet, so far as the general grounds adduced by him are concerned. But the right hon. Baronet is of opinion that Ireland is a special case, and that whatever may be the law in England, a new Minister should not be appointed in Ireland without an appeal to his constituents on his appointment. I cannot agree with the right hon. Baronet that there is a special case for Ireland of any real weight. On the contrary, I would argue that Ireland is a place where the rule should not apply, even if we had not for thirty years abandoned it in the case of all subordinate Ministers. Let the House remember this, that the Minister will not necessarily be a Minister representing an Irish constituency, and if you limit the choice open to the Government by laying down the rule that appointment to this post involves re-election, it may very well be that it would be impossible for the Government to select an hon. Member representing an Irish Constituency, because the Member might, under existing conditions, hold an unsafe seat. Everybody knows that the question of the safety of a seat is an element that must be taken into consideration in making appointments of such Ministers. If that be so, and if the right hon. Baronet's Amendment is accepted, the Government could not appoint an Irish Member, and would have to go outside Ireland or to the House of Lords

103
for the selection of the Minister. I have no doubt that so far from Ireland presenting a special case on account of which we ought to depart from the rule which has obtained for thirty years, we ought to make it an exception so that it would be unnecessary for the Minister to seek re-election on appointment of office.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to accept this Amendment. It is one which has the all but unanimous support of the Irish Members. The right hon. Baronet quoted historical precedents in favour of it, but the right hon. Gentleman met them by saying that these historical precedents had been abolished for the last thirty years. The present Chief Secretary for Ireland has to seek re-election. We attach considerable importance to the post of Vice-President of the new board, and we think that he, also, should be bound to seek re-election on his appointment. If we had a Parliament of our own he would, of course, have to seek re-election in the Irish Parliament, for the President of the Board of Agriculture would be one of the most important Ministers that we would have. I think it would be extremely wise from our point of view that we should establish a precedent for that now, so that when we do have the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture of our own we may arrange that he should be required to seek re-election. We desire to place our views on record by supporting the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, and I hope he will go to a Division.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment. I think I can speak with perfect impartiality, for the appointment is not one which is ever likely to be asked for by me or offered to me. Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to put this penalty of re-election on Irish Members of Parliament? I have yet to learn that the admiration of these hon. Members for the House of Lords is so strong that they would like to penalise the representatives of Irish constituencies in order that a noble Lord should be the occupant of this post. Of course, if that be so, then nothing more is to be said. I would take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the care, patience, courtesy and
104
conciliation he has shown in bringing this Bill to its present position. I can assure him that all Ireland will be grateful to him in the days to come; and I trust that he will not have his opinion set at defiance by the House on an occasion when he is desirous of giving to Ireland a great boon.
MR. STEVENSON: I noticed that the Chief Secretary stated that for the past generation all subordinate Ministers were exempted from seeking re-election. There is, at all events, the occupant of one subordinate office—the Civil Lord of the Admiralty who, I think, has to seek re-election.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: That is not a post which has been created during the last century.
MR. STEVENSON: Reference was made to Lord Bury's Bill of 1869; but a Bill was afterwards brought in by the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool to abolish, in the case of all Ministers, the necessity of appealing to their constituents on their appointment to office. I believe if a Bill of that kind were brought in now, it would receive a largo amount of support in this House and in the country. It seems to me, however, that as this particular post is one of very great importance, it would be a pity to set the example with it. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, it is of the greatest possible importance that the holder of this office should be in very close touch with Irish feeling and Irish conditions of life, and it seems to me that that is a reason why the Amendment ought to be supported.
MR. DILLON: I trust the right hon. Baronet will go to a Division and enable us to put our opinion on record. It is a fact that every single Minister drawing a salary in connection with the Irish Government in this House has to seek re-election, and therefore as regards Irish administration the proposal in the Bill is a totally new departure. I ask the Chief Secretary whether it would not be better for him to follow the unbroken tradition and practice of the Irish Government rather than to follow the new tradition and practice of the English Government, and which the

105
Irish Members do not desire to apply to their country. A great majority of the Irish representatives are solid on this question. I heartily agree with the right hon. Baronet in what he has said as regards the greater strength of the objection to this now departure, because of the special case of Ireland. We consider that the peculiar situation which has existed and is likely to exist for some time in Irish politics, renders it particularly undesirable that a Member of Parliament, after he has been elected, should have his status altered without his constituents having the right to state their views upon it. The right hon. gentleman the Chief Secretary strengthened our case when he said that to compel this Minister to seek re-election on appointment would limit the choice of the Government—or in
other words that he would appoint a man as Minister who, if he sought re-election, would be defeated by the constituency which returned him as an independent Member. That is the strongest argument for the Amendment, because it would give the constituencies a right to say whether they are to be represented by an independent and unsalaried Member, or by a salaried Minister of the Crown. For that reason I certainly shall vote for the Amendment, and I do think it would be more consistent with the position of the Irish Government to accept it.
Question put—
The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 91. (Division List, No. 293.)

AYES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Denny, Colonel

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Arnold, Alfred

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Leighton, Stanley

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Arrol, Sir William

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel A. R.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Baird, J. George Alexander

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Mane'r

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

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

Finch, George H.

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Banbury, Frederick George

Fisher, William Hayes

Lubbock, Rt. Rt. Hn. Sir John

Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H.S.-(Hunts.)

FitzGerald, Sir Rbt. Penrose-

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Macdona, John Cumming

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir. M. H.(Br'st'l)

Flower, Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Beckett, Ernest William

Garfit, William

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gedge, Sydney

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Bethell, Commander

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Milton, Viscount

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Milward, Colonel Victor

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goschen, Rt. Hn G J (St George's

Monk, Charles James

Boulnois, Edmund

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Brassey, Albert

Graham, Henry Robert

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf d.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Helder, Augustus

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Percy, Earl

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Howard, Joseph

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chelsea, Viscount

Howell, William Tudor

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

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

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Purvis, Robert

Coddington, Sir William

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pym, C. Guy

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Rankin, Sir James

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ridley. Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Kemp, George

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Colston, C. E. H. Athole

Kenyon, James

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kimber, Henry

Round, James

Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

Knowles Lees

Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Laurie, Lieut. -General

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Curzon, Viscount

Lawrence, Sir E Durning -(Corn)

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

Sharpe, William Edward T

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Tollemache, Henry James

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

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wyndham, George

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Valentia, Viscount

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Ox.Univ.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Sir William Walrond and

Thornton, Percy M.

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Bainbridge, Emerson

Harwood, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Balfour, Rt. Hon. J.B.(Clackm.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Power, Patrick Joseph

Billson, Alfred

Hazell, Walter

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Robson, William Snowdon

Burt, Thomas

Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

Caldwell, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Souttar, Robinson

Carew, James Laurence

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'land

Spicer, Albert

Carmichael, Sir T. D Gibson-

Leng, Sir John

Steadman, William Charles

Causton, Richard Knight

Lloyd-George, David

Stevenson, Francis S.

Channing, Francis Allston

Macaleese, Daniel

Strachey, Edward

Crilly, Daniel

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crombie, John William

M'Crae, George

Tennant, Harold John

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Ewan, William

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Ghee, Richard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Maddison, Fred

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Davitt, Michael

Maden, John Henry

Williams, John Carvell(Notts.

Donelan, Captain A.

Mellor, Rt. Hon. J.W. (Yorks.)

Wills, Sir William Henry

Doogan, P. C.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Duckworth. James

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, John (Govan)

Dunn, Sir William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'sfield

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Woods, Samuel

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Dillon.

Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Palmer, Sir CharlesM.(Durh'm

Bill read the third time, and passed.

MR. DILLON: This Amendment deals with the composition of the Agricultural Board which, under this Act, is constituted as follows: Two Members elected by each of the provincial committees, which makes, in all, eight elected members, and four nominated by the Crown, making in all 12. That gives the Crown one-third of the entire number, but that does not represent the actual position of the board, because the provincial committees have a large element of nominated members. My Amendment would have the effect of doubling the number of elected representatives, bringing the total number of the board up to sixteen. Consequently the Department would still have the nomination of one-fourth of the entire board. When I moved this Amendment in Grand Committee the Chief Secretary said it would make the board too large, and that the proportion of nominated members to the total number was settled by the Government
108
on lines similar to those adopted in foreign countries. I ask the Chief Secretary to explain to the House what is the reason for the extraordinary disparity that exists from the point of view of the influence of the popularly elected member between the composition of the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Technical Instruction under this Bill. The Board of Technical Instruction consists of twenty-four members, six from Dublin and Belfast (three each); one to be appointed by the joint committee from the rural districts of the County of Dublin; four by the borough councils of Ireland; three by the Chambers of Commerce; four by the provincial committees of each province; one by the Commissioners of National Education; one by the Intermediate Education Board, and four by the Department, which is one-sixth of the whole number. On the Agricultural Board you have one-third of the whole

109
number nominated by the Department. That is a very extraordinary anomaly and one which I think needs explanation. The functions of the two boards are precisely similar, and I cannot see why it is necessary or on what ground the Board of Agriculture should be constituted on a more official basis than the Board of Technical Instruction. I have another strong argument. Under the Bill as it stands only two representatives are allowed in each province, which number I hold is totally inadequate to represent them properly, and it is sure to lead to a great deal of difficulty. I would draw the special attention of the House to this point. Why is it necessary to give to compact units like the City of Dublin and Belfast three representatives each, and only give two to a whole province? Surely everybody will admit that even if the population of Munster, Connaught, or Ulster were as small as the population of Belfast or Dublin, being scattered over a wide area they require a larger representation than those city communities. As a matter of fact the populations of the provinces are much larger than these cities, and yet you only give them two representatives while the cities have three. I can see no solid ground upon which this differentiation can be based. When the Chief Secretary falls back upon his contention that by increasing the numbers the Board of Agriculture would be made too large and unwieldy, I answer that it would be smaller than the number of the Technical Instruction Board is as arranged under the Bill. If a board of twenty-four can do the work of the Technical Instruction Board I cannot understand why a board of sixteen is too large for the Board of Agriculture. I do not think it will be possible to get anything like a full attendance of the board at any meeting, because, often through sickness or urgent business, a man may be prevented from attending, because the work is purely voluntary, and it is possible that from these causes alone some of the provinces may not be represented at all at some of the meetings. These are views which I strongly hold, and I appeal to the Chief Secretary to meet us in this matter.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 29, to leave out the word 'two,' and insert the word 'four,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for East Mayo has drawn a comparison between the Board of Technical Instruction and the Board of Agriculture, and he has asked why the former has twenty-four members, while we are unwilling to allow more than twelve for the Board of Agriculture. I should have been quite content to cut down the Technical Instruction Board to twelve, because I am convinced that a board of twelve members is decidedly more efficient than a board of twenty-four. After a great deal of careful consideration of all the various interests which have to be represented on the Board of Technical Instruction, I could not see how I could very well cut the numbers down, unless it was by giving to Belfast, Dublin, and Cork the same representation as the county boroughs. I am afraid that if I had made that proposal Belfast and Dublin would have objected, and I am not anxious to incur the hostility of these two cities. Therefore, I thought I would give this extra representation to these two cities, and I do not see how it is possible, consistently with something like equality, to give Dublin and Belfast less than three representatives. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no sinister arrière pensée behind the proposal contained in the Bill. I still think that a board of twelve in the case of the Technical Instruction Board would have been a more efficient body than it is now, and I certainly think that twelve is a better number for the Agricultural Board.
MR. DAVITT: The right hon. Gentleman looked with alarm at having to face the opposition of Belfast and Dublin, but he is evidently not afraid of a possible rising in the provinces by limiting their representation on a most important board to so small a number. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept my hon. friend's Amendment. I am sure that he is anxious to make this Bill popular in Ireland, and he would undoubtedly make it more workable if he rendered it more popular, and I am sure he would do that if he increased the number of representatives for the provinces. I can assure him that we are not ani-

111
mated by any desire to render any of these councils or boards unwieldy, and if he is satisfied that twenty-four members on the Technical Instruction Board will enable that part of the work to be well done, surely a smaller number on the Agricultural Board will enable the work of that Department to be carried out just as well. I am sorry that the Chief Secretary has not seen his way to accept this Amendment, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will yet be able to reconsider his decision.
MR. POWER: I do hope the Government will agree to this proposal, for even if my hon. friend's Amendment is carried it will still give the Government one-fifth of the Board to nominate, which I think would be quite enough for all purposes. I think it must be admitted that two for each province is a very limited representation of the popular voice. It is very desirable that men elected on this Argricultural Board should be thoroughly competent and able to speak for the various interests they represent, and I think it is desirable, having regard to the importance of the agricultural industry, that each province should have one representative for ordinary farming, another for the dairy interest, and another to represent the labouring community. I quite agree with the views put forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo, that while you have only two representatives for each large province you will experience great difficulty of selection so as to get all interests fairly represented, and it will be very much better if the number is increased. Although the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to look with favour upon this proposal, I hope he has not said the last word on it.
MR. T. M. HEALY: This is not a very large matter, and I hope the Government will give way. Surely this Bill is getting through the House upon very easy terms, and when an Amendment is proposed which does not raise any question of principle, I think the Government might accept it.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I think the right hon. Gentleman might make the number three in each province, for this would not make any practical difference in the working of the Board. At
112
present you have twelve, and if you accept this, it will only make the number 16. Three members from each province would allow all classes to be represented, whereas the present number will really interfere with its working. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to allow three members from, each province.
MR. FLYNN: I may point out that the four members to be appointed by the Department will be gentlemen who can give constant and regular attendance, but, from the necessity of the case, the representatives of the provinces will scarcely be able to attend so regularly. Then I think the labouring community ought to have some representation on this body, and if you have only two representatives the chances of the labour element being directly represented will be very remote indeed. I think for that reason alone the Government ought to accept the Amendment in favour of three representatives, and thus give all classes in Ireland who are interested in agriculture a fair opportunity of being represented on this Board, which is going to perform such important functions.
MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I do not quite understand the position of the Chief Secretary. If the agricultural population is 70 per cent. of the entire population, the Agricultural Board becomes the more important of the two. If the Technical Instruction Board has twenty-four members under this Bill, the agricultural element, according to the ratio of population, as contrasted with the industrial element, ought to have a representation on the Agricultural Board of over fifty members. I also wish to say a few words in support of the view of my hon. friend the Member for North Cork. Throughout the entire progress of this Bill there has been evidenced by the Chief Secretary a desire to avoid the representation of the labour element. In the Grand Committee that was evidenced most strongly, and we have it again in the Agricultural Board, that no representation whatever will be given to the interest most affected. The representation, as proposed, will lead to the undue representation of the large landed interest, but why should those who work and toil, and are the bone and sinew of the country not be fairly represented? I contend

113
that the Agricultural Board should be double the number at present proposed. Surely it is not too much to ask the Chief Secretary, at this stage of the proceedings, to reconsider his decision with regard to the matter.
MR. DILLON: Before we proceed to a Division, may I be permitted to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would even go so far as to say that he will consider this matter with an open mind between now and the Committee stage in another place? If he will, I will not take a Division.
MR. COURTNEY: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the advantage of increasing the representation of the provincial committee of each province from two to three. If ho increased the representation from two to three, he might provide that in the election of three members from each province no elector should vote for more than two, and thus introduce the element of proportional representation.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to accept the offer which has been made by my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo. I had the honour of presiding over the Committee upstairs, and that is my only reason for interposing at this stage. The only objection that has been stated is that there might be some risks in making the board too large, and therefore to a certain extent, unworkable. It seems to me that the numbers would not be very great if this Amendment were accepted. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might see his way, after the offer of my hon. friend, to reconsider the subject.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am prepared to consider the point between now and the time when this Bill reaches another place. With regard to the pet subject of my right hon. friend, I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that I shall be able to satisfy him.
MR. DILLON: Then I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be read the third time."—(Mr. G.W. Balfour.)
MR. T. M. HEALY: I congratulate the Government on getting the Bill through so easily. I only rose to take exception to one point. I had intended to say on the Second Reading that I thought it was open to some doubts whether the £12,000 provided for in Clause 15, out of the saving raised by the abolition of the judgeships, was a sufficient sum. We have had no statement whatever from the Treasury, nor any figures given us to show how this sum is arrived at. In my opinion the amount required will be not £12,000, but a much larger sum. I think the time has arrived when Irish Members of all sections—Conservative or Liberal—should be prepared to attack the Treasury upon their figures at every hand's turn, and to insist upon some kind of Select Committee in regard to it. We have had to take upon trust the statement that £12,000 is a sufficient sum. In dealing with public accounts, we should have some body in this House which would be able to cross-examine these Treasury experts, for the purpose of finding out on what basis their figures are arrived at. I also desire to take some exception to the expenditure for the Inland and Sea Fisheries Fund. In my opinion you will find that it really did not arise for State purposes at all, and therefore the State has no claim to dispose of this fund in the manner proposed. What we should like really to investigate is whether the large salvages of public money, which are annually transmitted as unexpended money, should go back, not to the British Treasury, but to some board such as this on all future occasions. You have at the present moment in Ireland a Public Votes Office, where Scotch and English gentlemen are simply agents for the Treasury, and do not spend the money which this House votes. This House is led to believe that large sums voted for public purposes have been spent; but in point of fact these gentlemen, by a secret process, intercept the money in transit, and prevent it reaching the Departments upon which the money ought so be expended, pouring the money back again into the lap of the Treasury. I therefore say that the time has arrived when some serious

115
step will have to be taken by Irish Members to overlook the system of expenditure by the British Treasury. At one time we had the promise of some safeguard with regard to the expenditure of the money. Now we have no protection whatever. We depend upon a knot of English officials, whose one idea is to bleed Ireland white, and to get as much money as they can out of us, and to give us as little back as possible. Under these circumstances, while congratulating the Government upon the passage of the Bill, it must not be supposed for a moment that I accept the figures given by the Treasury under Section 15.
MR. POWER: By this Bill the Government take over the looking after of the fisheries of Ireland, and I hope sincerely they may be able to do some good in that direction, because we all recognize that those fisheries are capable of great development. I rose particularly to call the attention of the Irish Secretary to what occurred in Supply on Friday night, when I raised the question of the way in which the Admiralty treat us with regard to the protection of our fisheries. All the trawlers which are driven from the English, Welsh, and Scotch coasts come over to our coast, and the result is they are doing a great deal of damage to the lines and trammels and nets of the fishermen. The Bill which was passed some years ago is absolutely useless. The proposition and suggestion I made was that, seeing it is absolutely impossible that the working staff under this present Bill could be ready in a very short time, pending the completion of arrangements, the Admiralty might lend a gunboat or two to enforce these bye-laws. The First Lord of the Treasury most considerately said he would confer with the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chief Secretary on the subject, and he hoped something would be done satisfactorily for the Irish fisheries. What I ask now is that the Irish Secretary should not allow the House to separate before he meets the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Leader of the House, so that something may be done to stop the system which it has been found necessary to stop on your own coasts, and which is working great harm to our already rather poor fisheries.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I should like to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to an institution almost on a par with the Munster Institution. There has been recently established the Ulster Agricultural and Dairy School and Henry Trust, on a farm of fifty acres, with a sum of £12,000 in the funds, an accumulation of money left by the late Mr. Thomas Henry, to found a school in the parish of Down. The Lord Chancellor has recently sanctioned the scheme to carry out the trust, which embraces the admission of girls as well as boys. While not in the least grudging the Munster Institution and the Albert Institution the well-deserved grants which are given by this Bill, I should like to claim for this Ulster School some consideration. I trust that the Government will consider the claims of the Ulster Agricultural School, which proposes to benefit the whole of the province, to share in the benefits which are conferred on the Munster School by the Bill. I have now only to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, the Government, and Ireland generally, upon the achievement we shall witness to-day in the passing of this Bill, which all parts of the country are unanimous in approving.
SIR.THOMAS ESMONDE: I also desire to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the passage of this Bill. It is an extremely useful measure, and one which will confer benefits on Ireland which will become greater and greater as years go on. The hon. Member for North Louth has raised a very important question in the few remarks he addressed to the House, a question which I hope we shall be able to follow up in another session, but which I do not intend to deal with now. I should like to say a few words about the matter mentioned by my hon. friend the Member for East Water-ford. Like him, I am very much interested in the sea-fishing industry, and have to complain of the enormous amount of damage which is done by steam trawlers which come to the waters in the Irish bays and harbours, and carry on their trawling depredations absolutely unhindered. We simply want the Fishery Board to have the use of a couple of gunboats to hunt these gentry away. I think, in consideration of the contribution

117
we make to the naval defence of the Empire, we might have that protection. As to this present Bill, the whole success or non-success of the measure will depend on its administration, and inasmuch as it has been supported as a non-political measure, I hope, in the appointments which the right hon. Gentleman is going to make in connection with the various boards and institutions under the Bill, he will make those also non-political. The right hon. Gentleman will be deluged with applications for appointments under the Bill, and I am certain he will do what we want him to do; that is, give the appointments to the best men he can possibly get. A number of these appointments will probably have to be given to foreigners, as, even in Ireland, we cannot produce experts in certain departments. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will act with a wise discretion, and appoint the men who, in his opinion, will work this measure so as to produce the greatest amount of benefit to the people of Ireland.
MR. DAVITT: I trust the Chief Secretary will respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member for South Belfast in favour of organising in Ulster an institution similar to that in Munster, because I think Connaught would then have a very good chance of obtaining one also. I fully agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for North Louth, with regard to the finance of the Bill. It is absurd to propose to improve the great agricultural and allied industries of Ireland by the niggardly allowance of what will amount to about 3d. per head of the population per annum. At the same time, our people are overtaxed in proportion to their capacity to the extent of 15s. per head per annum for the benefit of the voracious English Treasury. There is another marked contrast in the finance of this measure. At the present time, in one of the most crimeless countries in the world, a constabulary force has to be maintained at a cost of about 17s. per head per annum. Upstairs, I ventured to give, in sporting language, a "straight tip "to the Chief Secretary as to how he could raise enough money to enable the machinery of this Bill to confer great benefits upon Irish industries, viz., that the Royal Irish Constabulary should be reduced by one-third, by which means an annual sum of £400,000 would be saved, which would
118
be available for subsidising the various industries under this Bill, and for the furtherance of the interests of Irish agriculture and technical instruction. I sincerely hope the Chief Secretary will take this suggestion of mine into consideration, and that at a not very distant date it may be carried into effect.
MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I desire to associate myself with the congratulations to the Chief Secretary on the passage of this Bill. Now that he has got his Bill, and the House has given him a practically free hand, I think we are entitled to ask the Chief Secretary to give us the very best men to work the Bill, no matter what part of the world they happen to come from. I supported the right hon. Gentleman through thick and thin, and perhaps I could not exactly defend all I voted for, but I took the measure as a whole. I believe it will be a useful Bill, because with a decaying population such as that of Ireland, the only possible remedy is education and industry. I would have wished that this Bill were the crowning stone of a great educational policy. Instead of having it this year, I would prefer to have had a great educational Bill from which we could work steadily up. This Bill ought to have followed a large educational measure, which would have rendered it more fruitful. I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentleman will proceed with this industrial policy, which began with the Congested Districts Board, was renewed again with that Board, was exemplified in the extension of light railways, especially in the north-west of Ireland, and is crowned to-day with this industrial measure.
MR. DILLON: I have no objection to the Third Reading of the Bill being taken at this period, and I venture to express the hope that the measure may be of benefit to Ireland. I thank the Chief Secretary for the manner in which he has met those of us who engaged in the discussion of this Bill. On many important matters he remained obdurate, but on other important, though minor, matters he met us fairly, and the Bill is now a better Bill. I have been, of course, made the object of much criticism, because I insisted from the beginning that a Bill dealing with such vital and impor-

119
tant matters should not be passed through the House of Commons sub silentio. I think what has occurred has fully justified my action. I admit I was not satisfied, and am not yet satisfied that this Bill was not discussed in a full Committee of the House. It was represented to us truly, no doubt, that that was impossible at the present stage of the session. But that is no answer to us. We were entitled to have the Bill introduced earlier. But be that as it may, we have obtained very considerable and under the circumstances a fair amount of discussion. It has been said by two hon. Members that the great and vital question as to whether this Bill is to be beneficial or not now largely depends on the spirit of its administration. The hon. Baronet the Member for West Kerry gave the Chief Secretary some excellent advice, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will obtain advice on the same lines from many other quarters. I will, however, remain sceptical until I see some concrete proof of a determination on the part of the Irish Government to break its record. I do not question the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he honestly means to do what the hon. Baronet urged him to do, namely, in making appointments under this Act to turn his back on the traditions of the Irish Government, and to look only on the merits of the men. As the hon. Baronet correctly stated, the Chief Secretary is the miserable recipient of innumerable applications for positions. An official stated within my hearing, when 5,000 was mentioned as the probable number of applications already received, that that was infinitely beneath the proper number. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to appoint the best men. I hope he may succeed, but if he does appoint men who have no political pull, and whose only qualifications are their merits, the very clothes will be torn off his back and he will be driven out of Ireland before very long. The right hon. Gentleman provided the machinery of this measure on his own lines. He attached very great importance to the proposal that he should have control of, and full responsibility for the working of this Act, and our proposal to the contrary was defeated. He is the Department, and nobody can say that he has not full
120
control, and he said because he had experience he was the proper man to bring the Act into operation. I greatly fear, however, that the traditions which cluster round Dublin Castle, and which are very largely the cause of the hatred we bear to that institution, will prove too strong for him, and that men will receive appointments whose only claims are based on political services.
MR. FLYNN: I desire to congratulate the Chief Secretary on the ability and perseverance he has shown in piloting this Bill through all its stages, but I cannot congratulate the Government on the manner in which this Bill is to receive Third Reading this evening. It was brought in under the Ten minutes' rule, and the Government sought by one means or another to evade all discussion on it, and they thought we ought to accept the principle of take it or leave it. I congratulate my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo, and his friends, who believed that the Bill should be subjected to discussion and criticism, and I join with him in believing that the Bill has emerged from the Committee stage better in some respects, and certainly modified in others. We had hoped we might have been able to stamp the Bill with more democratic characteristics, but on that we were not successful, though I, as one who took a small part in that direction, am pleased that I took that part. I join with all my colleagues in asking the right hon. Gentleman, in the appointments he is going to make, to rise superior to the considerations which officially surround him and to the traditions of Dublin Castle, and expressing the hope that he will appoint men not because of their connection with politics, but because they are men thoroughly conversant with the great questions of industry and agriculture with which the Department will have to deal.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Before the Bill is read a third time I would wish to make a few remarks on the speeches to which we have just listened. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth criticises the sufficiency of the sum of £12,000 provided by the Treasury I think if the hon. and learned Member examines this question further he will feel that on this occasion the Treasury have not been ungenerous. The sum of £5,500

121
a year represents the saving made by the abolition of judgeships and the consolidation of courts, but as a matter of fact up to the present there has been no saving, and there cannot be any saving for a considerable number of years. Of course, any estimate must be to some extent speculative, but I believe that, in getting the sum of £12,000, Ireland is getting more than she would get if the exact sum had been carefully calculated by the Treasury year by year. As to the Sea and Coast Fisheries Fund, the hon. and learned Member is quite correct in stating that in its origin, some fifty years ago, that sum was derived from private contributions, but it has been administered for a considerable time past by some department connected with the Irish Government. The hon. Member for East Waterford appealed to me to use my influence with the Admiralty to secure the services of a couple of gunboats to protect the Irish fisheries, and the hon. Member attributed the injury inflicted in the Irish fisheries by trawlers, to the fact that there are no regulations with regard to the trawling in Ireland similar to the Scotch law. I think this is a question not so much of law as of administration. Ever since I came to the Irish Office, I have felt very strongly that the administration of the Irish fisheries was not what I should like to see it, and that trawlers committed depredations to a large extent unchecked. I have done what I could in the matter. I have constantly pressed the Admiralty for the services of a vessel, but the Admiralty have come to the conclusion that it is not a part of their duty to police the sea for fishery purposes. Every now and again I have succeeded in obtaining the services of a gunboat where some flagrant case of illegality was committed, but, of course, long before the gunboat arrived on the scene, the trawler had disappeared. I have come to the conclusion that nothing short of placing at the disposal of this Department a swift vessel will at all meet the case. As the hon. Member for East Waterford is aware, I have inserted in this Bill an express provision enabling the Department to expend money for the supervision and protection of fishing grounds, and the enforcement of local bye-laws. I am quite willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member, but the position taken up by the Admiralty does not leave much room for hope of a large
122
measure of success. However, I will make every effort to secure gunboats. I think that the remaining observations that have been made are merely of a general character. The hon. Baronet the Member for West Kerry exhorted me to exercise care in making the appointments under the Act, and not to make them political rewards. Sir, the Irish Government have had the policy embodied in this Bill in their serious consideration for years. For four years the subject has been dwelling in my mind. I actually prepared a Bill the first year I was in office. In the following year a Bill was introduced, but had to be withdrawn, to make way for the Local Government Bill, and now we have had this Bill which is now being passed. I can say from my heart that it shall be my endeavour to make it a success. I recognise most thoroughly that the success of this measure depends to a very large extent on the way in which it is administered, and it will be my strenuous endeavour to get the very best men to carry it out. In conclusion, I beg to thank hon. Members from Ireland for the kind way in which they have spoken of this Bill, and the intentions of the Government in introducing it, and for their co-operation in passing it through the House.

TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, &c.) BILL.
Order for Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I rise to move that this Bill be considered on this day three months. I hope I need make no apology to the House in taking this step in place of the hon. Member who has devoted a great deal of time to the question. We are at a considerable disadvantage in discussing a Bill of such magnitude at this late period of the session. It is obvious that when a proposal coming from the Government is accepted as advantageous by London and a great number of municipalities, a good deal of opposition to the Bill is obviated. It is quite true that those interested seem

123
to accept this Bill as a solution of a very difficult question, but it is also the case that behind the attitude and opinion of London and the large municipalities, there exists an alternative policy. There is no doubt that if London and the municipalities are willing to accept the proposals of the Bill, they would have been equally willing to accept in some form or other a national system of telephones. But the alternative has been rigidly excluded, unfortunately, from consideration. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury discussed that alternative, and gave reasons which were admitted by the right hon. Member for London University as conclusive against any national system, but as a whole the right hon. Gentleman has been obliged to work within limits. In my humble opinion this is very unfortunate, but I hope it will not be argued by the right hon. Gentleman that this question has been decided, and that therefore we have no business to re-open it. I do not want to import into this discussion anything extraneous, but the magnitude and importance of the issue lay upon us the responsibility of not excluding anything which, on its merits, ought to be considered in connection with this important subject. Now, in the first place, this is an entirely new Bill. The Government proposal now laid before us is not the Bill which went upstairs; it is not even the Bill which left the Committee. The changes made are so radical, and so essential, that it seems to me that the proper course the House should take is to recommit the Bill for full and careful consideration. Besides being an entirely new Bill, the present proposals are an absolutely new departure in the attitude of the Government towards telephone enterprise. The alteration of the date when the licence of the National Telephone Company was to expire, from 1911 to 1925, under certain conditions, is in direct antagonism, not only to the attitude of former Governments, but also to the attitude of the Select Committees, and in direct contradiction to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman some time ago. I could quote the right hon. Gentleman's words to show that he has been definite and strenuous in his opinion that this question was closed, not to be reopened, and that everyone was agreed that beyond 1911 the licence of the National Telephone Company should not
124
be prolonged. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will say that he has got concessions from the National Telephone Company which will make the new concession to the company not, on the whole, disadvantageous; but I think the objections I have stated should be fatal to the present proposals. I do not speak as an advocate of any one interest concerned, but I do say that, under the conditions foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, it will make things worse than before. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that we shall have vigorous competition from the Post Office. In the second place, we have given fresh powers to the National Company, and vigorous competition is certain to follow from these fresh powers. I do not blame the company; they are a trading concern, and must look after the interests of their shareholders. Well, then, we shall also have the competition of the municipalities. Under certain conditions, when a municipality receives a licence, the National Company will have their licence prolonged. I say that is an infringement of the attitude hitherto entertained by all in this House, and by all the experts. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to allow urban and sanitary authorities to give licences to fresh companies in their districts. We shall have a sacrifice of public convenience by the muddle sure to be brought on by these proposals. I think it is very unjustifiable to go entirely against all experience. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that hitherto the outlook of all critics of our telephone system has been that in 1911 that system would become a national one. The right hon. Gentleman himself said, Why should we do this or that, when the business will fall into our lap in 1911? It is alleged against a national telephone system that it would vastly increase the number of employees, and their wages in the Post Office; but I fail to see why that should be any ground for the proposals in the present Bill. With the Government owning the telegraphs, it seems to me to be perfectly absurd to stick at theoretical considerations in regard to the State ownership of telephones. The telegraphs and the telephones are intimately connected, and must work together, and if the Government were to take the telephones over, it would not involve anything like the increase of

125
staff or wages which would have to be made if they were taken over by any other body. Then what is to become of the rural districts under this Bill? The Post-office propose to expend £2,000,000 in extending the system in London, and the rural districts would be left out in the cold. It is only the Post-Office, only a national concern, which you can rely on to develop the poorer parts of the country as well as the richer; to apply the profits of the undertaking in the richer areas to extending the benefits to the poorer areas of the country. I have great admiration for the perseverance and tenacity which the right hon. Gentleman has shown in great difficulties; but I must hold that in making these proposals there has been a surrender of the whole position. It is impossible to ask the House to assent to the Bill in its present form at so late a period of the session, and I therefore beg to move that it be considered this day three months.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to second the motion made by my hon. and gallant friend. I will only criticise, in a very few sentences, the considerations that have already been laid before the House. It is a fact that this is a new Bill compared with what it was when it was sent upstairs. And it is a new Bill in a direction of which the majority of the House and the country would not approve, if they were fully alive to the changes made in it. If any one examines the Bill, he would be able to see that, as an adequate settlement of the telephone system on a real national basis, such as the Secretary to the Treasury promised us in the earlier stages of the Debate, we are further away from it than at the beginning of the session. I am not opposed to municipal enterprise in any degree, and there is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has been enabled to satisfy and conciliate very large and powerful communities in the country, and in the House. He has been able to shake the opposition of London itself, and to get over the opposition from large municipalities like Glasgow; but what has he done for the smaller centres of population, and the rural districts? He says that the rural districts are to be able to establish telephones. In my part of the country an urban district has been interpreted to include a police burgh, and the majority of these have a population below five
126
thousand. Is it within practical politics to say that these are going to establish a telephone system in their district? We are merely playing with words in a clause of that sort. Instead of a great national system, we are shutting out from the benefits to be obtained from a national system all the small towns and villages. With regard to the treatment of the small municipalities where the National Telephone Company have already obtained a footing, it must be well-known to the right hon. Gentleman, from the correspondence he has had, the way in which towns like Fraserburgh have been treated by that company. I say that at this period of the session, and with a new Bill before us, it is impossible to have a settlement of this question, which is to last for the next twenty-five years, or which is likely to be satisfactory to public opinion, or to keep pace with telephone communication in other countries of Europe. The Secretary to the Treasury has taken power to extend the licence of the National Telephone Company to 1925.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): Only in places where there is competition.
MR. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman insisted in this House, when he introduced the Bill, and on the Second Reading, that in 1911 the licence of the National Company came to an end; but now it can be extended to 1925. I am not saying this in hostility to the right hon. Gentleman, because we have looked upon him as our champion, and the champion of the public interest against this monopolist company, which lurks in all the lobbies, and sits on the benches of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has stood up for national interests, but I am sorry to say that in the last round of the contest he has apparently been defeated. I am certain that if he were to postpone this Bill to next session he would obtain popular sympathy. We should next year get a much better measure than the one now before the House, and one based on national grounds. I urge that we ought not to extend the licence of the National Telephone Company, and put a large part of the country for twenty-five years under the domination of the company which has done so much to stifle telephone interest

127
in the past. The only true and sensible solution of the problem is to nationalise the telephones and put them in the hands of the Post Office. I warmly support the motion of my hon. and gallant friend.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Captain Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That the word now' stand part of the Question."
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I trust that the House will not allow itself to be influenced by the arguments of my hon. friends. I have for many years been interested in obtaining a better system of telephones. Glasgow has led the movement, and is anxious to obtain powers to establish municipal telephones, and I am certain that this Bill has been made more acceptable to those who favour that principle. The Bill, moreover, has been enormously improved in Committee. How many municipalities would care to establish telephonic exchanges under conditions that bring them to a close in eleven years? There can be no real competition in such conditions. And I am certain you would not get six municipalities throughout the kingdom to embark in such an expensive business for such a short period. If towns like Glasgow choose to accept licences terminating in 1911, with the risk of a renewal, they can do so, and the licence of the National Telephone Company will not, in such cases, I believe, be extended. In proposing to extend the licence the right hon. Gentleman has taken the best step to ensure municipal competition. Personally, I want all the competition we can get, and if we had competition between. the municipalities and the telephone company we should have a better service for the public than if either was granted a monopoly. There is only one other point to which I wish to allude. The question of intercommunication is a most important subject, and the right hon. Gentleman has, after negotiations, arrived at what appears to me to be an equitable arrangement. Glasgow is willing to go on without any right of intercommunication, and the authorities are confident that the company will in time come to them and ask for intercommunication to be made. I heartily congratulate the
128
hon. Gentlemen who have secured the arrangement for intercommunication, and though this Bill does not go the length which I should desire to see, it is, in my opinion, a great improvement to the Bill as originally introduced into the House. If my hon. friend goes to a Division, I can only say I shall have to vote against him.
MR. PROVAND: I hope that my hon. friend will withdraw the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman who supported this Bill supported it on the ground that it would not nationalise the telephones of this country. Many people do not know what nationalisation means; it does not mean that we shall get the telephones for nothing, but that they shall be handed over to the country as a matter of purchase. Nationalisation of telephones is not a feasible project. The only method by which the country can acquire the telephone service is to pay five or six millions; that is the only method of nationalisation. It has been suggested by members of various Stock Exchanges that the country should buy the telephones at a cost of £6,850,000. If that were acceded to, it would mean that the country would pay 1¼millions more than the shares of the company are worth; and what should we buy for that? Plant, the bulk of which is worthless. In Glasgow there are about 6,000 wires, and to buy the telephone system on the Stock Exchange principle would cost £56 or £57 per wire, or more than £300,000. The plant of the company in Glasgow could not be sold at any such high price. Except in a few places the plant of the company is obsolete, and the agitation to substitute modern plant must compel the company to reconstruct all the present telephone plant in the country. There are only two ways in which the plant of the company could be bought—by private agreement, or under the arbitration clause in the licence. But no Government or Chancellor of the Exchequer could permit this arbitration clause to be used. I wish to satisfy those on this side of the House who support nationalisation that it is an absolutely impossible scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly well aware of that when he said he would rather spend the taxpayers' money in buying new plant than obsolete plant. One hon. Gentleman said he thought the telephones could be

129
worked more cheaply by the Government than by anyone else, but had he been cognisant of the expense of the working of the Post Office telephones he would not have made that remark. In no case where they are now conducting the service have the Post Office been able to compete with the National Telephone Company. The Bill no doubt will have much greater effect in the rural parts of the country than in the towns, and I believe that under it many rural places will be able to get a telephone service for a subscription of £1 a year. I therefore hope my hon. friend will withdraw his Amendment for the rejection of the Bill; if he does not, I shall have no option but to vote against him.
MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman in the remarks which he has made on a matter which has been discussed at such length. Every business man knows that it is neither fair nor reasonable to take as the basis of purchase of a going concern, built up as the National Telephone Company has been, how much money it will take to replace it. That is not the basis on which to discuss it. My main reason for rising is that I have an Amendment, which I need not now move, and so save the time of the House. I might, however, say that the Bill has been changed in two important particulars since Second Reading—namely, the extension of licences beyond 1911, and the permission to form new companies, the first of which the Secretary to the Treasury formerly declared to be contrary to common-sense and the second to be practically impossible. The new provisions make it necessary that the Bill should be seriously considered at this stage. In my opinion the new provisions are bad, because the country is thus brought face to face with the contingency of having four different authorities carrying on telephonic business—namely, the Post Office, the existing company, the corporations, and new companies. Yet if there is one thing which they were led to understand would be vital to a, good telephonic system it was that the whole of the subscribers should be on one circuit and be able to intercommunicate with each other. I do not know whether my hon. friend intends to take a Division on this motion or not, but if I may offer him advice, I would
130
say that I do not think it is an advisable thing to do, because I am sure that it is the general feeling of the House that this measure should go forward. For myself, the idea under which I always opposed this proposal was that nationalisation was the right thing, but now nationalisation has absolutely gone, and that having been decided, I am content to devote myself to one or two small Amendments which I shall move later on, and which I think will be improvements.
MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: I do not agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that nationalisation has gone. I will not deal with that point further than to say that I entirely repudiate the view put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Those who advocate nationalisation do not propose for a moment that if the State took over the telephone we should pay an exorbitant price for it, and our proposal is only to pay its real value. If, as the hon. Member opposite has suggested, the system of the National Telephone Company is obsolete, then the real value can be ascertained, and all we have advocated is nationalisation at a fair valuation. Those whom I represent are not satisfied by the Amendments which have been made in the Standing Committee on Trade, which have rendered the measure more complex than it was at first. As the Bill came before the House in the first, instance, it proposed that municipal authorities containing a population of 50,000 or over should be allowed to establish systems of their own. That has now been enlarged so as to include all local authorities and local companies, and therefore the system now proposed is much more complex. My hon. friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow has pointed out that the Bill would create four distinct sources of telephone supply, that is, the Post Office, the local authorities, the local companies, and the National Telephone Company. I would ask the House, is it reasonable to suppose that all these various authorities will work together in angelic harmony, and is it not much more likely that there will be local difficulties and jealousies which will prevent anything like that harmony which is so essential for the success of telephonic communication? I want the House to consider what will be the result

131
of this Bill if it passes. My own opinion is that it will not lead to municipal authorities setting up telephone systems of their own to any large extent. Take, for instance, the 114 boroughs in England, the 13 boroughs in Scotland, and the 103 urban districts in England who have concluded agreements with the National Telephone Company. Is it likely that they will depart from those agreements? The conditions which are laid down for these authorities are of such a nature that they will not depart from their present arrangement, and they are likely to increase their indisposition to enter into such an enterprise. The Post Office is to have complete control over all their proceedings; they have to see what is the character and construction of the plant, and arrange the system of charges. They have to fix the maximum rate of charges, and, in short, these municipal authorities may make a loss but not a profit. If they make a loss they are still to contribute a royalty of ten per cent, upon their gross receipts. But after all, the most serious aspect of this scheme, in my judgment, is that it sanctions the prolongation of the National Telephone Company's licence beyond 1911. We have all along gone on the assumption that 1911 was to be the end of it, and from that time there was to be a new system introduced which would satisfy all the demands of the public, and do away with the monopoly. The Commission of 1892 recommended the non-renewal of this licence, and my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury was of the same opinion a very short time ago when he addressed a deputation which I had the honour of introducing to him, for he said:
"If the municipal system is found not to work satisfactorily it will be perfectly within our power in 1911 to terminate that service and nationalise the service everywhere."
And we find only a few weeks after these words are uttered steps are taken and proposals are made, which have the effect of continuing this monopoly of the National Telephone Company for, perheps, an additional twelve or thirteen years. The hon. Member for Bridgeton pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman only proposes to increase the licence at points where there is competition. I cannot understand how that can be done in the case of the National Telephone Com-
132
pany. It seems to me quite impracticable that you can say to the National Telephone Company: "We continue your licence here and there at perhaps a dozen different points where competition is set up, but we withdraw your licence as a whole." I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is still impossible for him to reconsider this Bill. The measure has been opposed by the business men of the country if we take the chambers of commerce to represent them. This measure has been opposed by every chamber of commerce which has considered the subject, with the exception of the chamber of commerce at Tunbridge Wells. There were thirty-six chambers of commerce represented by the deputation which I had the honour to introduce, including many important centres, and all were strongly opposed to this measure. It has also been objected to by the Stock Exchanges, and surely they are entitled to an opinion on the subject. It has been opposed by many of the leading corporations, the Society of Arts and Manufactures, and by the Society of Electrical Engineers. Therefore, I venture to say with great respect that it would be a great mistake to insist upon forcing upon the country a system which has been so generally condemned.
MR. MOULTON: I think the best way of dealing with this Bill is by the motion which has been made that it shall be dealt with this day three months, because this is practically a new Bill. You might as well attach these new provisions on a Highways Act as to attach them to the simple Bill brought in by the Secretary to the Treasury, and which received the completest support on this side of the House, and I believe also of a very large portion on the other side. I oppose this measure because I think it is a most discreditable surrender to a rich company, which is ahead of all other companies in the art of manipulating this House. I say this with the deepest regret, because no one heard with greater delight and sympathy than I did the manly, honourable, and public-spirited statement of the Secretary to the Treasury when he first introduced this Bill. That was a Bill to enable the public to use the powers which it had reserved, and which it had a right, with

133
out dictation from any company, to use in the best interests of the public. The Bill as it stands at present is a surrender of those powers, and a consent to tie the hands of the public in working this system. In the few remarks which I intend to offer to this House, I want to ascertain what right the National Telephone Company has to come and dictate terms to this House, when the English nation desires to use telephonic communication more largely. When the original licence was granted, it was granted with a most foolish liberality to terms. The company was allowed to carry on its business just as it pleased, and there was no provision that the company should be so regulated that the best interests of the public would be furthered. Only two things were reserved, and otherwise they were absolutely at liberty to do what they liked. Those two things were—an absolute right to introduce competion, and the termination of the licence in 1911. With those exceptions everything was granted to the company. Of course the company availed itself of its limitless powers to the full. I remember in 1895 an attempt was made to secure that a reasonable service should be provided everywhere at a reasonable price, and the Government were asked to grant municipalities a licence if the National Telephone Company failed to provide a reasonable service. That suggestion was ignored because we were told that the National Telephone Company were bound to provide a reasonable service at a reasonable price. The nation had reserved the right to allow competition, and what is proposed now is that there should be competition introduced. Somehow or other there seems to be an idea that if you are dealing with rich companies every concession that has been made to them is sacred, and must be observed to the full, but everything which you have reserved in defence of the public must only be timidly or half used. I know of no such principle. The National Telephone Company made no bad bargain when they got this licence, for the enormous profits they have made are known throughout the world. I want to know, when we are thinking of increasing telephonic communication, and when we think it will be to the interests of the public that municipalities should have a right to set up these systems, what law or equity in the interests of the
134
National Telephone Company should stay the hands of the House of Commons when it seeks to exercise that power which was specifically reserved when the licence was granted. Supposing Glasgow wanted to have a licence, and it is given one up to 1925, what possible right can the National Telephone Company have to set up a claim that its licence, which it has enjoyed during all these profitable years when it had no competition, should also be extended? Why should we give away that portion of the property of the public? There is no reason which can be put even into moderately logical words why they should enjoy a lengthening of their licence just because we exercise that power which was specifically reserved, of granting as much competition as the nation thought proper to grant. But what is the reason which has been suggested why this ought to be done? This is a specimen of the sort of argument which, in the case of the National Telephone Company, is sufficient to sway the House of Commons. One of the concessions which the company has to make in order that its licence may be extended for all these years is that it has to treat people alike, and that it has not to make any special condition. I have known the National Telephone Company threaten to take the telephone away from a business man unless he allowed the company to put up a pole sixty feet high in his yard with 120 wires upon it. The company threatened to withdraw this man's telephone service if he did not grant them permission to put up that pole, although he was paying the same as other people for the use of the telephone. Why not bring in a Bill saying that there shall be no undue preference on the part of the company, and that there shall be no unfair treatment?
MR. HANBURY: That is what we are doing now.
MR. MOULTON; Yes, this Bill mentions that, but it buys that concession at the expense of privileges which are double the value of the concession, and the effect of which I will deal with presently. I think the House has a perfect right to pass a regulating Act in this

135
matter, for we do not ask the consent of the railway companies when we pass a railway traffic regulation Act. We pass such Acts because they are in the interests of the public, and in the true interests of the companies themselves. What is the other concession that we are to get? It is this—that the National Telephone Company is, where there is competition, to keep its charges within the limits of the prices charged by the competing company. That is a most wonderful concession, for it is a thing which it would have to do under the influence of competition. Those are the two miserable concessions we have got, one of which ought to have been granted without any return whatever, and the other of which would have come as a matter of course without any concession whatever. Those are the only miserable concessions asked for from the National Telephone Company in return for what? Why for this privilege—that wherever a town is driven to desperation by the bad management of their business by the National Telephone Company, and it resolves to take the telephonic communication into its own hands, it cannot get a period of years for its licence without also increasing the licence of the competing company. If Glasgow wants a twenty years' licence to set up a telephone exchange, this company, which has had the benefit of all those past rich years, is also to have an extension of its licence in Glasgow. I want to know what justification the Government have for that proposal, which seems to me to surrender practically for ever our right to come into possession of the telephonic communication. If there is to be any safety in Parliament dealing with a Bill of this kind, involving such great consequences, such a measure ought to have been brought in earlier in the session, and ought to have been passed through every one of its stages in the ordinary way. Practically, this Bill comes in once, and then becomes the law of the land. This is a disgraceful surrender of public rights, and it is a matter which ought not to be forced through in this way. Let me point out what the real effect of this Bill is. I am not at all sure that the licence of the National Telephone Company will not be extended by licences which may be granted after 1911. Supposing Glasgow asks for a licence up to 1925. In this case the National Telephone Company also
136
gets its licence extended to 1925; and if the Glasgow Corporation gets a continuance of its licence to 1950, the telephone company also gets its licence extended to 1950, and therefore the company's licence, will be extended perpetually.
MR. HANBURY: No, no.
MR. MOULTON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, but that is the fact as the Act now stands; and the consequence is, that at every place where a municipality is strong enough to form and keep alive a telephone exchange, there the company's licence is a perpetual one. Of course, the National Telephone Company just now are very quiet, for they know perfectly well the enormous victory they have gained. It will now be to their interest to get municipalities to start telephone companies and telephone exchanges, and to keep them as weak as possible; the only thing they must not do is to kill them outright. As long as they exist, the National Telephone Company will be far more free, as a company, than these municipalities will be as long as they choose to keep up their licence, because the telephone company will keep up its licence as well. Therefore, the municipalities, instead of being free in 1911 to provide a centralised system, and to work their telephone service like they now do their gas and water, will have committed themselves for ever to competition with a private company that has rights of that kind, and which is purchasing these rights by no substantial concessions. I may point out that a Bill like this is not treating either the English nation or this House fairly when such proposals are made on the Report stage, because when they are once passed they are irrevocable. We know what power the House has got to recall anything which it has granted to a private company, and we know that such concessions will be absolutely irrevocable. I ask whether we have have had sufficient time to consider this enormous change in the House, and whether the trading community of this country have had time to consider it. This measure is proposing to make a perpetual burden upon the people, and I most heartily support the motion that the Report stage of this measure be taken three months hence.

