Sitting of 25 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  GLASGOW CORPORATION TELEPHONES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading be deferred."—Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. DUNCOMBE: Why is this Bill to be postponed again? It apparently stands little chance of passing. Unless adequate reason is given I shall feel bound to oppose the motion.
  MR. CALDWELL: The proposal is in accordance with an arrangement made with the Treasury that it shall be put off till the 2nd August. Possibly the measure will be carried over till next session.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think the reason given is altogether inadequate for postponing a Bill which is down "by Order." This Bill was introduced on its own bottom, and I cannot conceive any supporter of the Government having anything to do with it.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The postponement is due to the position of the Government Telephone Bill. In all probability it will be carried over till next session.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 2nd August.

  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to, with Amendments; and a consequential Amendment made to the Bill.
  LOUGHBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

    MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [Lords].
    PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL [Lords].
    WHITEHAVEN CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  MOSS SIDE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].

    RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL [Lords].
    STRETFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
    WITHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICKSHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPONAVON RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL [Lords].
    Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill to be read the third time.

    LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with an Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  PETITIONS.
    BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
    Petition from Huddersfield, for alteration; 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.
    Petitions for alteration of Law;—From Monteith;—Duffus;—and, Kirkwall and St. Ola; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
    Account [presented 24th July] to be printed. (No. 295.)
    BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (PROVISION FOR OLD AGE ABROAD).
    Copy presented, of Report on Provision for Old Age by Government action in certain European countries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    ARMY (MILITARY PRISONS).
    Copy presented, of Report on the Discipline and Management of Military Prisons, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
    Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 508 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (ENGLAND).
    Copy presented,—of Sixty-first Annual

    Year.

    Revenue.

    Expenditure.

    Percectage of total Expenditure to total Revenue.

    Net Revenue.

    Net Revenue after deducting columns 5, 6, and 7.

    Interest on stock created for purchase of telegraphs.

    Telegraph receipts.

    Extra receipts.

    Estimated value of services to other Department.

    Total.

    Sites and Buildings.

    Telegraph extension.

    Superannuations and other non-effective charges.

    Salaries, wages, &c.

    Percentage of salaries, wages, &c., total Revenue.

    Maintenance of telegraph system..

    Percectage of maintenance of telegraph system of total Revenue.

    Other Expenditure.

    Total expenditure.

    Purchase.

    Erection.

    Under Telegraph vote.

    Undeer other Votes.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    —(Mr. Hanbury.)
    Report of the Registrar-General, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
    Copy presented,—of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    QUEEN'S COLLEGE (BELFAST).
    Copy presented,—of Annual Report of the President for the session, 1898–9 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
    Copy presented,—of Further Correspondence relating to proposed Political Reforms in the South African Republic [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
    Return ordered, of Revenue and Expenditure of the Post Office for each year from 1869–70 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 329, of session 1898), and an Estimate for the same for the year ended the 31st day of March 1899, in the following form:—

    POST OFFICE (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
    Return ordered, of Revenue and Expenditure of the Post Office for each

    Year

    Revenue.

    Expenditure.

    Total Expenditure.

    Percentage of total Expenditure to total Revenue.

    Net Revenue.

    Net Revenue, after deducting columns 5 and 6,

    Postal receipts.

    Extra receipts.

    Estimated value of services to other departments.

    Total.

    Sites and buildings.

    Superannuations and other non-effective charges.

    Salaries, wages, &c.

    Percentage of salaries, &c., due to total Revenue.

    Conveyance of mails.

    Percentage of conveyance of mails to total Revenue.

    Packet service.

    Other Expenditure.

    Purchase.

    Erection.

    Under Post Office Vote.

    Under other Votes.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    —(Mr. Hanbury.)

    COUNTY COUNCIL SCHOLARSHIPS.
    Return ordered, "showing the occupation of the parents of the winners of County Council scholarships during the past three years; the amount of each scholarship, and the period for which it was tenable; the name of the school in which the scholarship was won, and whether the school was a Voluntary or Board school; whether the scholar availed himself of the scholarship, or not; and whether he won other scholarships."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)

    SOUDAN EXPEDITION (THANKS OF THE HOUSE).
    Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House,—That he had received the following letters from Major General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., and Lieutenant General Sir Francis Grenfell, G.C.B., G.C.M.G.:—
    Glen Muick,
    Ballater.
    10th July, 1899.
    Lord Kitchener of Khartoum presents his compliments to the Right Hon, the Speaker, and begs to acknowledge the receipt of the Vote of Thanks passed by the House of Commons.
    On behalf of the troops engaged he desires to express their grateful thanks for the high honour that has thus been conferred upon them.
    Lord Kitchener begs to assure the Speaker that he will not fail to communicate the Vote of Thanks to those mentioned.
    year from 1869–70 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 330, of Session 1898), and an Estimate of the same for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1899, in the following form:—
    The Palace,
    Malta,
    July 18.
    Sir,
    I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, conveying to me the Resolution of the House of Commons, thanking me for assistance given to the Soudan Expedition.
    I am deeply grateful to the House for this high honour, and to you, Sir, for forwarding it to me.
    I am, Sir,
    Your obedt. servant,
    FRANCIS GRENFELL,
    General,
    Commander-in-Chief, Malta.
    Rt. Hon.
    The Speaker.

QUESTIONS.

  CRIMEAN VETERANS.
  MR. BURT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Robert Stephenson, ex-corporal of the Coldstream Guards, now residing at Pegswood, near Morpeth; whether he is aware that Robert Stephenson served through the whole of the Crimean War, was wounded in that war, and holds the Crimean medal with four clasps, and also the medal given by the Sultan of Turkey; whether he can give the number of soldiers now on the pension list who served through the whole of the Crimean

  223
  War and who hold two medals with four clasps; whether he can state the grounds on which a pension has been refused to Mr. Stephenson; and whether, considering his infirm health, some allowance can his made to him in his old age.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The statements in the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question are correct, except that there is no record of Stephenson having been wounded. He was discharged at his own request, after a service of less than four years. He had not qualified for an ordinary pension, and the special campaign pensions are limited to men of ten years' service and upwards. I regret, therefore, that nothing can be done for Stephenson. I cannot say how many pensioners have the same medals and clasps; but pensions are granted for length of good service and not, except in cases of disablement, for medals and clasps.

  COMPULSORY AGE OF RETIREMENT FROM GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether all temporary messengers at the War Office will be discharged at sixty years instead of sixty-five, as in other Departments; and whether these men will receive some compensation on their discharge.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Owing to the scattered and inconvenient collection of houses in which the War Office is at present located it is essential that the messengers should be active and able-bodied. It has been found necessary to fix the age retirement of temporary messengers at sixty, which I may mention is the age at which the bulk of the civilian staff is now called upon to retire. All temporary messengers who have fifteen years' service as such receive a gratuity on discharge in addition to the Army pension they may be in receipt of. The retirement of temporary messengers at sixty will enable employment to be offered to a larger number of Army men who may not be in receipt of any pension and to whom employment is of first importance.

  ARTILLERY PRACTICE AT OKEHAMPTON.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary
  224
  of State for War whether, in respect to the convenience of those who may wish to spend their Bank Holiday on that part of Dartmoor adjoining Okehampton, he would ascertain whether it would be possible to have no artillery practice on the moor upon Monday, 7th August.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is not possible to promise that there shall be no practice on the August Bank Holiday, as, owing to the limited time which each battery has at Okehampton, it might be necessary, if the preceding days are misty, to use that day for practice. The matter must be left to the decision of the Officer Commanding on the spot; but his attention will be called to the point.

  THREE YEARS' SERVICE SYSTEM.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state how many men have entered the Army, other than the Guards, under the three years' service system; and what proportion of the whole number of entries they form.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Army Order which authorised the enlistment of three-years' men in the infantry of the Line was issued in March, 1898. Since that date the number of men so enlisted has been 4,533, being in the proportion of 167 per 1,000 of the total number of recruits.

  PRINCE RANJITSINGJI.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, why the Indian Government, contrary to the formal and legal settlement made with the assent of the Government by the Jam Sahib of Nowanagar in 1878, refuse to acknowledge the title of Kumar Shri Ranjitsingji Vibhaji, commonly known as Prince Ranjitsingji, to the Gadi of Nowanagar; whether a memorial, in which the grounds of Prince Ranjitsingji's claim to the Gadi in accordance with law and Rajput custom, and the terms of the abovementioned settlement are set forth, was addressed to the Secretary of State in 1898, with a petition for inquiry; why no answer has been returned to the memorial; and when one may be expected.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I am not aware of any formal or legal settlement under which Kumar Ranjitsingji has any claim to the State of Nowanagar. But since the matter has formed the subject of a question I propose to state briefly the facts of the case. The late Jam was permitted by the Government of India to disinherit his son by a Mahomedan lady who was his natural heir. Having thus no natural heir, he selected Kumar Ranjitsingji as his son by adoption, and as his eventual successor on the express understanding that, if any of the Ranis should give birth to a son, the said Ranjitsingji should have no claim to succeed. In August, 1882, one of the recognised wives of the Jam, a Mahomedan lady, gave birth to as on, Kumar Jarwant Singh, and the Jam applied to the Government of India to recognise him as his natural heir and successor. The Government of India, after full consideration and inquiry, did so, and the Secretary of State confirmed their decision. From that time Kumar Jarwant Singh was treated as the heir, and on the death of the late Jam he succeeded his natural father. It is true that in 1899 I received, through the Government of India, a memorial from Kumar Ranjitsingji setting forth his claim and asking for an inquiry; and on March 16th, 1899, I addressed the Government of India, declining to reopen the decision passed by my predecessors, and requesting them to inform Kumar Ranjitsingji. I have ascertained that these orders were pased in due course onto the Government of Bombay, but that as yet, owing to Kumar Ranjitsingji having left India, they have not been formally communicated to him. This will now be done without delay.

  BRITISH INDIAN PILGRIMS IN ARABIA.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Governments of Bombay, Bengal, and Madras have represented to the Viceroy of India the serious outrages by brigands to which British Indian pilgrims are subjected when travelling between Jeddah, Mecca, and Medina in Turkish Arabia; whether the Viceroy has requested the Imperial Government to adopt energetic measures for securing protection for British travellers in Arabia; what steps have been taken by the India Office to remedy the grievances brought
  226
  to notice; and whether, having regard to the facts that 30,000 British and Egyptian pilgrims annually visit the Mahomedan shrines, and that 80 per cent. of the transport service is carried on by British shipping firms, Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of stationing a gunboat at Jeddah, and increasing the number of armed cavasses at the Consulate for the purpose of accompanying the British caravans travelling in Arabia and protecting the pilgrims from murder, outrage, and robbery.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Government of India is, I believe, kept fully informed as to the conditions under which British Indian Mahomedans have to perform their pilgrimage. The Viceroy has made no recent representation to Her Majesty's Government on this subject; but, as was stated by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in this House on June 22nd, Her Majesty's Government have taken, and will continue to take, all steps in their power for the protection of Indian pilgrims. Since then£1,700 has been paid by the Turkish Government to certain British Indian subjects as a compensation for outrages committed by Bedouins during the pilgrimage. A British ship-of-war occasionally visits Jeddah, but I am not disposed to think that it would be advisable to adopt the measures suggested in the question. It should be remembered that any direct interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government with the Mecca pilgrimage would be distasteful to the Moslem community.

  TRANSVAAL AFFAIRS.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the existing law in the Transvaal, no Roman Catholic may be employed by the Government in any capacity.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer, in his absence, the questions addressed to him to-day. Under the Grondwet the President and all members of the Executive Council and both Volksraads are required to be Protestants, and it is understood that under the law regulating

  227
  the appointment of officials this rule applies to all officials.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, according to the Grondwet or Constitution of the South African Republic, the only persons eligible for the Volksraad are members of the Nederduitsch Hervormde Church who have been enfranchised burghers for three years; and whether, under the franchise law recently proposed by the Government of that Republic, Uitlanders to be thereby enfranchised will be eligible without those qualifications.
  MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): Under the Grondwet members of either Raad must be members of a Protestant Church. Members of the First Raad must have the full franchise, and Members of the Second Raad must have been enfranchised for the two immediately preceding years. These qualifications are not affected by the new franchise law.

  THE PACIFIC CABLE.
  Mr. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an agreement has now been arrived at on the points at issue with the Colonial Governments concerned in the proposed construction of the Pacific cable.
  MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): I understand that an agreement as to the general lines has been arrived at, but we are still in communication with the Colonies on the subject.

  CABLE COMMUNICATION WITH AUSTRALIA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any official confirmation of the report that the Eastern Extension Company has offered to lay a cable from South Africa to Australia; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state the precise terms of the offer.
  MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): I am informed by the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company that they are prepared to provide cable communication between the Cape and Australia
  228
  without requiring any pecuniary assistance from either the Colonies or Her Majesty's Government, and that they will at once reduce the tariff to 4s. per word between Great Britain and Australia on receiving landing rights for their proposed new cable. I have no information as to the conditions, if any, attached to this offer.

  BRITISH TRADE IN MOROCCO.
  MR. LOUGH:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a petition signed by several of the leading British exporters to Morocco asking that a paid consul may be appointed to Mogador, as the interests of British traders are prejudicially affected by the existing arrangements; and whether the Government can see their way to make the appointment.
  MR. BRODRICK: The petition referred to was received on the 21st inst. The question was fully considered in 1893, when it was decided that it would be more advantageous to British interests to establish a Consulate at Dar-al-Baida, and to appoint an unsalaried Vice-Consul at Mogador. It was believed that this arrangement had proved satisfactory, but Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier will, now be consulted on the subject.

  TRADERS' LOSSES IN MADAGASCAR.
  MR. LAWRENCE:—I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office is cognisant of the losses sustained at Ranapass and Morumbe during the Franco-Hova wars on the 11th of March, 1893, and 18th of January, 1895, by Messrs. H. and J. M'Cubbin and others in their employ; whether losses amounting to £413 and 1,086 dollars respectively have been brought to the notice of the French Government, and with what result; and, having regard to the delay in obtaining compensation, Her Majesty's Government will continue to press the matter on the French Government.
  MR. BRODRICK: The question of compensation for losses incurred during the war in Madagascar is being examined by the Comitédu Contentieux of the French Colonial Office, but the examination is not yet concluded. Inquiries,

  229
  will be made of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris as to whether the claims referred to in the question are among those filed at the Embassy, but they do not appear to have been brought directly to the notice of the Foreign Office unless the second claim mentioned is identical with the claim of James Oman for 1,086 dollars on account of the pillage of his store at Ranapass on the 18th of June, 1895.

  DELAGOA BAY ARBITRATION.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether some years ago the President of the Swiss Republic was appointed to arbitrate as to the claims of the bondholders of the Delagoa Bay Railway Company upon the Portuguese Government; whether the final replies to the Portuguese case were sent in before the 15th November, 1893, and the Portuguese answer before December, 1894; and how soon a final settlement of this question, affecting the interests of holders of£743,000 worth of stock, is likely to be announced.
  MR. BRODRICK: The answers to the first two paragraphs are in the affirmative. But it should be explained that the presentation of the replies did not conclude the proceedings which were necessary before the Court could consider its judgment. As stated on the 10th instant, it is believed that the award will be given not later than October next.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: What would be the effect if one of the arbitrators died before the award is given? Would it not render the whole proceedings nugatory?
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Gentleman had better give notice of that.

  BRITISH MISSIONARIES IN PERU
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are six British missionaries resident in Cuzco, the capital of the ancient Inca Empire of Peru; and that these persons, who have committed no breach of Peruvian law, have nevertheless been refused Governmental protection in the event of their lives being endangered through religious fanaticism; whether the Peruvian Govern
  230
  ment have communicated this decision to the British Attaché at Lima, who, without expostulation, forwarded the correspondence to the Foreign Office; and whether, under these circumstances, the Foreign Office will at once instruct the British Attaché at Lima to secure that constitutional protection to which these British subjects have every right under international law.
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government are aware that there are some members of a missionary society resident at Cuzco, and that they were desirous of establishing a school there. It was alleged that their object was to give religious instruction. The Peruvian Government intimated that this could not be permitted, and that persistence would lead to their removal from Cuzco. It is not the case that this communication was received without expostulation, as Her Majesty's Chargéd'Affaires, in acknowledging it, pointed out that while the opening of a school was a matter within the discretion of the local authorities, who were at liberty to grant or to withhold the necessary licence, the right of British subjects to reside in Peru on the same footing as native citizens was a matter of treaty right. No further complaints have been received, and Her Majesty's Minister may be confidently trusted to do all that is necessary for the protection of British subjects.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS IN ARGENTINA.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that two British subjects, William Evans (the chairman) and David R. Evans (the secretary), of the Council of the Welsh settlers in the Chupat Valley in Patagonia, were in January last arrested by officers of the Argentine Government on a charge of high treason; whether he can inform the House what were the grounds for the said charge, and have they been tried; and, if so, before what court, and with what result; and, if not, are they still in custody; and whether he proposes to take any steps to protect British subjects in the Chupat Valley from such conduct of officers purporting to act under the authority of the Argentine Government.
  MR. BRODRICK: The only information in our possession relative to the arrest of Messrs. W. and D. R. Evans was that communicated to the Foreign Office by the hon. Member. Her Majesty's Government are not aware whether the persons in question are British subjects or not; but if they were born in the colony they would be Argentine citizens according to Argentine law (at least while within the Republic). Her Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres has been instructed to report fully on the existing conditions of the settlement, and to endeavour to ensure to British settlers the most-favoured-nation treatment to which they are entitled by treaty. That report has, however, not yet been received.

  THORNTON JUNCTION STATION.
  MR. BIRRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any Report from his inspector as to the present entrances to and ways from Thornton Junction Station in Fife; and, if so, whether the inspector has made any and what recommendations as to necessary alterations and improvements in these or other respects; and whether he will lay the Report upon the Table.
  THE PRESIDENT OFTHE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir, the inspecting officer has reported, and a copy of his Report has been sent to each of the parties who communicated with the Board of Trade. The Department has also written to the company expressing a hope that they will carry out the inspecting officer's suggestions. These suggestions are too long to state within the limits of an answer to a question, but I shall be happy to lay a copy of the Report on the Table.

  PRESTATYN SCHOOL BOARD POLL.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the poll recently taken at Prestatyn for the formation of a school board did not represent a majority of the ratepayers, and that it was taken upon a register admittedly faulty; whether there is already ample
  232
  school accommodation in the parish; and whether the Education Department has received, and will accede to, a petition, signed by a majority of the ratepayers of Prestatyn, asking that before the order for the formation of a school board is granted a fresh poll on the question may be taken.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask if he is aware that at the poll in question 265 persons voted out of a total register of 350 electors; that the voting was 138 for and 127against; that the British schools have been ordered to be closed for two years, and——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must protest against this form of question being adopted for two reasons. In the first place it is not a question, but is a speech and argument, and in the next it is a statement of facts in anticipation of the answer of the Minister.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I cannot verify the hon. Member's figures without notice, but certainly the majority which voted for the School Board did not constitute the majority of the ratepayers. The Committee of Council have no reason to believe that the register was faulty. There is ample school accommodation in the parish. A petition has been received as described in the question, but the Committee of Council have no grounds for going behind the decision of the ratepayers expressed in a deliberate and legal manner.

  REORGANISATION OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Departmental Committee which is to consider the organisation of the Education Department is now constituted, or will be constituted and commence its labours as soon as the Board of Education Bill becomes law; and whether any provision is made, and what provision, for the representation of

  233
  secondary education upon the Committee, or whether the duties of the future Assistant-Secretary for Secondary Education are to be determined by persons representing elementary and technical education.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg at the same time to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Departmental Committee which has been appointed to consider the reorganisation of the Education Department and the Science and Art Department will have, if the Board of Education Bill becomes law, the further duty of organising the Secondary Education Department of the contemplated Education Office; and, if so, whether it is intended to add to this Committee some person or persons whose experience, added to that of the Assistant Secretaries of the Departments of Science and Art and for elementary education respectively, already placed on the Committee, will reflect the tripartite character of the new office; and whether he will communicate to the House, on the Report stage of the Board of Education Bill, the terms of reference and the full panel of the Committee.
  SIR J. GORSTsaid that the committee was appointed and was at work. The members had been selected as experts in office organisation not as representing particular branches of instruction. At present they were settling details of arrangements for discharging the functions which already appertained to the Committee of Council. The special duties of the Assistant Secretary who was to deal with that part of secondary education which was not under the Science and Art Department would be considered after the Board of Education Bill had become law. They would be finally decided on by the Board of Education, not by the departmental committee.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Will the Vice President answer the last paragraph on my question?
  SIR J. GORST: I shall be happy to give the names of the Committee when the Report of the Board of the Education Bill is before the House.

  THE VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the fact that during the late hot weather those charged with the ventilation of this House have failed to keep the temperature below 75 degrees, and whether in previous years it was found possible even in the hottest seasons to keep the temperature of the House at a much lower figure.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUULAS,): I have given attention to this matter, and find that only on one of the extremely hot days last week the temperature in the House rose to 75 degrees. The records show a temperature on two days in 1896 and 1897 within one degree of the highest reading last week. Generally throughout this summer the temperature in the House has been kept uniformly several degrees lower than the shade temperature out of doors, and has not been in excess of the temperature secured in previous years.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday, notwithstanding the low temperature outside, the temperature of the House was as high as 73 degrees?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not think my right hon. friend is quite correct At one time the temperature of the House was 73 degrees, but I am given to understand that the temperature outside at that moment was very much the same.

  LABOURERS IN THE ROYAL PARKS.
  MR. PALMER: I beg to ask the First Commisioner of Works whether about 100 men employed in the Royal parks as gatekeepers and labourers have received a year's notice to leave; whether these men have been in the service of the Government for ten, fifteen, or more years, and are men of good character; whether there is any other reason for their discharge than that they are over sixty years of age, and will the Government grant these men, if of good character, any bonus or pension; and is it the intention of the Government to fill up their places; and, if so, by what, class of men.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: About thirty men will be discharged from the Royal Parks this year on account of age and infirmities; but it is not proposed to discontinue the services of any men under sixty-five years of age unless, in the opinion of the Department, they are physically incapacitated for work. They will, however, on retirement, receive such grants as they may be entitled to; and their places will be filled by men of similar class, the park-keepers or gatekeepers being selected, as usual, from Army or Navy pensioners.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask Mr. Solicitor-General if he will state who will be the defendant in a trial before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, under Section 14 of The Endowed Schools Act, 1873, when the powers of the Charity Commission in respect of making education schemes have been transferred to the Board of Education under the Board of Education Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): The Charity Commissioners are not required by any Statute to appear as respondents on any such appeal, but have been in the habit of doing so. Under the Bill as it now stands and subject to any special provision which may be made by the Order in Council under Section 2 (2), it may be expected that the Board of Education will appear as respondents on such appeals, except, possibly, in cases in which the question on the appeal is whether the endowment is an educational one.

  SWINE FEVER.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will again relax the swine fever regulations, in order that pigs may be allowed to shack, following the precedent of last year.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): It would be premature for me to make any announcement on this subject, inasmuch as the conditions which I have to take into consideration vary from time to time. But I am in communication with the local authority respecting it, and my hon. and gallant
  236
  friend may be sure that their representations will receive my careful attention.

  LEICESTER ANTI-VACCINATIONISTS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the present position of the Pool Law Guardians at Leicester; whether he is aware that they have determined to go to prison rather than obey the mandamus ordering them to appoint a vaccination officer, which is now being obtained by the Local Government Board; whether he is aware that forty-five guardians out of the forty-eight are expecting in consequence to be sent to prison almost immediately; whether there is sufficient suitable accommodation for them as first-class misdemeanants in Leicester Gaol; and, if not, to what prison is it proposed to consign them; and whether, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case, and to the fact that six of the proposed prisoners are ladies, he will make such arrangements as are consistent with prison discipline to enable their detention to be as little irksome as possible.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir. M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I cannot anticipate that the occasion contemplated will arise, and I can only say that it is, of course, my duty to see that proper accommodation is provided for any offenders who may be committed to prison in duo course of law.

  WEST RIDING PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of Roman Catholic inmates in the West Riding Pauper Lunatic Asylums; and whether he is satisfied as to the provision made for their spiritual wants, and how such provision compares with that made in other similar asylums throughout the country.
  SIR M.WHITE RIDLEY: There were at the beginning of the year 324 Roman Catholic patients in the West Riding Lunatic Asylums. I regret to say that the provision made for their spiritual wants is not what I consider satisfactory, and is far behind that made

  237
  by other authorities in various parts of the country. I have expressed myself strongly in this sense to the West Riding General Asylums Committee, but I have no power to compel them to alter their practice.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT. AUDITORS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any regular system is adopted before the appointment of Local Gevernment Board Auditors to ascertain whether they possess the requisite technical knowledge of local government law and principles of accountancy; whether the clerks to Local Government Board auditors can be discharged by such auditors without any cause being shown; and, if so, whether it is intended to take such steps as may be necessary to give to the clerks of such auditors the same protection as is given to relieving officers; whether a case has recently been brought before the Local Government Board in which a Local Government Board auditor had for several years been appropriating the salary payable to his clerk, although the monthly receipts had been regularly signed by such clerk; and whether it is intended to adopt any system by which protection can in future be afforded to such clerks.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): In reply to the first paragraph of the question, the qualifications of the candidates for auditorships under the Local Government Board are carefully considered in all cases before an appointment is made, with a special view to their knowledge, experience, or capacity for the duties of the office. The case to which I presume the hon. Member refers in the third paragraph of the question occurred some few years ago. An auditor's clerk alleged that the auditor had not paid him his salary for some months, although the monthly receipts had been signed by the clerk. The auditor, however, alleged that the clerk had received money to a larger amount belonging to him, and that in this way the salary had been paid. An inquiry was held, but the evidence on this point was conflicting and unsatisfactory. Both the auditor and the clerk have ceased to hold office. The clerks to the auditors are appointed by the audi
  238
  tors, and can be discharged by them without cause shown. They are not in any way officers of the Local Government Board, and I see no sufficient reason for altering the arrangements with regard to them.

  SPLIT DUTIES IN THE GLASGOW POST OFFICE.
  MR JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, why the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee that an officer performing split duties should, during each twenty-four hours, enjoy nine clear unbroken hours at his own home, exclusive of a reasonable time for the journey from his own house to the office and from the office to his own house, is not being given effect to in the Parcel Post Department at Glasgow, where a sorting clerk is being called upon to perform a duty extending over a period of almost fifteen hours, viz., from 5.40 a.m. till 10.10 a.m. and 5 p.m. till 8.30 p.m.; and whether such steps will be taken as will result in the grievance complained of being removed.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The duty to which the hon. Member refers, and which is correctly described, was temporarily arranged for one week only, in order to admit of other officers being afforded absence on leave. It allowed an interval of nine hours and ten minutes off duty, but the officer who undertook it happens to live at some distance from the office, and his interval of rest at home, therefore, was about thirty minutes less than the usual period of nine hours As the arrangement was only a temporary one, and the officer concerned before commencing the duty expressed himself as satisfied with it, the Postmaster-General does not consider it necessary to take any further steps in the matter.

  IRISH RURAL AUXILIARY POSTMEN.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in compliance with the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee, any concessions have been made to rural auxiliary postmen in Ireland; and whether they have

  239
  received any increase of wages, annual leave, sick allowance, or Sunday pay; if not, will their case be considered.
  MR. HANBURY: The concessions to rural auxiliary postmen recommended by the Tweedmouth Committee as regards wages, annual and sick leave, and Sunday pay, have been granted to all rural auxiliary postmen in Ireland, so far as can be ascertained.

  POSTAL REGULATIONS—TEA SAMPLES.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware of the intention of the United States Government to reduce the weight of tea samples, which can be sent by post, from 8 oz. gross to 1 oz. on and after 1st August next, thereby hampering the tea trade between the United States and Great Britain, India, and Ceylon; whether this intended limit will be the weight of the tea net, or if it must include also the weight of the package containing the tea sample; and whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representations against these proposed restrictions on trade or any representations to the United States Government to induce them to modify them; and, if not, whether they will do so.
  MR. HANBURY: Under the Postal Union Convention, to which both this country and the States are parties, articles like tea, subject to customs duty, are not entitled to be sent by post at all, and articles of saleable value are debarred from transmission by sample post. Sample packets of tea weighing over eight ounces are regarded here as of saleable value, and are not despatched in any mails from this country; but sample packets of tea not weighing over eight ounces are received by the United States Post Office, as by most other countries. In the United States, if these packets contain more than an ounce of tea, the duty to which they are liable is exacted. If they do not contain an ounce they are allowed to pass duty free, even though the wrappage makes the packet weigh more than one ounce. There does not appear to be any case for diplomatic representations to the Government of the United States.
  MR. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any change has been made in the regulations?
  MR. HANBURY: The Post Office have no knowledge of any change.

  CANADIAN MAIL CONTRACT.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether a new contract has been entered into for the carrying of the Canadian mails; and, if so, whether it involves any changes in the existing route.
  MR. HANBURY: A telegram has been received from the Canadian Post Office to the effect that the Dominion Government has made a contract with Messrs. Elder, Dempster and Co., for the conveyance of mails to and from this country once a week in each direction by steamers plying between Avonmouth and Quebec, and touching at Queenstown. The final mails will be made up in London on Monday evenings for embarkation at Queenstown.

  POLICE TREATMENT OF INJURED PERSONS.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish Local Government Board has yet considered the change of practice recently introduced in Glasgow in dealing with cases of debility and injury brought to the police offices and subsequently removed to the parochial hospital, whereby pauper patients are removed to that hospital without any certificate from the parochial medical officer of their fitness for removal whether the criminal authorities have sanctioned the inspection of the private police books by the parochial officers; whether the removal of a moribund person on the data contained in these books, and without certificate from the parochial medical officer, would be held to satisfy the requirements of the Poor Law Act; and on whom, in case of mishap occurring in connection with a removal so conducted, would legal responsibility rest.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A.GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Local Government Board for Scotland are causing inquiries to be made into the subject matter of the hon. Member's question,

  241
  but their inquiries are not yet completed. I shall be happy to reply if the hon. Member will again repeat his question nearer the end of the session.

  TREATMENT OF FEMALE PRISONERS IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the statement recently made by Dr. Naismith, at the meeting of the Ayr Town Council, that in consequence of the insufficient search of female prisoners confined in the police cells in that town, necessitated by the absence of any female warder, various cases had occurred in which women who had passed the night in those cells were found, when subsequently taken to prison, to have whisky bottles in their possession; and whether, considering the danger which may arise to suicidal or homicidal prisoners from this inadequate search, and the indecency of leaving drunk and in many cases ailing females to the sole care of male warders, he would urge upon the police authorities of the larger towns in Scotland the propriety of providing a female warder and searcher at their police offices.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Chief Constable of Ayr that he has had no complaints from the Governor of Ayr Prison, as to bottles of whisky being found on prisoners sent from the Ayr Police Station. He thinks, however, that, in spite of the vigilance of the police officers in charge, who are steady, reliable men, it is possible that whisky bottles may occasionally be handed to prisoners by their friends on their way through the public streets from the police cells to the Court House. He also states that a female is employed at the Police Office, for the purpose of cleaning cells and offices, searching and attending to any female prisoners in custody, and her residence being opposite to the police office she attends when called day or night. The police surgeon is also in attendance when summoned by the police, either by day or night. The Secretary for Scotland is making further inquiry.

  DEATH OF BERNARD O'NEIL OF MOTHERWELL.
  MR. COLVILLE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been drawn to the death, on
  242
  Thursday of last week, on the public highway between Motherwell and Hamilton, of Bernard O'Neil, steelworker, Motherwell, under circumstances calling for searching inquiry; is he aware that O'Neil was at the time of his death engaged in a dispute with Patrick Kelly, a bookmaker from Hamilton; and whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is the intention of the Government to amend the law respecting gambling on the boundaries of burghs in Scotland.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The case referred to has been fully inquired into by the Procurator-Fiscal, and was reported to Crown Counsel, who have instructed no proceedings. I concur with the decision of Crown Counsel, and having regard to the terms of the question, I think I ought to say that my information is such as in my opinion to exonerate Kelly. O'Neil's death occurred in circumstances which would not have been affected by such legislation as is suggested in the last paragraph of the question; and the Government can give no undertaking in respect of such legislation.

  ORPHAN HOMES OF SCOTLAND.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate with respect to the 900 children of school age, inmates of the Orphan Homes of Scotland, who, in consequence of the refusal of the Kilma1colm School Board to provide for their education, have been left without education since April last, whether he has yet received any reply from the School Board to the communication which, according to his statement on the 14th inst., had been addressed by the Department to the School Board on the subject; and whether the Department has yet decided as to the steps to be taken to prevent this continued violation of the law as to compulsory education.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Department cannot accept the assumption contained in the hon. Member's question that the School Board are responsible for the fact that the children referred to have been left without education since April last, when the authorities of the Orphan Homes suddenly ceased to give education to the children whom they have taken in charge. The Department are in correspondence with the School Board, and.

  243
  received a reply from them on the 18th July to a letter addressed to them on the 8th. A further letter on the legal aspects of the question was necessary, and this was sent on the 24th July.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be able to give us the replies?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I can only say that the matter is going on. The Department have been fully advised as to their legal position in the matter. It is a triangular affair, and I cannot say when it will be concluded.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I shall ask another question.

  TYRONE POOR RATE COLLECTION.
  MR. HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has as yet approved of the scheme for the collection of poor rate in the County of Tyrone; and, if so, whether his attention was called to a provision in the said scheme by which a former rate collector (David Dunbar) is to receive in future only £13 4s. 6d. yearly, as against his former remuneration of£35 0s. 11d., whilst another collector (William McFarland) is, by a transfer to him of Dunbar's former collection, to receive£46 17s., as against his former remuneration of£31 13s. 3d.; and whether, in view of Section 115 (ii.) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, which enacts that the scheme shall provide for the existing officers employed under it receiving remuneration substantially identical with that which they formerly received, he will take steps to set right this departure from the Act.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The Local Government Board have approved of the scheme referred to. According to this scheme, the former remuneration of David Dunbar was estimated at£14 18s. 4d. a year, and his future remuneration at£15 19s. 4d. The former remuneration of William McFarland was estimated at£53 13s. 3d., and his future remuneration at£60 2s. 3d. a year. A communication having been received by the Board from Mr. Dunbar stating that his former remuneration was
  244
  £35 0s. 11d. a year, the County Council have been informed that, if this be so, it will be necessary to alter the poundage rate fixed for this officer.

  DOWNPATRICK RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution and protest against the Local Government Order of 15th May last, adopted by the Rural District Council of Downpatrick on the 8th instant, in which they call upon the Local Government Board to have the same rescinded; and whether inquiry will be made into the whole matter.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: On the 8th instant the Downpatrick Rural District Council passed a resolution objecting, in general terms, to the Order of 15th May, and asking that it should be rescinded. There is only one work of any magnitude in the rural district—namely, Downpatrick Water Supply, and the area of charge fixed for this work is not affected by the Order. There are, however, fourteen other special areas in this union for works of minor importance, and these areas have been consolidated by the Board's Order of the 15th May. I do not consider that this is a case in which any hardship has been inflicted by the Order, whereas the rescinding of it would involve the levying of fourteen special rates; the opening and keeping of fourteen additional accounts in the county books; and an amount of trouble in making detailed calculations which would possibly render necessary the appointment of an extra clerk in the office of the county secretary.

  ROXBORO' ROAD SCHOOLS, LIMERICK.
  MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Judicial Commissioners have yet agreed to a scheme for the schools in Roxboro' Road, Limerick whether the Education Commissioners had any right, in view of the Act of George III., to let these premises to their present occupant, and is this occupant bound by the terms of his letting to keep the premises in repair; and whether any repairs have been executed since the report from Mr. Mitchell, architect to the Commissioners,

  245
  in which he stated they had not been repaired for many years.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The powers of the Commissioners with regard to the endowment of these schools expired at the end of 1897, and have not since been renewed. The Commissioners have not, therefore, agreed to a. scheme. The reply to both inquiries contained in the second paragraph is, according to my opinion, in the affirmative. No repairs have been executed by the Commissioners, and I am not aware whether any have been carried out by the present tenant, the Rev. Mr. Gregg. He is bound, however, to keep the premises in good repair, as he received them.

  IRISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD OFFICES.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have bought the offices of the Irish National Federation in Dublin for the Congested District. Board; if so, what was the price, who deduced title, and to whom was the money paid.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Government have agreed to purchase the house and premises, No. 24, Rutland Square, at present in the occupation of the body named, for the purpose of an extension of the offices of the Congested Districts Board, subject to a good title being shown. The price agreed upon is£1,300, but title has not yet been deduced or any of the purchase-money paid.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS—APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL JUDGE.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to Table XXXII. of the Judicial Statistics for 1897, Part II., which sets out the number of days on which the Judges of the Queen's Bench Divisions at during the year; whether he is aware that no return is given for the other judges; and whether, before submitting a resolution for the appointment of a new judge, he will lay before the House a complete return in the same form as Table XXXII., as to the sittings of all the judges of the Supreme Court and of the Judicial
  246
  Members of the House of Lords and the Privy Council.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): This table was introduced by the Committee which revised the Civil Service Statistics some years ago. I am advised that there is great difficulty in ascertaining the sittings of the several judges of the Supreme Court during the year, but I am in communication with the Lord Chief Justice on the subject. It is proposed to substitute for Table XXXII. in the Judicial Statistics for 1897 a table showing the total number of days on which the Courts of the several divisions sat. The number of days on which each Chancery judge sat will be found in the Judicial Statistics, Table XV.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the proposal of the Government to appoint a new Judge, he is aware that on the South Wales Circuit the only work, from 7th July to 20th July, that could be found for the learned Judge of Assize was the releasing a little boy on his own recognisances; and whether one of the judges of the Queen's Bench Division could be transferred permanently to the Chancery Division.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information as to the facts mentioned in the first part of the question. I am informed that under the working of the circuit system there is occasional waste of judicial time, which it is almost impossible to avoid. With regard to the suggestion that one of the judges of the Queen's Bench Division should be transferred permanently to the Chancery Division, I am told that it is inexpedient and, indeed, impracticable to diminish the existing strength of the Queen's Bench Division.

  THE STATUTES OF THE SESSION.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will use his influence with the Stationery Department to secure an earlier issue to Members of the House of the bound copies of the Statutes of the session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe it is impossible to bring this work out by the October 24 in consequence of the indexing

  247
  which has to be done. Last year it was a little later; but I understand an effort will be made to secure punctuality this year.

  EMPLOYMENT OF DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in view of the serious falling off of in the recruiting for the Army and the difficulty of finding the number of men voted by Parliament, the Government have come to any decision regarding the further employment of discharged soldiers of suitable acquirement and character in Government departments and offices.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government are desirous of carrying out as far as is practicable the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee which last inquired into the subject referred to by my hon. and gallant friend.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can now state when the Report on the Board of Education [Lords] Bill will be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give my right hon. friend any definite answer to this question. Preference must necessarily be given to Bills which have still to go to the Lords. This Bill will not be taken on Thursday, and probably not until next week.

  ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the recently established custom of placing in the Library daily the questions and answers in this House on foreign affairs is a great convenience to Members; and whether he can see his way to make all Ministers' answers thus immediately available.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave in February last to a similar question by the hon. Member for Haggerston. The arrangement suggested in the question would, no doubt, be in some respects convenient, but I do not think it possible to give it effective operation.

  IRISH PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the abnormal cost to Ireland this session in the matter of Private Bill legislation; and whether, in view of the heavy expenditure that the existing system entails annually upon Ireland, the Government will favourably consider the question of dealing with the subject next session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information as to the first paragraph of the hon. Baronet's question, and with regard to the second I cannot enter into any pledge with regard to legislation for next session upon any subject. With reference more particularly to Private Bill legislation for Ireland, I would suggest that surely it is desirable to await the issue of the experiment about to be carried out in Scotland before we attempt to extend the same system to other parts of the United Kingdom.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what Votes in Supply the Government propose to take on Thursday next, and in what order.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Friday next I do not propose to take before the Colonial Vote any Votes which are likely to lead to any prolonged discussion, but I hope to get the Votes relating to the following:—Rates on Government Property, the Treasury, Privy Council, Charity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Exchequer and Audit Department, Friendly Societies, and Woods and Forests. These ought to take a very short time, and it is extremely desirable that the Government should get these Votes before the natural termination of Supply.
MR. LEWIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman except the Woods and Forests Vote?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no reason to believe that that will lead to prolonged discussion.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon.

249
Gentleman reconsider his proposal as to the minor Votes, which, although small, still would occupy considerable time, in view of the fact that the Colonial Vote is of the very first consequence?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I have a pledge that the Votes I have enumerated will be obtained after the Colonial Vote, it is a matter of indifference whether the Colonial Vote comes first or last.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state some hour at which the Colonial Vote will be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I cannot state a definite hour, but I quite recognise what has fallen from the Leader of the Opposition, that the Colonial Vote is necessarily an important Vote, and that the House has a right to claim that the discussion upon it shall be taken at an hour not inconvenient.
MR. DILLON: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that he can get these small Votes next week under the closure?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is precisely for that reason I am anxious to take them next Friday.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to proceed with the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill; and, whether, having regard to the great importance of making better provision for these children without delay, an effort will be made to pass the Bill into Law this session. I beg, also, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the Shop Assistants (Seats) Bill has passed both Houses, and only requires a practically formal step in this House to enable the Bill to become an Act of Parliament, he will consent to give the few minutes necessary to carry out the intention of both Houses of Parliament.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that both the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill and the Shop Assistants (Seats) Bill will be passed before the end of the session.
MR. BROADHURST: When is it proposed to take the Resolution as to the appointment of an additional judge?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not in the course of the present week.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman supplement the somewhat fragmentary information he has given us as to the course of business?
MR. BALFOUR: It depends on the progress we make, but I think the chief business on Wednesday will be to advance a stage of the Telephones Bill, the Naval Works Bill, and the Niger Bill. No doubt there will be other Bills of a less important character, and I hope we shall be able to advance them also.

TRANSVAAL AFFAIRS.—RUMOURED RESIGNATION OF PRESIDENT KRUGER.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask as to the Papers of the Bloemfontein Conference, and whether the Government are able to confirm or otherwise the rumoured resignation of President Kruger?
MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): I can give no information as to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. The Report of the Bloemfontein Conference will be delivered by the printers about five o'clock to-day, and copies will then be obtainable in the Vote Office.

BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
As amended, in the Committee, to be printed. (Bill 228.)
FIRE BRIGADES.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 296.)

WATER SUPPLY BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Thursday read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Without Amendment.
GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.

  WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION MARKETS BILL.
  With Amendments.
  Amendments to—

GREAT YARMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Without Amendment.

HOME INDUSTRIES.
Bill for the better regulation of Home Industries, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Denny, Mr. John Burns, Sir Henry Howorth, and Mr. Alexander Cross.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do protest against the practice of introducing Bills when there is no possibility of their being advanced any further. The only result is that they will be printed at the public expense. I am not at all sure that I ought not to divide the House, and but for taking up the time of the House at this period of the session, I should do so as a protest. We have given the Government all the time of the House for the rest of the session, and the introduction of these Bills is really an abuse of the rules of the House, while it imposes a burden which should not be laid on the public shoulders.

HOME INDUSTRIES BILL.
"For the better regulation of Home Industries," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. (Bill 289.)

PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND).
Bill to abolish Petty Customs in Scotland, and to make provision for levying a
252
rate in lieu thereof, ordered to be brought in by Captain Sinclair, Mr. Asquith, Mr. James Baillie, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. M'Killop, Mr. Nicol, and Mr. Ure.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I protest also in this case, and for the same reason. I did hope my protest would have had some effect on Private Members at least.

PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To abolish petty customs in Scotland, and to make provision for levying a rate in lieu thereof," presented, and read, the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. (Bill 290.)

RESERVE FORCES.
Bill to amend the law relating to the Reserve Forces, ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Wyndham and Mr. Powell-Williams.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Are we not to have any explanation of this Bill?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Yes; I will give one. This is a Departmental Bill to effect two objects: first to relieve the taxpayer of a small and unnecessary charge; and secondly, to give a small indulgence to a small number of soldiers. Under Section 3 of the Reserve Forces Act the Reserve is defined as "forces within the United Kingdom"; consequently, under the Army Regulation Act it is laid down that every soldier who has served with the colours in India must be sent home at the public expense, even though he has formed ties in India which may require him to return by the next boat at his own expense. There are generally about ten such cases in the course of the year, and the Bill seeks to enable commanding officers to do legally that which they sometimes now do illegally.

RESERVE FORCES BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to the Reserve Forces," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. (Bill 291.)
PATRIOTIC FUND.
Bill to amend the Patriotic Fund Act', 1881, and the Patriotic Fund Act, 1886, ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Wyndham and Mr. Powell-Williams.
PATRIOTIC FUND BILL.
"To amend the Patriotic Fund Act, 1881, and the Patriotic Fund Act, 1886," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. (Bill 292.)

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS.
Bill to amend the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing, Sir John Kennaway, and Mr. Samuel Smith.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I repeat my protest in this case. I did hope that hon. members would abstain from the practice of bringing in these Bills at the public expense.

INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS BILL.
"To amend the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 293.)