137
I can assure those Gentlemen who thought there was a possibility of us not going into the Lobby upon this question that they are very much mistaken, for all hon. Members who vote against this proposal will clear themselves from having had anything to do with this most disgraceful surrender of public rights.
MR. HANBURY: The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down made some remarks at the end of his speech with which I entirely agree. He laid great stress upon the extravagant privileges which previous Governments have conferred upon the National Telephone Company. With those remarks I am entirely in accord, because I have always said from the first that it was past my comprehension how such powers could have been put into the hands of an unregulated monopoly. I do not, however, think that the hon. Gentleman opposite has quite fairly stated the case when he alleges that great concessions have been made to the company and nothing substantial has been given in return. In the first place, I must utterly deny that there is anything whatever in the Bill which gives him the slightest authority for supposing that, under any circumstances, the licence of the National Telephone Company can be perpetuated. I defy him to point out a single clause or word in the Bill which even encourages such a supposition; and when he speaks of the extension of the licence, I have always myself contended that the general licence of the company should, under no circumstances, be extended beyond 1911. I think it was a monstrous thing, in the first instance, that a general licence extending over the whole country should ever have been given to the company at all. Therefore, I still maintain my opinion that, except in certain cases, for special local reasons, there is no justification whatever for extending the general licence of the company beyond 1911. Where are we proposing to extend the licence of the National Telephone Company? Only in those areas where we are introducing new competition. And why are we proposing to extend it? In the interest not of the National Telephone Company, but of the municipalities and the companies who will be in competition, Our Committee and all those who looked into the matter strongly recommended that wherever we introduced competition
138
we should do our best to deal equally between the company and its new competitors; and therefore it is necessary that if we extend the licence to the municipalities we should also extend it to the National Telephone Company itself. No doubt the feeling throughout all the municipalities was that if this competition with the National Telephone Company, on the part of the municipalities or new companies, was to be genuine and strong, as we hope it is to be, we must grant to these municipalities and new companies a period extending beyond 1911. We are therefore bound by the Report of the Committee, and we want to deal fairly with the National Telephone Company and its new competitors, and to give the latter a chance of life. The National Telephone Company having been placed in the position it occupies by previous Governments, makes it very difficult to deal with this matter. I am sure the hon. and learned Member opposite would not wish us to confiscate any of the rights of the National Telephone Company.
MR. MOULTON: Leave them alone.
MR. HANBURY: I am very unwilling to leave them alone, and I do not think it would be right to leave them alone. If we are going to extend the company's licence in any single locality it is absolutely necessary that we should not leave them alone. What has been the complaint with regard to this company all through? In the first place, that it is a monopoly, and, in the second place, that the monopoly was unregulated. By this Bill it ceases to be a monopoly.
MR. MOULTON: It never was a monopoly after a given date.
MR. HANBURY: Under the Bill the company, which could have extended its operations over the whole of the United Kingdom, and could by that mere fact have prevented competition arising anywhere but in the larger boroughs, cannot enter any areas in which they are not now working. All the poorer and weaker boroughs have, therefore, an opportunity of starting a valid and strong system of their own. The hon. and learned Member says we have got no concessions. If we had got no concessions but that alone we should have got some

139
thing well worth having. But we have got two more concessions of equal importance. One is that the company should come under control, and the other is that under certain conditions there should be inter-communication. I admit it is a great disadvantage that in one area we should have two competing systems, but we cannot always help it. It happens in Stockholm, where the greatest use is made of the telephone, and it exists to a great extent in Norway and Sweden and Denmark. Here, again, the difficulty has been overcome, and wherever a bona fide extension of the licence to the company takes place, and wherever there is a bona fide competition—that is to say, where a new company has 500 subscribers to the National Telephone Company's 1,000 subscribers—there must be inter-communication. Then the hon. and learned Member says there have been very great changes introduced since the Second Reading of the Bill. All those matters were dealt with before the Grand Committee. All the new clauses, with the exception of the one dealing with inter-communication, were before the Grand Committee, and it is a singular fact that the Committee were practically unanimous as to the alterations. One portion only was not dealt with by the Grand Committee, and that is the question of intercommunication, but although it was not formally dealt with by the Committee, it was thoroughly well understood that clauses such as have now been introduced would be brought up on the Report stage. The mover of the motion now under consideration spoke as if the National Telephone Company had appropriated to itself all the rich and populous portions of the United Kingdom, and the hon. Gentleman asked how we were going to serve the rural districts. The hon. Member implied that the rural districts and the smaller urban districts were by no means likely to be profitable either to the company or to the Post Office. If the company is not working already in the smaller urban districts, those districts need not fear any competition; they will be absolutely free to start a system of their own without fear of competition from the National Telephone Company. As to the smaller districts, is it the fact that they are not paying districts? The experience of Norway and Sweden shows that they are paying districts to work, and when asked before the Select Com
140
mittee of last year where, if he had his choice, he would prefer to start an exchange, Mr. Preece said he would choose the smaller rural districts, and he instanced portions of Anglesey. Only within the last year the municipal system has been started in Guernsey, and there they are beating the record against foreign countries. In the neighbouring Island of Jersey, where the National Telephone Company has been in operation for several, years, the number of telephones to the population is about one in 300. Already in Guernsey, after one year's operation, the telephones are as one to eighty of the population, and it is expected that soon they will be as one in fifty. I hope I have shown the House that the very grave charges of undue concession to the National Telephone Company made by the hon. and learned Member for Launceston are not justified by the facts, and I hope I have also proved to the satisfaction of the House that we have got from the National Telephone Company concessions which we could not have got except by negotiation. It would have been sheer confiscation to force them down the throats of the company, and it would have been distinctly contrary to the recommendations of the Committee that we should have tried to do so. I have done my best throughout the negotiations to protect the interests both of the taxpayers and of the company. I cannot forget that the National Telephone Company, with all its faults, has done good work in starting the telephone service. It had had privileges given to it—privileges which, had I been Postmaster-General, I would never have given to it. I felt all through that the Government's hands, were tied by the enormous privileges given to the company, but I have refused to be a party to anything in the nature of confiscation. On the whole a Bill has been obtained which is fair to the company and fair to the taxpayer, and a Bill which will give the country a good service, national in the best sense of the word, and not lagging behind the telephone services on the Continent.
MR. J. A. PEASE: I do not think there is a single hon. Member in this House who has advocated any notion of confiscation of the National Telephone Company's interests, but what a great many of us do complain about is the system which

141
the National Telephone Company have put into operation in this country. They have treated the users of telephones with very little courtesy in regard to the terms which they have extorted, and they have made very large profits out of the trading community, and now, owing to the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman has made with the National Telephone Company, they are to have their licence extended from 1911 to 1925. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the concessions, which, he thinks, he has secured to the advantage of the country from the National Telephone Company, and has placed them against the privilege which he has given them of extending their licence. I submit that the system as at present in operation is very unsatisfactory, and even if it is not to be perpetuated, as the hon. Member for Launceston indicated it would be, but is merely to be extended to 1925, we had far better allow things to remain as they are than even to have the National Telephone Company controlled and regulated in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes. On that ground, and on that ground alone, I shall go into the lobby in support of the proposal which has been made by the hon. Member for Forfar. I should like to point out one or two of the inconveniences which exist in connection with the present system, and those inconveniences seem to me to be increased under the operation of this Bill. If a wool merchant, we will say, wants to speak from his office at Bradford to his office in Leicester, it is necessary for him first of all to ring up the exchange and then ascertain whether, through the exchange to the post office, the trunk line is free, and if the trunk line is free very probably he will find that he cannot get into communication with his office in Leicester because they are already in conversation with somebody else on some other trunk line. Under the present complicated system communication between town and town is most difficult for business purposes, and over and over again I have been obliged, in carrying on business in one part of the country with another, to send long telegrams because of the inconveniences arising from the present system. We want some uniform system of communication throughout the whole country, under the control of the central Government. The existing system
142
is doing an enormous amount of harm to the trading interests of this country, and I shall, therefore, regard it as a national disaster if the Bill passes. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that he has done away with monopoly; but there has not been altogether a monopoly, because there are some places where the Post Office has entered into keen competition with the National Telephone Company. In the City of Newcastle, which I, to a large extent represent, the Post Office system has been in operation almost from the very commencement, but the National Telephone Company has been gradually undermining the system there. And why? The main reason is that the great business houses in the City of Newcastle find it necessary to have telephonic communication with the various other industrial centres, and in these centres the Post Office system does not exist. I am told on very good authority that if the present system goes on, instead of the Post Office having a monopoly in the City of Newcastle, the National Telephone Company will have a practical monopoly. If this can happen in the City of Newcastle, I am quite sure that in many other large towns the National Telephone Company under the provisions of this Bill will prevent any serious competition from municipal bodies, though I believe that many municipalities will carry on the telephonic system in their districts effectively and economically. The right hon. Gentleman has claimed that he has not introduced a new Bill. I admit that a portion of the Bill is somewhat the same, but two pages have been added to it. I submit that it is a shame that the people who are interested in telephones in this country should be represented by Members who are prepared to vote for a Bill which those who are dependent on the telephones in the country do not thoroughly understand. Over and over again, during the last few days, I have spoken to people with regard to the proposal of the Government, and they have been simply amazed that there is a proposal that the telephone licence should be extended from 1911to 1925. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to drop this Bill, he would be able to satisfy the country another year with a better measure, and one which would not perpetuate the many evils which I believe will be perpetuated by extending the

143
licence of the National Telephone Company.
MR. KIMBER: I wish to join in the appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury to postpone the further consideration of this Bill. I believe that if we pass the measure in the manner he proposes to do now—and it is not the way in which he proposed to pass it when he first brought in the Bill—we shall add another great loss to the telegraphic deficit of this country. Let us consider for a moment the position when the Bill was brought in and the position now. When the Bill was brought in we were told that it was necessary, for two reasons—first, because the National Telephone Company had claimed virtual monopoly; and, secondly, because it was necessary to start an effective competition and to terminate the licence of the National Telephone Company. The right hon. Gentleman asked for two millions of money, which he was to spend on behalf of the State in starting this effective competition. In the Report of the Committee of1898, it was distinctly stated that if the Government did not deal with the company in this way, they might be in a position in 1911 in which they might be forced to buy the plant of the National Telephone Company at an exaggerated value, because the Government could not, on the spur of the moment, lay down a new plant to start its own system. It was given in evidence, quoted by the Secretary to the Treasury in his Report, that it would take five years to lay down an alternative plant for the purpose of taking up the work in 1911 which the Telephone Company are now doing. The Committee reported as follows:
"Your Committee in thus recommending a Post office service, assume it will constitute a real and active competition, and that concessions to the company not required by the agreement will cease."
The real reason why the Government have brought in a Bill which does not support a Post Office service is alleged to be, that many important members of the Government consider it would be increasing the Civil Service to such a large extent as to make it really impossible for the system to be taken over a Government Department, or as a separate Depart-
144
ment of the Post Office. Therefore the Bill does not carry out the Report of the Committee. The Bill is based on the Treasury Minute, but, curiously enough, the Treasury Minute itself says that there must be effective competition, and that in any case all licences should terminate in 1911. All licences. Why? Because the system must be a national one, uniform throughout the country. When you consider that the telephone is really a "speaking telegraph," it is obvious that it must be carried on with the same universality of system as the Post Office telegraphs, that is to say, under one hand, in one possession, and by one management. There is no other way of carrying on the telephone system to the advantage of the trading interests of the country but that. The right hon. Gentleman contradicts himself on his plan. Although he says he must not increase the Civil Service, he asks you to give him £2,000,000, which is to be spent by somebody. Is he going to spend that without appointing fresh men? By what Department is that going to be done? Through the Post Office, I imagine. But £2,000,000 cannot be judiciously expended without having some trained hands to look after it. There is at once an extension of the Civil Service. I agree it is a grave objection to these things when they involve a large extension of the Civil Service, but it is inevitable. There are worse evils than that, and one of them is to put back the country by thirty years, as the plan of the Bill as now framed will do. What was the system at the time of the Report? It was worked, not by the Post Office, but by a number of companies. The Post Office had obtained, on its own application and insistence, a declaration of law that the "telephone" was a "telegraph," and that the Government had a monopoly of the telephone as well as of the telegraph, and it was on that footing they afterwards proceeded. What did they do? They brought into existence a number of companies. It is the Government that fixed the powers and the limits of the jurisdiction of the working of those companies. Inevitably, as all those licences were granted on precisely the same terms, the system and the country demanded that they should amalgamate. They did amalgamate, and without the permission of the Government at all. By amalgamating they succeeded to a certain extent in accommodating the public.

145
What are the things of which the right hon. Gentleman accuses the company? Over and over again he said that their charges are not limited by any maxima or any minima. Why the public should be limited as regards the minima I do not know, except it be that the Post Office managed their telephonic business so badly that the company—who had to make a bigger profit than the Government—beat them at the price, the public obviously getting the benefit. Another thing the company are charged with is that it is entitled to refuse service to a customer, that it is not bound to supply telephones at all except as it chooses, and then only on its own conditions as to the facilities being given. Many of us, no doubt, have suffered from that fact. Then, again, it is urged that the company has no way-leaves, that it has no powers to lay its lines underground from customers' houses to the Exchange. But all these; faults and deficiencies are congenital in the licence, and created by the Government which granted the licence. The Government had the power to rectify these matters, but did not. It brought into existence a bantling—it ought rather to be called a monster—and, under this Bill, as introduced, the House was asked to give £2,000,000 for the purpose of harrying the company down to a lower price than the Government thought they might have to pay if they bought it now. That was an intelligible policy; I do not say anything about its fairness.
MR. HANBURY: That was never suggested for a single moment.
MR. KIMBER: What was not?
MR. HANBURY: It was never suggested that we should beat down the shares of the company in order to buy them up—never for one moment.
MR. KIMBER: I did not say anything about shares. I will read the Report of the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee:—
"Competition appears to be both expedient and necessary, in order, firstly, to extend and popularise the service, and, next, to avoid a danger which is by no means, remote if no alternative system is in operation, that a purchase of the company's undertaking at an inflated price may be forced upon the Government of the day."
146
What does he mean by "inflated price"? Turn to a previous paragraph, in which he says, in relation to the amalgamation of these companies, that when they bought up one another, one—that is, of course, the last survivor, the eater up of the rest—had to pay the capital of the other company, and in the course of so doing they paid no less a sum than £1,800,000. The amalgamation value and the purchase value was £3,105,000, and the difference between the one and the other is what some people are pleased to call the "water" value, because it was given to buy up another company, and to enable the buying company to do the service of the public in the only way in which it can be done. Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to state that it would take five years to replace the plant, and therefore, if they left the company uninterrupted until 1911, they might have to buy them at their own price, and buy up this large and inflated capital, which was a great deal more than the amount for which, with the experience obtained by the advance of time, another system could be laid down. So that it was to prevent the company asking the repayment of this capital, other than the cost price of a new plant, that it was suggested we ought to have competition.
MR. HANBURY: I must deny that. Anybody who was on the Committee knows that that is not what was meant. The hon. Member himself must have seen, when he quoted that passage, that it was impossible to replace the company's plant under five years; that the danger the Committee had before them was, that as it was impossible to replace the company's plant under a period of five years, it might be possible for the company, either by giving a very bad service or by charging very high rates, to disgust the public with the service, and to make them appeal to the Government, saying, "We can no longer go on with the National Telephone Company, you must buy up this service yourselves. "As it would be impossible to replace the plant within five years, it would be quite possible for the company then to demand an exaggerated price from us, and that was the sole meaning of the Report.
MR. KIMBER: I will read the exact words of the Report again:—
"Unless the Government had a leady an alternative plant available, supplied wholly

147
by the Post Office or partly by municipal licensees, the purchase of the company's undertaking at an inflated price might thus be imposed upon the Government. The inducements to the company to produce such a result are obvious; and your Committee cannot too strongly recommend that no delay should occur in taking adequate precautions to prevent it. Mr. Preece informed your Committee that it would probably take five years to provide such an alternative plant for the whole country."
Very well, then; the reason given for the competition is, that if no alternative system is in operation, the purchase of the company's undertaking at an inflated price may be forced upon the Government. I think I have made that proposition clear. Whatever the faults of the company were, it was quite intelligible, and, under the circumstances, I am not going to say it was unreasonable, to try and prevent the company getting the whip hand of the Government to enforce an inflated price, if it was an inflated price; and, therefore, it was important to put the public in a position of independence. What was the position as between the Government and the company? The company alleged, and the Government have not denied it, that they paid to the Government £900,000 for the Government share of the profits of the undertaking, and that at the present time they are paying £114,000 a year, a sum which is increasing. The profits of the company amount to 6 per cent. on their capital, which, by a curious coincidence, is equivalent to about £228,000. The Post Office, therefore, derive one-third of all the profits which the company get out of the public. The principle of competition is to be introduced. What is the natural effect of competition? To knock down profits. Are the Government or are they not in their system going to charge the same rate of pront as the company? Prima facie, the £114,000 of royalties will be diminished. But whether or not it was possible for the Government at that time to have unified the whole system, to have put the hand of the State upon the company, with an impress which should have made it a State Department, as recommended by the Report, it would not necessarily have made all the employees Civil servants. We have, in India, companies controlled by the Government, but the employees are not Civil servants. But it was possible for the Government to come into the business of the company
148
and its plant by the simple process of converting the company's certificates into guarantee certificates with a limited interest of 3 per cent. That would have amply compensated the company. No question would have arisen as to the value, as the shareholders, if they did not like it, could have got their money by selling their certificates, and the Government could have come into the whole of the profits of £228,000 a year, besides the £114,000 they are now receiving. Inasmuch as they would have had to pay 3 per cent, on the certificates, one-half only of the annual profit would be net, but even then they would get half the present dividend of the company, besides the royalties of £114,000 a year, without having paid a single sovereign for it. It is true they would have given a guarantee, but the fact that there would be, no liability against the guarantee is shown by the way in which the business has been taken up, and by the fact that the Government has sufficient confidence to come and ask you to sanction another £2,000,000 being put into the business. If that course had been adopted, the Government would have had all the power in their own hands; they could have charged any rates they liked so as to be sure of a profit; whereas now they are going into what they call "real and effective" competition. Will they make a profit? Will they tell the House that on this £2,000,000 they will make a profit? Will they not reduce the £114,000 they are now getting? Financially for the State this is a most disastrous transaction; it is one by which we are almost bound to lose—at all events as compared with what the Government might have done, and what it might now do. From the point of view of the country at large, let me ask—and this is even more important than the question of the loss to the Government—where are the public in this competition? What sort of competition is that between two persons or two bodies, one of which has the power of putting a rope around the neck of the other? Where the Government will have the power to fix the rates and charges and make the company conform to those rates, I should like to know who will win? If the rates are to be cut down so as to suit the public, the company must lose profits, and the Government must lose royalties. Then look at the inconvenience. We will have one

149
system in London, competitive, which is to terminate in 1911; another system in the provinces, competitive between this company and new companies or municipal corporations. Instead of "uniformity," "diversity" is the best term by which to describe such a system as that How are we to get that which the trade and commerce of this country demands—viz., universal communication between one part and every other part? There must be portions of the country which will not pay by themselves, and it is an advantage of having a national system that those poor places can be served, and if they do not yield a profit the other parts will
make up for them. I venture to say that this scheme is financially disastrous to the nation, and to the interests of the country as a whole as regards its trade and commerce it will also be detrimental, and will put us back by whatever is the term of the new licence which it is proposed to grant, thus hampering and hindering the trade and commerce of the nation in its competition with the rest of the commercial countries of Europe.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 174; Noes, 41. (Division List, No. 294.)

AYES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Lowe, Francis William

Arnold, Alfred

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Arrol, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macdona, John Cumming

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Maddison, Fred.

Balcarres, Lord

Flower, Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

Garfit, William

Milton, Viscount

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S-(Hunts.)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.(City of Lon.

Monk, Charles James

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Giles, Charles Tyrell

Morrell, George Herbert

Beach, Rt Hn Sir M.H.-(Bristol)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Bigwood, James

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

Mount, William George

Billson, Alfred

Goldsworthy, Major General

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Nicholson, William Graham

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goschen, Rt. Hn G. J. (S. G'rge's

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Brookfield, A. Motagu

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Oldroyd, Mark

Bullard, Sir Harry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Burns, John

Graham, Henry Robert

Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington)

Burt, Thomas

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Percy, Earl

Butcher, John George

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pierpoint, Robert

Caldwell, James

Hamond, Sir Chas.(Newcastle)

Pilkington, R.(Lanes, Newton)

Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cawley, Frederick

Hatch, Ernest Fred. Geo.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Priestley, Sir W. Overend(Edin

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Hazell, Walter

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)

Helder, Augustus

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Henderson, Alexander

Purvis, Robert

Charrington, Spencer

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Pym, C. Guy

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Rankin, Sir James

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Holden, Sir Angus

Rickett, J. Compton

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Colston, Charles E. H. Athole

Howell, William Tudor

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Russell, Gen. F S (Chelt'nh'm)

Curzon, Viscount

Kemp, George

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir. J. H.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Denny, Colonel

Kenyon, James

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

Donkin, Richard Sim

Keswick, William

Schwann, Charles E.

Doughty, George

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning(Corn.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Doxford, William Theodore

Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

Skewes Cox, Thomas

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

Leng, Sir John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Steadman, William Charles

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manch

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Thornton, Percy M.

Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wyndham, George

Sir William Walrond and

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ambrose, Robert

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Price, Robert John

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Joicey, Sir James

Spicer, Albert

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Channing, Francis Allston

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crilly, Daniel

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Wallace, Robert

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Macaleese, Daniel

Wedderburn, Sir William

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Crae, George

Williams, John Carvell (Notts

Donelan, Captain A.

Moulton, John Fletcher

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

Doogan, P. C.

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Woods, Samuel

Duckworth, James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Dunn, Sir William

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Captain Sinclair and Mr.
Charles M'Arthur.

Flynn, James Christopher

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered:—
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, to leave out Clause 1. When the House was in Committee the other day I pointed out that we shall add under this clause a sum of not less than two millions to the national debt. We are doing this day after day, and week after week. We added nearly two millions for the Niger Company, four millions for the naval works, and three millions for military works. Now we are adding two millions for the extension of the telephone system, or in all eleven millions added to the permanent debt of the country in one session by the present Government.
MR. HANBURY: National debt !
MR. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to correct me. It is not technically national debt, but it is to be paid off with terminable annuities of twenty or thirty years' duration. That is to safeguard this amount of debt from the temptation of future Chancellors of the Exchequer. But I am perfectly certain the Secretary to the Treasury is the last man to deny that what we are doing under this Bill is to add two millions to the national indebtedness of the country. The Government during the present session has added eleven millions to the national indebtedness; and during the
152
four years the Government have been in office it has already added twelve to fourteen millions of money to the national indebtedness under this peculiar method of procedure, which not only complicates our national finances, but prevents us from seeing what the national indebtedness really is, and whether it is increasing or decreasing. I am sorry the hon. Member for King's Lynn is not in his place, for he and the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury, in his days of more freedom and less responsibility, were earnest critics of this particular style of finance. The system is a bad one. It is one of comparatively modern introduction, and was only begun on a large scale in 1888 or 1889. It has grown with gigantic strides during the last few years, but in no session equal to the present. Is the taxpayer going to get value for his money under Clause 1? What is the purpose for which this two millions is asked? There is nothing stated in the clause as to the purpose for which the money is wanted. Of course, the title of the Bill says that it is to improve the telephonic communication, but there is nothing to show that this money is to be spent in improving the telephonic communication. As I read this clause, the money asked for may be spent for any of the purposes of the Telegraph Acts, and I think that even at this late period it would be wise to introduce limiting words. In order to arrive at the purpose for which the money is to be spent, we have to look to the speeches of the Secretary of the Treasury. He

153
told us when the Bill was first introduced that he proposed to ask for two millions to develop telephonic communication on the part of the Post Office, and he went on to state that the first place where the operations were to be extended was to be London itself, and the small municipalities. I would like to ask why London, this great Metropolis, the richest city in the world, and the one best able, if you are going to introduce a municipal telephonic system, to put it in operation—why is London to have a first charge on this money? That question even seems to have suggested itself to the right hon. Gentleman; for he said that in this large area of London the Post Office is determined to compete at once with the National Telephone Company. That is to say that the first charge upon this money, contributed by the taxpayers of the whole country, is to enable the Post Office to enter into active competition in the area of London—which is much the richest community in the world, the best able to take care of itself, and the best able to institute a system of municipal telephones—with the National Telephone Company. We know that the views of the right hon. Gentleman have altered somewhat during the progress of the Bill. If London is to have the first charge on these two millions I do not think there would be much left for the rest of the community. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the balance over would be given for the development of the system in the smaller municipalities. "There are hills beyond Pentland, and lands beyond Forth," and where do the country districts and the small towns come in? Where is to be the benefit to them when the rich metropolis of the country has the first charge on the money to be borrowed from the Exchequer? The little towns in England and Scotland of two or three thousand inhabitants are to be told that they are to establish municipal telephones out of their municipal rates. I say that is a grossly unfair way in which to deal with public money. More than that, it is contrary to the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman in March, and in the beginning of June, when the one point he laid stress upon was that the object of the Government was that they wanted to establish a real national telephonic system throughout the length and breadth of the country. Now, when we come to
154
examine the modus operandi, we find that they are going to spend the whole of the money in establishing effective competition with the National Company in the district of London. That is exceedingly unfair to the general taxpayer. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman himself says that the two millions will not be enough for that purpose, and he looks forward to the time when he must come down to the House for further money. What will be the result of the expenditure of this money in the future? First of all, we are going to spend two millions in good hard cash on a scheme of improvement of the telephonic communication, which, at best, will be temporary. It cannot be a final settlement. Then the hon. Gentleman or his successor will find that two millions is not enough, and will have to come to the House for more money for the same purpose. What will be the effect when he or his successor has to face the question which is being shirked now—that is of buying up the National Company and the other companies which are to be licensed under this Bill? If you establish effective competition in London, that will stimulate the National Company to compete with the Post Office, and by so doing the value of the National Company's property, for buying up purposes, will naturally and necessarily be increased. You are not only wasting money in taking the whole telephone system under the control of the Post Office, but actually increasing the value of the property which we shall have eventually to buy up. On all these grounds I oppose this clause, and I beg to move that it be deleted.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'The Treasury may' stand part of the Bill."
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I want from the Secretary to the Treasury a little further information as to what he is going to do with these two millions. The right hon. Gentleman is directly infringing all the canons he has previously laid down. In the first place, there is to be a municipal system, but it is not to be a municipal system for London. In the next place the system is not to add to the wages

155
or staff of the Post Office; but the system under this clause must inevitably add to the wages and the number of the employees of the Post Office. Then, again, whatever may be the result of this proposal to set up effective competition in London, I contend that, on the face of it, it is a waste of somebody's money. My conviction is, that any private enterprise in an active competition with a Government Department will inevitably get the best of it. It has the stimulus or motive of responsibility to its shareholders, to embark in an energetic and vigorous policy, which is wanting in the Post Office. But that only emphasises what I have said before, that there will be a ruinous waste of money. Then, how is this to affect the rural districts? What proportion of this money is the right hon. Gentleman going to devote to the development of the rural districts, which have not yet been reached by the telephones? It is greatly to be deplored that the Government have adopted a policy which cannot but increase the centralising tendencies of the great towns.
SIR J. T WOODHOUSE: I protest against the attitude displayed by certain hon. Members in regard to this Bill. If there were any men who came before the Select Committee of the House of Commons last session, and pleaded for that competition which this Bill proposes to set up, it was the representatives from Glasgow and Edinburgh. The hon. Baronet who represents Bridgeton, who has taken the greatest interest in the development of the telephonic system, and who knows more about it than almost anybody else, cordially supports the Bill which the Government has introduced. I do venture to say that the obstruction towards the Bill—["No, no!"]—yes; this obstruction is not becoming towards those who are endeavouring to do their duty, and to those who came from Scotland and demanded that this competition should be set up, and themselves have promoted a private Bill to obtain the facilities which this Bill proposes to give them. I cannot understand the opposition which my hon. friends have displayed towards this Bill. I fail to see that there is any rational principle in the speech of my hon. and gallant friend who has just sat down. He says
156
that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is to spend £2,000,000 primarily on the City of London. He is not strictly correct. In the first place, the telephonic area of London comprises much more than the City of London. It includes a population of six millions of people, and extends very much beyond the bounds of the City of London; and the Government are giving effect to what was practically the recommendation of the Select Committee—that the telephonic area of London should be taken up by the Government. Well, I think that it is a fair and rational demand that the Government should ask for two millions, a great part of which I have no doubt will be spent in setting up that effective competition which we all desire. That is the pivot on which the Bill turns, and it was the basis of the recommendations of the Select Committee. A proposal to reject the unanimous recommendation of the Grand Committee upstairs is trifling with the time of the House, and not yielding to the demands of the witnesses who presented themselves from Scotland.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: This Bill contains two main proposals—the first, that in the Metropolitan area, the most important of all, the State should supply a telephone service; and the second, that elsewhere the local authorities should be encouraged to do so. The first proposal is in direct opposition to the opinion of our greatest thinkers. For instance, John Stuart Mill said:
"There is a fundamental distinction between controlling the business of Government and actually doing it. The same person or body may be able to control everything, but cannot possibly do everything; and in many cases its control over everything will be more perfect the less it personally attempts to do."
I may also quote the high authority of Cobden, who observed that:
"I find that you can never make the conductors of these establishments understand that the capital they have to deal with is really money. It costs them nothing, and, whether they make a profit or a loss, they never find their way into the Gazette. Therefore, to them it is a myth—it is a reality only to the taxpayers."
Bismarck, in 1893, said:
"My fear and anxiety for the future is, that the national consciousness may be stifled in the coils of the boa constrictor bureaucracy, which