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th July], "That the Bill be now read the third time".
Question again proposed.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The Bill as it now stands, no doubt, contains one or two provisions, which, if properly enforced, are calculated to put down adulteration, but, on the other hand, it contains much that is reactionary and bad. The discussion which had taken place on it must have convinced hon. Members that it belongs to that class of legislation which is known in America as Grainger's legislation. Its main points are offered ostensibly as a boon to the farmers, and its most thorough-going provision is that which prohibits the enrichment of margarine, with the object presumably of increasing the price of butter. But I venture to assert that the foreign producer of butter will benefit twice as much as the home
254
producer from any increase. In its present shape I do not think the Bill satisfies any section of the House, and it certainly does not satisfy agriculturists, for even the hon. Members for East Somerset and South Molton have ceased to regard it with a friendly eye. But it will benefit one class of Her Majesty's subjects, the lawyers. It will render worse confounded the confusion that already exists with respect to the adulteration laws. The first part of the Bill is aimed against the importation of four articles of food. The Customs are directed to take samples of such articles when imported, and if they are found to be adulterated provision is made for the prosecution of the importer. That, at first sight, seems a very desirable provision. But we have been told again and again that the first clause of the Bill only regularised a practice which had been in operation for several years. I personally have no doubt that what has been done in the past has been legal. In 1896–97 963 samples of imported food were taken by the Customs, 45 of which were found to be adulterated. In 1897–98 1,271 samples wore taken, 25 of which were adulterated, and in the six months ended October, 1898, 612 samples were taken, of which only two were found to be adulterated and none doubtful. That shows that under the non-regularised system, which has boon in force for the last two or three years, the importation of adulterated articles of food has been put a stop to, and that there is no necessity for the Bill, and that not much benefit is to be expected from the enactment of the first portion of it. The Customs officials are authorised to seize articles of food suspected to be adulterated, and a proviso is inserted to the effect that an article shall not be deemed to be adulterated by reason of the addition of preservative or colouring matter of such a nature or quantity as not to render it injurious to health. But what machinery is provided to enable the officials to judge whether the addition of some foreign substance is or is not injurious to health? A subsequent clause entitles the Board of Agriculture to declare what mixtures or foreign substances are injurious to health, and public analysts throughout the country are instructed to have regard to the decision of the Board on these points. But what machinery has the Board for deciding these important

255
questions? Let us suppose that the right hon. Gentleman, or his successor, declares that the admixture of a small amount of borax with butter is injurious to health. Analysts would have to act accordingly. Under Clause 3 of the Act of 1875 the addition to an article of food of any substance injurious to health is a serious crime, punishable in the first instance with a penalty of£50, and on a subsequent conviction subjecting the offender to six months' hard labour. But is it to be imagined for one moment that any person convicted on the evidence of an analyst acting on such an instruction from the Board of Agriculture as I have indicated would be subjected to any such penalty? Why, I believe that any judge would at once knock such evidence on the head. And while the Board of Agriculture may declare the addition of borax to butter to be injurious to health, the Bill actually takes no power to prevent the use of borax as a preservative for ham or bacon, although the Irish Members pressed the Government to adopt such a step. Analysts, as defined by the Food and Drugs Act, do not include the chemistry department of Somerset House, and those officials would continue to declare their views of adulteration independently of any instructions that might be issued by the Board of Agriculture. All this lands the law into a state of inextricable confusion, and there is no standard on which we can fall back. For years traders have been most anxious to have extended to the Food and Drugs Act the provision of the Margarine Act, which declares that an invoice shall be regarded as a warranty. When the Bill was introduced it was so drafted that we were under the impression that an invoice was to be taken as a warranty, but on the Second Reading we were undeceived, and we learnt for the first time from the right hon. Gentleman that it was not in his intention that an invoice should be considered to be a warranty. In Committee upstairs an Amendment was inserted in the measure constituting an invoice a warranty, but on Report, at an hour of the morning when nothing could be made known to the public through the ordinary channels of information, the decision of the Committee was reversed. In this matter the traders had great cause to complain of their treatment, for although the right hon. Gentlemen said he
256
would leave the matter in the hands of the House, he made the strongest possible speech in favour of reversing the decision of the Committee, and his learned colleague, the Solicitor-General, followed that up with another speech equally strong. When the right hon. Gentleman took this action he was himself introducing an Amendment which would have done away with all danger of constituting an invoice a warranty. It was intended to enable persons giving these warranties to be prosecuted in a court having jurisdiction in a place where the offence was committed. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward a MSS. Amendment for the purpose, and this illustrates the slovenly manner in which the Debates have been conducted. One of the two offences in the Food and Drugs Act most severely dealt with is the false labelling of an article by the manufacturer, and under Clause 27 of the Act of 1875 the penalty for such an offence is£20. Now, nothing could have, been more logical and proper than to allow the MSS. Amendment to apply to this clause, and had that been done, while it might not have adequately protected the retail vendor of the article, it would have enabled the manufacturer to be prosecuted. But that was not done, and as we had no opportunity of studying the words of the Amendment, it has been carried in a less satisfactory form than it would otherwise have assumed. The Bill alters the law as to warranties and invoices, and nothing is done to remedy the grievances so long complained of. It has been held that the label on a can of syrup with the words "guaranteed as pure," is not a warranty, and that a running milk contract containing a clause that the milk shall be pure milk is not a sufficient warranty, unless a separate guarantee is sent with each consignment. It has been held that a printed warranty is not a written warranty. Now all of these things might have been cleared up if any desire had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman to reach the adulterator and punish him. I will give another example of the unfortunate way in which traders have been treated in the consideration of this Bill. Under the Margarine Act an invoice is a warranty subject to certain safeguards. I put down an Amendment upstairs, to provide that it should be a good plea in a prosecution for infringement of the law that the provisions of the Margarine Act had been complied with. The right hon.

257
Gentleman put down an exactly similar one, and on the faith of that I withdrew mine. He certainly formally moved it, but in the face of a small amount of opposition he withdrew it at once, and, of course, left me in the lurch. I tried to raise the question on Report, but you, Sir, considered that I was not in order. There is, again, the provision in the Bill which inflicts the penalty of imprisonment for a third offence, although the first two offences may have been of a purely technical character, and have been committed by persons other than the defendant and against his orders. I will not discuss this or the clause prohibiting the sale of margarine containing more than a certain percentage of butter fat, although it will deprive the inmates of our poorhouses and metropolitan asylums of some of the small portion of butter they have been allowed in the past. Let me give one other instance of this Grainger legislation. It was proposed to make it obligatory to place upon each can of condensed separated milk the words "Bad for babies". But the right hon. Gentleman objected, not because he had not the fullest sympathy with the proposal, but because the addition of those words would necessitate the label being printed in too small letters. [Mr. LONG: No, no.] That is certainly what I understood. And, in passing, I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is another article quite as bad for babies as condensed milk, and that is separated uncondensed milk, which, unlike the former, is not made more nutritious by the addition of sugar. As the right hon. Gentleman, however, distinctly promised consideration of this matter, I would call his attention to the fact that pure milk from the cow is about as bad for the baby as anything could be and it is necessary to water it down, unless harm is to be done to the infant. What, however, we want to strike at is the manufactured article. It is more pleasant for me to turn now to the features of the Bill which make improvements in the law of the country. The Amendment to Clause 19, introduced at the instance of the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, is a distinct improvement, and is calculated to do more to check adulteration than a thousand prosecutions by Customs officials. In Clauses 2 and 3Amendments of great importance were introduced, imposing on the Local Government Board the same duties with regard to adulteration in
258
the case of various foods as those imposed upon the Minister of Agriculture with regard to all agricultural products. In those clauses provision is made for the appointment of public analysts of approved competency by the local authorities, and if the local authorities do not put this provision into force the Local Government Board can send down their own inspectors and put the law in motion at the expense of the local authorities. With regard to the taking of samples, an extremely moderate standard is fixed; one sample being taken for every 5,000 inhabitants. That involves only one visit at one shop every five years for the purpose of taking a sample. The returns of 1882 show that even with that moderate standard the local authorities did not enforce the Act at all, whilst many others only took half-a-dozen samples for the purpose of keeping up appearances. The Local Government Board under this Bill have power to compel the local authorities to carry out the Adulteration Act and to increase the standard upon which they work. Do they propose to raise the standard and to compel the local authorities to carry out the Food and Drugs Act? In the absence of the smallest sign from the representative of the Local Government Board that it is the intention of that Department to enforce these powers, I do not expect much in the way of suppression of adulteration from them. But this I do not mind, because the present occupants of the Local Government Board may not always be there, and it may be that in days to come we shall have a President of that Department who will take some little interest in attempting to put down the adulteration of food in this country by getting at the wholesale offender. If they had gone against the wholesale adulterators in the past and stopped these adulterated goods at the port of entry I believe by this time they would have prevented adulteration to a very large extent. One of the gravest blots on this Bill is that no attempt has been made to put down adulteration by attacking it at the fountain-head. This Bill does not deal with the whole question of food—it only deals with about four articles—and I do not intend to divide the House upon it at this stage, but I do say that if the measure, instead of being sent upstairs, had been thrashed out by a Committee of the whole House, it would no doubt have shared the fate of many

259
other Bills that have been lost this session in the massacre of the innocents.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I am glad that the hon. Member does not intend to divide the House at this stage, and I agree very much with his criticism upon this Bill, because, after all, he has probably given more years to the consideration of this question than many others of us have given months. He has been engaged in considering the laws of adulteration for the last 20 years, and therefore speaks with authority in this House. He has pointed out that the Bill has many defects, and with that I agree; but, on this occasion, I should prefer to deal with some of the advantages we shall derive from it, if it passes. We shall get better inspection at the ports of entry, which will be of great advantage in putting down adulteration of those articles which are imported from abroad. What is wanted—as my hon. friend has said—is to get at the large adulterators, and to prevent the small retail trader coming under the heavy penalties provided by this Bill. The small traders will find that, in a great many cases, they will be liable to very severe penalties and punishments, and the one fault that I have to find with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is that he has not protected them more than they have been by the measure as it stands at present. I think we might have given the small trader greater protection under the warrant and invoice clause, and I hope that even now my right hon. friend will be able to see his way to do something more in that respect before the Bill passes into law. In my opinion the best part of the Bill is the third clause, which practically insists on the law being enforced all over the country. The great difficulty in the past has been that it has been permissive, and that while in one district the law was enforced, in another it was not. The result was, that however active the Local Government Board might have been, they have always been unable to get the local authorities of the country to enforce the law universally. That will no longer exist, and in this respect the most important step has been taken since the Adulteration Acts have been passed. This Bill insists that this Act shall be carried out in a proper manner, and if the local authority does not put it into force the Board of Agri-
260
culture or the Local Government Board can step into the locality with its own inspectors and take samples, and charge the local authorities with the cost of the duties which they have been compelled to undertake. Such a course must inevitably put down a great deal of the adulteration of food. We shall have in the future two authorities looking into this matter—the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture. I tried all I could to prevent there being two authorities, because I do not believe in the efficacy of two authorities. I would rather see this Bill governed by one. I would even rather have had the Board of Agriculture by itself. The Local Government Board will I fear do very little and the Board of Agriculture a very great deal, and I hope that in the future this Act will pass entirely under the direction of the Board which shows most energy. I do not think the Board of Agriculture is an ideal body for the work, but while the present President is in power I am quite certain he will do everything to make the Bill a success. I hope that, looking at it in that light, we shall have from it a larger amount of benefit than we have had from any previous Act of the same kind, and I hope before it finally becomes law the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to lessen, if possible, the oppressiveness of the Bill upon the small shopkeeper. It is a serious matter that many of those small traders—sometimes widows, and sometimes men who are in entire ignorance of what they are selling—that they should be made the victims of the administration of this law. I think that there ought to be in every case full opportunity for a man to clear himself by referring to producers of the article which he has sold, so that he may not by any technicality in the Act be made to suffer when he is not the real cause of the crime of which he has been convicted. I hope some amelioration in that position will yet be brought about before the Bill is placed upon the Statute Book.
SIR J. FERGUSSON:I have only one word to say upon the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I voted against my right hon. friend when, the other day, the Bill was amended with respect to the invoice warranty. I did so because I had very prominently in my mind the great number of small dealers in my own constituency, and I cannot but feel for them in the difficulties

261
in which they have been placed in regard to the prosecutions for the breach of this Act, when they are innocent offenders. How can a small dealer know whether the ingredients of the food he sells exactly correspond with the requirements of the law? I know small shops where small portions of provisions are prepared for the factory people, and I cannot but ask myself how these poor people are to be responsible for what they have sold. My right hon. friend says he will do what he can to render the invoice a safeguard to the small trader, and to provide that the invoice shall have the force of a guarantee. The small trader cannot insist upon a legal guarantee from the person of whom he buys, but an invoice specifying that the article he buys is in conformity with the Act would safeguard him.
MR. HARWOOD: I am very unwilling to trench upon the time of the House, but I have not hitherto taken any part in the discussion of the Bill. I desire to make one general observation and one or two special ones. The general observation I desire to make is, that there seems to be a tone of exaggeration as to the evil which it is attempted to meet. The figures brought forward by the hon. Baronet show that the evil of adulteration is not by any means an increasing one, but a rapidly diminishing one, and that it is a very difficult thing to say what adulteration is. It does not follow that because a certain ingredient is added to a given article it makes the article any worse in quality. I live amongst a large population which, I suppose, uses a great deal of what is called margarine, but I have never heard a single complaint of people being "done." I think this is another case of that kind of legislation which is generally characterised, when it is passed by the Party sitting on this side of the House, as grandmotherly legislation. It seems to be taken for granted that all buyers are fools and quite incapable of judging the articles they buy. Throughout the Discussion as well as in the general constitution of this Bill, there appears to be a distinct exaggeration as to the value of butter. I had almost begun to think that butter was something sacred, and that there was a kind of law of the Medes and Persians that butter, and butter only, should be used. Butter is only a fat, and I cannot see why there should be anything parti-
262
cularly sacred about it. I have occasion to live a good deal in the country, and I am bound to tell the agricultural Members that I find great difficulty in getting good butter. Whether agriculturists cannot make it or won't make it I don't know, but the fact remains that the only butter worth buying is the Kiel butter. I would warn hon. Members that they are giving margarine a great puff, because people will conclude that an article which they are so much afraid of, and which cannot be distinguished from butter, must be as good as butter. When I listened to the Debate on the clause relating to imprisonment I felt that a very serious feature had been added to the Bill. I would ask I the right hon. Gentleman to consider again the wording of that clause. The smaller people are to be punished. That is the spirit of the Bill in these clauses. By the clause relating to the admixture of butter with margarine the House has taken a new and dangerous departure in dictating to the people what their food shall be.
SIR F. S. POWELL: I should not be doing my duty to the small shop-keepers in my constituency if I did not press upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of guarding the innocent small traders—a class which suffered greatly when the decision was arrived at as regards the invoice and warranty. These persons are not skilled in chemistry; they have no desire to be guilty of any fraud; they are very much in the hands of the wholesale dealer. I hope my right hon. friend will see his way to give them greater security than the Bill at present affords. I am not sure that severe penalties always accomplish their object. I believe myself that more moderate measures are the most effective. This Bill will do great good, and the public health and safety will be increased by it, but I thought it my duty to point out this blot in the Bill.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I desire to support the appeal which has been made in favour of greater protection being given to the innocent retail dealer. I think the cause of the retail dealer has somewhat suffered from the form of the Amendment which was adopted by the Committee upstairs, and

263
by the introduction of the word "invoice." I do not know exactly what "invoice" means; there may be an invoice which in effect amounts to a warranty, and there may be invoices which do not amount to warranties. The right hon. Gentleman might consider whether after the word "warranty" in the clause words to this effect could not be added: "Or any document describing the value, substance, and quality of the article in question in such terms as to amount to a sale by description, within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893." If these words are added the position of the retail dealer will be precisely the same in a criminal as in a civil court. There is a real and substantial injustice in drawing a distinction between the rights of the retail dealer in a civil and in a criminal court. These words that I have suggested would not in any way vitiate the general object which the law intended to enforce, but would do substantial justice to the class of whom I am speaking.
MR J. H. JOHNSTONE: We have heard a great deal about the small shopkeeper and the innocent retailer, but where does the public come in? They are the people for whom we are legislating, and they are the people to be protected, even though the I small shopkeeper may unfortunately suffer some injury—I cannot call it "wrong"—in our efforts to protect the public. With regard to this celebrated Clause 8, is it pure benevolence on the part of manufacturers of margarine which makes them desirous of mixing a more expensive product with it? Or have they the ulterior motive of desiring to sell the mixture at a price exceeding margarine price and approaching, if not equalling, butter price? The reason for this clause is perfectly clear. You must, in the interests of honest trading, draw the line between margarine and butter, and it is necessary that that line should be a very broad one. What I really rose for was to remind the right hon. Gentleman of an undertaking he gave the other night with regard to the important question of labelling separated milk. An assurance was given that he would consider the question in the course of the passage of the Bill through the other House. The difficulty appeared to be that the labels would have to be very small,
264
but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it cannot surely be said to pass the wit of man to devise some means of carrying into effect an object which he desires quite as much as I do myself.
MR. LOWLES: If the last speaker had as intimate an acquaintance with the small shop-keepers as I have, he would have a very much higher opinion of them than he apparently now possesses. In the constituency in the East of London which I represent, there are thousands of small shopkeepers who struggle hard for their livelihood, and I strongly deprecate the suggestion that they are anything but honest men. It is only a fair suggestion that the wholesale houses who supply the commodity in which these people deal should be held responsible instead of the small shop-keepers, who have to sell a great many articles for the contents of which they are not in the least responsible. If it was decided that an invoice should be taken as a warranty, no reasonable cause of complaint would exist. It is extremely hard and unfair that the whole burden of defending a prosecution should rest with these unfortunate traders. I also think the Bill is a little too drastic in regard to the imprisonment clause. Its effect will undoubtedly be to punish small traders and allow the large dealers to escape. Generally speaking, the Bill has been accepted as a perfectly satisfactory measure with these two exceptions, and I hope opportunity will be taken before the Bill passes into law to remedy these defects.
MR. BRYCE: I do not think this discussion has been altogether fruitless. I am glad my hon. friend on this side of the House does not think it necessary to go to a Division, because, although there are many objections to be taken to some of the provisions, I think certain clauses will prove of considerable value in checking adulteration and fraud. Upon Clause 8, I should like to say that I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the opposition to that clause comes from the margarine manufacturers. This is the only clause in the Bill in which it is proposed to prohibit the sale of an article which is not poisonous and is perfectly fit for human consumption. It is an article which is

265
very agreeable to the taste, and yet it is to be prohibited altogether. That is an exceptional piece of legislation which does not reflect credit upon this House. We ought to regard this question from the point of view of the public, and I am inclined to reject the decision of the Committee upstairs. In my opinion we should have greater security against fraud if we attacked the fons et origo mali, the wholesale dealer, rather than the retailer. I still join in the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, when this Bill goes to another place, to use his influence to improve the wording of the clause to protect the innocent retailer. I do not wish to disparage the zeal or judgment, or the skill, knowledge, and tact shown by the right hon Gentleman in charge of this Bill, for I think we are all indebted to him for the way in which he has addressed his mind to the subject before the House. My objection is to bringing the Board of Agriculture into the question at all. The Bill is primarily a Bill to protect the consumer from fraud, and I cannot see any reason for the introduction of the Board of Agriculture, which can only be interested in preventing or diminishing competition. If the intention is to diminish competition, then the proposal is not fit for this House to adopt, for it savours of the nature of Protection. I think it would have been much better if we had devoted our attention entirely to adulteration, for the Board of Agriculture creates a double authority. The question has been put to the Government whether the Local Government Board intend to use their powers under this Act to appoint inspectors, or whether they intend to leave that duty to the Board of Agriculture. No answer was given to that question, and I am afraid we must conclude that the Local Government Board will leave this duty to the Board of Agriculture. It is said that the local authorities have not efficiently discharged their duties in the past, and that now we are going to supervise them and stimulate them into action; but the function of dealing with the local authorities is one which belongs naturally to the Local Government Board, because that body is already the supervisor of the local authorities, and it is in touch with them. It has a medical staff which is already concerned with matters of public health, and I submit that we should
266
find it easier to deal with the local authorities if we were to continue this function in the hands of the Local Government Board rather than place it in the hands of the Board of Agriculture, which is a new authority, with which the local authorities are not acquainted. I regret the decision which the House has come to to create a second authority in this matter, and I cannot but think that serious inconvenience will result from the substitution of the Agricultural Board for the Local Government Board. However, although the Billis undoubtedly open to these criticisms, I agree that it does contain some good provisions, which may turn out to be a real protection to the poor consumer, who may get a better article than he has done hitherto.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): I desire to thank my hon. friend for the statement which he has just made; for, notwithstanding the criticism which has been made of this proposal, on the whole there seems to be a general opinion that the Bill contains much which is good, and that it will effect a desirable change in the condition of things existing at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has reverted to the old argument that the Board of Agriculture ought not to be the authority for some of these purposes. Upon this subject I desire to repeat the reply I made at a very much earlier stage of the Bill. It is not necessary now to discuss whether the Local Government Board or the Board of Agriculture is the most suitable Department; but I am bound to remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the Board of Agriculture has been improperly introduced into this Departmental work, it is not with us that the responsibility rests. The first time steps were taken in order to deal with the adulteration of certain articles in connection with the main and staple articles of food and dairy produce it was done by the Government with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was associated, and with the assent and upon the initiation of the late Leader of the Opposition; and, with regard to those duties we shall have to carry out, we have only put upon a permanent basis the system commenced under the Government of the right hon. Gentleman, not only with the approval, but on the initiation, of