157
has made rapid progress during the last few years."
Herbert Spencer, we know, is strongly of the same opinion. I do not know whether my right hon. friend the Member for the University of Dublin proposes to speak on this Bill, but I might refer also to his interesting works. It may be said that these are merely theoretical opinions. They are, however, fully borne out by experience. Take the results of the system of State railways in Australia. In 1896, the last year for which I have seen the figures, South Australia lost £65,000; New South Wales, £109,000; Queensland, £252,000: and Victoria, £583,000. The total amount lost by Victoria mounts up to no less than £7,000,000. Take, again, a case still more similar to the present—that of the telegraphs. The general impression seems to be that the State is making a large profit by the telegraphs. On the contrary, we have lost £8,000,000, and are losing more and more every year. It is sometimes said that this is because the State gave too much for the telegraphs. But that is not so. If the whole system had been presented to the State for nothing, there would still be a loss of £300,000 a year on the working. My right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury has himself spoken most strongly against his own Bill. He has told us that there are "no practical or technical advantages in State management." In reply to a deputation a short time ago he said:
"He hardly thought the deputation had given full weight to the serious difficulties in the way of nationalisation. He doubted whether it was expedient, unless it were essentially a national service, to increase the amount of work done by the State generally. The Post Office was being overburdened with works in every direction, and he did not think that it was capable of taking this enormous additional burden. If the telephone service was cast upon the Post Office, it would be to the detriment of both the postal and telegraph services. Then, again, it would increase enormously the Government staff. He need only appeal to the Members of Parliament present to say whether they would like to have the weekly appeals for increase of wages from those State servants still further extended."
And yet he proposes, as regards the Metropolitan area, to take the very course which he has himself strongly denounced. I now come to the second part of the Bill—that which proposes to invite municipalities to undertake the work. The
158
Chambers of Commerce have surely strong ground of complaint. The Government promised them at the beginning of the session an inquiry into the whole subject. They thought it so important that they proposed, not merely a Committee of this House, but a joint Committee of the two Houses. We do not complain of them for not having kept their promise, but because, while they have not spared an hour to nominate the Committee, that they have devoted hours to this Bill, which prejudges the whole question. So strongly do the Chambers of Commerce feel on the subject, that resolutions condemning the Bill have been passed by the Chambers of Commerce of London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Belfast, Dublin, and more than twenty others—in fact, by practically all the great Chambers of Commerce. I may quote, for instance, the unanimous resolution of the London Chamber:
"That it is undesirable that the Postmaster-General should licence the councils or county boroughs to provide systems of public telephonic communication, and that, pending the Report of the Joint Committee about to be appointed by the two Houses on municipal trading, the Telegraphs (Telephonic Communication, &c.) Bill should be postponed."
Nor is it only the Chambers of Commerce. The Society of Arts have urged the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of municipal trading, and added:
"They venture to submit that, until such Royal Commission has investigated the subject and reported thereon, no further powers for trading purposes ought to be granted to such bodies."
Lastly, the Committee of the Society of Electrical Engineers have resolved:
"That in the opinion of this Committee it is undesirable, from the point of view of the progress of electrical engineering, for the purely local telephone industry throughout the country to be held as a monopoly; or that legislation on the future of telephony in the United Kingdom should discourage the undertaking of exchange systems within telephone areas by independent enterprise."
It is astonishing to me that the Government should force on this Bill against the protests of the Chambers of Commerce, the Society of Arts, and the Society of Electrical Engineers. No doubt, the

159
Municipal Corporations Association is in favour of it. They wish to establish a new monopoly, and have resolved:
"That this Association affirms the principle that where local authorities have, with the sanction of Parliament, established, or are in course of establishing, undertakings for public benefit, and have not failed in their duties, it is not right or expedient that powers should be granted to companies to compete with them."
A monopoly by a municipality is still a monopoly. The debts of our municipalities are rapidly increasing. They are now some £250,000,000, and, at the present rate, will in twenty years be as large as the National Debt. The rate itself is increasing. This year, in one year alone, you have added two new fields for municipal enterprise. The building societies have amongst them a capital of £50,000,000. The Government, not satisfied with this, wish municipalities to enter into this business. If they do so seriously, it means another £100,000,000. In America £50,000,000 is already invested in electricity. If our municipalities are to absorb this field of enterprise, it will mean in a few years another speculation of £100,000,000. Our municipalities will become gigantic speculations, run by amateurs, at the expense of the ratepayers. This is really a struggle between those who wish the municipalities to have gigantic monopolies and those who are fighting for free trade and free competition. Moreover, since this Bill was introduced, the policy of the Government has altered. At first, they proposed to do away with companies after 1911. Now they wisely propose to continue them. That seems to me the true policy. It is the only way to secure competition. But do you suppose that investors will be so foolish as to compete with municipalities? Lastly, I must say one word as regards the effect this Bill will have on the progress of applied science. Already the action of municipalities has seriously checked the development of electrical science in this country. Mr. Sellon has recently told us, at the Society of Arts, that
"He had had exceptional opportunities of seeing and hearing what was going on in America and Germany, and in Switzerland, and he believed it was beyond dispute that in those countries electrical science was far more highly developed in the interests of the public than in this country; and, secondly, that in those countries it had not been handled chiefly by municipalities"
160
Sir, I support this Amendment, because I believe this Bill will inflict serious injury on the manufacturing interests of the country, because it will check the progress of applied science, increase the burden of rates, add enormously to local debts, and last, not least, impair and weaken our municipal institutions.
MR. HANBURY: said his right hon. friend had only to look at the work of the postal service of this country to find at once a reply to his argument that the State could not undertake work of this kind at a profit.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Where there is no competition it is easy to make a, profit.
MR. HANBURYsaid he would take the case where there was competition. The Post Office had telephone exchanges in Cardiff and Newcastle, and, badly as the system had been worked, they yielded a considerable profit. He anticipated that when the present restrictions were removed, the profits which the Department would make would be considerably greater. In London there was no alternative to the State taking over the telephones. The telephone area extended far beyond that of the London County Council, and therefore the only body that could grant underground way-leaves, which were necessary to an efficient service, was the Post Office itself. It was intended that one-half of the sum of two millions provided by the Bill should be spent in providing a thoroughly efficient service in the metropolis, and that the remainder of the money should be used to extend the telephone service in those districts where the population was not sufficient to maintain a service of its own. In those areas where the Post Office entered into competition with the National Telephone Company there would be no extension of the company's licence, and therefore in these districts this must be regarded as a final settlement.
SIR J. JOICEY, said the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Post Office in Newcastle, considering the disabilities under which it laboured, had done remarkably well. The only disability that he (Sir J. Joicey) knew it laboured under was that it was not, according to the Treasury Minute,

161
given sufficient money in order to compete with a company like the National Company. But, so far as he had been able to learn, he did not think the Newcastle Post Office suffered particularly under that disability, because he was under the impression that it had always had sufficient money to compete with the National Telephone Company, so far as it was desirable to do so. He was bound to say that he thought the National Telephone Company gave as good a service as the Post Office, and he believed that, with equal facilities, the National Telephone Company would beat the Post Office on its own ground. He was one of those who believed that the rich part of the country, even so far as telephone districts were concerned, should be made to assist the poor parts of the country, as in the case of the postal service. The right hon. Gentleman admitted, if he understood his speech aright, that he was going to spend the bulk of the two millions in London. He thought that was monstrous, and he could not see why the local authorities of London should be deprived of a power which was to be possessed by every municipality throughout the country; but, instead of £2,000,000, he should not object to ten, twelve, or even fifteen millions being spent for the purchase of all the telephone systems in the country. He was certain that when the country came to understand the Bill, the electors would recognise that there ought to be some scheme which would have brought the whole country into telephonic communication. Could the right hon. Gentleman give a single instance, where there had been competition with the Post Office by the National Telephone Company, where the Post Office had not been beaten? He (the speaker) did not know a single case. From what he knew of the telephone company, he was certain they would not give up the battle without a good struggle. The Post Office ran away from competition wherever there had been competition. The policy of the Post Office hitherto had been to prevent competition, and to induce the National Telephone Company to buy up other companies. He was surprised at this sudden change of policy on the part of the Post Office. He could not think that the policy now put forward by the Government was the policy of those who understood the question best. In
162
spending this money in London, the Government were doing a very great injustice to other parts of the country.
MR. PARKER SMITH: said he could not assent to the proposal that two millions of money should be given to London; it would have been better if the telephone system throughout the country had been taken over by the Government. There were a great many places in Scotland which, while not boroughs, were not thinly populated, and where the use of the telephone was very much wanted. He understood the right hon. Gentleman himself believed that in those places it would be very lucrative to start the telephone; but this Bill did not give any facilities to places which were not of an urban character. The County Council of Lanark, for instance, was greatly interested in this point, and had raised it in a memorial which no doubt many hon. Members had received. Was it the fact that any district that wanted to have facilities for introducing telephones was obliged to form itself into an urban district, and that county councils were not to be allowed to use their credit for introducing telephones into the parts of the country where they were needed?
MR. CAWLEY: We know that Glasgow were prepared to give a service for five guineas to each subscriber, and that that sum included the Government royalty and the sinking fund. If Glasgow could do that, why not London? The question is, Why should London pay £15 for the telephone, when it could be obtained for five or six guineas? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University has spoken several times about the London Chamber of Commerce. I have no doubt that most members of the London Chamber of Commerce have a very cheap telephone, because they are in a large way of business, and are telephoning every day and all day. They get an enormous benefit. But we want to see the smaller people have the advantage of the telephone if they want it, and it is not fair for these people who can afford to pay £15 to say that these other people who cannot afford to pay so much shall not have it. In Guernsey they have a telephone service for thirty shillings, with one penny per call. Why should not the

163
smaller people of London have a similar benefit to that? There is no sort of reason, except that the big people in London get a very cheap telephone, and do not want their poorer neighbours to have it. This Bill is going to give the smaller people the opportunity, and I cannot see that any arguments have been urged against these £2,000,000 being granted for the purpose of establishing this system. I feel certain it would pay extremely well, and that the Government will not only be able to get the same royalty as they get from the National Telephone Company, but provide the interest on the sinking fund as well.
MR. LABOUCHERE: There may be a good deal of argument against this Bill, but I, for my part, am in favour of it as it stands. Supposing the Bill passes, I cannot see any reason for cutting out this clause. One hon. Member suggested that the clause was bad, because it was limited to London. He said he should be glad to support a clause which gave £15,000,000 in order to have a general service all over the country. That may be good; I should be glad to see a general system; but we know perfectly well that if an Amendment were moved to substitute £15,000,000 for the £2,000,000 in the Bill, it would
not pass the House. We therefore have to take the Bill as it stands. The system is to be first applied to London. As a general rule, I think that moneys ought to be applied to the constituencies of those who are not London members just as much as to London constituencies; but, after all, London is the commercial centre of the whole country. We have got an exceptionally bad telephone system in London, and it is only reasonable that we should test this arrangement of the Government by trying it in London. I believe the thing will pay the Government exceedingly well, and at a lower price than Londoners have at present to pay. The reason is, that the Telephone Company have not underground way leaves. The Government will have those underground way-leaves, so that the service will be better, and, we may fairly anticipate, cheaper. The Financial Secretary is going strongly in the matter; let him fairly test it in London, and, as an eminent South African statesman is said recently to have telegraphed to President Kruger, festina lente.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes, 32. (Division List, No. 295).

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Duckworth, James

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Arnold, Alfred

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

Elliot, Hon. H. Ralph Douglas

Arrol, Sir William

Cawley, Frederick

Ellis, John Edward

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. (Birm.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Balcarres, Lord

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

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

Charrington, Spencer

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Finch, George H.

Banbury, Frederick George

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fisher, William Hayes

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Billson, Alfred

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Birrell, Augustine

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Flower, Ernest

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Bond, Edward

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Garfit, William

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Curzon, Viscount

Gedge, Sydney

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Denny, Colonel

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Burns, John

Dillon, John

Gilliat, John Saunders

Burt, Thomas

Donelan, Captain A.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Butcher, John George

Donkin, Richard Sim

Gordon, Hon John Edward

Caldwell, James

Doogan, P. C.

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

Doughty, George

Goschen, Rt Hn G. J. (St. George's

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Carlile, William Walter

Doxford, William Theodore

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Graham, Henry Robert

M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Crae, George

Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Maddison, Fred.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

Hazell, Walter

Milton, Viscount

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Monk, Charles James

Steadman, William Charles

Helder, Augustus

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Henderson, Alexander

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Morrell, George Herbert

Strauss, Arthur

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Holden, Sir Angus

Mount, William George

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUni.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Murray, Rt. Hon. A.G. (Bute)

Thornton, Percy M.

Howell, William Tudor

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Nicholson, William Graham

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Valentia, Viscount

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Oldroyd, Mark

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Kemp, George

Percy, Earl

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kennaway, Rt Hon Sir John H

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Keswick, William

Pierpoint, Robert

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Labouchere, Henry

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

Williams, J. Powell- (Birmg.)

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Wilson, John (Govan)

Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Priestley, Sir W.O.(Edinburgh

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

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

Leng, Sir John

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Purvis, Robert

Wylie, Alexander

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

Pym, C. Guy

Wyndham, George

Lloyd-George, David

Rankin, Sir James

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Lorne, Marquess of

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Sir William Walrond and

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Mr. Anstruther.

Macdona, John Cumming

Schwann, Charles E.

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks)

Channing, Francis Allston

Macaleese, Daniel

Stevenson, Francis S.

Crilly, Daniel

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dunn, Sir William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

Moulton, John Fletcher

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

Evans, Sir Francis H.(South'ton

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Yoxall, James Henry

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Pirie, Duncan V.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Power, Patrick Joseph

Mr. Buchanan and Sir James Joicey.

Kimber, Henry

Price, Robert John

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

Another Amendment made.
MR. KIMBER: I rise to move the rejection of Clause 2, which brings into competition the local municipalities throughout the country. I move the rejection of the clause on several grounds. In the first place, because of the increasing tendency to give trading powers to municipalities; in the next place, because it prevents that uniformity of system which is essential in order that the country may get the full benefit, commercially and
166
industrially, of the telephone; and lastly, because it prevents universal intercommunication between all users of the telephone. In some towns we shall have municipalities competing with a licence to which the local authority in question has assented, and on condition that the rates to be charged by both are the same. It is a misnomer to call that "real and effective" competition. It is not a competition, at all events, for the benefit of the user or the public, because the user does not get the benefit of the

167
universality or uniformity of the system; he only gets it over an area which must be restricted by the fact that there is another competitor in the field. The question of municipal trading is a very much larger one. It is the testimony of public bodies, scientific societies, and private employers of labour, that the same amount of work is not got out of the employees of municipalities as is obtained from the employees of private traders and manufacturers. But the chief objection is, that the scheme prevents intercommunication. We have scarcely got used to the idea that it is possible to telephone out of London. Why are we not allowed the same facilities for communicating telephonically with our friends at a distance as we have by telegraph? We are to be subscribers either of the company or of the Post Office—theone or the other; we are not to have inter-communication, although the Post Office admit that they have the power of putting these way leaves underground, the want of which power they say is an hindrance to the company. As a matter of fact, between one exchange and another in London and between the exchanges and the Post Office the Post Office does provide the underground communication. I want to know why the same facility has not been afforded this company——
MR. SPEAKER: I do not quite see what the question of Post Office way leaves and the telephone company has to do with Clause 2, which only relates to the fund out of which public authorities have to pay the expenses of carrying out the Act.
MR. KIMBER: It has this to do: that this relates to the provinces; it establishes a system of so-called competition there; and the question of wayleaves which has been so important in London is also quite as important in the provinces, and I wish to point out that while they have been in London by their own willful——
MR. SPEAKER: That is quite too remote from this clause. If the hon. Member desires that the Government should make some arrangement as to wayleaves between themselves and the telephone company that possibly may be raised on the third clause; it certainly cannot be on the second.
MR. KIMBER: As regards the provincial towns, I imagine I can argue what is being done or about to be done. Many provincial towns have applied to the Postmaster-General in these terms. They wish to have a company in their locality to whom they should give wayleaves. In that matter the municipalities have the same power in their respective areas as the Post Office have in London. The Government have the power over the whole of the country, and could give these facilities to any company they chose to license. It cannot, therefore, be said that they must employ the local authorities for the purpose of having the provincial towns telephoned. Consequently you are not obliged to give these trading rights to municipal corporations on that ground. The want of uniformity, the want of inter-communication between provincial towns, and the want of facilities for immediate intercommunication make the system one, not of uniformity, but of heterogeneous diversity, and that is my ground for moving the rejection of the clause.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 13, to leave out Clause 2."—(Mr. Kimber.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'where' stand part of the Bill."
SIR J. JOICEY: I am bound to say that I have a great objection to any facilities being given to municipalities to take over the National Telephone Company's, or to develop any other system. Hitherto our municipalities have been able to borrow money very cheaply indeed, the reason being that they have simply used the money for carrying out the ordinary sanitary and other necessities of their own areas. Doubtless some have gone beyond that—they have taken over gas and water companies; but there is, as a general rule, very great reluctance to take over anything which has not been properly tested or tried. Municipalities want to be assured that they are going to make a certain profit before they will take over anything, but who can tell whether they will be able to make a profit out of a telephone system in their own area? I defy any estimate to be made which can be relied upon, and I look forward with some degree of anxiety if this House

169
sanctions a Bill which will enable municipalities and urban district authorities to use public money to carry out schemes of this kind, which are only required for a small section of people within each particular area. If this House gives power to municipalities to go into wild cat schemes—because many of these telephone developments have proved to be wild cat schemes—then, of course, the public will be rather chary in advancing money even on the rates, and the result will be that the whole community will be penalised by having to pay a larger interest for money required to carry out necessary improvement. That is one objection. Another objection is the disadvantage of having two or more systems in one area, because if a person wishes to have general telephone communication he must subscribe to all of them. I am speaking from experience in this matter in Newcastle. I do not know whether the Post Office has made any arrangements with the Telephone Company to meet such cases, and I should be glad if the right, hon. Gentleman would inform us on the matter. Again, the large number of municipal employees in small areas will have far more influence in using their votes for their own advantage than Government employees. On these grounds I will support my hon. friend who moved the rejection of the clause, which I think is most undesirable.
MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to move to insert after "where" the words "county council or," with a view to giving the same power to county councils as to borough councils. The reason I move this Amendment is because I have had strong representations on the matter from Lanarkshire, where there are considerable districts not included in borough areas. In many of these districts the telephone is wanted, and it could be introduced if the county councils were given the same power as the urban authorities. There are many districts in England in the neighbourhood of cities which cannot be covered by a mere extension of the licence granted to the borough authorities, and where it would be more convenient if they had a telephone extension of their own. The county councils would not exercise that power unreasonably. I would like to ask the right hon. Gen-
170
tleman whether he contemplates the establishment by the Government of telephones in populous districts, and, if not, what authority is to have that power. Is it to be left to a company, and is there to be local or municipal competition?
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 13, after the word 'Where, to insert the words 'a county council or.' "—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HANBURY: For many reasons it would be impossible to give licences to county councils. It is admitted that, generally speaking, if they had the power they would not exercise it. Only one county council has made an application of the sort, and it simply applied to be included in the Bill. The objection to giving licenses to populous districts not police boroughs is that they have not got the way leaves in their hands. There are, however, populous places in Scotland which are in the peculiar position of owning their own way leaves, and I think they would have some prior claim on the Post Office.
SIR J. JOICEY: There are also very many populous districts in the county I represent, and it would be a great advantage to them to have a telephone service; and they would be very glad indeed if the Post Office would take the matter into its hands.
MR. PARKER SMITH: After the expression of opinion which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. FAITHFULLBEGG: The Amendment which I now move is one which I hope will receive the favourable consideration of my right hon. friend. It is to leave out from "granted" to the end of the clause, and to insert "Provided always that no part of the area be outside the borough or urban district." My reason for moving is in the interests of the local authorities themselves. When the House is asked to grant power to local authorities to undertake services such as gas,

171
water, or electricity, it is always most careful to insert various restrictions. For instance, power is rarely given to any local authority to extend beyond its own area, and in cases where a local authority desires to supply in any area it has to acquire existing undertakings. We are, however, now asked to sanction an entirely new experiment. We are called upon to grant local authorities power to institute a service in competition with an existing service and in areas outside their own areas. It seems to me that may be an exceedingly dangerous power to grant, especially as we do not know very much about the conditions of the competition. There is no limit as far as I understand the clause to the distance over which a licence may extend. I have no doubt my right hon. friend has thought out this matter carefully, and I hope he will be able to remove the difficulty.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 24, to leave out from the word 'granted,' to the end of Clause 2, and to insert the words 'Provided always that no part of that area be outside the borough or urban district.' "—(Mr. Faithfull Begg.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'be,' in line 25, stand part of the Bill."
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: This Amendment, coming from a representative of Glasgow, is certainly one of the most absurd that can be conceived. What about the Glasgow waterworks, and the Glasgow tramways, and the Glasgow sewerage works? All these are not confined to the city, and the idea of restricting the telephone service to a city area would, in very many cases, so far from being an improvement, render the Bill absolutely unworkable.
MR. PROVAND: The object of this Amendment is to destroy the Bill, because if it is carried the Bill will be almost worthless. The telephone area is always larger than the municipal area. The municipal area of Glasgow contains 720,000 inhabitants, but the telephone area has nearly a million inhabitants, and all the outlying districts have joined Glasgow in its application to the Post Office for a licence in order to have the advantage of a Glasgow telephone exchange. If this Amendment were carried there would have to be six or seven dif-
172
ferent telephone exchanges in and around Glasgow. I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM-MURRAY,): The object of this Amendment is to provide a Scotch rate instead of the English rate in Clause 1. The hon. Member for Edinburgh has kindly called my attention to the fact that "police or borough general assessment rate" would not exactly fit the case of Edinburgh. So far as rating is concerned the great majority of the Scotch boroughs are under the general Act of 1892, and are covered by the Burgh General Assessment. Then, so far as the police rate is concerned, that covers Glasgow and also practically Dundee, because Dundee, although it has a local Act, has incorporated several sections of the Act of 1862. There remain Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Edinburgh has a peculiar phraseology of its own, and both it and Aberdeen differ from the other boroughs, because, instead of having separate rates, they have a composite rate with various branches, some paid by the occupier, some by the owner, and others jointly by the occupier and owner. This Amendment will bring in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and now we have done with the boroughs of Scotland.
Amendment proposed—
"Clause 2, page 2, line 6, after 'rate,' to insert the words 'or the district fund and general district rate.' "—(The Lord Advocate.)
Other Amendments made.
MR. MOULTON: The Amendment which I wish to move, is to compel the telephone company to deal fairly with the public, and not to deal with one person upon a different basis to another. They should not be allowed to enjoy any benefit under this Bill unless they agree to treat everyone alike. It is manifestly unfair that they should give one person a service over their lines for a subscription, and refuse it to another unless they are allowed to put up a pole on his house. At a time that the company is going to obtain a prolongation of its licence, I submit we are entitled to say that it shall not have it unless it agrees to give no

173
undue preference. If the clause is passed in its present form, it will amount to a statutory authority to the company to give such undue preference, except in those portions of an area in which they had renounced it, and I submit that the company should only have the advantage of this Bill if they agree once and for all to abandon this obnoxious system, which places the public at the mercy of the company, and obliges them to accept just what terms the company chooses to impose.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 23, to leave out the words 'within the area, or part thereof, specified in the new licence.' "—(Mr. Moulton.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'within the area' stand part of the Bill.' "
MR. HANBURY: The power to which exception is taken is one which the National Telephone Company possess under their original licence, and, though it is not one which I wish to defend, it is a privilege which the House has no right to take away, except for good reason shown. Now, in this case, we are not extending the licence to the company generally, we are only extending it in particular areas, and this Bill simply provides that in those particular areas this right of undue preference shall be taken away from the company as a condition of getting their licence extended. The fair thing to the company is to say that in those places where their licence is extended they shall renounce this privilege.
SIR J. JOICEYthought something in the nature of the Amendment was necessary for the prevention of undue preference.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move that the further consideration of this Bill be postponed.
MR. PROVAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be put down on the Paper?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To-morrow.
MR. PROVAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be the first Order?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
Further considered, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th July], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Question again proposed.
MR. J. E. ELLIS, said it was admitted that the Bill touched wider issues than those relating to Scotland, for it dealt with matters connected with the root of the whole Private Bill system of the three kingdoms—a system which was not only most interesting, but one of the most admirable parts of the Parliamentary Constitution; a system which had grown up through generations, and, under some of the most distinguished Members of Parliament, had been brought to a state in which it was superior to any machinery for the purpose in any other Parliament in the world. As to local inquiries, except for the smallest and simplest matters, they were very unsatisfactory methods. For important matters they must have the machinery of a Private Bill Committee. As to this Bill, it was an attenuated shadow, and there never was a time when Parliament ought to keep a firmer grasp on Private Bill Legislation than the present. He firmly believed that many of the ideas and hopes of those who had supported this Bill would turn out to be fallacious, but he hoped that the Bill would fulfil at any rate some of the expectations of those who brought it forward.
MR. PARKER SMITH: I think this Bill is a very interesting example of the methods and character of this House. The main argument which used to be advanced in favour of this Bill was the great amount of pressure upon the time of this House. This argument, however, cannot be used in favour of the present Bill. The House of Commons has shown itself extremely jealous of parting with a shred of its power, and the main effect of this Bill will be to put fresh duties upon the officers of this House, and also upon its Members. We have shown, in dealing with this question, a profound distrust of

175
everybody outside except ourselves. My hon. friend is still jealous of the action of the Secretary for Scotland, but his position is changed very much indeed, for he has now no voice in choosing the Commissioners of the Parliamentary Panel, for the choice rests with the Chairmen of the two Houses, in conjunction with the Secretary for Scotland. I do not know how this measure will please the gentlemen in the country who have been most urgent in their demand for this Bill, for they have always demanded a purely Scotch tribunal under the control of the Scotch Secretary. I think we shall all watch the working of this Bill with very great interest, and we shall see whether its effect is more beneficial than the alternative plan of proceeding through the ordinary channel by a Provisional Order. I think those who wish to improve the process of Private Bill legislation will have to proceed in other directions, for one thing stands out clearly in the course of the discussion of this Bill, and that is that there is no real desire or willingness on the part of this House to give up its control over Private Bill legislation. By extending and facilitating the Provisional Order system, by reducing the fees of the two Houses and also the formalities and notices; by cutting down the expenses in every direction, and in other ways making the position of opponents with small interests easier to defend; and by considering whether a single hearing before a Joint Committee of the two Houses cannot be so surrounded with precautions as to do justice to all interests without the necessity of rehearing before a second Committee—if this is done, these matters will be more beneficial than local inquiries. I have regretted very much in these Debates to notice how few English Members have taken part, for this is not merely a Scotch question, because it concerns all the throe kingdoms. I think English Members will find in this measure a useful object lesson, which will show that the best way of dealing with this question is by reducing the expenditure and retaining the whole power in the hands of Parliament. By simplifying procedure and reducing the expenses you will be conferring the greatest benefit upon the country at large.
MR. LEWIS: There is one argument in favour of this
176
Bill with which I find myself in most cordial agreement. The hon. Gentleman opposite stated that it was desirable to reduce the fees of both Houses. The fees at present are unnecessarily large, and they act unquestionably as a deterrent to small corporations and individuals coming to this House to promote Bills. I hope the outcome of this discussion will be that the fees will be reduced. There can be no doubt that there is need for a drastic change in our Private Bill procedure, and that has been felt to such an extent in Wales that when this Bill was introduced I felt that a measure of this kind should also apply to Wales, because Wales applies for a larger number of Private Bills than Scotland. The Government having refused to grant a Return of the Private Bills for Scotland and Wales, I went through the records myself, and I find that in 1897 there were twenty-three Private Bills from Wales and only nine from Scotland. I do not quote these figures for the purpose of grudging this Bill to Scotland, whatever good there may be in it, with its fearful and wonderful machinery. I am glad that Scotland in this matter is the country upon which the experiment will be performed, and I trust that Wales will derive the advantage of whatever experience may be gained in this case. In the populous and industrial districts of South Wales, owing to the development of trade and commerce, those districts which are rapidly growing in population and trade are obliged to come to this House from time to time for powers which can only be conferred upon them by Parliament. In one case, I was informed that the expenditure on one side alone amounted to no less than £180,000. What the expenditure on the other side was is not exactly known, but it is said to have been much larger. Now, I think there is a real grievance in all that money being spent in London, instead of in the locality from which the money has been taken. I venture to think that a local inquiry would have considerably lessened the expense in this particular case. I trust that, in the course of time, a Bill will be passed for Wales, not perhaps on exactly the same lines as the Bill which is now being carried for Scotland, but I hope when experience will have discovered what are the weak points and the excellent points of this Bill, that it will be applied to other parts of the United

177
Kingdom as well. I am sure everybody must have regarded with great dissatisfaction the enormous expenditure to which certain Irish railway companies were put during the last few weeks within the walls of the House. Surely a better system can be devised than that which drags over from different parts of the United Kingdom a host of witnesses who could be examined on the spot. I am sure all hon. Members deeply regret this great waste of public money.
MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: I confess that I am unable to remain silent after hearing the remarks which have fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Many of us hoped by this Bill to have accomplished a reform in Private Bill legislation on behalf of poor people who have schemes on hand, but who find their projects thwarted by the gross and wasteful expenditure involved in bringing witnesses unnecessarily from the locality to London. This Bill comes forward, and on the Third Reading it is supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the ground that it can do little harm, and because it is not the same Bill which the Government laid before us in the first instance. Hon. Members opposite have said that if this proves an effectual reform they hope it will be deemed advisable to extend it to England and Ireland. Now, I do ask hon. Members if they seriously think this Bill is a suitable one to extend if Ireland. I do not think the Government are at all likely to bring forward a Bill framed on these lines for Ireland. I will not say anything more upon this question, because I have already discussed the matter upon a previous occasion, but I cannot conceive the wisdom of sending down two peers and two Members of this House to hold an inquiry in Scotland while there are men of affairs in the locality who are quite as competent to hold such inquiries, especially when after that trouble and expense the question has actually to be brought back to the House in order that it may all be gone over again. I must say that I greatly regret that the Government have not stuck more firmly to their guns, and that they have not adhered to the Bill which was at first introduced, for it was a much better Bill than the one which we are now asked I to pass.
MR. DALZIELsaid there were so many objections to the Bill that it was questionable whether it would not be better to wait a little longer for one that was more perfect. However, he supported the Third Reading of the Bill as a step in the direction of local control of local affairs, though he would have had Scottish Members and Scottish men of affairs to deal with Scottish Bills. One great objection was the fact that after a local inquiry had been held, if there was an appeal, the appeal was made to practically the same tribunal, sitting at Westminster, as held the local inquiry in Scotland. It was a step, however, that other Governments would have to follow in the future, and he hoped the experiment would have the success the Lord Advocate anticipated.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
Clause 1:—
Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [21ST JULY].
Resolutions reported.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
1. Sec. 3. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,601,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900.
2. Sec. 2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,799,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Material for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31stday of March, 1900.
3. Sec. 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,417,000, be granted to Her Majesty,

179
to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c, including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900."
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £261,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900."

CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CALDWELL: This appears to be a Bill which takes an amount of money not exceeding £1,200, and hands it over to the police. Now the police has a very large subsidy from the Imperial funds, and also a large payment out of the local funds, and we have always protested against these special claims on behalf of the Metropolitan Police. This Bill introduces a new charge of £1,200, which we shall certainly object to.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): It is true that the language of the Bill is very wide, but the object of the Bill is to do away with the mischievous system of bounties which now exists, and to substitute a payment out of the Vote. It does not in any way create a new charge, but merely gets rid of the mischievous system of allowances.
  DR. CLARK: We object to this Bill because we think that London is rich enough and big enough to manage her own police, and she ought to be made to pay for her police, as any of the provincial towns and boroughs. The police ought to be handed over to the County Council, who ought also to have the management of the magistrates, and that she ought to bear the extra burden.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: There is no extra burden arising under this Bill.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It is a matter for regret that the Home Secretary did not tell us what the allowances were. I sincerely trust that on the next occasion he will give this information, so as to show the necessity for this Bill.

GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE, AT KHARTOUM BILL [Lords].

  SECOND READING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. DILLON: This is a Bill to which I have the greatest objection. I have considerable objection to the Gordon Memorial Fund, and I think it wrong to start a scheme of this kind so soon after the appalling slaughter at Omdurman. By such a policy the House identifies itself with the whole policy of these proposals. There is another aspect of the case, and that is, is this college to be a Christian college or a Mahomedan one, or what religion are you going to teach, or are you going to teach any at all? This, I think, we are entitled to know before we give this Vote.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is altogether irrelevant to discuss the internal management of this college, or the religion which shall be taught there. The only question is, whether the money should be invested in certain securities.
  MR. DILLON: In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I cannot proceed.
  MR. DAVITT: Should I be in order in proposing to change the title from "The Gordon Memorial College" to "The College for Teaching British Pharisaism"?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to use a few arguments in favour of the Bill. The majority of the inhabitants of the Soudan are Mahomedans, and the Government are most anxious to suit the education of that country to the native prejudices of those people. We know that in Ireland we are debarred from doing that, because the majority of the Irish people happen to be Catholics.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must use arguments which are relevant to the subject under discussion.
  MR. CALDWELL: I think this Bill is wrong, because it proposes to invest money in Egyptian securities. In a matter of this kind, in which you are perpetuating the name of a British subject, I think you ought to have Imperial securities, and not invest this money where it may eventually be depreciated.
  MR. DALZIEL: I think the Government ought to give us their opinion in regard to the security of this stock. Surely we are entitled to ask whether this is the best security we can obtain for the money. I do hope we shall have some opinion from the Government in regard to this investment.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, Egyptian Stocks are a perfectly safe investment for the money of this trust.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN OVERTIME IN WASHING BOTTLES, ETC.
SIR JAMES RANKIN: With regard to this question, I think opinion can be divided into two schools of thought. The first school believe that women should be perfectly free to make their own contracts with their employers; and the second believe that with regard to a certain class of workers and work a certain amount of interference by law is allowable. In 1878, 1891, and 1895 various laws regulating overtime, and the employment of children and young persons were enacted, and I think it is generally acknowledged that those regulations have been beneficial to health in our factories. The fruit preserving trade, however, has been exempted from this rule. No one wishes to unduly interfere with the fruit preserving trade, which undoubtedly requires certain exemption during the season when the fruit has to be prepared and preserved, for if it is not done quickly the fruit would spoil. It has been the custom for jam manufacturers to work outside the Factory Act, but recently the Home Secretary has made an edict that a good many of these operations, which have hitherto been considered to be outside the Factory Acts, are not really so, and be has made an exemption with regard to the washing of bottles. I am prepared to admit that the washing of bottles is a very important part of the fruit-preserving industry, but I hold that they are much more likely to be properly cleaned by women who work twelve hours a day rather than fourteen. Therefore, I think the House would do well not to allow the exemption in regard to that particular work. In one of the inspector's reports for the year 1898, it is stated that very often the work of preserving fruit, and the washing of bottles, has been put off until after other work has been done, so as to enable these manufacturers to put in extra time. I think this is going beyond the spirit of the law, and these exemptions should be strictly adhered to. I am not going to detain the House at this late hour of the night upon those matters, because they are within the cognisance of hon. Members already, and many Members of this House take a deep interest in the working of the Factory Acts. In my opinion, this particular business of washing bottles might very well be carried on within the limits of the

183
twelve hours' rule. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
Motion made, and Question proposed:—
"That the Order of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending to factories and workshops in which the washing of bottles for use in the preserving of fruit is carried on, the special exception (Employment of Women Overtime) ought to be annulled."—(Sir James Rankin.)
MR. J. G. TALBOT: I rise to second the motion of my hon. friend, although I think it is impossible for this matter to receive adequate consideration at this late hour of the night. I would first remind my right hon. friend the Home Secretary that, in answer to a question from myself in May last, he admitted that the condition of young persons and women in the jam factories was unsatisfactory, and he said there was a case for legislation. Further, it will he seen from the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1897, that there is already great pressure upon a class of persons peculiarly deserving the consideration of this House, I mean girls of the delicate age of fourteen and upwards, and at a time of year when, as in weather we have been lately experiencing, the conditions of labour are exhausting. But instead of improving their condition, this Order to which we object would seem to make it worse. It legalises, as I understand it, the illegal stretching of the law to bottle washing and other processes, which are connected with the fruit industry, but do not require the immediate action which is needed for dealing with fresh fruit on its arrival. I am sure that the kind sympathy of the Home Secretary would not favour such treatment as this Order seems to sanction, and I do not understand what influence has prevailed with him. I hope he may consent to least to modify this Order.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I think there must be some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Baronet who moved this motion, and my right hon. friend who seconded it, as to the intention and effect of this order. They have both spoken as if there had been a breaking of the law with reference to the exemption enjoyed in the fruit preserving industry
184
under the Factory Acts, and that pressure has now been brought to bear to legalise it. This Order has nothing whatever to do with the industries of fruit preserving, but it is—as was described by the hon. Baronet who brought this motion before the House—the result of my having found it desirable to apply the Factory Acts to the industry of bottle washing, to which they have not been previously applied. For many years the trade of bottle washing, and of getting the bottles ready for the purpose of preserving fruit—which must be done immediately—has not been held to be within the Factory Acts, and the result has been that unlimited overtime has been imposed upon the women in that industry, and there has been no restrictions whatever.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Yes, illegally.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: It is extremely doubtful whether at present the process of bottle washing really does come within the section of the Act which talks of the adaptation of an article for sale. On the advice of my inspectors, I have been anxious to secure some limitation of the hours of work of the women employed in this industry, and I have accordingly consented to hold that this cleaning of the bottles should be held to come within the Factory Acts. That obviously meant that there would be a restriction imposed upon the labour of the women which had not previously been imposed. It has nothing whatever to do with the section of the Act of 1891, which exempts the operations of cleaning and preparing fruit during the months of June, July, August and September. It has nothing to do with section 56 of the Act of 1878, which gives an exemption of sixty days in a year to those employed in the process of making preserve from fruit. The position is this—that having imposed upon the bottle washing industry the necessity of coming under the Factory Acts it was represented to me by the manufacturers and others employed in the trade that it would be a desirable thing to give the comparatively small exemption which this Order gives, and this view was supported by the inspectors.
MR. ASQUITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what section the Order is made?
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: It is made under Section 53 of the Act of 1878. Therefore the House will see that the effect of the action of the Home Office in this particular has been to bring this industry within the Factory Acts, and therefore to restrict the labour of women. Exemptions are recognised by the Factory Acts in industries subject to seasonal pressure provided the Home Secretary is satisfied of their propriety. I have been satisfied upon the reports I have received that it would not be injurious to the women employed in this industry for this amount of overtime. I am satisfied that this industry comes under the words of the section as a trade liable to a certain press of orders, and it has been proved to me that it is a process which must be done immediately before the bottles are used. I cannot help thinking that is a perfectly reasonable exemption, and when my right hon. friend says it is totally contrary to the spirit of an answer which I gave to a question I venture again to say that I agree with him so far as to think that it will be necessary to do something to remove the state of things which prevails in the jam trade—properly so-called. But the question before us is a very different one, for it is bringing in for the first time a new industry—not jam-making, and it is desirable and almost necessary, in the interests of the trade and in accordance with this section, that there should be this exemption, which, I am satisfied, is not likely to cause any injury to the women employed.
MR. TENNANT: I should like to know if this Order is going to be applied in those factories in which only bottle-washing is being done, or is it going to apply to bottle-washing departments in fruit preserving factories. If it is, I am very much afraid that it will have a contrary effect to that which he anticipates and desires. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain this point. I do not think any good can accrue from this Order: I am very much afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will apply it to these departments in jam factories.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The Order has nothing to do with the preserving of fruit, and it will only apply to persons engaged in bottle-washing.
MR. TENNANT: In that case I
186
think that any further discussion is unnecessary.
MR. HAZELLand SIR CHARLES DILKEsupported the restriction of overtime in fruit-preserving factories, and
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEYagain assured the House that the Order did not apply to jam factories.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: If that is so, the Debate need not be continued.
MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Baronet has obtained a useful result by raising this discussion, because it has cleared up the apprehensions in the minds of some of us of the scope and intention of the Order. I merely wish to guard against the idea that it is possible for the Home Office to determine whether any particular trade does or does not come within the scope of the Act. So far as I am able to judge, I agree with the gentlemen who advised the Home Secretary upon this matter.
MR. JOHN BURNSwas of opinion that the result might be that the women engaged in jam-making for long hours would then engage in bottle-washing for a sub-contractor. He regretted extremely that these exemptions should exist at all. The Home Office had yielded to pressure from without. Girls were to be worked fifteen and sixteen hours a day in the most in sanitary conditions, in order that their employers might build yachts to race for the America Cup. Humanity did not demand it; science did not require it, and he thought that greater protection should be given to the girls who did this work.
MR. MADDISONfailed to understand how it was the Home Secretary had not come to the conclusion that overtime was a wrong thing to allow, after girls had worked so many hours. He trusted the hon. Baronet would go to a Division upon the question, as it would be the means of saving the girls of the bottle-washing establishments from a grievous wrong.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid it appeared to him that the Order

187
was a departure from the general line of factory legislation, though it did not go so far as the House was led to suppose He failed to see how it was going to be applied to jam manufacturers, who had heavy demands made upon them when the fresh fruit arrived.
MR. TENNANTasked the Home Secretary to make it clear, in accordance with his assurance across the floor of the House, in the Order itself that it should have no application to any department of jam factories.

POST OFFICE MAIL CONTRACT (HARWICH TO THE HOOK OF HOLLAND).
Resolved—"That the contract, dated the 3rd day of April, 1899, between the Postmaster-General and the Great Eastern Railway Company, for the daily conveyance of mails from Harwich to
SIR M. WHITE-RIDLEYsaid it was never intended so to be applied, and he would certainly see that this was done if necessary.
SIR JAMES RANKINsaid that, after that intimation, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. [Opposition cries of "No."]
The House divided:—Ayes, 25; Noes, 83. (Division List, No. 296.)

AYES.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hazell, Walter

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Horniman, Frederick John

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'land

Wedderburn, Sir William

Clough, Walter Owen

Macaleese, Daniel

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

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

Doogan, P. C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Duckworth, James

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Mr. John Burns and Mr. Maddison.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Steadman, William Charles

NOES

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fisher, William Hayes

Purvis, Robert

Arnold, Alfred

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gedge, Sydney

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chs. Thomson

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Robinson, Brooke

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Graham, Henry Robert

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Banbury, Frederick George

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Howell, William Tudor

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bethell, Commander

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning (Corn)

Thornton, Percy M.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Carlile, William Walter

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Valentia, Viscount

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Long, Rt Hn. Walter(Liverpool

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Milton, Viscount

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

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wylie, Alexander

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Wyndham, George

Curzon, Viscount

Morrell, George Herbert

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Doughty, George

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Nicholson, William Graham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Sir William Walrond and

Finch, George H.

Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton).

Mr. Anstruther.

the Hook of Holland, be approved."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Two o'clock.

SOUDAN CAMPAIGN, 1896–7–8
VOTE OF THANKS TO THE FORCES ENGAGED IN THE RECENT OPERATIONS IN THE SOUDAN.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that he had received a letter from General Sir Francis Grenfell, in return to the thanks of this House, and to the Resolutions of the 8th of June last, communicated to him in obedience to an Order of this House of the said 8th of June.
The letter was read, as follows:—
"The Palace, Malta, July 18, 1899.
"My Lord,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter enclosing a copy of a Resolution of the House of Lords conveying to me the thanks of the House.
"I am deeply grateful to the House for its acknowledgment of my services, and to your Lordship for sending me the Resolution.
"I am, my Lord, your Lordship's obedient servant,
"FRANCIS GRENFELL, General, Commander-in-Chief, Malta.
"The Right Hon. the Earl of Halsbury, Lord Chancellor."
Letter ordered to be entered on the Journals.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  GREAT YARMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.

    LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
    SHEFFIELD CORPORATION MARKETS BILL.
    Read 3a; with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL [H.L.]
    BUENOS AYRES AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I have to move that the Order of the 9th of March last, which provides that no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought up from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after June 27th, be dispensed with, and that this Bill be read a second time. This action is not necessitated through any neglect on the part of the Local Government Board. The time in which a petition could have been presented against the Bill in the House of Commons was exhausted, and those who would have been the petitioners proceeded by private motion in the House of Commons, and the matter was referred to a Hybrid Committee.
  Moved, That the Order of the 9th March last, "That no Provisional Order Con-"firmation Bill brought from the House "of Commons shall be read a second time "after Tuesday, the 27th day of June "next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 17) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  Reports from University Colleges (1899): Colonies—

  I. (Miscellaneous.) No. 12. Anguilla: Report on vital statistics;

  II. (Annual.) No. 262. Barbados: Annual Report for 1898.

  JAMAICA
  Further correspondence relating to the finances and government of the Island of Jamaica (in continuation of [C.-9177], February, 1899).
  TRADE REPORTS (1889)
  Annual Series: No. 2320. Trade of Austria-Hungary for the year 1898.
  BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (PROVISION FOR OLD AGE ABROAD).
  Provision for old age by Government action in certain European countries.

  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Fifty-fourth Annual Report of the Commissioners.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Account of deposits in Naval Savings Banks and the payments thereof, and of interest thereon, of all investments under the Naval Savings Banks Act, 1866, and the application of the interest or dividends accruing in respect thereof, and of the proceeds of any sale of any stocks, annuities, or securities during the financial year 1897–98.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
  Orders made by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire altering certain polling districts and polling places within the Parliamentary Divisions of Normanton, Otley, and Rotherham, laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]

  COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee)

  5
  made, and to be printed. (No. 178.) Minutes of evidence, together with an appendix, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.

  COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, and to be printed as amended. (No. 179.)

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
(SECOND READING.)
Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, the Bill which I am about to ask your Lordships to read a second time is a very short one. It relieves the owner of tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice of half the payment of any rate to which this Act applies, and which is assessed to him as the owner of that tithe rent-charge. It is enacted that the half of which he is so relieved is to be paid out of that portion of the Local Taxation Account which is derived from the Estate Duty Grant. That, my Lords, is the Bill. Now, what is the hardship which these provisions are intended to meet? I will commence by giving a very simple and very common illustration. Take the case of a vicar who, after all legal deductions had been made, is assessed on a tithe rent-charge of £300 a year,—which constitutes his whole income, and also on his house, say, at £30. He will pay in rates more than a man who lives in a house in the parish assessed at £300 a year, and whose income in all probability is not less than £3,000 a year. Then take the case of two vicars of adjoining parishes, each with an income of £200 a year, and each inhabiting a house assessed at £30. "A's" income is derived from tithe rent-charge; B's" from a fixed money payment. "B" will pay in rates, at the rate of 2s. 6d. in the pound, £3 15s., whilst "A" will pay £25. This illustration is a very common and a very simple one, but I hope to be able to show your Lordships presently that there are harder cases still before which these more ordinary instances fall into comparative insignificance. What is the history of this grievance? Is it an old story? If not, how and why did it arise? If it is an old story,
6
why is the subject now brought forward for legislation for the first time? I am afraid, my Lords, I must ask you to throw your minds back for a long period of time, because the history of this case originates from the famous Statute of 1601, 43 Elizabeth, cap. 2, which was the origin of our present Poor Law. I shall not, my Lords, have to trouble you with any detailed allusion to the vexed question as to what was the intention of that famous Statute in connection with tithe not severed from the benefice. It will suffice if I remind your Lordships that opinions differ on that subject. Many persons hold—and, so far as I can judge, the Royal Commissioners are inclined that way themselves—that it was not intended by that Statute to make tithe not severed from the benefice liable to rates; but, be that as it may, it is an absolutely indisputable fact that in practice, confirmed by the constant decisions of Courts of Law, tithe not severed from a benefice was rateable hereditament before the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836. I lay great stress on that Act, because from the date of this Act springs the grievance to which I am going to ask your Lordships to assist in applying a remedy. What was the state of affairs as regards tithe in this country before the Tithe Commutation Act? It was only legally payable in kind, and a certain portion of the clergy actually received their tithe in kind. A great majority of them, however, had made arrangements with the tithe-payer, by which a composition was made, and the tithe-payer paid so much money to the tithe-owner instead of paying him the tithe in kind. As a general rule, these bargains were proved before the Tithe Commissioners to have been good ones for the tithe-payers, but even when a composition was paid that composition took two forms. Sometimes the tithe-owner received the whole amount of the money which had been agreed upon in the composition, but more usually—in the far greater number of cases—the tithe-payer paid the rates on the tithe, and only handed to the tithe-owner the difference between the rates paid and the composition arrived at. Therefore, before the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 the total amount of the tithe payable by a tithe-owner was very imperfectly known, and the methods of assessment were lax. I will read to your Lordships a paragraph

7
from the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on this subject. They say, in paragraph 35:
"Again, the Rev. C. A. Stevens, a well-known authority on the subject of tithes, stated in 1879:—
" 'Previously to the commutation the total amount of the tithes in a parish was in most cases as much unknown, to anyone except the tithe-owner himself, and as much a subject of estimate as the gross produce of the land. In nearly two-thirds of the cases the farmers agreed with the tithe-owner to pay him a money composition on the plan of their paying all rates. Thus no question of total amount of tithes and modes of assessment could arise. The farmers levied the whole rate among themselves. In the remaining cases where tithe was taken in kind very different practices seem to have prevailed. In some districts they were not rated at all. In others he was charged with a fifth, a sixth, or an eighth of the whole rate of the parish. In some places in later years a valuer was called in, and the tithe-owner was rated with reference to his supposed gross income. When rates were levied, as they generally were, at half rents, or two-thirds rents in some cases at least, the tithe-owner was rated at an aliquot reduction.' "
The effect, therefore, of the Tithe Commutation Act was to make the exact value of the tithe rent-charge to a penny known in every parish; but questions of rents, land values, and gross profits from the land remained doubtful and vague. That Act was not the only great Act of Legislation in that year. In the same year (1836) was passed the Parochial Assessments Act, and, in respect of that Act, I would again trouble your Lordships with an extract from the Report of the Royal Commission, and I lay great stress and emphasis on the effect of this Act, because it is really on the interpretation of this Act by the Courts that the whole question hangs. The Royal Commission say:—
"In the same year as the Tithe Act the Parochial Assessments Act was passed for the purpose of establishing 'one uniform mode of rating for the relief of the poor throughout England and Wales,' and it enacted that 'no rate for the relief of the poor in England and Wales shall be allowed by any justices, or be of any force, which shall not be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto; that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free of all usual tenants' rates and taxes, and tithe commutation rent-charge, if any, and deducting there from the probable average annual cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent.' "
8
But, my Lords, that was not all. A proviso was expressly inserted in the Act, which was intended to secure the tithe-owners the benefits of the decision in the case of "Rex v. Joddrell" in 1830. That decision had specially limited the proportion of the value of his tithe for which he was rateable. But, my Lords, another case came before the Courts four years after the passing of that Act, and that case was known as "Regina v. Capel. "The decision in this case had an enormous effect on the position of the tithe-owner, for it ignored, the proviso expressly inserted in the Parochial Assessments Act in favour of the tithe-owner, and the decision in his favour in the case of "Rex v. Joddrell" was held to have been superseded by Section 1 of the Parochial Assessments Act. The result of that was, in the words of the Report of the Royal Commission, that:
"The Court held that under Section 1 of the Parochial Assessments Act, the vicar of a parish, receiving composition for small tithes, was to be rated on such receipt in the same way as the occupier of land, that is, on the sum for which the same would let free from tenants' rates and taxes and ecclesiastical dues."
But, my Lords, what is the comment, later on in their Report, of the Royal Commissioners on the effect of this decision? They say:
"Such a rent-charge cannot be let, and never has been let, so far as we are aware, on an ordinary business footing, that is, to a tenant who seeks to secure a fair rate of interest on money invested, and, at the same time, has to provide for the necessary services and duties incidental to the holding of a benefice."
That is the opinion, not only of the Royal Commissioners at the present moment, but it was the opinion of the Courts. themselves in the middle of this century. It is quite, obvious, if you consider it, that you cannot proceed by analogy in. assessing tithe rent-charge not severed. from the benefice upon the basis of the rental value to a hypothetical tenant. In 1858 a very famous case, "Regina v Goodchild," came before the Courts, and this is what Mr. Justice Coleridge said on the subject:
"If we were required to draw the terms of the proposition into strict accordance, it ought to have been held that the Statute did not apply to the case of tithe. rent-charge at all

9
because, if so interpreted, the tithe-owner would be placed in a different condition from every other ratepayer, and not be allowed deductions the same in principle as those allowed to every other occupier."
The learned judge then went on to show that the deductions allowed in the case of the occupier of a farm were totally inapplicable to the hypothetical occupier of tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice, and he said it would be necessary, in order to apply the Act with any justice, to make allowances for the benefit of the tithe-owner which, although not mentioned in the Parochial Assessments Act, might be considered analogous to those which were. If this opinion on the part of Mr. Justice Coleridge had always been followed in the decisions of the Courts since he expressed it, I do not think, my Lords, any grievance demanding Parliamentary remedy would now be presented for your attention. The decisions of the Courts were at first favourable to the tithe-owner, giving him various deductions and so reducing the gross amount of tithe rent-charge on which he was rated, and after a series of thesedecisions—especially those known as the Hackney cases—the Poor Law Board issued an Order, dated September 4, 1858, in which they laid it down that deductions might be made from the gross value of the tithe rent-charge for rateable purposes, those deductions including, among other things, a reasonable sum for a curate's salary, if a curate was employed to supply necessary aid to the minister, and not as his substitute; the proportionate charge for the ecclesiastical dues and fees; an average sum for the annual cost of repairing the chancel, and, if the parish had been legally divided, and tithes had been severed, or a fixed rent charged upon the living in behalf of the new district, the amount payable to the minister of that district. Your Lordships will observe that those were very important deductions. The clerical tithe-owner was to be allowed to deduct a reasonable sum for a curate's salary; he was to be allowed to deduct an average annua1 sum for the cost of repairing the chancel, for which he was legally liable; he was also to deduct any sum which by statute he was compelled to pay to the incumbent of a daughter parish, and there were other deductions as well. If matters had always so remained, I doubt, as I have already said, if this question
10
would now be before your Lordships for your consideration. But what has happened? Notwithstanding the opinion of Mr. Justice Coleridge, notwithstanding the decisions of the Courts in the earlier cases, the Courts have found themselves more and more unable to read this Statute in a manner favourable to the unfortunate owner of tithe rent-charge, and they have gradually withdrawn from him deduction after deduction, until the case at present stands as follows: he is not allowed to deduct landlord's property tax, or land tax, or any sums for the repair of the chancel of the parish church, although he maybe legally liable to do such repairs; he is not allowed to deduct anything for his personal services as parson or vicar, or for payments to curates, daughter churches, or to retired incumbents as pensions, or for sums paid to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty in liquidation of loans contracted by the existing or by the former incumbent. We are, therefore, brought to this position. The Tithe Commutation Act makes absolutely definite and known to every ratepayer the amount of the tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice; the proviso inserted in the Parochial Assessments Act with the special object of protecting the tithe-owner from the full effects of that Act fails in its intention; and the result is, that an utterly inexplicable principle is applied to the assessments of the clerical tithe-owner's rent-charge. The Courts, at first, allowed him generous deductions by analogy, but gradually, one by one, all those deductions were withdrawn from him; and finally, although his property has been fixed so that it never can be improved by any increase of public expenditure, he has to bear his full share, and a great deal more than his full share, of all new rates which are levied, with one or two exceptions with which I need not trouble your Lordships. As the Commissioners say in their Report:
"Tithe rent-charge is not only valued upon a high percentage of the gross value, but it has been made subject to rates for a large number of new purposes, the expenditure of such rates having no effect in the direction of improving the property. This, it is argued, is contrary to the principle of the agreement made in 1836. The Report of the Poor Law Commissioners of 1843, referring to this subject, says:—'But his rent-charge being from that time (the passing of the Tithe Act, 1836) a fixed income, which cannot be improved by any further improvements in the land, it