267
the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. Whatever suspicions hon. Gentlemen opposite may have in connection with hon. Members on this side of the House, I am sure they will not associate any views of that kind with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. I would rather hope that the fears expressed by the right hon. Gentleman as to the way in which the Board of Agriculture will carry out their duty may turn out to be unfounded, and that we shall act in the future as in the past, from no desire to bolster up home products, but to secure fair and open competition, and from a desire to see that the pure article at home shall compete against a pure article from abroad, and that its value shall not be depreciated by the adulterated article, which ought to be sold as an adulterated article and not as something very different. Some of the remarks which have been made have deserved the descriptions given to them by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to their main points. It has been pointed out that a third offence under Clause 8 may lead to imprisonment, and the same clause also provides that an invoice may, like a warranty, be pleaded in defence. I think it would be quite unnecessary for me to go into the reasons which led us to take this course. I have already admitted that it is a form of legislation which we have adopted with regret, and we have adopted it only upon the recommendation of the Commitee. From the evidence of experts of all kinds we have been convinced that, unless some power of this kind is introduced into the Bill, there will be a continuation of that kind of fraud which has resulted in the production of a particular article of which I believe 99 per cent, has been sold as a pure article when it is not pure at all. The right hon. Gentleman said the effect of this clause would be to make it impossible to improve that article and sell it in a better form. I contest that argument, because the evidence from all sources goes to show that the very best article which the public wish to buy as margarine can be produced under this Clause 8, and there is nothing in it which will interfere with the production of a first class article. The hon. Member for Bolton says he has made a new discovery—that the effect of this Bill is going to in-
268
crease and popularise the sale of margarine. Those are opinions which I expressed long ago, and there is no new discovery about it. The hon. Member asked me to give particular attention to the fact that this Bill would increase the sale of margarine, but that is the view I have expressed from the very beginning. It is because I believe it will lead to the selling of margarine for what it is, and not for what it is not, that I have included in the Bill the powers which it now contains. With regard to imprisonment, I told the House there were precedents for our proposal, and I justified the reasons for the clause. So far from this being an additional penalty of the poor man as compared with the rich man, it is precisely the reverse. It is well known that the wealthy producer despises penalties which consist solely of fines, for the wealthy man who has determined to make and sell a fraudulent article can go on manufacturing it with impunity and does not mind paying the fine a dozen times over. It is only when he knows that he runs the risk of imprisonment that he will realise, whether he wishes it or not, that in the long run it is the best policy to be honest, and that he had better abandon practices which otherwise he is not apparently inclined to give up. As regards the question of invoices and warranty, we have as a matter of fact made a very material change in the operation of the law in regard to wholesale dealers. In the first place I propose on behalf of the Government to have inserted in another place a provision which will give power to take samples at the place of delivery. That will be an effective change in the law. The penalty at present for giving a false warranty is £20. We propose to raise it for the third offence to £100, with power also to inflict imprisonment. That ought to have a very material effect in preventing the giving of false warranties. We have also decided to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Durham. At the present time if a retailer is prosecuted for selling an adulterated article, and he succeeds in shifting the responsibility on to the wholesaler on the ground that he received a false warranty the wholesaler must be followed to the place where he is to be found, in order to institute a prosecution. The change we propose is that the local authorities may be able to institute a prosecution against the giver of a false warranty in

269
the locality where the proceedings against the retailer were commenced. The effect of that will, of course, be far-reaching. We further propose to introduce another Amendment into the Bill. At present if a retailer claims he is innocent and produces a warranty from the wholesale dealer it rests with him to show that the giver of the warranty is the guilty person. That seems unfair, and we propose that the onus probandi shall be thrown on the accused person, and not on the retailer, who ought not to be called upon to prove not only his own innocence but the guilt of somebody else. Nothing else remains to be referred to except the question of warranty and invoice. I entirely associate myself with the remarks which have been made on both sides of the House in reference to the small dealer. I must, however, demur to the words which fell from one of my hon. friends who suggested that an imputation had been cast upon the small dealer. I am confident none of us for a moment intended to cast the smallest reflection on the small dealers as a body. I believe after a somewhat exhaustive examination of this question that the great majority of small dealers will not be affected by this legislation. I believe the majority of them are honest men, anxious to carry out their business honestly. The effect of the Amendment introduced in Committee upstairs was that any person accused of an offence under the Adulteration Acts, and the Margarine Act, should, on producing an invoice, be entitled to be discharged. The opinion of experienced men was, however, against the proposal. The local authorities themselves were unanimously against it, the judicial authorities who were consulted held that it would afford a means of escape, and make the law inoperative; and the medical officers of health took the same view. The day after this point was decided on the Report stage I received letters from retail dealers approving of the decision arrived at, and one retail dealer stated that no honest men who took the trouble to look after his own affairs had any reason to fear it. At the same time I acknowledge there is a practical difficulty connected with this question. The words introduced in Committee making an invoice the same value as a warranty would make it impossible to administer Clause 19, but the speeches in support of that change were directed to a
270
totally different object. The speeches made at the deputations which waited upon me with reference to the point all went in a different direction. The hon. Member for Swansea suggested that an invoice should be made a warranty, but there is plenty of doubt as to whether there should or should not be a distinction between different kinds of invoices. It is suggested that an invoice which contains special words which appear to indicate that the seller guarantees the article he sells shall be held to be a warranty; but there has been diversity of opinion among those who administer the law. I have, however, been very much impressed by what I have heard during these Debates. I have listened to the helpful suggestions of the hon. Member for Swansea, and I hope that before the Bill reaches the Committee stage in another place, we may be able to have words introduced which will clear up any doubt as to the legitimate use of an invoice. On the other hand I am not prepared, while we are engaged in tightening up in other respects legislation with regard to this particular kind of offence, to introduce a provision which would enable a person to escape even though he committed frauds in a wholesale way. I hope that admission will be sufficient to meet the suggestion made to me. The only other matter to which I need refer is the description on the labels on tins of preserved milk, about which the hon. Member for North West Sussex is very anxious. I would remind my hon. friend that any declaration so definite as that such food is unfitted for infants should be very cautiously considered. There is a very great difference of opinion as to whether this food can be described as unfitted for infants. But I am not an authority on the feeding of infants, and I am not prepared to say what is the best advice that should be given to parents charged with this responsible duty. If, however, any form of words can be devised which will not ask Parliament to make a declaration which it would be undesirable to make—because Parliament ought not to give a declaration of that kind its authority unless we are quite certain it will not be contested—I shall be very glad, as I promised my hon. friend, to insert the necessary Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the staff of the Local Government Board, which is to carry out this Bill. I am not

271
aware that there is any particular difficulty in the matter. At the present time, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in Departments like the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture, no matter how careful we may be, a great deal of work must run onlines which at times may overlap. The work of one Department is often the work of the other; but there will be no difficulty whatever in carrying out the particular duties imposed by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman asked what staff we were going to appoint. That is a matter to which it is impossible to refer at present; but I think the right hon. Gentleman and the House may rely on it that the powers conferred by this Bill will not be used to harass either small or large traders, or to interfere in any illegitimate way with any industry. But, at the same time, we have a solid determination to make use of the new powers which we have asked Parliament to give us to put down fraud, to put an end to illegitimate trade, and to secure for the public what it is entitled to have—a supply of pure unadulterated articles of food, and that prices shall not be charged for these articles to which, on their merits, they are not entitled. Those are the lines on which we hope to work, and I believe that the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture will, if Parliament sees fit to pass this Bill subject to the changes I have indicated, be able to effect very material alterations.
Question put, and agreed.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

NAVAL WORKS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN): This Bill, the Second Reading of which I now move, provides for the continuation of the construction of works sanctioned under the previous Naval Works Act. The total cost of the works included in the Bill is estimated to be £23,600,000, and on account of this the House is now asked to authorize
  272
  an expenditure of £3,100,000 in addition to the sum already provided, and to give borrowing powers to the extent of £3,161,000. The Bill in its form follows closely the previous Acts, and raises I think no new questions of principle, nor no large questions of policy. The only change in regard to its form is that whereas previous Bills were in intention and appearance Bills for one year, this is a Bill providing for expenditure over two years. The House will remember that in the Bill of 1897 we took a larger sum of money than we were able to spend in that financial year, and that sum of money has lasted up to the present time. We have found great difficulty in estimating some works, especially in the early stages. But I hope that by taking a sum for two years we shall approximate more closely our estimate to our expenditure. There is another incidental advantage in this from an administrative point of view, upon which I can hardly lay too much stress, and that is that the work of the directing staff of the Civil Engineer-in-Chief's Department and the Directors of the Works Department will not be interrupted next year by the preparation of a new Bill, and they will be able to give their uninterrupted attention to carrying out these enormous works. I hope that the Memorandum attached to the Bill and the schedule which forms part of it will dispense me from making any detailed examination of the old proposals repeated from previous years. If any information is required in regard to points of detail in regard to these matters I shall be happy to give them at the Committee stage. I think that the information in the Memorandum and schedule is so full that I need not trouble the House with details at this time. I imagine the House will be more anxious that I should give them some account of the progress made with the existing works, and some explanation of the new proposals now put before them for the first time. As regards the progress of the existing works, the House is well aware of our failure to spend the sum we had anticipated in the previous year. That failure, as I have said, and as I hope the House will note, is by no moans to be taken as indicating absolutely the progress we have made in these works themselves. Because, in the first place, there is a great amount of preliminary work to be done by the contractors, and expendi

  273
  ture to be incurred by them for plant for contractors' work, as distinguished from permanent work, upon which we make them no payment at all, but in regard to which they recoup themselves from the price they get for the whole work when it is finished. In the second place, payments are necessarily always one or two months in arrear, and in the case of foreign stations it is sometimes more than that, because the accounts when they come in have to be carefully examined and audited before any payments are made upon them. In the third place, in regard to two works—Gibraltar and Portland—these had been begun by the Admiralty before the contracts were taken for them and accordingly there was handed over to the contractors the whole of our own plant and machinery, and we have had to recoup ourselves for them from the money earned by the contractors. And, lastly, there are the reserves that we take by instalments as the contractor earns them in case of any failure to fulfil their contracts. In the case of the last two items the amount of work already done is £300,000. While laying stress on these facts, and drawing attention again to the fact that our expenditure is not to be taken as an absolute test of the progress of the works, I admit that the progress in the initial stages has been less rapid than we had hoped for, or anticipated. That is partly due to changes in policy with regard to some of these works. In the case of the Gibraltar dockyard extension, and in regard to the Hong Kong extension, owing to changes that had been found desirable, there had been practically substituted for the original schemes entirely new and very much larger schemes of defence, which could not reasonably or possibly be expected to be completed in the same time. There are other cases, as for instance, that of the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth; and in the case of some of the barracks and other works we have found unexpected difficulties in obtaining the land we require, and the process of acquisition whether by purchase or otherwise has been disappointingly slow. The House must also bear in mind the fact that a vast amount of preliminary work has to be done after the approval of the House has been given to the scheme before we are ready to begin. Any Member of the House who has not had the opportunity which I, myself, have had,
  274
  of looking at the preparations in the office of my advisers, can have no conception of the number of plans and drawings that have to be prepared in order to the prosecution of these vast works. Again, in regard to the estimates, there is one more difficulty on which I must touch. The House will realise that it is customary and indeed necessary to allow to the contractors who undertake these works a very large latitude as to the order in which they begin to prosecute them, provided only that they complete them within the contract time. As some portions of the work are much more expensive than other portions, it depends to a large extent on the fancy or the plans of the contractor which one he will undertake first, and he, therefore, cannot know what the expenditure on any given portion may be. Last year, in order to check our own calculations, we invited the contractors to inform us what their own estimates were, and the expenditure on the works they had in hand, and their estimates were at least quite as wide of the mark as our own. The House will, therefore, see the difficulties with which I had to deal. In the whole of the works on which I made inquiry, the contractors estimated that they would spend just double what they did spent; while in one case—one of the largest of our contractors—his expenditure was only a fifth of what he gave us as likely to be spent. In spite of these facts, however, I am glad to say that during the last financial year there was a great improvement in regard to the correspondence between the estimates and expenditure, and as regards progress with the works. We expended during the last financial year a million and a quarter, as against an estimate of a million and a-half; and the progress of the works themselves has been satisfactory. Thus, in the case of the great harbour of Portsmouth, it was finished in so far as concerns the provision of defence against a torpedo attack in April last; and although, of course, much work still remains to be done there in bringing the whole breakwater up to the section it will be when completed, and in placing the gates and lights on the breakwater we have already secured the use and advantage of that great military harbour. I need only remind the House that the whole of the mobilised fleet assembled there the other day. So, in

  275
  regard to the works at Gibraltar: the extension of the Admiralty mole was completed to the low water level last September, and it is capable of protecting that part of the harbour against a torpedo attack. I may illustrate that by the grounding of one of our own torpedo boats when practising a night attack against the harbour. The detached mole is finished to low-water level, and the lesser mole will be finished by March in the year after, and by that time the whole new harbour at Gibraltar will be completed as regards defence against a topedo attack. The House may possibly wish to know whether there is any reason to anticipate any trouble from the strike which has occurred at these works, owing to the paragraphs which have appeared in the Press in regard to it. I am glad to to be able to say that the information I have received is to the effect that the workmen are already returning to work, and that there is not likely to be any serious trouble on that account. These two works, with Dover, are the most urgent of all the works included in the old Bill. The progress at Dover has not been very great in respect of permanent works. Considerable work has been done in laying out the dockyard, preparing docks, and in railway connections which are a necessary preliminary to the vigorous prosecution of that work. In regard to the dockyard extension at Keyham, about a fourth of the whole is already completed. The expenditure on that work last year was very nearly equal to the whole money spent on it in the preceding years, showing that as the work progresses the expenditure goes up by leaps and bounds. As to the Gibraltar dockyard extension scheme, great progress has been made with the first dock, which, according to the Bill of 1895, was to have been the only dock. It will be ready for use in three years from December last. I hope the House will not think it necessary for me to go through all the works in the schedule, but I may say, in general terms, that with three exceptions the contracts are now let for all the works included in the previous Acts. These exceptions are the barracks at Sheerness, which had to be abandoned for reasons already explained, connected with the in sanitary condition of the only available site. The other two contracts are for the Hong Kong Extension and the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth. In both of
  276
  these cases tenders will, I hope, be called for during the present year, and in both of them under subsidiary contracts a considerable extent of preliminary work has been done. That preliminary work has been of special importance at Hong Kong, because it has, to a great extent enabled the authorities to erect the shops for preparing the machinery which the contractors will have to employ. I pass from this review of the progress of existing works, only noting in doing so that the three works already completed have each been completed within the scheduled time and the scheduled cost. I now pass to the new works included in this Bill, and I do not wish to minimise their magnitude, involving as they do an expenditure of six millions sterling beyond that already provided, but I hope the House will not cavil at the amount asked for, but will seek to satisfy itself that the money is necessary, that the works to which it is to be applied have been well thought out, and that the country will get full value for the expenditure it is asked to undertake. The new expenditure of three millions falls under two classes. The first, composed of additions to existing estimates, is mainly required to make better provision for the health and comfort of the officers and men of the fleet, in connection with the hospitals and barracks now being built. But by far the most important section of this new expenditure is that required for the construction of five new docks, which now appear in the Bill for the first time. The House, of course, will understand that in these works the Admiralty has no inducement of its own. It is in these matters merely the handmaiden to the fleet. Dock accommodation is not less necessary to our naval supremacy than the provision of ships and men, and the efficiency of the fleet now depends to a far greater degree on the provision of docking facilities than at any previous time. In olden times it was possible to make many repairs with the most primitive agents, but the transition from wooden to iron ships made such a thing absolutely impossible, and iron ships are much more liable to accident, and require greater inspection, and unless they are frequently docked and cleaned lose a material portion of the speed for which the nation has paid. During the past ten years the total tonnage of ships built and building for the Navy increased from 864,000 to 1,800,000 tons. In the

  277
  same period the size of ships has shown no less progress. In 1889 the largest battleship, the "Trafalgar," was 345 feet long, and the largest cruiser, the "Northumberland," 400 feet long. To-day we are building battleships 400 feet long, and we have cruisers in commission 500 feet in length. The facts as regards individual squadrons are no less striking. The Mediterranean Squadron ten years ago had a tonnage of 96,000 tons; now it amounts to 205,000 tons. The Channel Squadron has risen in the same period from 37,000 tons to 155,000 tons; the China Squadron has very nearly trebled, and the squadrons at the Cape, North America, and the West Indies have almost exactly doubled. And during the ten years while this enormous increase in the fleet has been in progress the only docks that have been constructed are one at Malta and two at Portsmouth. The House will not therefore wonder that further accommodation is needed. We propose to build new docks at the places mentioned in the schedule, and one of the proposed new docks will be at one of the great depôts of the fleet, Chatham. Seven first-class battleships and eleven first-class cruisers are allotted to this depôts. Yet there is no dock at Chatham that can accommodate the "Powerful" or the "Terrible," or any of the first-class cruisers now building, and there is only one dock available for the large first-class battleships. That accommodation is quite inadequate either for the repairs of the fleet in time of peace, or to the situation that would be created in time of war, when the want of accommodation might prejudice our success or deprive us of victory. We propose, therefore, to build a new first-class dock at Chatham which will take the largest cruisers and the largest battleships. The next point is Malta. Malta is and must remain the most important of all our foreign stations. There is only one dock there which will take either the "Majestic" class, the "Royal Sovereign" class, or any of the battleships now building. The deficiency of dock accommodation there has already caused great inconvenience, and has been reported on by successive Naval Commanders-in-Chief. We propose to construct two docks at Malta—one a double dock and the other a shorter dock. It is more economical to build the two together, because the machinery which would be necessary for one would equally serve for the two.
  278
  We have also arranged for an extension of the dockyard by acquiring certain property adjacent to it. The length of the longer dock will be 790 ft. and of the shorter dock 550 ft. The breadth of both will be 94 ft. and the depth 35 ft. 6 in. The other proposed docks will be at Bermuda and the Cape. On the North American and West Indian Stations we have the largest interests both in floating trade and in colonies, and these interests call for adequate protection in time of war. At present there is one first-class dock at Halifax which is not an Admiralty dock, but of which the Admiralty have prior rights of user, and there is a small floating dock at Bermuda. We now propose to add a new first-class floating dock at Bermuda. We carried out a survey to see whether it would be possible to construct a graving dock at Bermuda; but the engineering difficulties were found to be so great, that the cost of the work was prohibitive. The floating dock will float in a basin of 30 acres in extent, and a depth of 33 ft., and it will have a certain amount of wharf-wall which will greatly facilitate repairs, At the present time the dock at Bermuda will not take the flagship on the station, or the large cruisers; and if anything happened to any of the vessels in the West Indies it would have to go to Halifax, about 2,000 miles, to be repaired. In this connection I might give the House, some striking facts as to the result of Lord Rodney's great victory in 1782. After the battle nine battleships sailed for England unrepaired. Four foundered, with a loss of 2,000 men; one was abandoned sinking; one put into Halifax; one put in at Jamaica; and only two reached England. Therefore, in view of the greater difficulty of repairing modern vessels except in properly constructed docks, the House will see that there would be great danger in leaving the dock accommodation on that station in its present ineffective condition. Another proposal, the importance of which will not be, I think, denied, is for the dockyard extension at the Cape. The importance of the Cape is patent to every one. It is a great calling place for our trade in time of peace, and a much larger volume of trade would, probably, pass there in war time. It is an important coaling station, and we already possess a small establishment at Simon's Bay, but with no dock. There is a dock belonging to the Harbour

  279
  Commissioners at Cape Town, but that dock will only take the older first-class cruisers when lightened, and is unable to take a battleship, or cruisers of the "Powerful" and "Diadem" class. The harbour is very crowded in time of peace, and is likely to be much more crowded in time of war; and we think that in such a position it is necessary to have a dock of our own. We propose to construct a dock 750 ft. long, 95 ft. wide, and 30 ft. deep, at Simon's Bay. In order that that dock may be safe from storms, protection for the dock entrance is necessary; and accordingly breakwaters will have to be constructed. The attention of the Board of Admiralty at the same time was called to the very unsatisfactory condition of the present coaling arrangements at Cape Town. If a spell of bad weather were to coincide with the arrival of a fleet in need of coal, several days might elapse before the coaling could be effected. We have therefore thought it advisable to take advantage of the protective works necessary to the dock to make a basin 28 acres in extent and 30 ft. in depth, and to provide in that wharfage accommodation, so that the colliers may come and unload alongside, and so that coal for the fleet may be stored. I ought not to part with this question of the Cape dock without recognising the assistance which we have received from the Cape Government in regard to the matter. The Cape Government has passed two Acts—one for the purpose of giving the Admiralty the necessary powers of control over the waters of the naval portion of the port, and over the foreshore; and another facilitating the purchase by the Admiralty of the land on the shore necessary for the protection of the dockyards. But for this assistance the works would be much more costly than they are now likely to prove. The last proposal we make is for a dock at Hong Kong. Recent developments have very much increased the importance of Hong Kong. Except for one dock at Kau-Lung there is no dock on British territory which will take the four largest ships on the China station nearer than Sydney, and none nearer than Bombay which would take the next two. There would also be considerable difficulty in docking the ships at Kau-Lung in consequence of the nature of the currents there. When proposals were first made for this dockyard extension a dock was
  280
  not included in the scheme; but a portion of the extension was reserved for a dock if it became necessary. Having regard to the fact that Kau-Lung is large enough for the largest cruisers, and that the space it the Hong Kong Dockyard is very valuable, it is proposed to build only a, shorter dock—550 ft. long 95 ft. wide, and 30 ft. deep.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Is that at Kau-Lung?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, at Hong Kong. The House will see that these proposals are the result of a careful survey of the needs of the fleet, and of the forces which we are obliged to maintain in different waters. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel convinced that this scheme, though large, is not larger than is required, and that it will consent to read the Bill a second time, without any hostile manifestation.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The hon. Gentleman in the commencement of his speech made very full admissions as to the delay which, to the great regret of us all, has overtaken many of the works, but the explanation does not really cover the extent and the gravity of the disappointment which has been suffered with respect to the progress of these very important works. These delays have had two results. The first was shortness of expenditure, which in the years 1896–97 and 1897–98 amounted to £4,000,000 less than the estimate. The second serious consequence is the change in the dates of completion. The dates given in the present Bill are very different from the dates given two years ago, or, in some cases, three years ago. I find that the Gibraltar extension and the deepening of the harbour and approaches are five years later.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is due to the fact that the dredgers

  281
  have been diverted to more urgent dredging work elsewhere.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I accept that explanation. I also find that such works as the Gibraltar Enclosed Harbour, the commercial mole, the Channel Naval Barracks, and the Keyham Naval Barracks were three years later; that the Portland and Dover Harbours have been postponed two years, and that other works have been postponed one year. The next topic to which I will allude is the great increase in the total estimated cost of works under this Bill. This is partly due to the numerous additions which have been made to the expenditure on items which already existed in the Naval Works Acts of previous years, amounting altogether to £309,852; but it is mainly due to entirely new works proposed under the Bill. I think the Houseis bound to take notice of the progressive increase which has taken place in expenditure under successive Naval Works Bills. The Bill of 1895, for which I and my colleague were responsible, contemplated an expenditure under nine millions sterling, though I admit that as it was impossible at that time to accurately estimate the cost of some of the great works, particularly the Keyham Extension and the Dover Harbour, the estimates given in that Bill were under the mark. The Bill of 1896 proposed an expenditure of more than 14 millions, the Bill of 1897 an expenditure of 20 ¼millions, while the present Bill proposes an expenditure of 23, or rather 23½millions, so that we have an increase of 9½millions since 1896. There is no disguising the fact that this enormous increase of expenditure is due to the need for additional dockyards and dockyard establishments in various parts of the world owing to the increase in the fleet and the building of larger ships, but it is serious to contemplate what all this must lead to. Seeing that the construction of several new docks is proposed, I would ask whether it would not be better to adopt the policy of obtaining the right of temporarily using docks of sufficient dimensions, in private hands, at places where at present we have no docks of our own, and thereby avoid the cost of keeping up a dockyard establishment, which would be necessary if an Admiralty
  282
  dock is built. The Admiralty have experienced the difficulty of keeping a large staff of superior artisans engaged in dockyard establishments at foreign stations employed throughout the year; and at Malta, where such a state of things has existed, the experiment of building a ship was tried. I do not, however, think that that experiment will be repeated, for it was very expensive, and by no means encouraging. There is one other point in respect of Bermuda Dock which I should like to raise. The Civil Lord has told us that there is to be a floating dock. It is not, I suppose, proposed to put that charge upon the Bill. I presume that that will be rather a subject for the Estimates.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is included in the Estimates.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Our experience of floating docks is that they are not of a permanent character, and therefore it would not have been wise to put the charge upon the Bill. There is only one more point on which I wish to say a word, and that is the fact that this is a Bill for two years. I am opposed to this arrangement, because Parliamentary control for one year is deliberately abolished.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Hear, hear!
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be delighted to abolish all Parliamentary control?
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Over many things.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Somehon. Members desire that there should be as little control as possible by Members—save themselves—over the War Office and the Admiralty, but that is not the view of the average Member of the House, for whom I speak. I do not know that there has ever been a case in which this House has been asked to exercise its control once in two years instead