11
becomes after this time inconsistent with that principle which regulates taxation by the benefit derivable from a tax, that he should be forced to contribute, as tithe-owner, to any new rate, or to any addition to those old rates, which may be imposed for the improvement of property.'"
I commenced by giving your Lordships illustrations of ordinary cases of hardship caused by the present position of the law. I will now quote one which cannot be called common, but which is absolutely possible under the law as it at present stands. I take the case of a clerical owner of tithe rent-charge—a vicar—the present value of whose tithe rent-charge, when the deductions which are allowed have been made, is £600. By Statute he is compelled to pay to a daughter Church £150 a year; by another Statute he is compelled to pay to a retired incumbent another, £150 a year; and he is also compelled to pay for the support of a curate, or for the maintenance of the chancel, or in liquidation of loans contracted by his predecessor, perhaps another £150 a year. Therefore, his real income is only £150, but he is rated on £600. At the rate of 2s. 6d. in the £, he has to pay, in rates, £75, or exactly one half his whole income. He pays on his tithe rent-charge alone the same as a man who lives in a house assessed at £600, and who presumably has an income of not less than £6,000 a year. This illustration shows how preposterous is the theory on which the present system is based—thata hypothetical tenant would pay an annual rent of £600 for a property of which £600 is the nominal gross annual value, but from which £450 is for various purposes compulsorily deducted by Statute. I think it is only necessary to state that theory to show that it is a preposterous one. I think I will have your Lordships with me when I say that I have succeeded in proving the existence of a grievance. Now, what is the remedy the Government proposes? The Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a second time does not pretend to be a permanent remedy for this evil. It is a temporary alleviation. It is approached by the Government as a rating question pure and simple, and from exactly the same point of view as we approached the Agricultural Rating Act of 1896. I will quote to your Lordships what Mr. Walter Long, the President of the Board of Agriculture, said on the
12
28th April, 1899, with regard to that Bill. He said:
"The principle on which this measure was based was the fact that the agricultural ratepayer, as such, was called upon to pay his rates on a standard which put him in a position he should not be put in, and which was unjust as compared with the position of other ratepayers.'
Applying that same principle, Her Majesty's Government approach this subject as a temporary remedy for a glaring case of unjust rating. A permanent remedy must undoubtedly be applied—it will have to be applied to the assessment—but we must wait until the whole question of rating can be dealt with. The fact that this Bill does not apply to all owners of tithe rent-charge does not imply that we do not admit that all owners of tithe rent-charge have a real grievance. We say that the owner of tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice has a grievance so much greater than that of other owners of tithe rent-charge, that we are justified in dealing with this case as an. exceptional one. Now, my Lords, the object being to provide temporary relief, I claim for our proposal that it is offered in the simplest, most direct, and most immediate form. We throw the cost upon the Local Taxation Account. What is that account? It has been the combined handiwork of both Parties in the State, but its principle and its raison d'être is to provide an assistance to the ratepayer from the personal property of the country. What has been the history of that fund? It has been one of continual and steady increase. In the year 1890–91 I find that the aggregate, roughly, of that fund was £5,800,000. In1898–99 the aggregate had risen to £6,600,000, or an increase of £800,000. The argument against the use of this fund—an argument of which I have no doubt we shall hear something from my noble friend opposite—is that it is unjust to dip into this fund for the benefit of owners of tithe rent-charge, considering that the proportion in which the relief will be given geographically does not tally with the proportion in which the fund will be drawn from the various localities. It is said, in the case of London particularly, that if the amount to be used for the purposes of this Bill is, assumed to be £87,000, London would have to pay £19,000 of that £87,000, and the London County Council urges.

13
that it is unjust to take that sum from London, because the London clergy will only benefit, to the extent of £900 under this Bill. I deny absolutely and altogether that any county has an inalienable lien on a certain proportion of this fund, and that Parliament may not, in its discretion, readjust the distribution if it thinks proper. What is the object of this fund? It is a fund which Parliament has created to enable Parliament, at its discretion, to alleviate local burdens, and, looking at those local burdens, Parliament is amply justified in saying that it will redistribute the amount which it gives to the different localities under this system. Not only have we to consider where the sum is most wanted, but also where the back is strongest and broadest. It is a very curious and interesting fact that this scheme of the Government works out so that the money goes to those localities which are less able to bear their burden of local rates, and the heavier share of the hypothetical loss falls on localities which have the broadest financial back. It has been said that it is a shame to take from London £19,000 of what they hoped to get out of this fund. But look at the case of London! The rateable value of London has risen in the last twenty-eight years from £17,000,000 to £36,000,000 sterling, while the counties which are going to receive the most benefit under this Bill—such as Norfolk and Suffolk—have actually suffered a decrease in rateable value during the same period. I am rather surprised that noble Lords opposite should dissent from the principle I am advocating, because it is one which they themselves applied under analogous circumstances. They required a much larger sum for dealing with swine fever in 1893, and they took it from the Local Taxation Fund; and, if it is a grievance to London to lose £19,000 under this Bill, how much greater was the grievance when London lost £34,000 by the action of the late Government in 1893? Therefore it does not lie with the Opposition to object on principle to this fund being applied to a redistribution of the method of assisting local burdens. That is the specific objection which is made to our method of providing relief. I will now, very briefly, touch on the general objections which are offered to the principle of this Bill. The first criticism, and the foremost, is that it is a fresh endowment of the Church of England. I am glad to
14
hear, from a cheer coming from the other side, that I have not inaccurately stated the forefront of the objection of noble Lords opposite. Is it an endowment of the Scottish Church that the Scottish teinds pay no rates? Was it a universal endowment of Dissenters when the Church rate was abolished? The Church rate was a hereditary burden in any sense in which a rate may be called hereditary, and the abolition of that rate was mainly to the advantage of Dissenters. Such an objection goes to the root of all changes in or redistribution of taxation or rates, and seems to me to be perfectly untenable. The clergy who own tithe rent-charge are as much entitled as any other class in this country to relief if it can be proved that they suffer a hardship. Another argument is that we are going to pay the clergy over again for what they have already been paid. It has been said that the whole question of this liability for rates was considered in fixing the amount under the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836. That argument has been paraded over and over again in the House of Commons and has loomed very much in one of the most influential and one of the most respected journals in this country. It is a pleasant reflection to us ordinary mortals that even a great journalist may hopelessly blunder, because there never was a more perfect mare's nest than that which it was supposed had been found in this question. It has been said that in fixing the amount of tithe rent-charge, as commuted, the Commissioners actually inserted a column to show the amount they had added in each case in order to make allowance for this liability for rates. What is the real history of the case? A great number of the clergy had compounded with the tithe-payer to receive cash payment instead of payment in kind; of that number by far the greater proportion arranged, for convenience, that the tithe-payer should pay the rates for them and hand over the difference, and, therefore, when the Tithe Commissioners had to find out what the real amount of the composition was, they had to add to the amount the tithe-owner received from the tithe-payer the amount of the rates in respect of the tithe which the tithe-payer had paid for the tithe-owner. It is just the same in the case of a farm. The true rent of that farm is not the money the owner receives from his tenant, but the money he receives

15
from his tenant plus the amount paid for him as income-tax. This is the mare's nest which has played such an important part in the Debate in the House of Commons. The thing cannot only be demonstrated, but, luckily, the opinion of the Tithe Commissioners themselves is on record. In a Sessional Paper, No. 304, presented in 1838 to your Lordships' House, they say:
"In commutations for tithes no allowance is made for the future liability of the tithe-owners to rates. Such rates as have directly or indirectly been heretofore paid by the tithe-payers for the tithe-owner are added to the compositions for the purpose of getting at the sum which the parties have treated the tithes as worth during the seven years preceding Christmas, 1835, and making that sum the basis of the future rent-charge."
(Signed) W. BLAMIRE.
R. JONES
That question is therefore definitely and finally set at rest. Another criticism upon the Bill is to the effect that it will relieve the rich and not the small tithe-owners, inasmuch as the larger tithe-owner will get most of the relief. That argument is disposed of by the fact that of the total number of cases 10,256 are under £500, and only 255 above it, and 7,263 cases do not exceed £160 a year. Parliament congratulates itself that by a course of wise legislation it has relieved all persons whose income is not more than £160 a year from income-tax, and yet those incomes would bear but a fourth of the burden to which tithe rent-charge is subjected. I doubt if a stronger case was ever presented to your Lordships' House. I cannot find any responsible authority who has ever denied the existence of the grievance. Look at the Report of the Royal Commissioners. Look at the names of the members of which that Commission was composed—men of great distinction drawn from all parties. The Report is signed by almost all. There are some additions made by Mr. C. A. Cripps, Sir John Hibbert, and Sir George Murray. But what is their addendum? Why, it strengthens the case instead of weakening it. I hear that that statement is doubted, but these gentlemen signed the Report, and they are responsible for all that is in it. They added that, in their opinion, the fact that no deductions had been allowed in a reasonable manner was a very prime cause for grievance. Mr. J. B. Balfour does not sign the Report, but does he object to the case?
16
Does he say a word to suggest that the grievance is not real? No, my Lords, not a single word. Then we come to Mr. Arthur O'Connor, who adds his own Report. What does he say about the grievance? He says:
"I am, therefore, of opinion that the case of hardship has admittedly been made out."
The only Member of the Commission who does not admit it, either by actual words or by his silence, is Mr. James Stuart. But I would point out that in Mr. James Stuart's Memorandum there is a notable admission. He says:
"It is impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact that what the beneficed clergy really suffer from is the fall in the value of tithe, and not from the rates, except in so far as those, like any other outgoing, form a charge on their gross income."
What an admission! Who else pays rates on his gross income? The mere fact of that admission shows how hard the case is. Mr. Stuart goes on to say that the case is really not so bad as is supposed. He says that before the Tithe Commutation Act, 1836, the tithe-owner generally paid rates at a much higher figure, and he quoted 10s. in the £ as a specimen figure of what the rates were in those days. That is really a complete misconception, and there is very little ground for the assumption. I admit that the case is not susceptible of proof, because the figures were not carefully kept before 1841. But it appears from Mr. Goschen's report on Local Taxation (page 17) that the average rate in the £ of all rates in England and Wales in the year 1841 was 2s. 7d. Therefore, my Lords, it is a complete misconception to suppose that the 10s. which Mr. Stuart puts forward can be taken as in any case a specimen rate in those days. It is not only the party at present in power which has taken a strong view with regard to the grievance of the clerical tithe-owner. It has played an important part in the election literature of the Party opposite. I hold in my hand a leaflet issued at the East Berks election, in which the Government is held up to the anger of the clergy for not having dealt with this subject. Strong views on the grievance have been expressed by Mr. Gladstone, and I will read to your Lordships the words used by that Statesman on three occasions. Speaking in the House of Commons, on December 16, 1852, Mr. Gladstone said:
"But, Sir, the clergy have a real grievance at this moment. It is admitted by all author

17
ties. Professor Jones, Mr. Cornewall Lewis, and every man who has examined the subject of local rating will tell you that the clergy suffer cruelly by being rated for local taxation upon their gross incomes."
Speaking in the House of Commons on May 7, 1856, Mr. Gladstone said:
"He would respectfully press upon the House that after the universal admission which had been made as to the existence of the grievance, it would not be altogether creditable to allow small difficulties of detail to prevent the application of a remedy to that grievance. They ought not to fold their arms, and say, 'Although the grievance is plain, palpable, and even scandalous, we cannot, on account of difficulties of detail, attempt to provide a remedy. 'It would be far better to apply a remedy which was open to some abstract objection than any longer to neglect the subject."
It may be said that these are ancient quotations, but one of the very last public utterances by Mr. Gladstone was on this subject. On May 4, 1897, addressing a meeting at Hawarden, at which the noble Duke, whom I see on the Cross Benches (the Duke of Westminster), presided, Mr. Gladstone said:
"In respect not only of the fluctuations of the tithe, but also from the mode in which the rates of the country are levied, the clergyman suffers more than is believed in various ways. He pays more in proportion than what he receives. In fact, it is even said that the Act of Parliament which was passed last year, for the purpose of relieving agricultural interests from the pressure of the rates, has actually gone to increase the pressure, so far as the clergyman is concerned. The case, then, so far as the clergy are concerned, hardly admits of being enhanced by anything in the nature of rhetorical statement."
I do not think that it is possible to put the case in stronger words, or more conclusively, than it is put in those three quotations, extending over a period of nearly fifty years. Having laid before your Lordships the real and cruel nature of the grievance, and the explanation of the remedy proposed to be applied, I thank the House for the patience with which they have listened to me, and move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, in moving the rejection of this Bill, I think it will clear my decks, and perhaps save your Lordships' time, if I make, to begin with, three or four admissions. I grant you at once that tithes are closely rated, because the Assessing Committee can get at the exact rateable amount. I admit the justice of what has been
18
said by Sir G. Cornewall Lewis and Mr. Gladstone on the subject. The quotations from Mr. Gladstone extend over a period of more than forty years, and I merely say, in that connection, that Mr. Gladstone's appreciation of the grievance seems to have been of a philosophical kind, for, though he was frequently in office during the period, and was a great friend of the Church, he did nothing to remedy the grievance. I also grant that perhaps the operation of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, from which Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Her Majesty's Government purposely excluded the rating of tithes, may, as the Commission say, in some cases have thrown additional burdens upon incumbents. Having made those admissions, I will turn to two or three of the points in the noble Earl's speech. The noble Earl seems to be very much enamoured of deductions. He read to the House a good deal about deductions, and what could be fairly said as to the injustice of the assessment, and he then went on to say that what strengthened his opinion very much on this point was the Report signed by Mr. Cripps, Sir John Hibbert, and Sir G. Murray, who said they thought something should be done by way of deductions. I venture to submit that that Report does not strengthen the noble Earl's case very much, seeing that the Government has ignored those recommendations. I think these three gentlemen intended to refer rather to a readjustment of assessment, but at all events the proposal does not touch the real mischief you want to remedy, which is the fall in the value of the tithe, the £100 stock in 1836 having fallen to £68 at the present time. I am not going to deal with the question of Scotch teinds, as this Bill is concerned only with England and Wales; and with so much legal talent in your Lordships' House I am not going into the question as to how Rex upset Joddrell, or how Capel afterwards upset Rex. The references to legal decisions I pass by with the observation that both parties at different times have had reason to share the opinion of Mr. Bumble with regard to the law. Naturally, the noble Earl has picked out those passages in the Report which suit his case, but I am not going to follow his example by picking out those passages which suit my case. The noble Earl's speech was a very adequate and able one. He explained clearly the provisions of the Bill and the operation of it,

19
and, so far as I can see by the look of the benches opposite, the noble lords behind him will also be quite adequate in their support of him when we go to a Division, as I hope we shall, as a matter of protest. The noble Earl has economised our time by not arguing one or two objections to the Bill, to which I shall presently refer. He said the grievance was very urgent now, and that that was the reason why this Bill had to be brought forward. I do not quite understand the urgency, because, almost immediately after what was held to be the secure bargain of 1836, the incumbents and owners of tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice found that they did not like their bargain, and the Rev. Mr. Jones, in 1850, before a House of Lords Committee on parochial assessments, speaks of the eternal complaints and wailing of the tithe-owner. Therefore, there does not seem to be any very particular urgency. But the noble Lord takes the justum et tenacem propositi view of this bill, which was so resolutely taken in the House of Commons. I admire the tenacity with which the Bill was carried through the House of Commons by force of numbers. You have a very bad case, but you stick to it like men. As to the justice of the case, I join issue with the noble Earl. I think the justice in this Bill is of the abstract and indiscriminate sort, and, as detached from the special circumstances which it is called in to redress, as the stick of a rocket. I feel no surprise at all that this Bill has been brought in, because in 1898 the noble Marquess at the head of the Government received a deputation on the subject, and, from what the noble Marquess said to the deputation, it was perfectly clear that this question of tithes had entered into the "something must be done" phase, and my appreciation of that phase, from the reading of history, is that when that "something "is done it is nearly always something foolish, hurried, and very likely to embarrass the future. What I am surprised at, after what the noble Lord said to the deputation, is the very rough-and-ready character of this Bill. There does not seem to have been any attempt at the equipoise or delicacy of adjustment which I should have thought would have characterised a measure which most seriously affected the larger question of rating. The noble Marquess told the deputation that this question was clustered around with intricacies, en
20
tanglements, and anomalies, and he took the most cautious and accurate bearings on the whole subject. Whether it is due to his hand being forced by not having, admitted the tithe question in the Agricultural Rates Act or not, we are in this Bill again running on what I should call the Manacles of the noble Marquess's administration—a dole. How is this Bill recommended to us, especially in the other House? The noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading in your Lordships' House was more explicit in many ways, but in the other House the Minister for Agriculture, who managed the Bill admirably from his point of view, practically said: "The clergy are poor, and the tax-payers are rich; let us give them a bit on account, and it will never be missed. "When he was pressed for figures, and it was pointed out that, although the value of the tithe rent-charge had fallen, there had been a corresponding fall in the rates, he said that was not the point; the rates were still too high by half, and they were resolved to set the matter right by compelling the taxpayer to pay the half. Now I do not mind so much the question of money. I rather agree with one of the Government's, late supporters, Mr. Whiteley, who, in this particular connection, did not agree with the Government, and suggested that if it was only a question of £87,000, it would be better if private individuals put: their hands in their pockets and found the money. My objection to this Bill is that in regard to it the Government are bringing in the principle of re-endowment. I know that a great many people do not, admit that tithes are an endowment. I will assume for the moment that they are, and I will try to show your Lordships on what ground I think they are an endowment. The First Lord of the Treasury, in the other House, said he hoped he would hear no more trash about endowments. That was a very natural feeling, very naturally expressed, after hearing twice-told tales on this question—but is it altogether trash? I am not going into remote history of the Tithe question. You will be relieved by my not doing so, for a great authority on tithe, Mr. Prebendary Cove, in the beginning of 1816—I find the extract in the book written by the I noble Earl's father—said:
"This institution (the institution of tithes) was contained in some unrecorded revelation made to Adam, and by him handed down to posterity."

21
I therefore take the Act of 1836 as the starting point of my survey. The Act of 1836 said that every tithe rent-charge payable in money instead of in kind, and permanent in quantity, shall be subject to all Parliamentary, parochial, county, and other rates, charges, and assessments, in like manner as the tithes had hitherto been subject. The noble Lord spoke about the hardship of an incumbent, who got part of his income from tithe rent-charge, being rated in a different way to the occupier of a house in the same village. Let me point out that there is nothing very extraordinary in that. Tithes are land, and tithes for the purpose of settlement have been affirmed to be land as near the present time as the Settled Estate Act of 1882. It is quite true that incomes derived from funds have not to pay such heavy rates as incomes derived from tithes, but no more have endowments, and unless you are going to alter the whole system, that cannot be held a hardship on the tithe-owner. He is in the same position as any other owner of land. Very well, by the Act of 1836, tithe rent-charge, though it was freehold, was made subject in the most express way to the obligation of rates, and rates were proclaimed a first charge on the ownership. I am sure the right Rev. Prelates will not dispute that point. Therefore, assuming tithe rent-charge to be an endowment, the net value of the endowment is the balance of the tithe rent-charge which gets into the incumbent's pocket after the payment of the rates. Under this Bill you are going to relieve the incumbent of half those rates upon his tithes out of the general Taxation Account of England and Wales. It seems to me that if that is so you cannot get away from the fact that by this amount of half the rates on the tithes you either re-endow or create a new endowment in favour of the clergy of the Established Church, at the expense of the ratepayer, and you do this without any warning of anything of the sort to the constituencies in 1895. Turning to the right rev. Prelates who represent the Established Church in this House, I would like to ask them a plain question. I believe it was Mr. Burke who said that the object of the union of Church and State was not to make the Church political, but to make the State religious. I acknowledge in the fullest way what the right rev. Bench have done in the latter direction, but what I should like to ask them is, how
22
far the object of making the State religious, and not the Church political, is being served and safeguarded by a measure of the kind proposed by Her Majesty's Government. Are you satisfied that this is a desirable way of dealing with the hard pressure upon your clergy? Do you feel comfortable about it under your lawn? The Report of the Commission speaks of "the acute sense of dissatisfaction" which animates the clergy of the Established Church owing to the present methods of assessing tithes for rating purposes. Will you get rid of that acute sense of dissatisfaction by creating it, and in a most disagreeable form, in the ranks of your opponents, to a man, and of many of your friends? My Lords, I am certain your poverty but not your will consents. I really am sorry to see the Church, at this particular moment in her domestic affairs, forced into what seems to me to be a very undesirable position in the eyes of their fellow countrymen, and what is it all for? What is the consideration for£87,000 divided up between 11,000 parsons. You are going to become the bondsmen of Parliament, and how is this £87,000 to be distributed? With any regard for the rate-able ability of tithe owner? Not a bit of it. The noble Earl took hypothetical cases. I will take cases from fiction. I dare say your Lordships have heard of Parson Dove, in "Market Harborough, "who rode the best horses, drank the best claret, and bred the choicest Shorthorns, and I daresay you have also heard of the Vicar of Hoggerstock, who, after providing for his house-keeping, had nothing to distribute to his children but his scholarship. Under this Bill Parson Dove and the Vicar of Hoggerstock fare the same. In Otway's line, "Justice is lame as well as blind amongst us." Sir Edward Clarke, in the House of Commons, argued that in a Bill of this sort rich and poor should fare exactly alike. I dispute that altogether. The manner in which the money is to be distributed is very objectionable, for the man with £150 a year will receive the same treatment as the man with £500. Income tax and death duties draw distinctions. Property only begins at a certain point. Why could not you have done the same, and said above this figure less, below this figure more? As to the financial part of the Bill, I should have been glad to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say about it, especially

23
as he is an ex-Ecclesiastical Commissioner of long experience, and may be considered an expert. All we know is that in 1897 he said that the rating of tithe rent-charge "could not claim the kind or the amount of the relief given in 1896." Of course we are fairly accustomed to hear of a Bill being run through the House of Commons in defiance of the Minister from whose Department the Bill is supposed to emanate, and in this particular case there is nothing reassuring about the studied silence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He may be heart and soul with you, but the suggestion, I think, is the other way. It seems to me that the Government have failed to find the right way of dealing with the subject, and that being so they have hit upon the wrong way. As regards the Fund from which this clergy relief is to be taken, the noble Earl said we had a very good precedent in the way swine fever was dealt with, but I do not see the connection between swine fever and the Established Church. There is no dissent about bacon; bacon is the autocrat of the breakfast table; there is as little dissent about bacon in England as there is conformity in Wales, and I do not see how the swine fever analogy works out in this particular case. In conclusion, I propose to summarise the grounds upon which I move the rejection of this Bill. I quite recognise that the only way to reform rating is to alter and readjust the incidence of rating, but what we want is the simplification of rating as well as its reform. I submit, then, that by the provisions of the Bill you are introducing a novel and far-reaching method of exemption, equivalent to re-endowment; that the Bill must further confuse the relations of local and imperial taxation, already complicated and perplexing enough; that this question of the incidence of rates on tithe should be dealt with side by side with the whole question of local taxation now sub judice, and which is already sufficiently complicated by previous exemptions; and that by dealing with the tithe question in this way you are, as it were, mortgaging by a first charge (resting on a new and outlandish principle) your powers of dealing equitably with the whole question of local taxation in the interests of the ratepayers at large. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Amendment moved to leave out "now," and add at the end of the motion "this day three months."—(The Lord Ribblesdale.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I think it will probably be expected that I should say something in regard to this Bill, on account of the fact that the case for it was made out before the Commission over which I have the honour to preside. But, my Lords, after listening to the speech of the noble Lord I am very much at a loss to find out what precisely is the case against the Bill which I am expected to answer. I do not understand the fact to be contested that the present position of the clergy of the Church of England who will be dealt with by this Bill is exceptional, and one of quite unparalleled hardship. I do not think the noble Lord who has just sat down attempted to contest the overwhelming amount of evidence which could be brought forward to establish that position, and therefore I do not propose to go at length into it. I will content myself with referring your Lordships to the conclusions arrived at by the Commission, after a prolonged and careful inquiry. Those conclusions have already been set out, and they are as follows:

I. That the representations made to the Commission on behalf of the owners of tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice have shown that the burden of local taxation upon such owners is unduly onerous, and that sufficient allowance is not made for the fact that the persons entitled to the rent-charge are under a legal obligation to render services and to perform duties in return therefor.

II. That the case of the owners of tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice is based on the ground, which we consider to have been fully established, that the present law, as interpreted by the Courts, works unjustly, and places those owners in a much less favourable position than other owners who are also occupiers of rateable property.

III. That there exists an exceptionally acute feeling of dissatisfaction with regard to the hardship of the law as it stands.

IV. That, in view of all the circumstances, although incumbents are not entitled to be wholly relieved from liability to be assessed to local rates in respect of tithe rent-charge—indeed, such a claim has not generally been made by witnesses who have appeared before us—yet, pending the final recommendations of the Commission on this and

25
the other matters referred to us, the case of the parochial incumbent owning tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice may properly be met by some special measure of relief.