  283
  of once every year. It is a very peculiar arrangement, and is contrary to our traditions and convictions. The only comfort the economist can carry to his soul is that during the coming year there will be no opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to propose further great works involving an expenditure of several millions of money.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I rejoice that the Bill provides for a period of two years' expenditure, so that the Admiralty will not for that space of time be called called upon to fight the subject over again. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed disposed to criticise the Admiralty because they were unable to subsidise a greater number of docks. The Admiralty have already subsidised a dock at Halifax, and they have agreed to subsidise a dock at Auckland in New Zealand. In the colonies it is not difficult to invite an enterprising individual to risk his money in constructing docks under a Government guarantee; but it would be absurd to depend upon voluntary help for docks at Malta or Simon's Bay, and therefore we must look to the Imperial Government. I think this modest Bill deserves the warm support of every hon. Member. I listened with much attention and not a little admiration to the speech of the Civil Lord. He led us to contemplate the difficulties that naval men have had to encounter. I think he has made out a most excellent argument why the present Government, as well as the two previous Governments, should be impeached for having neglected their duties for so long a time. That I know is the view entertained by naval men. It is a matter of gratification that the Admiralty and the Government have at last wakened up to the necessity of providing these docks for the accommodation of the fleet, though I am not going to give them any special credit for their action in the matter. I rather lament that the question was not dealt with ten or twelve years ago. I might go even farther back, for all Governments have been supine and negligent in the discharge of their duty in these matters. It is only within the last two years that the situation has forced itself upon the Admiralty, and that they have come forward to ask the Government for the necessary money. We are thankful that they have at last rea-
  284
  lised the necessity of asking Parliament to grant these large amounts of money. They are not amounts that any sensible man can cavil at; they are all absolutely essential to the efficiency of the Navy and to control at sea. I must express my regret, however, that there has been so much, no doubt necessary, delay in making progress with some of the works mentioned in the schedule. However, I shall give the Bill my warm and hearty commendation.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to ask a question which no doubt his right hon. friend the First Lord or some other representative of the Admiralty would be able to answer. It related to Dover harbour. The works which were being constructed there by the Harbour Board and by the Admiralty had greatly increased the difficulty of approaching Dover Pier in rough weather. What he wanted to know was when they might expect these difficulties to disappear; and whether they might fairly expect that the works on the harbour would be so far advanced by the time the rough weather came in the late autumn or at the beginning of next year, that these serious drawbacks to the Channel service would be removed.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to accentuate what my right hon. friend opposite has said with regard to the two years' system of Parliamentary control. I think it is an unfortunate innovation that Her Majesty's Ministers should ask for authority for the expenditure of large sums of money for a period of two years. The essence of our financial arrangements lies in our annual system. If we are not to have an annual system of finance, then we had better hand over a lump sum to the Government to spend as they like, with, perhaps, the audit of the Auditor-General at the end of the expenditure. The only control that is of use is the annual control. As to the Bill itself, I should like to say a word or two with regard to Gibraltar. The expenditure on Gibraltar is something like 4 ½ millions. I have always thought that that was a little excessive. I am perfectly prepared to admit that Gibraltar is one of the most important strategic situations in the world for this

  285
  country. For years we have been trying to persuade successive Governments to make one dockyard at Gibraltar. Now you are going to make three docks, which I certainly think is one more than necessary. I should be satisfied with one, I should be well satisfied with two, but I am sorry that you propose three. With regard to Gibraltar, I have seen accounts which give me great fears that the method which has been pursued by the contractors is one that is foredoomed to failure. There are peculiarities at the bottom, fissures in the rocks, and so forth, which are very difficult to deal with. I should like to have an assurance that my information is incorrect, as, otherwise, in addition to the sum now asked for, we may have to expend another £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 in getting the Gibraltar works properly completed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Which method of construction do you refer to?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The method being now pursued; I am not in a position to go into details, but I understand it is a question of water oozing through the bottom on which the works are being constructed. With regard to Keyham, I am told that there also there is great risk of the present method of conducting the work not succeeding, and I should like some assurance with regard to that. As to Portsmouth, I am told that the dredging works have had the result of so increasing the tide that it is very difficult for men-of-war to lie there with safety; they have to be constantly ready to let go an anchor in case they break away from their moorings. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he proposes to adopt the suggestion which has been made for lessening the tide, viz., of making another opening into the harbour on the western side. I very much regret to find that in this large expenditure no provision whatever is made for the extremely important and comparatively cheap work of a breakwater at Seilly. Half-a-million would construct a breakwater which would make Seilly, which is a most important point, lying half-way between Cape Clear and Ushant, a perfectly safe anchorage and an admirable coaling station. At present the
  286
  swell of the Atlantic flows in there, summer and winter, day and night, so that you cannot use it as a coaling station; but this breakwater would make it one of the most useful stations we could have.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I hold that this proposed expenditure is more than in required. It is totally unnecessary that such a large sum should be spent on barracks. The proper place for seamen is on board their ships, but there is a system of bringing home after a short time what are designated "reliefs" for rest in barracks. The Government have taken advantage of the present popularity of the Navy in the country to incur unnecessary expenditure. Another portion of expenditure which I think is in a large measure useless, is that for a floating dock at Bermuda. What to my mind ought to be done is to attach to each of the squadrons a repairing ship, on which there should be the necessary appliances for repairing vessels at sea.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): How could you clean the bottom of a ship at sea?
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I am not speaking of the bottom of a ship; that is another question altogether. With regard to Gibraltar, I understand that a portion of the expenditure is to be in defence works. What description of defence is meant? Does it mean defence applicable to the protection of ships?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid the hon. Member has been led into error by the word I used. The defence against torpedoes will probably be completed within a short time. There are no defences in the sense of guns and fortifications provided for in this Bill at all.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I should like to ask with regard to the docks, what is to be the nature of the appliances? if you are going to construct docks without the necessary modern appliances or

  287
  making repairs, the expenditure will in a large measure be thrown away. Take the question of new ships. The new ships are built under cover——
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is mistaken. Some of the old roofs still remain, but in most cases they have been removed from the building sheds.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: What I wish to press upon the Admiralty is that with this increased dock expenditure in place of having, as is the case now, to order ships home for heavy repairs to hull and machinery, you ought to make provision for modern appliances for the purpose of executing the heavy repairs which will necessarily be required in connection with our large vessels.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will look at the memorandum attached to the Bill he will see that in all cases provision is made for the necessary machinery, ships, &c., for working the docks.
  SIR J. COLOMB: With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sunderland, you cannot help having proper docks, and it is no use having docks unless you have proper machinery and proper appliances, so that when a ship does come in for repairs the work may be completed. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke just now, from the front Opposition bench, expressed considerable regret that the policy of subsidising somebody to give you these docks was not followed. I was surprised at that line being taken, because it is all very fine to say, "This is a cheap way of getting a dock; let us give some encouragement to private enterprise to build a dock provided it gives us the right to use that dock"; but at a naval base it is a dangerous policy to pursue. For instance, take Esquimalt, where this very plan was followed. A subsidy was given, and it looked a very nice arrangement. But what happened? An admiral brought his ship into the harbour, and found he had no control over the harbour, and actually had to pay damages for giving certain orders to pick up certain moorings. It is, therefore, no use subsidising docks unless you have absolute control of the waters in the
  288
  neighbourhood. With regard to the motion before the House, I think it shows, on the face of it, that the matter has been thoroughly well thought out before being brought forward, and everybody who has studied the plans which have been put in the Library must have been convinced that there has never been a Bill brought forward which so clearly bore the stamp of great forethought, careful calculation, and adaptation to a settled policy. A Minister has two duties to perform in bringing a proposal before the House. He has to make it clear to the House, and he also has to make it perfectly clear to the "man in the street." It is because that was done that I so greatly admire the speech of my hon friend in introducing the Bill. I thank him for the admission that there is no money put down in this Bill for Wei-hai-wei. I am glad that at present the Admiralty are standing firm, and that we are not to be precipitately launched into any permanent naval expenditure for Wei-hai-wei as has been done by the military authorities in proposing military barracks.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am afraid the confidence of the hon. and gallant Member is hardly justified by our experience in the past with regard to these Bills. From what we have already heard it is pretty certain that before another Naval Works Bill is introduced we shall have considerable expenditure proposed by the Government in regard to Wei-hai-wei. I am not capable of judging whether my hon. friend's congratulations are justified with regard to this Bill as distinguished from other Bills giving evidence of being based on a thoroughly well thought out plan, but on every occasion when similar Bills have been brought forward the House has been assured that a "thoroughly well thought out plan" is being pursued, and yet every year this "thoroughly well thought out plan" is varied and the expenditure continually increases. I am afraid, therefore, we cannot rest assured that this can be looked upon as a complete programme for the next few years. Upon the financial side of this question, I would like to point out that here we have brought before the House in the last week of July what is really a very important part of the financial and naval programme of the Govern-

  289
  ment of the year. It is an essential principle of good finance that the Government should declare when they produce their Navy Estimates what are their whole proposals with regard to naval expenditure, and when they produce their Army Estimates what are their whole proposals with regard to military expenditure, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer when bringing in his Budget may be able to make a complete statement of the expenditure of the coming year, whether it is to be incurred under the Estimates or under Loans Bills such as the one now before us. In 1896 the Resolution was introduced on the same night as the First Lord of the Admiralty made his statement on the Navy Estimates.
  MR. GOSCHEN: In 1895 also.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am speaking of the present Government. That was the first year the present First Lord was in office, and he began much better than he is now going on. Consequently we knew then, though not in detail, what were the full naval proposals of the Government both in regard to finance and sufficiently in regard to naval matters as well. The practice of making these Bills biennial instead of annual I must say is an entire departure from the previous practice of the House. We thereby lose the annual control that the House would have over the progress of expenditure under this Bill; and the preceding Bill; and that progress of expenditure and still more the progress of liability is a very serious item indeed at the present moment, and will be a still more serious item in the immediate future. It has already been pointed out how the estimated cost under these Bills has grown in four years from £8,000,000 to nearly £24,000,000, and it is absurd to anticipate any other result, if these tactics of Naval Works Bills go on, than that this sum will continue to increase in the future as it has done in the past. The liabilities are increasing at a much greater rate than our annual expenditure under these Naval Works is doing. Our annual expenditure no doubt is also increasing. It is now 1¼ millions, but if the Admiralty estimate for these two years included in the Bill is accurate it will amount to one and a half millions
  290
  per annum, and no doubt as the works go on that sum will go up to a couple of millions, or even more. The result financially will be that when we endeavour to compare the Naval Estimates over a period of years, we shall have to add to the amount of expenditure upon the Navy the increasing annual sums which have been paid under these Naval Works Bills. I would make one more remark, and that is that the Naval Works Bill is a more satisfactory measure than the Military Works Bill, although they both proceed from the same Government, and were introduced almost at the same moment. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in the Bill he has set before us, has given both a memorandum affixed to the Bill and a full schedule attached to it; he has given full particulars both as to past works and as to future works, and has definitely called the attention of the House to what are the large and important new works that are now being undertaken, to which the sanction of the House is asked for the first time in the present year. That is the right and proper method of doing business, and I am surprised that the Military Works Bill sins in every particular against this canon of financial procedure. I will not pursue that subject on the present occasion. I would merely say as regards the general aspects of this Bill what was said on a previous occasion, viz., that this enormous and constant increase of expenditure in the Navy really must make any cautious man pause, and look somewhat askance at the possibilities of the future. The hon. Member for King's Lynn anticipated a not very distant future when, if we continue to increase our naval expenditure, there would be very serious difficulties in getting the taxpayers of the country to endure it. That was true of the Naval Estimates in May last, but it is still more true in regard to this great naval programme, with the ever increasing liabilities under these annual Naval Works Bills. I think it is a very serious prospect for the taxpayers of this country if we are to continue to increase our naval and military expenditure in this way, and it must cause every cautious man to contemplate the future with some misgivings.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD:The criticism of the hon. Member

  291
  who has just sat down is one which is levelled against all questions of expense. In regard to this subject there is always this to be remembered, that our expenditure on the Army and Navy is really only the rate of insurance which we pay for our trade, and if the hon. Member will calculate how much our trade has increased during the last twenty years he will see that the expenditure for the Navy and the Army is really not very extraordinary in proportion to our commerce.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Our naval expenditure is increasing at a very much greater rate than our commerce.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: It is not increasing so much as the hon. Member alleges, especially if he will calculate how very backward the expenditure was when we began this policy. I may say that want of the necessary precautions with regard to our naval expenditure was really due to the opinions held on these Votes some years ago. With regard to what the Civil Lord has brought before the House on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, I quite agree with what he said, and I commend him upon the very clear statement of fact which he made. This is what you want not only in this House, but in the country, because it puts the matter plainly before the electors. The Civil Lord told us plainly what they want and why they want it, and then he put down the expenditure. I do not think it is possible to find any fault with the speech of the Civil Lord or the statement he has produced. The hon. Member opposite brought forward a seemingly very good argument, namely, that we should not spend our money on our own docks, but that we should subsidise mercantile docks. The other day, when I was in China, an ironclad ran aground, and she was taken in one of the subsidised docks to be repaired. I went to see the Admiral and the dock master, and I found that by no possibility could that ship have been got out under ten days. What would have been the case if we had some very great damage done to a ship, and we had to send her to such a place as that for repairs? Such a thing has happened, and I am sure the First Lord will support me when I say that in the end it is very much cheaper to have your own docks and your own machinery than to have subsidized
  292
  docks belonging to mercantile companies. The hon. Member for Sunderland brought forth two of the most extraordinary proposals I have ever heard of in my life. He said that such docks were unnecessary because you could take with the fleet a repairing ship to do all repairs. The hon. Member seems to forget that docks are necessary because you have got to clean the ship's bottom, which is a very difficult process, in order that the rate of speed shall be maintained. As has already been pointed out, the chief necessity of men-of-war is that they must have speed at the moment when it is wanted. I can give the hon. Member my experience of a ship which I have commanded when her full speed was 17 knots. I tried her once when she had not been in dock for nine months, and I could not get her to go more than 5 knots less than 17. That will give the hon. Member some idea of what happens to a ship if it is not often docked; and it must also be remembered that you use more coal under such conditions than you do when the bottom of the ship is as it should be. As to the remark made by the hon. Member regarding barracks, I should like to know what you are going to do with your schools, your great Naval Reserve, and your ships' companies when they are paid off? Are we to build the old three-deckers? Those ships are all getting not obsolete but beyond repair. You have got to put your men somewhere, and your best plan is to put them into barracks. In these days you have got to discipline your men much more in a military way than in the old days. I once explained in this House the difference in the discipline between the old bluejacket and the soldier. Suppose you had two men up for the same offence, one being a bluejacket and the other a marine. You would say to the marine, "What have you got to say?" and he would reply that he had committed the offence. The commander would say, "Four days; right turn, quick march. "The marine might go grumbling, but nothing would stop him marching. If the commander said exactly the same thing to the bluejacket, would he do the same? No, not a bit of it, for he would stop there to argue the point, and it would probably take a corporal and file of marines to remove him. In the old days we had the cat and no discip

  293
  line; now we have no cat and good discipline. It is simply on account of the drilling of the men in barracks that good discipline has been introduced into the service. I should like to ask my right hon. friend a question about Hong Kong. I went carefully over the plans of Hong Kong, and I never saw a more efficient proposal than the one made there considering the amount of money which is to be expended upon it, and I think it will be of immense use to the fleet. With regard to this expenditure you cannot increase your fleet without increasing your auxiliaries which will enable your fleet to fight, and one of the most important auxiliaries to the fleet are properly equipped dockyards where you can go to repair your ships after an action, and very often before an action. I quite agree with my hon. and gallant friend as to Wei-hai-wei. My mind is entirely altered on that point because the policy of the Government has altered, and if the policy of the Government alters as regards China, I must alter my mind with regard to Wei-hai-wei. With regard to Gibraltar I am sorry that the Member for King's Lynn thought we had expended even a shilling too much there. Gibraltar is the most important naval base we have in the whole world, and I do not think we can make it too strong. I think the Government, as far as I can gather from Gibraltar, are doing very well indeed there, for it is the point of departure in the Mediterranean. I am glad to see that they are going to put the Cape, which is one of our most important strategic naval bases, in that state of order which it should be in.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There are one or two points which I should like to hear a word or two about if the First Lord of the Admiralty is going to reply. My hon. friend the Member for Dundee made some complaints as to the continual increase in the total amount of the liability of the State; but I think it is only fair to say, as regards the original estimate of £8,000,000, that when the first Bill of this series was placed before the House we were careful to say that we could make no promise that the items mentioned exhausted the programme which the Admiralty then might consider necessary. Four years have
  294
  passed, and the whole scheme of naval works under the Naval Works Act has been under the consideration of the Admiralty, and now, at all events, I think we are justified in asking the First Lord of the Treasury whether we are within measurable distance of the end. Does this scheme approximately give the House the full naval programme of the Admiralty? I rather imagine that there are still one or two things that will have to come forward under another Bill, but I think it would be a satisfaction to my hon. friends if we could know that the Admiralty is nearing the end of its programme, and that the vast total of £23,000,000. which is the amount now reached, is practically the whole amount we shall be asked to supply under the Naval Works Act. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance on that point. There is another matter which I think it might be convenient to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to. In Clause 1 it is provided:
  "That Section 5 of the Naval Works Act, 1895, which relates to the manner in which money can be raised, shall be constituted as if it were re-enacted and in terms made applicable to this Act."
  Section 5 of the Act of 1895 directed that the money required under that Act should be raised by terminable annuities, which were to run for a period of thirty years from the commencement of that Act. That section is now incorporated by reference in this Bill. It appears, however, to be left ambiguous whether all the annuities are to expire at the same time or not, or whether we are to have a series of terminable annuities expiring at different periods. This does not appear to me to be clearly expressed in the Act. I will say just one word about the delay. My right hon. friend has expatiated on that subject, and it has been a matter of a great deal of discussion in former years. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the year 1897–98. for certainly that shows a most extraordinary and comprehensive shortage as compared with the works for that year. The Comptroller and Auditor-General points out that there was in that year a shortage of no less than £2,032,000 out of the amount authorised in the year 1897–98. I think now the Admiralty have

  295
  spent about £700,000, instead of the £3,000,000 which was provided for. The Comptroller and Auditor-General makes this observation. He says there may be specific causes for the remarkable difference shown between the expenditure authorised and incurred, more especially under the items included for the first time in 1897–98. I think he made a mistake, but the other explanation is one with which the Admiralty ought to deal. He points out that not only is there a shortage of £2,750,000, but I think he says there is a shortage on every single item in the schedule. As far as I know, I do not think that has been adequately explained. I urge upon the present Admiralty that this delay is very far from being conducive to economy. Instead of spending only £1,500,000 as was proposed last year, I should have been glad to have seen a much larger expenditure incurred on these works. I do hope that any cause of complaint on that score will be entirely removed. There is only one other point to which I will allude. The main interest of this Bill is always in the schedule containing the new works. When we come to the Committee stage we shall have an opportunity of discussing in detail the new works contained in this Bill in furtherance of the dockyard policy. This is a policy which has my entire sympathy, and I shall ask for fuller information at the proper time in regard to it.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe have both spoken upon the question of the delays which have taken place. I will not say that their complaint is otherwise than the natural complaint which is made from year to year, but there is this peculiarity about it—that they never take the slightest notice of the causes of those delays which were put forward by the Civil Lord. I should have thought hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they agree with us, would have done their best to push these works on more than they do. What reason have they for thinking that we are slack in promoting these works? If the right hon. Gentleman sees, as perhaps he may one day see, the urgency which has been displayed on the part of the Admiralty, our vexation at the failures of contractors, the difficulties of acquiring land, and the heart-breaking incidents
  296
  which have occurred, I am sure he would not blame, but would rather sympathise with us. But the point is still put forward that we have failed to grasp the situation. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and all the other hon. Members who have criticised us that I am not conscious of the slightest shortcomings on the part of our officials, who must have had a good deal of experience in regard to the delays of contractors. The Admiralty are required to expend money, but if the contractor does not send in his certificate we cannot compel him to do so. We have been longing to pay, but we have not been able to make the payments we desired. All these works produce unforeseen difficulties, and no Comptroller and Auditor-General has got such knowledge of the administration of this part of the business as would really entitle him to lay any blame on the Admiralty in this respect. Complaints have been made as to the lateness of the introduction of this Bill; but is it not evident that the later the Bill is introduced the better the forecast we can make as to the effect of the proposals we introduce, for the earlier we introduce such a measure the more difficult it will be to estimate the amount likely to be spent within the year. With all these estimates, whatever pains we may take, they are always more or less, in their first stages, speculative; but we hope now that we have reduced them to a point at which they have a real basis in the figures placed before the House. The next point with which I will very briefly deal is the question of the biennial Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman objects, and to which especially the hon. gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire objects. He objects to it because he desires to maintain the control of Parliament. For my own part, if I were in the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I should prefer a biennial Bill or a triennial Bill to an annual Bill, because I think it is clear that there are more works likely to be introduced in an annual than in a biennial Bill. Therefore I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite should press this point too heavily against the Government. In order to show how anxious we are not to deprive the House of information in regard to the progress of this expenditure which the House is entitled to have, I will undertake that a Return shall be presented showing precisely what has been spent,