I do not understand that the justice of; these conclusions is challenged, except, perhaps, the last one. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, in his reference to Mr. Gladstone, said that Mr. Gladstone's appreciation of the hardship was not very acute, or he would have done something for them. I venture to think that perhaps the explanation of the fact that Mr. Gladstone did not remedy this injustice may be found in the temper of the majority of his followers. The noble Lord said we ought to have proceeded on the question of making deductions, and he attaches great weight to the Note to the Report signed by three of my colleagues. The answer to that is plain and simple. We cannot touch the question of assessment without touching all the ratepayers. That is a question of great difficulty and great complication, and will have to be dealt with with great care. What we say in the Report is, that the present state of matters is one of such exceptional hardship that no time should be lost in applying a remedy. The noble Lord also said that this was a question of re-endowment. I suggest that it is no such thing. It is a question of the taxation of an endowment, and, if the injustice of the present position is admitted, and if any remedy of this kind is to be considered re-endowment, I do not sec how we shall ever be able to touch any rating anomaly or adjust any rating question at all. I myself came to this question without a great deal of personal knowledge of the precise position of matters, and I can assure your Lordships that, coming to it in that way, it was not long before I became as convinced as any of those whose opinions have been quoted of the extreme hardship to which the clergy are subjected in connection with this matter. I do not think much attention has been given to it, but there is a table in the Appendix to the Report which is very eloquent on the point. It gives eighteen cases from different counties. They have been in no way selected by us; they are those which were put before us. We took first the information which was given by the incumbents concerned. We carefully tested it by the production of the demand notes for their rates. We obtained returns from the overseers of
26
the parishes concerned, and in some cases we made an independent investigation of the rate books, and checked the returns of the tithe rent-charge from public documents. In one of these cases—I admit it was an exceptional case—the percentage of the rate which the owner of the tithe rent-charge had to pay amounted to 39 per cent, of the income from tithe rent-charge, and in ten of the eighteen cases it was upwards of 20 per cent. In other words, if the owner of a tithe rent-charge received £200 from that source, he would have to pay £40 in rates alone. The noble Lord who spoke last did not go further back into history than the Tithe Rent-Charge Commutation Act of 1836, and he quoted, as if it was conclusive of all the questions at issue, a paragraph from that Act. It said that every tithe rent-charge payable in money and permanent in quantity was declared to be subject to all Parliamentary, parochial, county, and other rates in like manner as the tithes had hitherto been subject. That is so; but everything turns on the expression "in like manner. "It is on that point that a great deal of injustice arises. I will not go into the history of all the Acts and decisions, but anyone who knows the terms of the Act of 1601, the famous Act of Queen Elizabeth, will find that the persons there to be rated are described as inhabitants and occupiers, and that the parsons and the vicars are not put among the occupiers, but among the inhabitants; and I think the great mass of authorities hold that that means that the parson shall be rated, not as an occupier, but according to his ability. Therefore, if the clause which the noble Lord quoted in the Tithe Rent-Charge Commutation Act is not detached from its context, and is taken to mean what Parliament must have intended it to mean, it is that the owner of tithe rent-charge was to be rated according to his ability as an inhabitant, and not as an occupier. As the noble Lord said, the Parochial Assessments Act of 1836 declared that a property was to be valued on the basis of the rent at which it might reasonably be let, with deductions for the cost of repairs, insurance, and other expenses. I agree entirely with what the noble Earl said who moved the Second Reading, and I will not add a word to it, as to the utter impossibility of fairly applying such a test as that to tithe rent-charge, which never has been let. Under a subsequent decision, that

27
of "Regina v. Capel," it was decided that the owner of tithe was to be rated like the occupier of land. In the same year an Act was passed to exempt personal property from liability to rates, and a proviso was inserted in that Act to the effect that nothing contained in it was to affect the liability of the parson or the vicar or any occupier of land, houses, or tithes. Just see what the effect of that decision was. Occupiers of the property mentioned in the Statute of Elizabeth were exempted from the terms of the Act of 1840, which exempted personal property from rating; but, by the decision of the court, the parsons, although classed in the Act of 1601 as inhabitants, are treated as occupiers. The exemption would add to the burden of other ratepayers to some extent, and would, to that extent, be an injustice to them. But I think I am entitled to say that, having regard to the history of the matter, I believe it was the intention of Parliament that when the owners of personal property were exempted that owners of tithe rent-charge should be exempted also. I may be pardoned, perhaps, if I give an illustration from what happened in Scotland. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill alluded to the question of teinds. The first Poor Law Act in Scotland was passed in 1845. In that, by name, the minister was held to be liable to be rated, but so was every other owner of personal property. An attempt was made to rate all "means and substance"—the Scottish equivalent to rating inhabitants according to their ability; but that system broke down in Scotland, as it has broken down everywhere, and it was finally repealed and got rid of in 1861 by the Act which was passed by the Liberal Government of that day. That Act, which did away with rating upon means and substance of the general inhabitants, by specific words did away with the liability of teinds to be rated for the poor. I am afraid I do not quite understand the contention of the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill about the deductions which ought to be allowed. The case that I should be inclined to put forward is this, that the question of letting value is inapplicable to the rating of tithe rent-charge. I do not believe that the intention of Parliament was effectually carried out by the Act of 1836. Certainly, the attempt to get
28
an adequate amount of deductions from the tithe rent-charge on the ground of letting value has failed; but my point in regard to that is that it never was a thing which Parliament intended should be tried, and therefore it is not surprising to find that the enactments of Parliament failed to secure justice. The noble Lord said this scheme gives less relief where the burden is greatest. I do not think the noble Lord could have understood the contention of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, because he explained, I thought with perfect clearness, that the scheme adopted by the Government would work out in this way that, generally speaking, where rateable value has gone down, and where, therefore, presumably, greater hardship and poverty in the matter of rating exists, the relief under this Bill will be the greatest. I understood the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill to say that the poor rates had gone down, and that there was no case for the relief proposed. Assuming that the poor rate has gone down, there are two good answers to that, and the first is that the value of the tithe rent-charge has gone down owing to the action of Parliament. I shall not be accused of wishing to go back to the days of Protection if I say that it was probably owing to FreeTrade—owing to the beneficent action of Free Trade, if you like—that the tithe rent-charge has been reduced. Therefore, if you make a claim on the ground that the poor rate has been reduced by better administration or by a combination of other causes, I do not think you should leave those other circumstances out of account; and, if the poor rate has gone down, other rates have been commuted by the wisdom of Parliament from which no corresponding benefit is derived by the owner of tithe rent-charge. I think I have touched on all the points, except one, which were advanced by Lord Ribblesdale. There is one matter upon which I want to say a few words. The noble Lord referred to a certain deputation which waited upon the Prime Minister in the summer of last year. Other people have gone further in insinuations than the noble Lord. I do not know that it would be becoming—I certainly do not think it would be necessary—to make any reference here to all the allegations which

29
have been made in partisan journals or in the heat of party controversy. But assertions have been made by persons who are in a position which render it necessary to take notice of their assertions that the Report from my Commission was brought forward by the desire of the Cabinet, and that the Commission had been turned in that way to a partisan purpose. I suppose when I say that there is not the shadow of a shade of foundation for any such allegation my statement will be accepted. I can give dates which will prove that the assertion is absolutely without foundation. The Commission was appointed in August, 1896. Early in 1897 we received a good deal of evidence on the valuation system in England and Wales, and at the same time many witnesses came forward on behalf of the clerical tithe-owners to complain of the hardship of their position. We were much impressed by the strength of the case which they made out, and devoted some time to a special inquiry into that matter, Amongst others we had Mr. De Bock Porter, Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, before us, and after hearing him, in the course of the summer of 1897, we decided upon the preparation of an interim Report on the subject of valuation and of tithe rent-charge. In November, 1897, the first draft of that Report was circulated by my colleagues. It was discussed by us during the months between November and January, 1899, and if it had not been for the special circumstances to which I shall allude it would have been presented at an earlier date. But during the months of February and March of last year a considerable agitation arose in regard to this subject, and we received some hundreds of letters from people in various parts of the country, many of whom were desirous of giving evidence, and others of whom made claims, which we could not possibly report in favour of. Under those circumstances, as a Commission, we came to the conclusion that we could not shut out that evidence without laying ourselves open to the charge of not having reported at full length. We should have been accused of not having fully heard the case before we made up our minds; and, therefore, we were obliged, in order to hear this further evidence, to delay the Report, and to select such evidence as, after having it before us, we thought it was necessary for us to hear. In the course of last autumn the Report was again dis-
30
cussed by my colleagues, and was signed and completed in January of the present year. I wish to say in the most distinct way that there is no foundation whatever for the statement that this Report originated in a suggestion made to my Commission or to me from any of my colleagues in the Government. It arose entirely because we were impressed with the justice of the case put before us, and it was on that ground, and on that ground alone, that the Report was signed. Is it to be supposed that Sir John Hibbert, Mr. Murray, and the others who signed the Report would lend themselves to such an action as that I have indicated? I have thought it right, on account of the prominence of some of those who have given this assertion currency, to make this statement somewhat fully in my place in Parliament. I do not think what has been said by Lord Ribblesdale breaks down the contentions of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. In the whole experience of my political life I have never been more impressed with the absolute justice of a case that has been put forward, and I, therefore, earnestly hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord who has just sat down had no necessity to make the statement which he has made at some length with regard to the origin of the Report of this Commission. The subject of tithe rent-charge is one in which I was very actively interested when I was a Member of the House of Commons, and with which I was officially connected during the period of the late Government. Therefore I trust, my Lords, that I shall have your indulgence if I venture for a few moments to intervene in this Debate. I must confess that had I not reasons for speaking, I should have been somewhat tempted to do so after listening to the speeches of the introducer of this Bill and the noble Lord who has just sat down. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, as we should have expected, spoke with ability and eloquence, and the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill did so with great lucidity. But neither noble Lord has touched the question which seems to affect us more as politicians—namely, the principle on which this Bill is founded, and on which you found its methods and procedure. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill dealt.

31
at great length upon the various hardships that befall the clergy of this country, and I gathered that if we were to repeal a great many Statutes and upset a good many judicial judgments, we should be able largely to increase the incomes of the clergy, and if the noble Earl's arguments mean anything, they mean that the whole of the taxation should be taken off that suffering body. There is no remedy of this kind in the Bill. Therefore I listened to the noble Earl's arguments with surprise. The noble Earl said that the late Liberal Government had used the same means of obtaining money under the Swine Fever Act. That is what a friend of mine calls the "pig and parson argument. "The Swine Fever Act benefited the whole of the country—both the rural districts and the city—but this Bill is for the benefit of a special class, and a small class of the community. It is said that the Bill is founded on the interim Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of local taxation. I have read the Report of that Commission with the greatest interest, and I am bound to say that I can find nothing in it which bears upon the provisions of this measure. It is perfectly true that the Report affords an excuse to the Government for a plea of urgency in regard to this matter, and it is also true that in the body of the Report very hard cases are brought forward where the burdens press heavily on the clergy. But these cases are not remedied by this Bill. You have not touched the fringe of the question. I will take paragraph 95, which deals with the case of an incumbent who has to pay for a curate. We can understand the case in which a living was formerly a small one, yet sufficient for the maintenance of an incumbent and his family; in time, however, by some industrial accident, a small village may expand into a town, and in order to look after the spiritual needs of his parishioners the incumbent has to obtain one, two, or three curates. That seems a hard case which calls for a special remedy, but where is the special remedy in this Bill? It does not exist. It is true that, in the conclusions, the Commission draw attention to the fact that the burden of local taxation presses inequitably on clerical tithe-owners, and that there exists among them great dissatisfaction. We did not want a Royal Commission to tell
32
us that. We have known the inequality of the incidence of local taxation and the inequality of the incidence under which tithe-owners are rated for the past sixty or seventy years, and surely, if the quession has been before the country for such a long period, and if the relief which your Bill gives is of so very small a nature, it would have been wiser and more statesmanlike if the Government had waited a little longer and had dealt with the question of local taxation as a whole. Had this Report of the Royal Commission contained some scheme to settle this vexed question of local taxation, it would have been welcomed, if it was a just and equitable settlement, by everyone, and it would have avoided this most invidious discussion, and this most invidious distinction between clergymen and laymen which naturally arises out of the very essence of your Bill. I have ventured to ask on what principle this Bill is founded. The Minister in charge of the Bill in another place (Mr. Long), whose great talent in dealing with a very thorny subject I am sure is generally recognised, told us that this Bill was founded upon principles of justice. Well, I am obliged to use an argument that has been used over and over again, but how can you say that your Bill is founded on principles of justice when it deals with only clerical tithe-owners and leaves the lay tithe-owners out in the cold? We know what the real and only grievance is which tithe-owners have in regard to rating. It is entirely a matter of assessment. As your Lordships know, with regard to property rateable for other than tithe rent-charge it is usually rated much below its value, but with regard to tithe rent-charge everyone can find out the exact value of the tithe rent-charge, and in some cases it is rated nearly to its full value. I venture to say that a clergyman is not rated on his professional income, and I would even go further and say that for practical purposes, in the legal sense, he is not really in receipt of a professional income at all. I have said that an incumbent is not rated on his professional income, and it is necessary, though I will be very brief, that I should make an incursion into history in order to try and prove that fact. Everyone knows that from time immemorial a certain portion of the tithe was set apart for the purposes of the poor.

33
The noble Marquess the Prime Minister shakes his read, but there are other authorities than the noble Marquess.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The noble Lord said "everyone knows." That I deny as a matter of fact.
LORD BURGHCLERE: If everyone does not know it, it is, at any rate, admitted in very learned works on the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On what side?
LORD BURGHCLERE: I refer to the authorities that agree with me, and, in the same way, the noble Marquess can, if he likes, quote the authorities that are against me. The authorities which agree with me tell me that from time immemorial a certain portion of the tithe was set apart for the use of the poor, and in time, naturally, in consequence of this, not directly, but, perhaps, indirectly, when the clergyman had to pay the poor rate on his tithe, he was merely fulfilling the original duty of the tithe, and putting aside that portion which had always been put aside for the poor. I contend that the true professional income of the clergyman is the net tithe, and as the net tithe suffers no diminution at all from local rating it cannot be said that the clergyman is rated on his professional income at all I said that the professional income of the clergyman did not in absolute legality exist at all, and I will tell you why I said that. The so-called professional income of the clergyman is tithe rent-charge, which is a freehold. I venture to ask whether any other professional income is a freehold. Moreover, as the income of the clergyman does not depend on his ability, his health, or the taste of his congregation, it cannot be compared with that of the ordinary professional man, who knows to his cost that it can often disappear at any moment. The professional income, as you call it, of the clergyman remains with him for his life. I have very strong legal authority to bear out what I have ventured to place before your Lordships. There is the case of "Regina v. the Inhabitants of Sherford," which is referred to in this Report, though what I am going to read to your Lordships does not appear
34
in the Report. In that case Mr. Justice Mellor said the hypothetical tenant would give the same price for the occupation of the tithe rent-charge whether the service was performed by the vicar, or was left wholly unperformed. The occupation in no case depends on whether the services are performed by the owners, or by curates, or not performed at all. This means that tithe rent-charge does not depend on the services of the clergyman, and therefore it follows that it is not a professional income in the true sense of the word. Therefore I think your Lordships will admit that the whole case falls to the ground. You cannot say that this Bill is founded on justice if you say to one man on one side of the hedge, "You shall receive relief because you are a clergymen, "and to the man on the other side of the hedge, "You shall not receive relief, although your grievance is the same. "I contend that this Bill is not founded on justice, but there is another principle on which the Bill might have been founded, which would have appealed more closely to our hearts, that of charity. No one who has lived in the country can be unconscious of the unmerited sufferings of many of the poorer clergy, in common, I am bound to say, with the poorer class of landlords, in consequence of the great fall in agricultural produce during the last twenty-five years. Had it been possible for noble Lords opposite to have brought in a Bill which would have relieved these gentleman out of some fund from which the money might be properly taken, I am sure it would have been welcomed in every part of the House with the greatest enthusiasm. But this Bill does nothing of the sort; the Bill is a rating Bill. It therefore follows that the more rates a person pays—i.e., the richer he is—the more he will receive under the Bill, and the less rates he pays—i.e., the poorer he is—the less he will receive. In fact, my Lords, from the standpoint of charity, this Bill is the exact converse of a graduated income tax. The richer you are the more you receive; the poorer you are the less you receive, and that is the absolute effect of this Bill. You cannot, therefore, say it is founded upon charity. The true principle of the Bill, as I understand it, consists in the distribution of a certain sum of money, a very small sum, annually amongst clergymen in the country. Every clergyman, after the

35
passing of this Act, will receive an increase to his income in consequence, and he will receive it out of the Local Taxation Fund. This fund is made up of certain Imperial taxes which have been allocated to certain localities for certain specific purposes. The money is the absolute property of the bodies to whom it has been allocated; it comes out of the pocket of the Imperial taxpayer in the first instance, and goes into the pocket of the local taxpayer in the second. If every taxpayer and ratepayer in this country was a member of the Church of England, I could quite understand that the Bill would be received nemine contradicente; but, as your Lordships know, many taxpayers are not members of the Church of England. They have churches of their own to pay for, and now, for the first time since the repeal of the church rates, the Government are going to enable those taxpayers to say that they are forced to contribute to a church which is not their own. Among 11,000 people £87,000 is something under £8 a head, and for this miserable sum, I would call it, we are going to place an effective weapon in the hands of the enemies of the Established and Endowed Church. If ever there was a case of being penny wise and pound foolish, this is one. I shall vote against the Bill, not because I wish to deprive the clergy of any ultimate relief to which they are justly entitled, but because I believe I have shown that this Bill is not founded on principles of justice or charity; and I shall vote against it, above all, because I am firmly convinced that it would have been wiser and more statesmanlike to have waited for the Report on the whole question of local taxation, instead of giving relief to a special class, at a most inopportune time for the Church, and at the risk of awaking ancient prejudices and ancient feuds.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House at any length; but as, of course, I cannot but be very much interested in the question now discussed, I think it my duty to say a few words on behalf of the Bill which has been so severely criticised. In spite of the arguments of the noble Lord who has just sat down, I still maintain that the relief of the clergy from the excessive burden of the rates is a matter of justice. It has been just urged that there is no justice in
36
it because it relieves the clerical owners of tithes and leaves out of consideration the lay owners of tithes. The difference; between the two is very great indeed. The clergyman has his tithe, but it is subject to a necessary obligation, and that obligation cannot be left out of consideration. Here is a man who receives, say, tithe to the amount of £200 a year, and for this he is bound to render service; and here is another case where a man receives the same sum from the same source, and he is under no legal obligation whatever. The noble Lord who spoke last said there is a difference between this and an ordinary professional income, because a professional income varies and depends upon a man's health. But it is not the case that a clergyman is free from obligation, and that he receives his tithe whether he discharges his duty or not; he is compellable in the discharge of his duty. If a clergyman falls ill, he must get assistance for the discharge of the duty, and his Bishop will certainly require him to do so; and there are cases very numerous indeed in which that requisition is made upon him, and he has to pay a very considerable sum comparatively from his reduced income to discharge his obligation. I say it would be very unjust to put upon the same footing the man with this obligation and the man receiving the same amount free from such a burden. It may even be that, in order to get a curate, a clergyman may have to pay £150 out of the £200, and are we yet to be told that the clergyman should be on the same level and receive no more consideration than the layman who receives £200 and has no obligation whatever? That position is not tenable for a moment. The two properties are not of equal value. Measured by any standard of value you please, a property with a burden of obligation upon it is not of equal value with property having no such burden. The rates press unjustly upon the clergyman, and this is not affected by the fact that the relief now proposed to be given does not help the layman; the layman's case is on a totally different footing. But it is urged there is no injustice, because a clergyman's income is not the whole tithe rent-charge, but the net tithe rent-charge after the deductions made—that is, after he has paid these heavy rates. Of course, it is possible to put it in that way and fancy that thus you get rid of the injustice,

37
but I doubt if any man in this House would admit it to be just that deductions should be made before his net income could be obtained, and that he should have nothing to do with these, and that he would have no right to complain though tremendous fines were imposed, for he could only claim his net income. You may say there are other circumstances in which the rates are unjustly heavy. I will not say this is the only injustice to be redressed. If we were really to go into the whole matter of the incidence of rates, I have no doubt at all that a good many other cases of injustice would be discovered; but I do not think you will find any other case in which an injustice is so great and in which it so seriously interferes with the comfort of the taxpayer. I do not think you will find any other case of which it is possible to speak in language such as that used by a great statesman like Mr. Gladstone through years and years, and in language such as that used by the Royal Commissioners. The Bill is no more than an interim Bill; it corresponds to the interim Report. It proposes to redress a grievance, not in the way, perhaps, it will have to be redressed by-and-bye, when the whole subject is brought under review. It is quite possible that some different mode may then be found of dealing with the matter, but the injustice is so clear, and those suffering under it are so hardly pinched, that a delay to remedy would be a disgrace to the Legislature of this country. The clergy have long suffered under this grievance, and this is a reason why we should act at once to set matters right until the time comes when we shall have legislative proposals to redress other rating grievances also. I do not want to go into Acts of Parliament and decisions of the Courts; others can handle those matters better than I; but I maintain that the country ought not to delay giving justice to men who suffer injustice, even though those men are clergymen of the Church of England.
LORD DAVEY: My Lords, the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill drew a pathetic picture of a clergyman with a rent-charge of £300 a year, who paid rates on his tithe rent-charge and also on his house, and he compared his position with the position of a gentleman who was living in a house
38
rated at £300 a year, and who paid nothing on his income, which he derived elsewhere. Of course, that is a very touching picture; but, when you come to examine it, you find that the noble Earl might have said just the same, not only of the clerical tithe-owner, but of any person living on an income derived from land. By the law of this country here-ditaments—that is, land or real estate—are the only subjects of rating; personal property is not rated. That may be right or wrong, but this Bill does nothing to correct it. It may be that when the Commission has reported, over which the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland presides, something may be done in that direction, but in the meantime the picture drawn by the noble Earl depends for its truth, not upon anything connected with clerical tithe, but on the fact that on one side of the picture was a person who derived his income from land, and on the other side one who derived his income from personal property. We have heard a great deal about the present injustice. The right rev. Prelate has spoken in strong language of the "gross injustice, "but if I may venture to criticise the right rev. Prelate, I do not think he was quite so clear in his definition of the injustice, as he was emphatic in his denunciation of it. The Secretary for Scotland spoke of the "exceptional and unparalleled injustice" which clerical tithe-owners are subjected to. I have tried to find out what is exactly the character of the injustice which the clerical tithe-owner is said to suffer. What is meant by injustice in the matter of rating? It can only mean that there is inequality between the subjects rated. That is the only conception I can form of injustice in rating. All rateable subjects ought to be rated equally, and that is the principle which the English law has endeavoured to carry into effect. It may be that in particular cases the equality which is laid down by law is not observed, but that is due to no fault of the present law, but to the manner in which the assessments are made. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, speak of the construction of the Act of Elizabeth as an open question. Of course, there are people, even in this country, to whom nothing is settled, to whom a uniform course of decisions by the competent

39
Courts of this country for over 300 years is as nothing, and may be rejected as lightly as a decision in an Ecclesiastical case. The construction of the Courts for centuries has been uniform that tithe should be rated on the same principle as other property. That is the construction which has been put by the Courts of Law without any dissent on that Statute, and in your Lordships' House we are surely not going to treat a construction of a Statute having that authority as still a vexed and open question. A very great Judge (Mr. Justice Littledale) said:
"The Statute of Elizabeth makes a parson liable in respect of the profits which he receives as parson."
Similar expressions have been used by other judges. If that be so, if, during the last two hundred or three hundred years the tithes have always been subjected to the payment of parochial rates, then it is obviously a fallacy to speak of a clergyman's income as the gross tithe. He has never had the gross tithe, and the remuneration of the clergyman has always consisted, since the Poor Law Act of Elizabeth, of the gross tithe, subject to the deduction of the rate, and the net tithe is alone the income to which by law the clergyman is entitled. Let me say one word about the Parochial Assessments Act, under which this gross injustice is supposed to arise. I quite agree that the test of the annual value in that Act is not a very happy one, and I agree that it is not directly applicable to many subjects of rateable value. But if your Lordships will be good enough to look to the wording of the Act, you will see that there is one over-riding principle laid down in that Act: that rates are to be made on an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereto. That is the principle laid down in the Act, and the principle which is now law. It means, of course, the full net annual value, and tithes being admittedly a rateable hereditament, the rate has to be paid on the net annual value given to them just the same as it is on the net annual value of a farm. What, then, is the grievance which is complained of, and which is said to be an exceptional and unparalleled injustice? From the speeches of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and also from the Report of the Commissioners, I gather that it is said to consist of two things. It is argued that the burdens of local taxation unduly press on the
40
clerical tithe-owner, that deductions ought to be made for the services which the incumbent of the parish is bound to render, and that the assessment of tithe-owners is unjust as compared with that of other rateable hereditaments. I venture to think that a very slight consideration of the matter will show that the argument is based upon a complete misconception. You do not rate property according to the value which it bears to the individual, but you rate it according to its abstract value as compared with other rateable subjects. I remember a case in regard to valuable docks, from which no income could be derived because the whole of the money had to be spent on public purposes, where it was said that the owners should not be rated because the income of the docks was not of any remunerative value to them. It was decided differently, and why? For the purposes of rating you must not look at the remunerative value of property to the man who receives the income; you must look to the absolute abstract value. A rateable occupation may be of no value to a man, but he has to pay on it whether it is remunerative or not. Noble Lords who consider this matter must see that it would be impossible to have any general system of rating upon any other basis. "The whole fallacy of the argument, ''said a learned judge in a case about thirty years ago, "is that the appellant is endeavouring to confound the rateable value to the poor rate with the remunerative value to the incumbent." To exempt the clergy would be an injustice to other ratepayers, and as to deducting the value of their services, I would like to ask how that is to be arrived at. The services of the incumbent do not help to earn the tithe, valuable as those services are. The tithe would be just the same whether the clergyman was lax or indefatigable in the discharge of his duties. It is a mere matter of arrangement whether the incumbent of the mother church receives the tithe rent-charge and pays the rates and then pays a certain sum over to the incumbent of the daughter church, or whether each pays its own proportion of the rates. The manner in which it is divided does not affect the rateable character or value of the tithe. Therefore, I contend that it would be introducing a new and perfectly impracticable system into the rating of this country if you attempted to rate people on the

41
remunerative value of the tithe rent-charge to the incumbent. It is said that the assessment of tithe-owners is unjust as regards the law. Well, my Lords, I do not deny that there are unions and parishes where the tithe is rated at its full net annual value, but where a deduction is made from the net annual value of other hereditaments before they are rated. Therefore, to use the language of Mr. De Bock Porter, who is referred to in the Report of the noble Lord's Commission:
"Tithe is rated more closely than other rateable hereditaments."
That is the grievance which was referred to in the evidence of Sir George Cornewall Lewis, which is quoted in the Report, and, so far as I can understand the quotations given by noble Lords opposite, it is also the grievance which was pointed out by Mr. Gladstone. But that grievance, I although I admit that it is a very considerable one, is not a grievance occasioned by the state of the law. It is not caused by any defect in the mode by which the law directs hereditaments to be rated, but by laxity of practice, and all that would be necessary to correct that would be for any tithe-owner who suffers injury and injustice from a bad assessment to apply the remedy which he has in his own hands. He can at any time object to the rate as unequal. The real truth, when you come to think of it, is not that the tithe-owner is over-assessed, but that others are in some instances under-assessed, and that is really, when you work it out carefully, the substance of the complaint. No alteration in the law is required, except, perhaps, that it might be expedient to pass an Act—which would be welcomed, I am sure, on this side of the House as well as on the other side—to compel Assessment Committees to follow the words of the Parochial Assessments Act, and rate the net annual value of all rateable hereditaments—land, as well as tithes—instead of, as they do now in some instances, rating only a certain percentage or proportion of the net annual value of the land. But that is a grievance local in its character, and far less extensive than is generally supposed. It is a grievance which the clergy have the means of correcting. Four years after the passing of the Parochial Assessments Act this very complaint was made in a case in the Queen's Bench Division, and Lord Denman said that if any case arose
42
in which the facts showed that the rule in the Parochial Assessments Act would work injustice to the tithe-owner, there would be no more difficulty in relieving him than in relieving one landowner as against another. If one landowner thinks he is over-assessed, while another is under-assessed, he has his remedy. But if it is thought that statutory power is required to redress the grievance, the form which the Statute should take should be to make it obligatory on Assessment Committees in every case to assess rateable hereditaments, as they are instructed to do in the Parochial Assessments Act—namely, on the net annual value. It is also said that since the Tithe Commutation Act new rates have come into existence, and that rates are now levied for different purposes in addition to those which were levied at the time the Act was passed. That is quite true, but will any noble Lord say that the amount of rates payable per £ in the rural parishes of this part of the kingdom is as large now as it was at the time when the Tithe Commutation Act was passed? It may be an exaggeration to say that in some instances they were 10s. in the £, though I believe it is not, but I am quite sure the average amount of the rates per £ in rural parishes at the present day in England is much less than it was at the time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act in 1836. Therefore, my Lords, I do not think there is anything in the suggestion that new purposes have been introduced. I have only one more word to say. The most rev. Prelate, said that you cannot contend that a man enjoys an income when that income is burdened. Well, of course, he has no remunerative enjoyment, or his remunerative enjoyment is lessened; but does the right rev. Prelate think that if a man has mortgaged his estate he should not pay the same rates as if he enjoyed the full remuneration? I am obliged to the right rev. Prelate for this suggestion on his part, for it illustrates the point which I have endeavoured to make, and shows the complete fallacy of looking at the remunerative value of the tithe to the incumbent, instead of to the rateable value of the hereditament.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I should not like this Debate to close without a few observations; but after so much has been said by my noble

43
friends behind me, and so many points of detail have been touched upon, I shall endeavour to make my observations as brief and as much to the point as I am able. There are one or two matters I desire to touch upon, because they present themselves to me not exactly in the light in which they have been placed before the House. One is the point on which my noble and learned friend who has just sat down has remarked, and to which several speakers before him naturally referred—namely, the complaint—a very old one—of the clergy that they are exposed to injustice on account of their interests being perfectly well known. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill quoted one piece of evidence given by Sir George Cornewall Lewis before the Committee of this House in 1850. This is the only quotation I will make, but I think it is only right, as one quotation has been made, to quote the other evidence which Sir George Cornewall Lewis also gave before the Committee. It was to this effect. He said:
"I am not aware myself of any disadvantage to which the owner of tithe rent-charge is subject other than this; that his cards are shown, whereas the cards of other ratepayers are not shown; and in my opinion the most proper and equitable mode of redressing that disadvantage is to compel the other party to show all his cards, rather than to withdraw the whole of them."
That shows that Sir George Cornewall Lewis, at all events, cannot be quoted in favour of such a remedy as this Bill intends to apply. But I have a further observation to make, and that is this: that in point of fact the cards are now shown. I speak from personal experience when I make the statement, because, as I know, the practice now is for the Government to supply, upon application from the Assessment Committees—and I believe they would always meet the application—a copy of the Income Tax Return. That Return does display the cards of every single rate-payer in the district, and it is a basis upon which well-informed Assessment Committees proceed. Therefore, as it seems to me, the notion—a very sound one before—that only the clergyman's income was known to those who had to assess the district, now has no foundation whatever. That is all I have to say on that particular point. I just now remarked that Sir George Cornewall Lewis would not have been in favour of the
44
mode in which this Bill purposes to apply a remedy; but another and a greater authority has been quoted, and quoted with great insistence from the other side, and that is the authority of Mr. Gladstone. Now, this I am perfectly certain of, as far as I can be certain, hypothetically, of what Mr. Gladstone, if he had dealt with this matter at all, would have done. Of this I am sure, that he never would have dealt with this matter piecemeal by way of what we call dole. On the contrary. he would have dealt with the question in conjunction with a reform of local taxation generally, which we all admit is an urgent and desirable measure. There are only one or two other remarks on particular points which I wish to make. One refers, not to a speech, but to a remark made by the noble Marquess as to a statement made by my noble friend behind me, that clerical tithe was formerly subject to contribution for the relief of the poor.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Earl allow me to correct him? The statement I objected to was that "everybody knew." I entirely deny that everybody knew it, because I did not know it, and therefore everybody did not know it.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have, of course, the greatest respect for the opinion of the noble Marquess, but, when authorities are referred to, I think it only right to point to this passage in a document, which I must presume the noble Marquess has read, namely, the Report of the Poor Law Commission of 1843. In this Second Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, in page 9, they say this:—
"It is stated in the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners in 1843, that before 1536 'the relief of the poor had been a legal charge, but undefined in amount, on the revenues of the secular clergy, aided by the many exclusively charitable foundations, and by the regular alms of the monasteries and religious houses, collegiate churches, hospitals, and cathedrals.'"
At all events, the Poor Law Commissioners of that day—and they were a body for whose opinion I think we should always entertain a high respect—were of opinion that there was foundation for the statement that the payment of clerical tithe was originally subject to a

45
contribution towards the relief of the poor. I do not labour the point much; I merely mentioned it in defence of my noble friend behind me with reference to the observations of the noble Marquess. Now, my Lords, it seems to me that as regards the income of the clergy my noble and learned friend who has just spoken has put the point very clearly. I cannot myself see at all how the possession of property which is subject to some particular duties on the part of the incumbent entitles him to bear a less share of the local burdens incident to the property in the locality in which he lives than if he had not been subject to such duties. The very tenure upon which he holds it is the performance of these duties; that is the title-deed of what we may call his estate; and I do not see that any portion of that money which can be properly raised from that part of the fund arising from the cultivation of the land ought to be subject to less charge because of the circumstance that the possessor of that particular property is liable to perform particular duties. As a matter of justice, I cannot see that there is any reason whatever for it. It is a property which from extremely old times, in the shape of tenths of produce, has been assigned to the Church and held by them. That property has been subject, at all events from the time of Queen Elizabeth, for the payment of this rate, and although undoubtedly if you go into a general revision of the system of rating, and you come to the conclusion that as between different classes of property in this country some change should be made, it would be right to hear any point which the clergy have to put forward, yet I do not see, on the ground of justice simply, any sound ground for suddenly—for I think it is very suddenly, considering that it was not dealt with under the Agricultural Rating Act—finding it necessary to give what I must call a dole to all the clergy, to relieve them especially from a portion of the rates to which their property has always been subject. Many of us are extremely surprised that this matter was not put by the Government opposite on the same footing as the Agricultural Rating Bill; and we all remember—what is still more singular—a speech by a most important authority, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he took a view which seems to me to be exactly antagonistic to the course pursued by the
46
Government in this case. My Lords, the general question of rating is one which some Government must deal with. The general question of rating, I am afraid, will not be solved by the expedient suggested by my noble and learned friend behind me. I fully admit that to secure a perfectly fair and equitable assessment of all property will tax the energies and the wisdom of the most experienced statesmen of this country. It has puzzled Commission after Commission. It has puzzled some of the moat acute men I know. Curiously enough, I was a member, so long ago as 1850, of the Committee of this House which then considered this subject, and I know well, though I was a very humble member of it, that the Committee separated without having been able to come to any satisfactory conclusion. I only hope that in our time we may be able to deal with the matter in a more complete and comprehensive manner. But, my Lords, we are told that this is not a question of the poverty of the clergy, but that it is a question of justice. If it were a question of the poverty of the clergy I should still feel a very serious and grave objection to any such grant from the public Exchequer as practically this Bill makes to the clergy. It is impossible to deny that this is placing upon the ratepayers of this country generally a charge in order to relieve the clergy from what is said to be an injustice—that is to say, that whereas a large fund has been apropriated to the use of the different local authorities, and paid to them yearly according to the produce of certain taxes, now a certain part of this is to be diverted from that fund—that is to say, taken out of the pockets of the ratepayers who have hitherto enjoyed it—taken from the City of London and taken from all parts of the country—and put into the pockets of one particular class. I say that that is unjust and unfair to the other portion of the community. It is unjust to those ratepayers who derive no benefit whatever in the matter, having very few tithe-owners probably in their district. It is unjust to the people of the towns, whose rating system is interfered with in this unfair manner. And here I must express my—I will say astonishment at the statement of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I most willingly and gladly recognise the ability and the clearness and the moderation with which

47
the noble Earl stated the case for the Bill, but one particular point which I must refer to has created a great deal of astonishment in my mind, and that is when the noble Earl argued that it was perfectly defensible to take any portion of that fund for the purpose of alleviating any distress or grievance there might be. My Lords, the allocation of that fund is fixed in the most natural and just manner, namely, that the amount to be paid in every county or district or city is calculated on the amount of assessed rateable property in that county or city, and to take from that fund specially any particular portion of the fund is, I think, a violation of the fair pledge and promise which was given by the Act to all the local authorities throughout the country. I cannot conceive—quite apart altogether from the merits of the particular case we have before us—that anyone would really insist on that argument, because if it were widely applicable it would lead to consequences most embarrassing, and it seems to me most unjust. My Lords, I have no wish to trouble the House upon minute points which have been argued so often, but I must confess that my objection to the Bill is a much broader one. I object absolutely to money being taken in any form from the pockets of the taxpayers of this country to add an additional endowment to the clergy of the Established Church, for that in effect is the result of the proposal to pay half the rates of the tithe rent-charge owner. To relieve the clergy of half the rates they have hitherto paid will increase their incomes by exactly that amount; that is a new endowment, and I believe that to create any new endowment of the Established Church is contrary to the principles upon which we have now acted for generations; and I believe, further, that if there is any one thing more likely to increase the most grave dissatisfaction, which it is impossible not to see now exists with the Church of England among very large classes in this country—a dissatisfaction which I fear is increasing, and which may possibly lead to very grave consequences—if anything is likely to increase that feeling, and to make it more difficult to settle questions which all well wishers of the Church will wish to see settled, it is that the Government in any form whatever should make it clear to large bodies of the taxpayers of this country, a very
48
large portion of whom are not Churchmen, that money is taken out of their pockets for the purpose of endowing the clergy of the Church of England. Believing that this is a most dangerous, disastrous, and unjust policy, I shall vote with the greatest satisfaction against the Second Reading of this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, at this hour of the evening I shall be very brief. I wish first to make an observation with respect to an interruption I made during the speech of the noble Earl opposite. I was surprised to hear that old story revived about the division of the tithe among the poor and the clergy, after the complete destruction of it in the book of the late Lord Selborne. I have not got the book here, because I did not expect the question to arise, but it is a very well-known passage. If I recollect it aright the purport of it is that no one has produced or ever will produce a record of any such division as that mentioned by the noble Lord as having actually taken place. Therefore, I felt justified in denying at once the authenticity of a story which has already been too much published abroad. I ought also to say a word with respect to the definition of what constitutes value given by the noble and learned Lord opposite. He said that value was wholly independent of its remunerative character to the person who received it, and it was on that account that he and others insisted very much on the similarity between lay and clerical tithe-owners, and that in the distinction that was made between them in the Bill there was an element of evident injustice. Now, I find that the definition in the Parochial Assessment Act is different from that of the noble and learned Lord. There is not that subtle distinction between remunerative value and value that is not remunerative.
LORD DAVEY: There is nothing, about that in the Act.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What the Act says is:
"No rate for the relief of the poor in England and Wales shall be allowed by any justices or be of any force which shall

49
not be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto, that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year."
LORD DAVEY: That is the mode of ascertaining the net annual value.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I myself have the pleasure of being to a very small extent a lay impropriator. I conceive that it would make the very greatest difference in the estimate of anybody who wished to hire my privileges, whether I had to conduct two services on the Sunday or not, and it is absurd to say that a tithe rent-charge is of the same value whether or not it is burdened by a difficult and laborious charge. But, my Lords, we are not dealing with that here—we have not introduced a Bill to deal with subtle metaphysical distinctions. We have introduced it to remedy an obvious and patent injustice. It is a grave injustice that whereas the parson ought to be rated on the same principles as the other occupiers, you find, in fact, that the deductions which settle the amount and proportion of rating are very much more favourable to the agricultural occupier than they are to the parson who holds the tithe. That, however you like to explain it, is the actual fact, and that is the injustice we wish in some sort to remedy. I do not wish to dwell upon points which have been already adequately dealt with, but I wish to call attention to just one circumstance on which I think sufficient stress has not been laid in this Debate. We are very much attacked for the source from which we have drawn this relief, and it has been stated that we ought, before relieving a patent and pressing injustice, to have entered into the consideration of a scheme for recasting the whole of the complex fabric of English rating. My Lords, this is a transitory Bill; it is only to run for two years. I do not know whether it has ever occurred to noble Lords opposite that one of the most important provisions in the law of rating, one of the most far-reaching and widespreading—namely, that which exempts personal property from being rated—is not part of the stable, fixed statute law of the country. It is re-enacted every year, and that formal
50
process has gone on ever since 1840. This year you will be again asked to assent to a law by which personal property shall be exempted from rating. By doing so you will not only be consenting that that shall be the case, but you will at the same time lay down that the exemption of personal property is not fixed and accepted for all time, but from year to year, and which any year you may abandon. How has the law of rating got into this extraordinary condition? If you will refer to this interim Report, you will see it is intimately connected with the subject we are now discussing. In 1840, in a certain case, the judges decided that personal property was still subject to rating. The announcement created the greatest panic, and the Government of the day were very much pressed by Sir Robert Peel to put an end to the difficulty and introduce the requisite amendment in the law of rating. But it was not done. Simply this temporary Act was passed, which has gone on being renewed every year from that year to this. Mr. Coode, a great authority, was asked in 1846 why the Bill was made a temporary one, and he replied:—
"Because there were then various matters in question, especially the rates of the clergy, with tithe-owners in respect of their tithe, and in order not to prejudice these pending questions the Bill was made annual, the Government at the time contemplating, I think, a general dealing with the subject."
Now, my Lords, that shows that this question of tithe rating has been now for half a century looked upon as in an unstable and transient and ephemeral condition, and Parliament has always, apparently, judging by this yearly ceremony, looked forward to a period when it should deal with the great problem and riddle of rating, and when it should try to abolish the extreme injustice which throws this vast expenditure on a kind of property that is only one-fifth of the whole property of the country. I join my hopes to those of the noble Earl that Parliament may undertake that task, but I do not envy any Government that has to do it. Clearly the tithe question is, like the personal property question, in a transitory condition. In that condition we find it now, after half a century. We cannot in reason ask those who have suffered under this wretched state of things, especially at this period of their extreme distress, to go on trusting in the prospect of our

51
being able to amend the whole law of rating within any early time. If we can do it, so much the better; but, between that time and this something must be done to relieve the distress under which the clergy are suffering. At all events, if Parliament is indolent, or Parliament is unable to undertake this task, do not let the clergy go on suffering year after year for a fault which is not their own. Let this money, which is contributed from the general taxation, be paid in order to offer, I will not say compensation, but an adequate substitute for a more just law of rating. Pass it only in a temporary form; hope that you may be able to deal
with the whole subject and to avoid all modes of remedy which shall be exposed to any kind of cavil or censure; but, until that end is attained, and while the grievous period in between has to be passed by the clergy, let us give to them this, which is only a sad and sorry compensation for all the wrong that they have suffered at the hands of the Rating Law since the year 1836.
On Question, whether "now" shall stand part of the motion, their Lordships divided. Contents, 113; Not Contents, 23.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Harlech, L.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Harris, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Selborne, E.

Hastings, L.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stamford, E.

Hood of Avalon, L.

Verulam, E.

James, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.)

Grafton, D.

Marlborough, D.

Falkland V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Northumberland, D.

Hood, V.

Lawrence, L.

Portland, D.

Llandaff, V.

Lurgan, L.

Westminster, D.

Peel, V.

Macnaghten, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Middleton, L.

Abergavenny, M.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Gloucester, L Bp.

Morris, L.

Lansdowne, M.

London, L. Bp.

Norton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Ormathwaite, L.

Zetland, M.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Penrhyn, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Plunket, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Winchester, L. Bp.

Raglan, L.

Rathmore, L.

Ancaster, E.

Revelstoke, L.

Camperdown, E.

Addington, L.

Rookwood, L.

Clarendon, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Rossmore, L.

Coventry, E.

Ampthill, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Dartrey, E.

Ashcombe, L.

Shand, L.

De Montals, E.

Bagot, L

Sherborne, L.

Denbigh, E.

Balfour, L.

Sinclair, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Belper, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Brampton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Dudley, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Stanmore, L

Egerton, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Eldon, E.

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

Suffield, L.

Feversham, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Templemore, L.

Haddington, E.

Colchester, L.

Teynham, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ventry, L.

Lindsey, E.

Cranworth, L.

Wantage, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Dinevor, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Mansfield, E.

Farquhar, L.

Windsor, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wolverton, L.

Morley, E.

Glanusk, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Ripon, M.

Aberdare, L.

Hawkesbury, L.

Ardilaun, L.

Hobhouse, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Battersea, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carlisle, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Reay, L.

Carrington, E.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Braye, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Crewe, E.

Burghclere, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Kimberley, E.

Coleridge, L.

Spencer, E.

Davey, L.

Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Earl of Denbigh.)

POST OFFICE—HALFPENNY RATES.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I rise to ask the Postmaster-General if he proposes permanently to revoke the permission confirmed in 1876, and subsequently acted upon for more than twenty years, to send the filled-up rainfall forms of weather sheets at the halfpenny rate of postage; and to move, "That in the opinion of this House the rules governing the transmission of documents by the halfpenny post are anomalous, unsatisfactory, and difficult to interpret, and ought to be amended. "I submit, my Lords, that the first part of my notice of motion invokes sympathy for a useful and perfectly inoffensive class of persons, namely, meteorologists. The action of the Post Office inflicts upon meteorologists a certain amount of fine. I do not myself believe that the noble Duke the Postmaster-General was the originator of this scheme for a raid on the meteorologists; I am inclined to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the person who is responsible, because there is always difficulty in getting money wherewith to deal with various demands that are made by Her Majesty's Government, and I imagine that the proposition is to raise the wind by taxing the meteorologists. Now the Post Office is certainly no respecter of persons, for the person who is principally affected by this new regulation is Mr. Symonds, a member of the Royal Society, who has lately had the distinction of receiving the Albert Gold Medal for Science, and is certainly one of the foremost meteorologists of this country. Now, my Lords, the state of facts is this. In 1867, Mr. Symonds had prepared certain rainfall forms, which he distributed broadcast by correspondence throughout the country.
54
From 1867 to 1876, that is to say for nine years, those rainfall forms, when filled up, were sent back to him at the charge of a halfpenny for postage. In the year 1876 the Post Office surcharged one of these forms. Mr. Symonds protested; he asked for an apology, and he asked for a return of the money. The apology was made and the money was returned. Ever since that time, up to about a year ago, the Post Office has always allowed these rainfall forms to go for the halfpenny rate of postage—with this rather curious exception. Considering that these rainfall forms were distributed by the thousand all over the country—I believe something like 2,000 forms are returned every year to Mr. Symonds—one would have supposed that from 1876 to 1898 the Post Office would have known their own minds, and would have consistently either charged the halfpenny rate or surcharged the halfpenny; but in point of fact they did neither. Every now and then Mr. Symonds had a demand made upon him for the penny surcharged. He always resisted it, and the penny was invariably brought back to him by a postman. Now, not only did Mr. Symonds himself send out these rainfall forms, but he allowed various friends of his to use these forms. Amongst those friends of his may be mentioned the President of the Royal Meteorological Society. From 1888 to 1898 the present President of the Royal Meteorological Society, in his capacity as Secretary of the Croydon Natural History Club, sent out, with Mr. Symonds's consent, these halfpenny forms, and in no one instance was there any surcharge made. It certainly is a very remarkable thing, considering the number of forms that were sent, that the Post Office should put themselves to the trouble of occasionally making the surcharge, which involved them not only in the trouble of making the surcharge but in the trouble of apologising and sending a postman back with the penny. Then it would seem that the Post Office determined also to take the Colonies under their protection. Mr. Symonds had some of these forms back returned from the Colonies. The Colonies agreed to allow them to go at the lower rate of postage, but when they came to Mr. Symonds he was surcharged three pence. Mr. Symonds is not aware whether the three pence went to the Colonies or not. I do not quite

55
understand why the Colonies should not be allowed to look after themselves in these matters. Now with regard to the general question of the halfpenny postal rate, which is the second part of my notice of motion, the meteorologists ask that they may be placed in the same position as they always have held, and in the same position that is now occupied by a stockbroker who sends round a circular, or a tradesman who sends round receipts or invoices. I have no doubt the noble Duke will not be at all astonished when I tell him that not only the meteorologists have their grievance against the Post Office in reason of the halfpenny postal rate, but also tradesmen have their own special grievance. I will only give one instance at this late hour of the evening to show the kind of grievance against which the tradesman protests. The Post Office rules with regard to receipts and invoices and matters of that character which are sent by the halfpenny post so far as material are as follows. The "description of document" that may be sent at the halfpenny rate includes:
"Invoices orders for goods, advice notes, way bills, bills of lading, receipts, statements of accounts, prices current, market reports."
Then there are some conditions annexed on which the trouble arises, particularly this:
"That any matter … which may be in the nature of a letter shall be only in print and shall relate exclusively to the subject matter of the document or the terms on which business is transacted by the person or firm from whom the document issues."
I am not perfectly certain that if the Post Office were construing these conditions in what I might call a fair and business way there would be very much to complain of, but now I will show your Lordships how the Post Office act with regard to these matters. A certain firm of bootmakers in Leeds have a printed form as follows:
"We beg to acknowledge receipt of £… for … pairs of boots,"
and at the end—in print, not in writing—is put this:
"Your esteemed order is put in hand and shall have our best attention. Yours faithfully."
The Post Office surcharge this circular; and the reason they give is I think rather
56
peculiar. The firm in question, having no better means of redress, wrote to Mr. Henniker Heaton, who is very much in the habit of looking after Post Office matters. I would like to read to your Lordships this passage from their letter. They say:
"We have been in the habit for a number of years past of sending receipts similar to the one enclosed, and which is marked 'A,' and until the last few weeks we have not had any complaint whatever; but a few weeks ago the Post Office authorities detained some of them, and wrote informing us that they required another halfpenny stamp before they would send them off, or, if sent off, the addressees would be surcharged one penny. We have looked up the Post Office regulations, and on page 5 (which we now forward you marked 'B'), paragraph 'F, 'the conditions on which receipts can be sent by the halfpenny post are set forth. There cannot be any question that we have complied with the first part of the section. This the Post Office admit, but say that in consequence of the words 'Your esteemed order' being put on receipt, we are contravening the second part of paragraph 'F,' as it does not relate exclusively to the subject matter of the document. With this we disagree, as the receipt has reference to a certain pair or pairs of boots, and the words above quoted have reference to the same boots and no others."
I certainly do not understand on what principle that surcharge has been made, unless it is the principle that has been mentioned in the House of Commons, which is that you must not use any word whatever that can by any possibility be considered as surplusage. For instance, you may write on a receipt "received," but you may not say "received with thanks." That is totally illegal; you must pay another penny if you want to say "received with thanks." Then, you may say "your order has been executed," but if you say "your esteemed order has been executed "you must pay another penny. Really, my Lords, it seems to me that this is the merest pedantry. Why on earth should the Post Office presume to dictate to the community the exact terms in which they should send or acknowledge orders? Is it not ridiculous, if people like to use the phrase "esteemed order, "that they should be placed under this kind of fine for using such an expression? Perhaps I have framed my motion rather badly, because, in point of fact, I should be satisfied if the noble Duke were to consider whether he could not import some modicum of common-sense into the interpretation

57
of these Post Office rules, instead of their being absolutely pedantic, as it seems they are. There is another point with regard to newspapers. A supplement to a newspaper, if it is sent alone, is charged a penny; if the whole newspaper is sent with the supplement it is only charged a halfpenny. I cannot imagine what justification there can be for that. Then, again, you are allowed to send your printed cards at the halfpenny rate of postage, but if you put on your card "with kind inquiries" you must pay the penny rate of postage. The peculiarity of all this is that there does not seem to be any method in what the Post Office does. It has been held that if an author sends his book to anyone he may write on it "with the compliments of the author." If you can do that, on what ground can it be said that you should not be allowed to put on your visiting card "with kind regards"? I should suggest that either these rules are in need of thorough revision, or else the Post Office should do their best to import something of what I may call common-sense into the construction they put upon the rules.
Moved, to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House the rules governing the transmission of documents by the halfpenny post are anomalous, unsatisfactory, and difficult to interpret, and ought to be amended."—(The Lord Monkswell.)
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I have done my best to see if it is possible to continue the practice of charging only halfpenny postage on the meteorological returns to which he has referred. There is really no deep plot against the interests of the Royal Meteorological Society. The fact is that we have found that for many years these forms have been charged at the halfpenny rate, though there was no legal authority for doing that. The society has for some years been reaping the benefit of our remissness in this respect. Now that the attention of the Post Office has been drawn to the matter, we find that we have no legal option but to adhere to the practice which has now been started
58
of charging the full rate for these returns. This position, no doubt, does lead up to the second part of the noble Lord's notice of motion, namely, the extreme difficulty of dealing always with every case on an equal footing as regards these rules. The real fact is this. Certainly I find at the Post Office—I imagine it is found in other Departments as well, but probably chiefly in the Post Office—that any concession whatever which is made to the public is sure to lead to a great many difficulties; any claim made in respect of one matter opens the door to a great many claims of a like nature, and it is found impossible to grant everything that is asked. When an effort is made to meet those claims which seem to be just, further concessions are certain to be asked for, and those in turn lead to further difficulties. I do not for a moment deny that there are certain aspects of the regulations of the Post Office which may merit the terms used by the noble Lord in his notice of motion, "anomalous, unsatisfactory, and difficult to interpret," and I quite feel that the instances which the noble Lord has pointed out are very difficult ones to deal with. The present state of matters has really arisen out of the efforts of the Post Office to meet the wishes of the public. In about 1892 efforts were made to meet the anomalies which arose under these regulations, because all the absurdities and difficulties which the noble Lord has pointed out were keenly appreciated. Instead of leaving it to the rule that anything not in the nature of a letter should be allowed to pass at the cheaper postage rate the Post Office did draw up certain rules, one of which has been quoted by the noble Lord. That was an endeavour to inform the public distinctly what might and what might not pass at the halfpenny rate. While that led in certain directions to simplification, it undoubtedly raised many other issues and difficulties. Now, my Lords, speaking for the Post Office, while I cannot accept the somewhat sweeping motion of the noble Lord, at the same time I can assure him that these matters are constantly having our attention. If we may hope to be aided by his own shrewd common-sense, any practical suggestions with which he may

59
favour me I shall gladly give careful attention to. At the same time, judging by our past experience, and knowing the difficulties of the position, I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that it ever will be possible to frame rules and regulations or to carry out any interpretation of those rules and regulations which will not always be open to objection or difficulty in one direction or another. That we have done as much as might have been done in the past I do not venture to assert, although I honestly believe that the difficulties have been coped with as far as could be. I am afraid I cannot give a favourable answer to the first part of the motion of the noble Lord, but I can assure him that any practical suggestion from any quarter, and especially from himself, will be heartily welcome by the Post Office.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, in withdrawing my motion may I be allowed to say this? The noble Duke is under a misapprehension in supposing that I made my remarks in the interests of any particular society, the Croydon Club or any other society. My point was that for more than thirty years certain particular forms had been sent everywhere at this rate and had come back to Mr. Symonds without surcharge, and I do not quite understand the difficulties which led the Post Office to alter regulations which had been acted upon for thirty years.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I can only say, my Lords, that under the terms of the Royal Warrant by which we are governed in this matter we find we are not justified in allowing these returns to be circulated at the halfpenny rate.
LORD MONKSWELL: Then perhaps the noble Duke will consider whether the terms of the Royal Warrant to which he has alluded may not be altered.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eight of the clock till To-morrow half-past Ten of the clock.