  297
  and comparing it with the estimates. That may not satisfy the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he will see in that suggestion the spirit which moves us. I am not quite clear about the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe towards this Bill. At all events, if he did not look askance at the increased expenditure, he did not look straight at it, and he did not give the Committee any indication whether he approved of the Bill or whether he did not. I should like to know which of these proposals the right hon. Gentleman thinks not necessary. He suggested that private dockyards might be utilised, but he did not state where. Certainly not at Gibraltar; not at Malta, I presume, and certainly not at Bermuda. He could only have referred to one place, though he threw a kind of shadow over all the others. His remarks could only have applied to Hong Kong. My honourable friend gave an illustration of the risk of having to employ private docks. Where we have no establishment, and where the dock company have all the machinery, it might be a great advantage to us on occasion to be able to utilise their docks; but that cannot apply to all places.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWOKTH: I do not want it to be supposed that I expressed any hostility to these proposals. I asked the question rather in the sense to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, viz., that this principle is applicable in some places but not in others.
  MR. GOSCHEN: If that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman, what I have said will satisfy him. With regard to the floating dock at Bermuda, that will probably last for thirty years. Of course it stands on a totally different footing from a ship which has to run several risks, but if a dock lasts for thirty years I think it is a perfectly fit object to form the subject of an annuity. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex, while very complimentary on some matters, said that we ought to be impeached for not undertaking these works before.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: And the previous Government.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, and the previous Government also. But if the late Government had laid down these docks, or if we had laid them down when we came into office, they would be too short and too narrow for the ships now being built. The developments in shipbuilding which have taken place wore not foreseen ten years ago, and I think, therefore, that my hon. and gallant friend will see that something has been gained by the delay. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said this was practically a dock programme. So it is. It is a dock programme forced upon us by the necessities of the case, not only by the increase in the number of ships, but by the increase in the requirements of those ships and by their greater length and breadth; and whatever may be thought of the particular ports selected, I defy anyone who is thoroughly acquainted with the position of affairs to point to any work which is unnecessary and which might be safely put off having regard to the requirements of the service. A great many detailed points have been mentioned, but I think they can be dealt with in Committee. The hon. Member for King's Lynn referred to the rapid tide which would be caused at Portsmouth, and which he estimated at 8 knots. I think that is very exaggerated. The Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth and those responsible for the harbour have not made any remonstrance on the point.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever heard of warships breaking away?
  MR.GOSCHEN: Yes, but not from the cause suggested by my hon. friend. The hon. and learned Member opposite asked me whether this programme was approximately final. Nothing is final in this world, but this programme is more final than if there were to be another next year. At all events we are prohibited for two years from increasing our present liabilities in respect to naval works. After two years other influences may be at the Admiralty, and may take even a wider view of the necessities of Imperial defence, but I may say that in existing circumstances, and in looking carefully on all the conditions, I should not press for any further large works. I

  299
  use the words "in existing circumstances" because I can see possible developments which may render it necessary for us or our successors to undertake other works. I think the House will see that I have gone as far as it is possible or right for me to go in answering the questions which have been put to me.
  MR. LEWIS: I should like to ask the First Lord one or two questions. In his able and interesting speech he referred to the proposed works at St. Simon's Bay. I wish to ask whether the property acquired has been absolutely acquired for the Imperial Government, and whether not only the docks but the approaches have been acquired. With regard to Gibraltar, I observe from a note on page 2 of this Bill that Gibraltar itself is to pay £14,000 a year for fifty-seven years as its share of the expenditure. The question I wish to ask is whether any dock dues are to be charged, and if so, whether they are to be received by the colony or by the Imperial Government. There is another question in which I have considerable interest, and with regard to which I should be glad to be supplied with some information. I refer to the question of the Pembroke Dockyard. Hon. Gentlemen who were members of the last Parliament will remember that a short time before the General Election an Amendment was moved by the noble Lord who is now the Secretary of State for India, demanding that there should be considerable expenditure on Pembroke Dockyard. That was refused at the time by those responsible at the Admiralty.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: It was not refused, but we considered it should be included in the Naval Estimates, and not in the Naval Works Bill as the noble Lord wanted.
  MR. LEWIS: Of course I accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, but my point is that unquestionably Pembroke Dock was then used as a moans of obtaining an electoral advantage when the present Government came into power, and when we found that nothing had been done to fulfil the obligations to which they were practically committed
  300
  we raised the question in the House. At first our request was denied, but it was ultimately complied with. I myself believe that the works at Pembroke are of a very necessary character, but I wish to ask why the expenditure on them has been put off. A very small amount of money has been expended, and I wish to know whether the £90,000 which forms the greater part of the balance is to be expended next year and the following, year. I only allude to the matter because electoral advantage has been taken of the matter before, and I want to be assured that nothing of the kind is contemplated again.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The whole sum is now taken because the completion of the works falls within the period covered by this Bill. We are anxious to get on with the work, and it will be finished before this Bill runs out.
  MR. LEWIS: Then, with regard to Dover Harbour, I do not pretend to be an expert, but, as far as I am able to judge, we are plunging into an enormous waste of money at Dover. There is one matter connected with this Bill on which I think the House ought to congratulate itself, and that is the practical abandonment of the Wei-hai-wei policy.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman should not draw any conclusion from the. fact that Wei-hai-wei is not included in. the Naval Works Bill.
  MR. LEWIS: The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman fill me with great alarm. I thought we had seen the last of these great sums being spent on that illstarred adventure. The Civil Lord gave us some very interesting figures as to the growth of the Navy; it is that growth which has made this Bill absolutely necessary from the Admiralty point of view. He told us that the Channel Fleet had quadrupled, that the China Fleet had trebled, and that the Mediterranean Fleet had more than doubled during the last ten years. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe said, those are figures which certainly ought to give us pause. As he said, the construction of

  301
  these docks means new establishments and a large addition to the permanent charge on the revenues of this country. I think it is time that one plain word of objection and protest should be uttered against this enormous expenditure, which was denounced by the late Mr. Gladstone long before it reached its present proportions. The resources of this country are being frittered away unnecessarily in the enormous increase of our Navy and in the increase of our naval works. The fact of the matter is that we are the most easily frightened people in the whole world. When we look at our naval position, as compared with other nations, when we consider the advantages we have in our magnificent fleet of volunteer cruisers, and in our ability to build ships more rapidly than other nations, and in the great purity of our naval administration, I think we should pause. With regard to the last-mentioned advantage, I have sat as a member of the Public Accounts' Committee of this House, and I am bound to say that in my opinion it would be very difficult indeed to improve on our naval administration. This country may rightly claim to take the first place in the world in that respect, while other foreign administrations are honeycombed with corruption. Yet, notwithstanding all these advantages, we insist on increasing our Navy to an inordinate degree. This Bill asks for an additional expenditure of £6,000,000. It deserves a little examination at our hands, and we have a right to say a few words upon it as representatives of the taxpayers. We have had the opinion of naval experts and of hon. Members interested in the Navy above all things. It is only proper that we should have such men in this House who have the necessary information to guide us on many important matters connected with the Navy. But nobody is more dangerous in an assembly of this kind than the expert, and I am glad to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has exercised a restraining influence upon the experts who, from time to time, have pressed their particular schemes upon him. I only wish he had been firmer with regard to this particular demand for additional expenditure. It is time that we should put a stop to this enormous increase of expenditure; if we do not the time will come when, with declining trade, hundreds and thousands of men will be unemployed, and the Exchequer
  302
  will be unable to provide money for the relief of taxation and for the improvement of the condition of the poor. We have thrown our millions away largely without cause or justification. We have, it is true, bad alarms and panics, but I do hope we shall behave with more level heads, and that we shall confide not only in the adequacy of our naval preparations, but also on the spirit of those who have fought for this country in the past, and who—though I trust in the far distant future—may be called on to fight for it again. I believe that the British people will be able to rise to any emergency. I believe in being thoroughly and adequately prepared for every eventuality, but I hold that, with regard to the Navy, we have spent far too much on it without any reasonable justification, and unless naval experts, who certainly have had a great deal of their own way, are checked, this country will have cause to rue the extravagant expenditure in which it is indulging.
  MR. WYLIE: I wish to say a few words with regard to the docks scheme. I do not wish to see one of these docks abandoned, but I think the programme should be supplemented by the construction of a dock on the Clyde. This scheme seems to presuppose that all naval battles will be fought south of the English Channel. Under modern conditions of warfare, I think it is very probable that a great naval action may have to be fought very far north of the English Channel, possibly off the Clyde, and the ships which would be disabled would be required to be taken round to the south of England for repairs. I think it would be very good policy to have a dock as far north as the Clyde, which is the principal centre of shipbuilding and repairing, not only in the United Kingdom, but in the world, and ships could be there built and repaired more cheaply and expeditiously than in any other place. I therefore am of opinion that this scheme should not be omitted from any comprehensive dock programme, and I would commend it to the First Lord of the Admiralty and his able juniors.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would wish to ask the First Lord a question with regard to Wei-hai-wei.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Surely the present Bill is not concerned with Wei-hai-wei in any way.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the very point I am making. We have been given an indication that no money is be spent on Wei-hai-wei. What becomes of the point made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, if we are liable next year for expenditure on Wei-hai-wei or other works? The fact is that we have always heard these things when Naval Works were being discussed, and the suggestion of finality, at any rate during the period covered by the Bill, has always been illusory.
  Question put, and passed.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION , &c.) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
Another Amendment made.
Another Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 24, after the word 'not,' to insert the words, 'within that area.'"—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be the effect of these words. It seems to me they are not necessary, and if they have any effect at all, it will be a nugatory effect. I do not see any reason for the limitation.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HANBURY,): This is the same point that was raised by the hon. Member last night, in answer to whom I said that although I
regretted that the company have the power of giving preferences under their existing license I do not think it would be fair under the present Bill to curtail the powers which they possess in the particular localities in which they operate.
MR. BUCHANAN: This appears to be one of those clauses in which better terms are being given to the National Telephone Company than were given to it in the Committee upstairs. This is distinctly an Amendment in favour of the company, which has been in the habit in the past of refusing to supply a subscriber except under conditions such as allowing them to put up a post on his house and so forth. I say that is a monstrous power for any company to exercise, and the right hon. Gentlemen recognised that perfectly well, for in the sub-section upstairs he took it away, though he now proposes to water down the clause which the Committee upstairs agreed to, and he now says it shall now only be taken away in particular areas.
MR. CALDWELL: I think this is a very important change, because the company may have customers outside a particular area, and outside that area you give the company unlimited powers as regards undue preferences.
MR. HANBURY: Perhaps it might save time if I explained why I put these words in. On looking into the Bill I had some doubts whether the words "gave any preference to any person whosoever" would include the preferences involved in the refusal to give service unless the applicant was willing, for instance, to allow the company to put a post on his house. The words "within the area" were put in so as to govern the preference in both cases.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 27. (Division List, No. 297.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Burt, Thomas

Allen, Wm. (Newe.-und.-Lyme

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

Arrol, Sir William

Bethell, Commander

Cawley, Frederick

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bond, Edward

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Baird, John George Alexander

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

Balcarres, Lord

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Charrington, Spencer

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

Bullard, Sir Harry

Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

Burns, John

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

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Pickard, Benjamin

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Holden, Sir Angus

Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton)

Colville, John

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cook, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Price, Robert John

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bain bridge

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Curzon, Viscount

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Purvis, Robert

Dalkeith, Earl of

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pym, C. Guy

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Knowles, Lees

Rickett, J Compton

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Labouchere, Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Denny, Colonel

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn

Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Doughty, George

Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Doxford, William Theodore

Leng, Sir John

Skewes-Cox. Thomas

Duckworth, James

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Steadman, William Charles

Fardell, Sir T George

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

Lowe, Francis William

Strauss, Arthur

Fenwick, Charles

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Finch, George H.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Thornton, Percy M.

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Crae, George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Killop, James

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Flower, Ernest

Maddison, Fred

Usborne, Thomas

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Valentia, Viscount

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Middlemore, John T.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Garfit, William

Milton, Viscount

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Gedge, Sydney

Milward, Colonel Victor

Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm

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

Monk, Charles James

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

More, Robt.Jasper (Shropshire)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Morrell, George Herbert

Wrightson, Thomas

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morrison, Walter

Wylie, Alexander

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Hamond, Sir Ch. (Newcastle)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Hatch, Ernest Fredk. George

Nicholson, William Graham

NOES.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Billson, Alfred

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lewis, John Herbert

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Lloyd-George, David

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Macaleese, Daniel

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

Dillon, John

Maden, John Henry

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Donelan, Captain A.

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Yoxall, James Henry

Doogan, P. C.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Sinclair and Sir James Joicey.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. FAITHFUL BEGG: The object of my Amendment is to prevent the Postmaster-General from being able to fix a minimum rate. One of the objects of this Bill is to induce Competition, and if that is to be effected, and we are thereby to get cheap telephones, there should be no restriction as to the point below which the rates should fall. In particular I do not see why one of the parties to this bargain which has been made should be placed in a position to dictate to the others what the
306
minimum rate should be. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Post Office to protect itself in the future from what occurred in the past, when it was beaten out of the field by the existing companies; but it seems to me that if the Post Office is willing to enter into the open competition which was recommended by the Committee, it should not be afraid of the consequences of it, and that its competitors should be allowed to reduce the rates as they please. I move this Amendment in order to give the right

307
hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining to the House the reason for putting the Postmaster-General in a position to prevent any of the competing companies reducing their rates below a given point.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2. lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words 'or fall below the minimum rates."'—(Mr. Faithfull Begg.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to lie left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. COLVILLE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment. One effect of it will be that the company will reduce its rates temporarily to, practically, a vanishing point so as to destroy competition: and then, having destroyed competition, the rates will be raised at the pleasure of the company.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I join with my hon. friend opposite in hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. It is simply designed to render competition by municipalities all over the country absolutely impossible. If the Amendment were carried the result would be that the National Telephone Company would be able, in certain localities when there is competition, to reduce the rates practically to nothing, with the result that they would drive out of competition every municipality or local company. It is clear to me, if we adopt this Amendment, competition such as was recommended by the Committee would be an absolute impossibility. As a member of the Committee I look forward to effective competition following from the carriage this Bill, and I therefore hope my right hon. friend will not accept this Amendment.
SIR J. JOICEY: I think this is a sample of the patchwork system which the Government are going to set up in the country in the matter of telephones. The whole basis of this Bill is to give competition; but Her Majesty's Government are so afraid of competition that they want to prevent any competing company which happens to be in a particular area from reducing its rates, and thus giving the locality a low-priced telephone system. I think the
308
competition under this Bill is a perfect farce.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I would remind my hon. friend that what we object to is unfair, and not fair, competition. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether this provision of minimum rates will do away with the system of rebates, to which I have the strongest objection.
MR HANBURY: I believe that that would undoubtedly be the effect of the provision, and that is one of the reasons why I put in this minimum rate. In reply to my hon. friend the Member for St. Rollox, I have to say that the rates will vary in different localities. Another reason for introducing the minimum rate with regard to municipalities is that possibly the Post Office may, on the termination of the municipal licence, become the successor; that is to say, the Postmaster-General of the day may decide on nationalisation. In that case, it would not be in the interests of the taxpayer to take over a service which is worked on an unremunerative scale. Therefore, in the interests of the taxpayer, we have fixed a minimum charge, and, having done this in the case of the municipalities, we must put competing companies on the same terms. I cannot accept the Amendment.
MR. HANBURY: It is barely possible that, under the clause as it stands, it may be said that the Company is entitled to an extension of way-leaves, if the grant for the licence is continued later on. I therefore move an Amendment to the clause, to provide that such way-leaves shall continue for the period "specified in the new licence for the duration thereof."
Amendment suggested by Mr. HANBURY agreed to.
MR. BUCHANAN: The Amendment that I have to propose raises the specific question whether any extension is to be given to the licence of the National Telephone Company. That is really the root cause of my opposition to this Bill, and I believe it is the root cause of the opposition of many other members. Why do we object to any extension of the licence of the National Telephone Company? It is simply because the National Telephone

309
Company, for a long period of years, have enjoyed very great privileges, together with a practical monopoly, and they have abused those privileges and that monopoly. They have not given anything like the facilities to the country for the development of telephonic communication that they ought to have done. They do not only not deserve well of the House and of the country, but they deserve ill of the House and of the country. I am sure all of us thought, at the earlier stages of the Bill, that there was one thing we could look forward to from the Secretary to the Treasury, and that was that he was going to be a strong bulwark on behalf of this House and the country against the National Telephone Company. Nobody could have spoken more strongly than the right hon Gentleman did, both in the Select Committee and in this House, against the methods of the National Telephone Company, and the way in which it had abused the privileges which it had so long enjoyed. In fact, the whole origin of this Bill is due to the fact that the National Telephone Company has not acted up to a spirit of fairness in regard to the licence it obtained. In a country like this, which is the richest in the world, and contains the largest commercial interests in the world, the telephone system might have been developed to a greater extent than in any other country. In this respect the National Telephone Company had the opportunity, a dozen years back, of making us an example to the world. Unfortunately, however, it has shown an example, not in a good sense, but in a bad sense. Nobody knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman, who has expressed himself most strongly on the subject. Yet, at the eleventh hour, in the Grand Committee, this Bill is substantially altered in the direction of favouring the National Telephone Company, by extending its licence, and benefitting it in a way which, I believe, its most ardent friends in the House and outside never for a moment expected. After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, we thought that there was at any rate one redeeming feature in the Bill—one small drop of balm in Gilead—when we were told that the licence of the National Telephone Company was to come to an end in 1911. We should have then been free, either for nationalisation, or for the development of municipal enterprise, or for other forms of competition. Instead
310
of that, however, we find a clause introduced in the Bill which will extend the period of the licence of the National Telephone Company for several years longer, practically postponing the development of telephonic communication for a generation. In taking that step, I think the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have taken a most reactionary step indeed.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 40, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, provided that no such licence shall extend beyond the year one thousand nine hundred and eleven."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed, "That the words be there inserted."
MR. COHEN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that the expectation of the whole House was, when this Bill was introduced, that the licence of the National Telephone Company was to terminate in 1911. I am unable to say, of course, what was the expectation of the hon. Gentleman opposite; but if he had done the Committee the honour of reading their Report, he would have seen that no such words are to be found in that document. The words in that Report are:
"It seems generally admitted to be desirable in the public interest that all licences should terminate in 1911."
My right hon. friend, for reasons which, no doubt, he thought cogent, has come to the conclusion that it is desirable to give municipalities the privileges of telephonic communication and the conduct of telephonic traffic, and he has satisfied himself that municipalities could not undertake that arduous traffic without having a licence given to them for a period longer than 1911. I regret that municipalities are to have these privileges, but as soon as these privileges were given, it necessarily followed that my right hon. friend had to accord the same privileges to the National Telephone Company. I hold no brief for the National Telephone Company. I am as little interested in its prosperity as its adversity, but I do say that as soon as you give municipalities an extension of the licence, until 1925, you deprive yourself by that very act of terminating the licence of the National Telephone Company in that year. I am surprised that

311
hon. Gentlemen opposite should seek to undermine a condition which I consider, and which I think the House will see, is absolutely vital to the whole structure of the Bill. Let me say also before I sit down that it is wrong to say that the responsibility for the failure of telephonic communication in this country—if there has been a failure—lies entirely at the doors of the National Telephone Company. The National Telephone Company were the pioneers of telephonic communication in this country, and it has had to carry on its business obstructed at times by the municipalities upon whom these privileges are about to be conferred, as was proved by the Government Commissioner in his Report of the Glasgow inquiry, and as has been repeatedly shown, also by the municipal authority in London, of which I have the honour to be a member. I hope therefore that the House will see that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite is inconsistent with the structure upon which this Bill is based.
MR. PROVAND: It is not quite relevant to the Amendment before the House to refer to the last remarks which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat; but he said that the Commissioner, when he made his examination at Glasgow, had stated that the municipalities there had obstructed the National Telephone Company. I can categorically deny that statement absolutely. They have not obstructed the National Telephone Company in the slightest degree. The general manager of the National Telephone Company himself said——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman has already denied the statement. He cannot continue to discuss the matter.
MR. PROVAND: I said I did not think I was quite in order before I made the remark, and so, of course, I accept your ruling. But let me return to the Amendment which is before the House. It cannot be said that I am any friend to the National Telephone Company. I have opposed it ever since 1882, and I have continued to do so up to the present moment. But with regard to the particular Amendment before the House, I will give a practical illustration of how the principle works out. I will take the case of the City of Manchester, in which I
312
have an office, and can therefore claim to be fairly cognisant of the facts. The National Telephone Company some year ago obtained permission from the municipality under an agreement with them to put wires under the streets subject to a six months' notice. The National Telephone Company took their wires off the tops of the houses——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The remarks of the bon. Member are hardly germane to the question under discussion., which is whether the National Telephone Company's licence shall cease in 1911, or be given a longer spell. The hon. Member cannot go into the whole history of the matter.
MR. PROVAND: With all deference,. I was going to give an illustration to show how this clause as changed by the: Amendment would act unfairly towards any company at present licensed. I thought instead of discussing it in an abstract way it would be better to give an illustration of the reason which I believe dominates the mind of the Government, in making the Bill as it is, and one which would explain why I think the Amendment should be rejected. A company at present licensed has spent a great deal of money in laying its wires underground in Manchester. If the Bill were changed by this Amendment being accepted the municipality could give the company six. months' notice and bring their business to an end. It is impossible to put that company back into its former state, because it previously supplied a service by overhead plant where it has now an underground plant. In such cases it is reasonable that the Government should make the Bill as it is, and it would be unfair to existing companies where, in the language of the Bill, they have incurred material expenditure in laying, down underground wires in any place that they should not have a right to continue the service when any municipality or any company empowered by the municipality entered into competition with them in that particular area. For these reasons I must oppose the Amendment. I hope the Government will not accept it.
MR. COLVILLEL:I am bound to support the Amendment. It is within the knowledge of those who sat upon the Committee of last year that one of the large municipalities which applied for a.

313
licence was willing to accept such a licence for a period equal to the unexpired term of the National Telephone Company's licence, the understanding being that, in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee, the plant should be taken over at the expiry of the licence. Therefore I do not think any hardship would be done by the Amendment. It is very well understood that the backward condition of telephoning in our country has been wholly due to the monopoly enjoyed by the existing company, and to grant any extension of its licence would be to discourage the competition which is so greatly needed to bring our country abreast of other countries in this matter.
MR. CAWLEY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment, as it would practically kill the Bill. Glasgow, before the Select Committee, certainly did give us to understand what were the conditions they were prepared to establish a telephone system of their own. But they are in a very peculiar and a very different position from other municipalities. They have, so to speak, got their backs up; they are determined to have their own telephone system, come what will. Other municipalities may not care to run the risk. I contend that there are very few municipalities in England who would establish a telephone system, knowing that their licence must lapse in 1911, because, although the Committee did decide that the plant which was useful should be purchased, it was a very ambiguous decision, and not one that any real business man could build upon. A great many aspersions have been cast upon the National Telephone Company for the way in which they have worked their business. We must remember that the company is a joint stock company, formed to make profits, and they have carried out their object in the way they thought right. I do not blame them, but I blame the Post Office officials for being like wax in the hands of Mr. Forbes. If this licence is not extended beyond 1911 I maintain that no company or municipality will start fresh systems, and it would be a gross injustice for the National Telephone Company to be compelled to give up their system in 1911 when another rival company was allowed to go on for so many years longer.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: This is, if not the most important, the second important point we have discussed on this Bill. It may very fairly be urged that the retention of this provision is an essential portion of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, but I must say that the admission made by one of his supporters, the hon. Member for Prestwich, fully justifies the view that these present proposals are a surrender to the National Telephone Company. It must be remembered that the Select Committee of last year was appointed to decide a single specific point, and not to conduct a general inquiry into the telephone question. The mover of the Amendment was perfectly correct when he said that the whole past attitude of the Government with regard to this question had been, without exception, against extending the licence beyond 1911. The Government have taken an absolutely new departure—a departure which will be ruinous towards telephone enterprise in the country, and one which runs directly counter to all evidence and experience and decisions of former Governments. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill admits that the present position of the company is a monstrous position, and yet he is going practically to re-instal them, and prolong their occupation of that position. No one can deny that the provision of this clause will enable the company to compete with municipal enterprise on better terms than they can at present. To ask the House to continue these privileges might almost be characterised by as strong language as that which the right hon Gentleman has applied to the position of this company, and I hope the House will carry the Amendment.
MR. HANBURY: The one object of the Select Committee of last year—which was practically an unanimous Committee—was to endeavour to find some means by which, if competition arose between the National Telephone Company and municipal authorities, that competition could be carried on on fair terms. The Committee balanced as carefully as possible the advantages possessed by the company on the one hand, in being already in possession of the field, and the advantage possessed by the municipalities, on the other hand, in having, for instance, underground wayleaves; and the whole of the Report went upon the principle that, if

315
there was to be competition, it should be, as far as possible, on fair and equal terms. Surely it would be a most unequal competition to give long licences to municipalities unless the licence of the National Telephone Company was extended to a corresponding period. Starting from that fact, which was the basis of the whole Report of the Committee, in whose interest is it that this extension should take place? No doubt the Committee thought that municipalities would be willing to undertake licences even though those licences terminated in 1911, but we have discovered since then that 1911 is too short a period. ["No."] If it is not too short a period the municipalities themselves can say that their licences should not run beyond 1911, and in that case the licence of the National Telephone Company will not be extended. The whole matter is in the hands of the local authorities themselves. If they want short licences they can have them; if they want long licences they can have them. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire said we were giving fresh powers to the Postmaster-General to extend the licence of the National Telephone Company. The Postmaster-General has that power at the present moment. What we are doing really curtails that power, because we are here saying that the licence can only be extended at the choice of the local authorities themselves. It cannot be pressed too clearly on the House that these licences are only to be extended at the choice of the municipalities themselves, and then only in the localities where competition is instituted. I quite agree with everything which has been said as to the position of the National Telephone Company in the past. I do not retract one single word that I have ever uttered about the extravagant privileges which were granted to them; but in the future the company will be in a very different position. It will cease to be an unregulated monopoly; it will cease to be a monopoly at all. A large portion of the United Kingdom has been taken away from it, and even where it is to continue working—and certainly where this competition occurs—it will be brought strictly under control. Therefore I regard the National Telephone Company in the future pretty much as I should regard any other company. I have always said that looking to the backward state of the telephone industry in this
316
country it was our duty rather to supplement the work of than to destroy the National Telephone Company. We want to have as wide a service as we possibly can, and I think a good deal of the criticism that has been directed against the extension of the licence of the company has been a criticism which has arisen out of a recollection of the past rather than with a view to the position of the company in the future. Wherever there is to be competition we have not only ensured that it should give a public service in the best sense of the word—that is, that it should serve everybody alike on equal terms, which it was not compelled to do before—but that it should come under control as to rates, and if the licence is to be extended for eight years there is to be a limitation also. I therefore think—although nobody has spoken more strongly than I have against the extension of the licence while the company held an unregulated monopoly—that now that it has ceased to be a monopoly and has come under control, the arguments against extending the licence are much less cogent than they were.
SIR J. JOICEY: In my judgment there is no satisfaction in the speech just delivered. If there was one thing more than another upon which former Governments and Committees have been unanimous it was that all licences for telephone services should terminate in 1911. The Committee which sat in 1892 distinctly refused to sanction any extension beyond 1911, and the Committee of last year was really prohibited from going into the question. It was never for a moment contemplated that the licence would be extended beyond 1911. My hon. friend below me stated that no municipality would undertake a telephone service under a licence expiring at that date. That was distinctly the reason why the Committee sanctioned the provision by which the Government would be enabled to buy the plant of municipalities and new companies in 1911. The Government are now going altogether beyond the recommendations of the Committee of last session. In my judgment this is a most vital proposition, because, as an advocate of nationalising the telephone system, I see clearly that it practically destroys all chances of nationalising the system in this country. If this opportunity of terminating the licences in 1911 is missed, there will

317
never occur so favourable an opportunity of getting full possession of the telephone service. The difficulties which exist now, and which will exist in 1911, will exist with a tenfold greater degree in 1925. We have been told again and again that we want to break down this monopoly. By why has the National Telephone Company got a monopoly? Simply because the Post Office refused to grant licences to anybody else—which it has the power to do. It not only refused to license anybody else, but it encouraged the National Telephone Company to buy up any other company; and in deciding as to the extension of the licence of the National Telephone Company, I think we are justified in going into these matters. Why did not the Government destroy this monopoly before? Because they looked forward to the time when they would take over the system as a national system, and they knew if they increased the number of companies it would make such an arrangement very much more difficult, and that is the reason I certainly object to this extension of the licence beyond 1911. If we had an opportunity of putting this question before the country, the Government would not get the support of any large proportion of the population for the policy they are now pursuing. I admit there are difficulties in the situation, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, but he ought to face those difficulties in the way recommended by the Committee—namely, that the competition, if any, should be carried out by the Post Office.
SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE: This Amendment, undoubtedly, raises the most important question it is possible to raise on this proposal, and, friendly as I am to the Bill, I shall feel bound to vote for the Amendment. Perhaps the House does not quite appreciate what really is the meaning of the proposal of the Government to extend this licence. In the first place, it is not a general extension of the licence of the National Telephone Company, but an extension only in particular cases—cases in which competition will be set up by municipalities, or by new licences, with the consent of the municipalities, or cases where underground way-leaves have already been granted to the National Telephone Company. Reference has been
318
made to Glasgow, but Glasgow will not come under the operation of this clause, because they have not granted underground way-leaves up to the present.
MR. HANBURY: But Glasgow will come under another portion of the Bill.
SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE: I am dealing with the clause which purposes to extend the licences only where underground way-leaves have been acquired by existing companies: that is as far as this clause goes. The question really under the consideration of the House is whether or not these licences should be extended. What are the reasons given for the extension? First, that the National Telephone Company will under this Clause come under control. In other words, under Sections (a) and (b) they are to cease to give favours or preferences in the future, as they have been at liberty to do, and in some cases have done, in the past; and they are to bring their charges under the control of the Postmaster-General as to maximum and as to minimum rates. I venture with great respect to say that precisely where this clause will bring these points into operation, municipalities at the present moment, by the agreements under which they have granted these way-leaves, have got the control. In every one of such agreements conditions have been imposed that no preferences should be given, and that the charges should come under control. That is one of the reasons why I cannot follow him upon this particular clause when he says the country is obtaining a concession. This is a most serious matter for the municipalities, for many of them have entered into an agreement for the granting of underground way-leaves upon the condition that they shall be terminated at the end of twelve months, and in many cases at the end of six months. Under this Bill the municipality gets nothing in exchange but the right to compete with its hands tied, and I cannot see that there is any justice in granting to the National Telephone Company this concession. When the National Telephone Company got this licence in 1884 it was granted with the distinct reservation that the Postmaster-General should allow other licences if he liked. I say there is no right on the part of the National Telephone Company to complain

319
of the granting of new licences, and the concession made to the company will prejudice the municipalities and cause to be a permanent tenure what otherwise would have been a six months' tenure. I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman in the concessions he has made to the National Telephone Company, and the truth is that they have been extorted from him by the strong, undue, and unfair pressure of certain Members of Parliament, who, like all other Members, are sent to this House to exercise their influence in the public interest, and not for private interest. I do not believe that the Secretary to the Treasury would have ever granted this concession but for the pressure put upon him by certain Members of Parliament. I have great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman, for he has done his utmost to protect the public interest, and if he had been supported, as he ought to have been, by the Government, I do not think we should have found that he would have made these concessions. Because I believe this proposal is opposed to the public interest, I shall vote for my hon. Friend's Amendment.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I can see no valid grounds for the great extension of the licence which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give to the National Telephone Company. I agree with every word which has fallen from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, but I think the right hon. Gentleman advanced one or two arguments which the hon. Member for Huddersfield has not met. Last night the right hon. Gentleman stated, as one of the grounds for granting this extension, that he had obtained from the company a concession by which they undertook not to compete with the small municipalities within certain areas, and I think the right hon. Gentleman went the length of saying that he regarded that as a very valuable concession, and as a sufficient justification of the extension of the licence. Does he mean us to suppose that the National Telephone Company are so blind to their own interests as to have gone on for all these years without extending their company into those districts if there had been any profit to be made out of them? This company is paying interest upon a very large capital at the rate of something like 7 per cent.
MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: No dividend of that amount is paid.
MR. HEDDERWICK: It is paying a very handsome dividend I know, and, of course, the reason why the company have not pushed their operations into these sparsely populated districts is because they did not want to risk the dividends they earned in the large centres of population. There was another point which the right hon. Gentleman made. He said he regarded it as confiscation if he did not extend this licence in connection with the granting of licences to municipalities to whom he desired to give this power. The right hon. Gentleman laid strong emphasis upon this point.
MR. HANBURY: What I said was that the municipalities under this Bill would have a new inducement to terminate these way-leaves, and if they did, for the purpose of carrying on competition with the company, terminate these way-leaves, that would be practically confiscating the property of the National Telephone Company.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I fail to see that there would be confiscation at all. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the National Telephone Company has enjoyed extravagant privileges, and he has even said that if he had been in power when they were applied for he would not have consented to grant them. But surely that is a ground not for extending the privileges of the company but for terminating them. Under these circumstances—having considered the grounds which the right hon. Gentleman has stated for this extension, and seeing no confiscation in allowing the licence to run out at the time which was originally agreed upon—I am obliged to support the Amendment of my hon. friend.
MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: I know it will probably be very unpopular in the presence of hon. Gentlemen opposite to say a word in favour of the National Telephone Company, but so much has been said adverse to that company that I hope I may be permitted to say a single word upon that subject. My right hon. friend has spoken of the privileges.

321
granted to that company, and has expressed his opinion that those privileges should never have been granted. This carried me back to a very early period in the history of the Tele-phone Company. In the year 1879 I had an interest in the company, and I also had something to do with the management of its business. Then came the time when the company fought the question of a telephone being a telegraph, and a compromise was come to between the Government of the day and those who were, at that time, interested in telephone matters. It was seriously considered whether it would not be advisable to endeavour to appeal against that decision, but for some reason or other it was thought more prudent to accept the compromise which was offered by the Post Office authorities to those interested in the telephonic enterprise, and that is the genesis of the licence which is said to contain these extravagant privileges. Hon. Gentlemen who take part in this discussion and use information with regard to telephone matters which is of very recent date have no idea what were the difficulties which had to be encountered in the earlier stages of the telephonic enterprise. I can go back to the time when it was practically impossible to get money to put up telephones, and when it was almost impossible to get people to take the telephone at all. Until quite recently I had in my possession a letter written by the town clerk of the city of Edinburgh, in which he refused to permit the fire brigade to be joined on to the telephonic exchange free of charge. I have long since ceased to have any interest in telephones, for, when prices were a good deal higher than they are now, I sold out. I mention this for the purpose of pointing out that however extravagant these privileges may seem, they were not so extravagant at the time they were granted; but, on the contrary, I believe they were practically the minimum under which, capital could have been got together to develop this enterprise. Surely something must be allowed to those who were pioneers in this business. I would remind the House of the analogy in electric lighting, where, by an Act of Parliament, electric lighting was strangled for years. The difficulties which have now arisen were caused through the action of the Post Office; opportunities have been lost
322
which might have been taken advantage of to completely alter the complexion of this enterprise; and we are suffering not so much from the extravagant privileges, but from the fact that, through incompetency or otherwise, full advantage was not taken of the opportunities offered. My right hon. friend does not by any means give anything away, for he gets a fair equivalent for the concessions he has made, and I hope he will carry his point.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Although the hon. Member opposite has disposed of his shares in the National Telephone Company, he seems still to take a kindly interest in that company, and no doubt the big profits he has made justify that feeling. I cannot, however, see that he has made out a case in favour of this extension of the licence. I admit that the pioneers are entitled to some sort of compensation, but I think they have done pretty well out of it. If all the shareholders had had the wisdom of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox division of Glasgow they would have cleared out long ago at a handsome profit. I do not think the National Telephone Company have much to complain of in this respect, because, as a rule, the fate of pioneers in most of our great enterprises is that they sell out and get no dividend at all. The National Telephone Company have been exceptionally lucky, and I do not think it is now open to the company to come here and ask for an extension of their licence. I should like to know what possible case there is for granting this extension. If the National Telephone Company had a monopoly granted to them by Parliament covering the expenditure which they have incurred, and if this Bill were to break that monopoly and give away some of their rights, I could understand them coming here and saying, "You are depriving us of some properly upon which we have expended large sums of money, and we now ask you to extend this privilege in order to recoup us for this expenditure." But nothing of the sort has happened, for the only thing that has happened is this: the Treasury issued a Minute in 1892 recognising competition against the existing company. There is no doubt that, at the present moment, any company may be formed in any part of London to compete with the National Telephone Company. This Bill does not deprive the company of any

323
money, and why should they say, "You must extend our time"? In consideration for what? In consideration for certain privileges which are to be granted for the extending period. Those privileges are already enjoyed by the municipalities in every case. I hold in my hand an agreement between the National Telephone Company and the Hull Corporation, which provides that there shall be a scale of charges which are set forth in the schedule, and there is also a provision that whenever there is a reduction in price in any other part, the same reduction shall be extended to Hull. In addition to that, in another paragraph it is stated that no monopoly is to be conferred on the company, and the Corporation reserves full rights. Therefore it will be seen that these municipalities have already got these privileges conferred upon them in every case. Why should this company come to the House of Commons and say that "In consideration of something which you have already got, and of which you are in full possession, you must extend to us fourteen years of the licence we have already got"? I also object to this extension in the interests of the rural districts, which at the present moment are practically excluded from the benefit of our telephone system because it would not pay the company to go there. The company simply go to large towns, where they can make a profit. The right hon. Gentleman brings in a Bill to enable municipalities to set up systems for themselves. At the expiration of the licence granted to the Telephone Company what will be the position of things? In 1911 in the large towns, where the systems can run side by side, you will have an excellent telephone service at reduced charges, but you will have no extension of the service to rural districts at all. The object of the Government ought to be to reduce the value of this monopoly by competition, so that in the year 1911 we can go to the company and say, "The value of your property has been reduced to such a point, and we will buy you out at such a sum, and establish a system which will be really a national one." Under this Bill an extension of fourteen years will be given to the Telephone Company's contract, and the position of the company will be very much strengthened, for in case you want to buy them out they will then have got something to sell. There is no doubt that in the near future people
324
will avail themselves more and more of the telephone. In Switzerland one person out of every 100 of the inhabitants is on the telephone, while in this country the proportion is only one in 650. The reason for this is that here you have a monopoly company, while in Switzerland they have a proper national system. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to destroy his own Bill by a concession which I do not believe he is himself really in favour of. The right hon. Gentleman himself stated that:
"The indirect influence which a big company can bring to bear, and is bringing to bear, is enormous, and it is difficult to see where public policy begins and private interests end."
That is the only reason why this extension is granted at all, and I am positive that if the matter had been left to the right hon. Gentleman himself, he would never have granted those concessions. He has granted them because of pressure brought to bear upon him from this side of the House, and I think we should be really considering the views of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this monopoly if we rejected this part of the Bill.
MR. LABOUCHERE: The best proof 'that the House ought to object to the alterations which have been made in this Bill is that we know perfectly well that they are the result of "lobbying." After this agreement had been come to, the National Telephone Company apparently considered itself perfectly satisfied, because all opposition on the part of the supporters of the Telephone Company appears to have disappeared. If these alterations are of so much benefit that the company withdraw all opposition, that in itself I consider a ground for supporting the Amendment. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman when he says it is unfair and unjust not to give the National Telephone Company a continuation of its licence until 1925 if we give a licence to the municipalities. What has one got to do with the other? The National Telephone Company does not lose in any sort of way if the municipality continues its licence after 1911, up to which time the company would receive its dividend. If the company ceased in 1911, as it ought to do, it would cease to get its dividend, while the municipality would; go on obtaining its dividend. The

325
company has been in existence ever since 1874, and in 1911 it will have had a licence for 26 years; and yet we are told that if municipalities get a licence for 25 years we must continue the company's licence for an additional 14 years. The right hon. Gentleman says we get a quid pro quo for the few concessions we make, but the only practical quid pro quo which I can see is that what was before an unregulated company will now be a regulated company. For my part I would prefer that the municipalities did not obtain greater power when the company's licence ceased in 1911, rather than that the company should go on till 1925. What we all desire, or should desire, is the nationalisation of the telephones, and if you continue this licence to the company you will not be able to get nationalisation until 1925, unless you are prepared to pay an enormous sum to the company for it. Even suppose you give the municipalities a licence till 1925, it is infinitely easier to deal with municipalities than with the company. A municipality is elected by the ratepayers, and the people would take care to keep down the rates for telephones, and they will always, or almost always, be ready to hand over their system to the Government. Under those circumstances I do think that it is the very greatest pity to introduce this new arrangement into the Bill. We ought to stand firm by 1911, and under no circumstances in any Bill whatever, or under any considerations whatever, to extend this company's powers any longer than 1911.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: This is a very remarkable Debate in many respects. Except for the very timid and tentative support given to these proposals by the hon. Baronet the Member for Bridgeton, the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury stands alone in their defence. ["No."] Well, perhaps, I ought also to except the hon. Member for East Islington, whose interests are always in favour of the capitalists. The right hon. Gentleman, who introduced this Bill amid the chorus of applause from every section of the House and every Member of the House, except the Members who represent the Telephone Company, stands alone to-night, with the exception of the two hon. Members to whom I have referred, in defence, not of his own position, not of
326
the position which in his heart and conscience I believe he would be inclined to take up, but in the defence of the position which has been forced upon him. There is something a little more than the interest of the Bill at stake to-night; and that is the position of the House of Commons, and specially the position of the House of Commons when dealing with large, influential, and far-reaching monopolies. What is the pressure to which the right hon. Gentleman is yielding? I do not believe it is his own conviction. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is as convinced as when he introduced the Bill that this monopoly ought to get a shortshrift; but instead of that he has given it a new lease of life of fourteen years. The right hon. Gentleman says that in return they have got maximum and minimum rates; but that privilege is already secured in connection with the municipalities, so that that is no concession at all. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, made a speech which was the most scathing denunciation of this monopoly imaginable. I almost pitied my hon. friend the Member for Huddersfield, and I hope he was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman was pronouncing this indictment upon the company.
"I am not bound,' said Mr. Forbes, 'by a mere written agreement, such as binds ordinary men of business: the moral law alone is the thing for me.' From that point of view, went on the right hon. Gentleman, he enlarged with a certain suave satisfaction (I am not responsible for the rather rancorous tone of these observations) on the great moral obligation of the assumed partnership between himself and the Post Office, and the mutual delights which follow from a system of brotherly co-operation."
Then there was something about Arcadia. On another occasion the right hon. Gentleman said:
"I am sure that the House is not prepared to grant fresh powers to the company which is already endowed with very large powers beyond those afforded to any other company."
And the way the right hon. Gentlemen fulfils these words is to extend the operations of the company from 1911 to 1925. It is said that if we do not accept the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Bill will be lost. But I would rather see the Bill lost than that this monopoly

327
should be continued till 1925, and the telephone system of this country remain a laggard and a disgrace in comparison with the systems in other countries.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It has been said that my right hon. friend stands alone in supporting the extension of the licence to the National Telephone Company. I do not think I can be charged with being a friend of the company. I have consistently supported my right hon. friend in his efforts to break down the monopoly of that company; but I must say in fairness to the company, and in the hope of obtaining a fair and genuinecompetition, I support him also in the extension of the licence. The Select Committee said that there should be competition, but competition on equal terms, and that if the licence of the National Company terminated in 1911, the licence of the municipalities should not extend beyond that term. In the interest of the municipalities themselves, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury proposes that the licences of municipalities should go on from 1911 to 1925, and it therefore follows on the principle of fairness and equity that the licence of the National Company should be extended to the same term.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: A municipality is not a private trading corporation.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, but it was held that it would be only fair that the same privilege should be extended to the National Company as was given to the municipality. The hon. Gentleman says that the licence of the company is to be extended for twenty-five years, but it is absolutely at the will of the Corporation to determine how long the company's licence should run. If the corporation say that they are content to embark their money in a licence terminable at the end of 1912, the National Company's licence would terminate in 1912; but if they choose to go on till 1925 the company's licence would also go on to that year. The hon. Member opposite talks about the extension of the monopoly of the company. I would be the last person to vote an extension of the licence if it were to perpetuate a monopoly.
328
But the licence of the company is only to be extended in places where it ceases to be a monopoly, and where there is competition. The right hon. Gentleman, I admit, is giving a certain advantage in those particular areas to the company; but what is he getting in return from the company?
AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: He is getting a very great deal. First of all he secures the extinction of the monopoly in those areas in which the licence is extended.
AN HON. MEMBER: There never was one.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: In theory there never was one, but in practice there was. At all events, you are giving the municipalities for the first time powers by a general enabling Act to get rid of that monoply. In the next place, you get rid of the unregulated character of the company in these areas. And in the third place, you are getting intercommunication. The last concession is, in itself, of much greater value than any advantage that has been given to the company, because, if the municipalities are to start a telephone system on anything like fair terms, intercommunication is absolutely essential.
MR. MOULTON: Nothing has impressed me so much with the mischief of passing Bills of this important nature, by the methods of Grand Committees, as the way in which hon. Members of great ability have got up, both yesterday and to-day, and put before this House arguments which, if they had a week or two to think about them, they would be ashamed to associate with their names. These arguments are put forward with the greatest sincerity, but it shows to me that neither this House, nor still less the public, have had any time to weigh the consequences of this most momentous change in our telephonic system. I propose to deal very shortly with this particular point, that by this Bill those corporations I that have entered into contracts with the

329
National Telephone Company in regard to way-leaves, have these contracts forcibly prolonged, until the end of whatever licence the company chooses to ask for. What I say is, that everything that is given to the Company is regarded as absolutely sacred—you must not confiscate one fraction of the property of the company—butwhen it comes to the property of the municipality, you may confiscate it if you like. What was the position of the company, and of the municipalities? The company accepted the pioneer licence for thirty years, with the power of the Post Office to compete with them by means of public money, and also of granting licences to other people. At first the Post Office refused to grant licences to municipalities. Why? Because competition was dangerous, and inconvenient. Then we find that the Post Office became convinced that competition was right; but instead of using their power of granting competition, which they had reserved to themselves, they said they would never grant it to the municipalities unless this contract, which was freely made with the National Telephone Company, is extended for as many years as the licences given to the municipalities. What right have the Government to use their power of refusing to grant licences in the interests of the National Company? What spell has been thrown on the Government? How is it that, when they are convinced competition is good, they will not allow that good competition, unless the municipalities sacrifice valuable rights, and hand them over to the National Company? We are told it is not fair that we should give a licence to the municipalities unless we give a licence to the National Company. But the National Company is not a new company; it has had thirty years of privileged working, and the municipalities are coming in to try a new undertaking. Are you going to say that the new undertaking shall not receive a licence without prolonging all the licences you have given in the past to those who have profited by them? How have we dealt with the tramways and with the electric light? Is it to be said that you are not to grant a licence to an electric light company which comes fresh into an area, without extending the licence of all those who have had licences in the area before? If that is going to be done, then all the licences are going to be perpetual. What
330
is the meaning of talking about treating all people alike, when the National Company is treated in this exceptional manner, by having a licence for thirty years, and then being given a further extension? Nothing is more plain than that the licence dies in 1911, and what right has the Government to prolong it, merely because the right of giving a licence to another company in the same area, which was reserved, is acted upon by the Government? To talk about treating them all alike is drawing a red herring across the trail. I want to show how the public interest is unprotected by this Bill. I will take two cases—one the case of a place where there is no competition under the present law, and the other the case of a place where there is no competition under the law as proposed by this Bill. Suppose you take such a place as Glasgow, or one not so eager to get a licence, such as Cambridge. Suppose the National Telephone Company misbehaved themselves in Cambridge, and refused to give a proper service, the Post Office has it in its hand to punish them for that. They can grant a rival licence, and the fear of that has kept the National Telephone Company in order, and would keep it in order in the future. But now, let this law be passed, and what position is the National Telephone Company in? Necessarily, the more badly it behaves, the more it drives the public to seek a competitor, the more certainly it improves its property, because it gets a prolongation of its licence. There was some power of keeping them in order with the threat of competition. Now the threat of opposition, instead of being a threat, is exactly the opposite. You cannot introduce competition, if this Bill is passed, without immensely strengthening the position of the National Telephone Company. Let a licence be granted to the municipality of Cambridge for twenty-five years—because it is said that without a twenty-five years' licence no municipality would accept the privilege—and what is the consequence? The National Telephone Company, even if it behaves well, will insist that every one of its subscribers should agree not to go to another company for the next ten years, and they may impose on their subscribers any terms they choose. You have taken away the one power that the Post Office had, though it was most disgracefully slow to use it, of keeping the company

331
in order, and you make a grant of competition a gift to the company instead of a threat. How is the public protected against this? In no way. According to this Bill any terms that the company choose to impose on the public, in the districts where there is competition, or where there is not competition, are legal, with one exception—that if there is competition they may enforce those terms on everybody, and if there is not competition they can please themselves on which of their customers they can enforce their terms. The Secretary to the Treasury said that the licence of the National Telephone Company gave them powers far wider than ought to have been granted to a private company. If you read this clause, you see that with one exception—that of not permitting personal preference—it leaves the powers of the National Telephone Company exactly the same as in the original licence, which the right hon. Gentleman admits is to be prolonged for twenty-five, fifty, or one hundred years, or just as long as the municipalities choose to struggle against them. The concessions are most delusive. One of these concessions is that they give up districts that are not occupied. Now in every one of these districts the Post Office could give a licence to whatever body would take it up, and if the National Telephone Company would not take up a licence before, is it likely that it would take it up afterwards? The country, therefore, could secure that concession without asking the National Telephone Company. The next alleged concession is that the company should not use undue preferences and apply to one terms which they would not apply to others. All I can say is that if they attempted to do that they would stultify themselves, because they repudiated the idea that they ever treated people unequally. Suppose that that is so, it makes that concession a nullity. This Bill gives the right for the company to treat people unequally. What is the other concession? It is simply this, that they won't charge more or less than the new companies—a thing which we might very well leave to competition to settle. In return for these three very illusory concessions, we are going to allow the National Telephone Company to go on for the next fifty years.
MR. HANBURY: Fifty years!
MR. MOULTON: I know what I am saying. You have only got to read the Bill to see that what I am saying is correct.
MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member was not in the House when I stated that the Bill has been altered in that respect.
MR. MOULTON: I have seen the proposed alterations, and the matter is very much as it was before. It entirely depends on the will of the Post Office, which is less under the control of this House than an Act of this House—it depends entirely upon the will of those who manage the Post Office for the time being what the length of the licence will be and what the terms. I strongly object to this House giving to any member of the Government, or to any Department of the Government, the power of giving a licence which will redound to the advantage of the National Telephone Company, after my experience of the National Telephone Company in this House during the last three years. We have only one thing to do; we have got to conserve the rights of the people. The people conceded to the company clearly and distinctly a pioneer licence of great value. We ought not to extend that which we have given, because if we do we will be making a free gift to this company. This company is not an unsuccessful one, struggling with difficulties. Nothing of the kind; it is a most profitable company, and we have no right, now that it has ceased to be a pioneer company, to make a gift of this concession to the company, or to any other company in the world. Our business is to increase the efficiency of the telephone system. We can do that by creating competition by means of the municipalities, and it is idle to assert that we can do that by increasing the powers of those who compete with the municipalities. We ought to leave the period of the licence of the National Telephone Company unchanged, and we ought liberally to give the municipalities that power which, as representing the public, they have a right to have of managing their own telephone system.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 62; Noes 146. (Division List, No. 9

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finch, George H.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Arrol, Sir William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Milward, Colonel Victor

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fisher, William Hayes

Monk, Charles James

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Baird, John George Alexander

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Morrell, George Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

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

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

Garfit, William

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Banbury, Frederick George

Gedge, Sydney

Nicholson, William Graham

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gibbs,Hn A.G.H.(CityofLond

Parkes. Ebenezer

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Brist'l

Gibbs, Hn. Vieary (St. Albans)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bethell, Commander

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Purvis, Robert

Bigwood, James

Gosehen, Rt. Hn. G. J (StGe'rg's)

Pym, C. Guy

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goalding, Edward Alfred

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson.

Butcher, John George

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

Heremon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

seely, Charles Hilton

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

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Seton-Karr. Henry

Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cawley, Frederick

Jessel, Captain Herbt. Merton

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

Kemp, George

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Keswick. William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chiehester)

Chamberlain, J. A.(Worcester)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd U.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.

Thornton, Percy M.

Charrington, Spencer

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Valentia, Viscount

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

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

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

"Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Cooke,C. W.Radcliffe(Heref'd)

Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel A.R.

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

Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Wrightson, Thomas

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Wylie, Alexander

Curzon, Viscount

Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land

Wyndham-Quit, Major W. H.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Loyd. Archie Kirkman

Wyvill, Marmaduke D' Arcy

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Denny, Colonel

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Doughty, George

Macdona, John Cumming

Douglas, Kt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, C. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fardell, Sir T. George

M'Killop, James

Sir William Walrond and

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Malcolm, Ian

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Davitt, Michael

Joicey, Sir James

Allen, W. (New.-under-Lyme)

Dewar, Arthur

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Asher, Alexander

Dillon. John

Labouehere, Henry

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Doogan, P. C.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Billson, Alfred

Duckworth, James

Lough, Thomas

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Emmott, Alfred

Macaleese, Daniel

Caldwell, James

Goddard. Daniel Ford

M'Crae, George

Channing, Francis Allston

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Maddison, Fred

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

Healy. Timothy M. (N.Louth)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Colville, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Palmer, G. W. (Reading)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Steadman, William Charles

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Strachey, Edward

Wilson, John (Govan)

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Woodhouse,Sir J. T.(Hudderf'd

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Moulton.

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 40, to leave out the words from the word 'but,' to the end of sub-section (1), of Clause 3, in order to insert the words 'subject as aforesaid on the terms and conditions specified in the agreement (including any provisions thereof for determination on breach of covenant), unless varied by any subsequent agreement with the local authority.'"—(Mr.Hanbury.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill,"put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have an Amendment to the Amendment, in line 2, after the word "conditions" to leave out all the words, with the view of inserting "that shall be agreed upon between the existing company and any local authority." The effect of that would be that whenever the licence is extended it would be extended upon terms which shall be agreed upon between the company and the local authority. The clause, as it at present stands, gives the power to the Post Office arbitrarily to extend the licence of the company, whereas the agreement was entered into upon the assumption that the licence was to terminate in 1911. I submit to the House, that when a licence is to be extended for another fourteen years, the municipal corporation, as representing the ratepayers, has a right to take into account the changed conditions and to impose fresh conditions. What might happen in the meantime in regard to fresh patents, no one can tell; and surely, when a new licence is to be issued, the Post Office is not the only body that ought to be consulted as to the terms. The municipal corporation ought also to be consulted as to the conditions under which the licence should be extended. As a matter of fact, the way-leaves are only granted for twelve months, and the clause as it stands takes that twelve months away and puts in, without the leave of the municipal corporation, fourteen years.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words from
336
the word "conditions," to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to add the words "that shall be agreed upon between the existing company and the local authority."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'unless,' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. HANBURY: The Amendment of the hon. Member would simply defeat the whole purpose of the clause, which is to prevent a municipality from using these fresh powers to confiscate the property of the National Telephone Company which they had acquired. Having taken down the overhead wires in order to give a more effective service, and having laid wires in the streets, the company have a perfect right to keep these up for the convenience of the residents. I cannot consent to a confiscation of that kind. It is quite clear that if the municipalities are to have the power to prescribe the terms upon which way-leaves are to be continued, of course it would give them the power to discontinue the way-leaves altogether.
MR. MOULTON: This use of the word "confiscation" is rather humorous. The municipality has made arrangements with the National Telephone Company, whereby the company has certain terminable way-leaves. The municipality has perfect power, at present, to give notice to terminate these way-leaves. And yet it is said to be confiscation because you do not take away this power which you have solemnly bargained they have. Suppose one municipality has agreed to give a way-leave for a lump sum. That lump sum was made small because the municipality had the power of terminating the way-leave. But by this clause you extend the term of the way-leave for 14 years without any compensation. Suppose, again, that another municipality has granted a way-leave on the terms of an annual rent, then, if you extend the powers, the annual rent goes on. It seems to me that the word "unfairness" does not strike the mind of any member of the Government unless it is

337
unfair to the National Telephone Company. If we were to propose any regulation to deal with the National Telephone Company comparable to this clause, we should be denounced as confiscators of the property of the Company. But the Government do not take the trouble to inquire as to whether they are dealing
equally and equitably with the Municipalities and the National Telephone company.
Question put
The House divided:—Ayes, 135; Notes, 45. (Division List, No.299.)
SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE: I beg to move that, in line 4 of the Amendment, the word "unless" be omitted, with the view of inserting, "except in so far as may be." What the Government propose to do is to maintain the terms and conditions of the agreement which at present exist between the local authority and the National Telephone Company, unless varied by subsequent agreement. I want to limit the variation and to maintain the right of the local authority as against the National Telephone Company.
MR. T.P. O'CONNOR: Does that mean that the agreement will still stand, in spite of the new enactment that is passed?
MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Amendment.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: It was stated by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, that some of the municipalities in the country had the right of determining, on six months' notice, their agreement with the National Telephone Company as to way-leaves. I desire to know whether that right is taken away by this clause or not.
MR. HANBURY: It is taken away.
Proposed Amendment amended, by leaving out the word "unless," and inserting the words "except so far as they may be."—(Sir James Woodhouse.)
Words, as amended, inserted.
Another Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 2, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, '(2) Where an existing company is at the passing of this Act under a licence from the Postmaster-General supplying public telephonic communication in any exchange area, a licence to provide a system of public telephonic communication within the same area, or any part thereof, shall not be granted by the Postmaster-General to any person or body other than the council of a borough or urban district, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General that the application for the licence is
340
approved by the council of every borough or urban district, any part of which is situate within the area specified in the application.'"—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BUCHANAN: I think this is a new sub-section, and that we ought to have some explanation of its object.
MR. HANBURY: This is practically the sub-section moved by the hon. Member for Hoxton in the Grand Committee. The Treasury Minute of 1892 states that no licence should be granted to a new company, except with the consent of the authorities of the area concerned. This sub-section is to prevent bogus companies being started. Any company in future will not be regarded as bona fide unless it secures the consent of the local authorities.
SIR J. JOICEY: I must confess this appears a peculiar sub-section to put into the Bill. At present the Post Office has complete control over the granting of licences, and, in using that power, must exercise some supervision. It is now proposed to hand that power over to the local authorities, and I cannot understand what has induced the Government to take that course. I am bound to say I will not support this sub-clause, and I shall feel it my duty to vote against it.
MR. FAITHFULLBEGG: This addition to the clause has been put in in order to stereotype the provision which was incorporated in the Treasury Minute of 1892. That is the genesis of this proposal, and the right hon. Gentleman is only carrying out a pledge that he gave upstairs.
MR. MOULTON: This clause is one of the many indications that this Bill has been drawn up in favour of the National Telephone Company. It is stated to be for the purpose of preventing bogus companies, but it should apply generally or not at all. This ties the hands of the

341
Post Office, if there is an existing company, and leaves them free if there is not. I quite approve of the municipality having an influential voice as to whether new companies should come into their area or not, but it is the public interest that ought to be protected and not the interest of the existing company. The National Telephone Company, which can manage us, has only to induce a local authority to oppose the granting of a licence to a competing company, and it can keep it out. Therefore the Amendment is for the purpose of protecting the existing company.
SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE: I beg to move that "each" be substituted for "every" before "borough" in the last line but one of the Amendment, and that the words after "district" in the same line to the end of the section be omitted,
and that the following words be in serted:
"Within which it is proposed by application to establish a telephone exchange."
The object is to make the proposal of the Government perfectly clear.
Amendment amended by leaving out the word "every," and inserting the word "each"; by leaving out the words "any part of," and inserting the word "within"; and by leaving out from the word "which," to the end, and inserting the words "it is proposed by the application to establish a telephonic exchange."—(Sir James Woodhouse.)
Question put, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 27. (Division List, No. 300.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

Doughty, George

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Arrol, Sir William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lough, Thomas

Asher, Alexander

Duckworth, James

Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lloyd, Archie Kirkman

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Baird, John Geo. Alexander

Fardell, Sir T. George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Macdona, John Cumming

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Finch, George H.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Banbury, Frederick George

Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

M'Crae, George

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Killop, James

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

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Maddison, Fred.

Beckett, Ernest William

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Malcolm, Ian

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Bethell, Commander

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Garfit, William

Monk, (Charles James

Bigwood, James

Gedge, Sydney

Morrell, George Herbert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

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

Bullard, Sir Harry

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

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Butcher, John George

Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

Nicholson, William Graham

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Purvis, Robert

Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pym, C. Guy

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Rentoul, James Alexander

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Jessel, Captain H. Merton

Ridley,Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Charrington, Spencer

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kemp, George

Seely, Charles Hilton

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Keswick, William

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Labouchere, Henry

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Lawrence, Sir E. D.-(Cornw'll

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Curzon, Viscount

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

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

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Denny, Colonel

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Valentia, Viscount

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

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

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

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'stield

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Wrightson, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Wylie, Alexander

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wyudham-Quin, Major W. H.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Dewar, Arthur

Pirie, Duncan V.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Dillon, John

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Billson, Alfred

Doogan, P. C.

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Caldwell, James

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Cawley, Frederick

Horniman, Frederick John

Strachey, Edward

Channing, Francis Allston

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

Lloyd-George, David

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Colville, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Sir James Joicey and Mr. Moulton.

Davitt. Michael

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Question put and agreed to.

CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: The Amendment which I wish to move is to add at the end the following words:
"Provided always that all licences issued or extended after the passing of this Act shall be subject to the provisions of any general Act relating to telephonic communication."
It is perfectly clear that, although the National Telephone Company will emerge from this discussion under certain restrictions and regulations, it is in reality much more strongly entrenched in its present privileges than ever. The object of my Amendment is to apply the limitations and regulations which, in the public interest, have been applied to other trading concerns. Railway enterprises are subject to the general regulation of railways, and it is the same with electric lighting and other industrial concerns, and I think a similar provision ought to apply to the particular branch of industry we are dealing with at the present time
MR. HANBURY: I am not aware there are any general Acts.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I am referring to future Acts.
MR. SPEAKER: We cannot deal with future Acts of Parliament. The Amendment is not in order,
MR. BUCHANAN: I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether the time has not arrived when we might adjourn this discussion. Hon. Gentlemen will not deny that this is a very important measure and that it is a different Bill from the measure which was considered in Committee. The new
344
clauses undoubtedly involve very important principles.
MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Gentleman going to move the adjournment of the Debate?
MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, Sir, I meant to conclude with that motion.
MR. SPEAKER: I cannot accept the motion for the adjournment at this hour.
MR. BUCHANAN: Then, Sir, I will move the omission of Sub-section 2. This sub-section seeks to justify the statement made this evening by the right hon. Gentleman that we are taking away from the sphere of operations of the Telephone Company a large part of the United Kingdom. I venture to submit that in reality we are doing-nothing of the kind. The National Telephone Company has enjoyed for man years a general licence to go where it pleased, and it has gone into the profitable parts of the country, leaving alone those parts which are not profitable, and I therefore do not believe that we will substantially hinder the company.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (2), of Clause 3."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'without,' in line 3, stand part of the Bill.'"
MR. HANBURY: I really believe that the hon. Member must be a friend of the National Telephone Company. Although

345
he may throw doubt on some of the concessions we have got from the Telephone Company, there can be no doubt that this is an important one. I cannot suppose the hon. Member brought forward this motion merely for the purpose of obstructing the Bill, and therefore it must be a bonâ fide Amendment, which is in the interest of no one except the Telephone Company.
SIR J. JOICEY: I protest against the accusation the right hon. Gentleman has made against my hon. friend, and I appeal to the House as to whether it is deserved. The right hon. Gentleman is so full of the Telephone Company that he thinks no one takes an interest in this Bill except the company and its friends. We have been told over and over again that this Bill has been brought forward in the interests of competition, but this clause would practically prohibit competition. It means that there shall be no competition in any area except where competition now exists. From what I have seen, I believe that the National Telephone Company is just as good a competitor as any other licensee of the Post Office.
Other Amendments made.
MR.FAITHFULL BEGG: The object of this Amendment is to provide that any district which is withdrawn from the license of the Telephone Company shall be provided with an efficient telephone service. Whether these districts be profitable districts or not, I think we should have an assurance that they will be provided with a telephone service by the Post Office, or in some other way. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me an undertaking that these districts will be provided for then my amendment will be unnecessary. The National Telephone Company have set up exchanges in the most profitable parts of the country, and have neglected the districts where the population is sparse and the towns are small. What is wanted is a guarantee that these districts which are unable to provide for themselves will be given telephonic communication.
Another Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 7, after the word 'exchange,' to insert the words, 'Provided always
346
that such consent shall not be withheld unless, within two years from the date of the passing of this Act, an effective exchange shall have been established within such area by the Postmaster-General, or by a local authority, or by a new company acting under a licence from the Postmaster-General.'"—(Mr. Faithfull Begg.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HANBURY: I think my hon. friend is mistaken in thinking that thinly populated districts are less profitable than thickly populated districts. The experience of foreign countries is to the contrary, and there is no reason why competition should not be started in these areas. With regard to the period of two years which my hon. friend proposes in order to guard against the starting of bogus companies, that has been already provided for, by the fact that the Postmaster General is not likely to grant a licence to any company not of a bonâ fide character, and the locality will also have considerable control over the matter.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: In my opinion there is some confusion on the point. It is quite clear that in a crowded centre where the company get subscribers beyond a certain number, the exchange becomes a very costly matter; but the National Telephone Company knows its business, and it is because certain districts are not profitable that it has left them alone. If the Government had not taken steps to extend the licence of the company beyond 1911, we should in eleven years have all the power in our own hands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
CAPT. SINCLAIR: I beg to move to omit Sub-section 3 of Clause 3. Really this is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. We had a long discussion this evening on the first sub-section of this clause, and the House will remember that there was great opposition to the proposal contained in it. The proposal now before us is even a greater violation of the principle which should govern telephonic legislation. The Government now propose to enact that where a municipality obtains legal rights and lays out money for the purpose of establishing a telephone system, the licence of the National.

347
Telephone Company for that area shall be extended if the licence of the municipality runs beyond 1911. This part of the clause which I desire to omit gives precisely the same privileges to the National Telephone Company in cases where they have not secured way-leave rights, and have no right whatever to a concession. I cannot see how this can be justified. The right hon. Gentleman himself is the strongest witness we can call in support of the statement that this is an entirely new departure in the telephone legislation of this country, and I do hope that the House will realise that its effect will be merely to strengthen the position of the National Telephone Company. Hon. Members interested in this Bill are obliged by the rules of the House to carry on the discussion under great disadvantages, but, in spite of these disadvantages, I hope the House will realise how very important this Amendment is.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 8, to leave out the words of Sub-section 3 of Clause 3."—(Captain Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'Where' stand part of the Bill."
MR. BUCHANAN: This sub-section is distinctly in favour of the National Telephone Company, because it proposes to extend its licence beyond 1911, not only in districts where it has secured way-leaves, but in the other cases set out in the sub-section. This is a most important question, and is the cause of all the opposition to the Bill, and will be the cause of opposition throughout the length and breadth of the land if the Bill becames law. The right hon. Gentleman has given way to the pressure exercised by the National Telephone Company, and has been obliged to extend a privilege which he himself said only a short time ago ought not to be granted. He himself told us that one of the greatest securities the country had for the development of telephonic communication was that the licence of the National Telephone Company would cease in 1911. We had hoped that we would have been in a position to establish a really national system, but that hope is now postponed for a generation. I think the Government have sacrificed the in-
348
terests of the public to the interests of the company, with the result that we cannot have a proper national system in this country for a quarter of a century.
MR. DILLON: I entirely agree as to the extreme inconvenience of the manner in which we are compelled to discuss this Bill. It is a striking example of the steady and rapid degradation of Parliamentary procedure. I remember a few years ago the present Leader of the House laying down in an eloquent and powerful speech the principle on which these Bills ought to be dealt with.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member's remarks are not relevant to the question before the House.
MR. DILLON: I will not pursue the subject, Sir. I was merely about to point out that we are debating what is practically a new Bill, which has not passed through Committee, and which is of enormous importance. This sub-section is undoubtedly a surrender on the part of the Government to one of the most persistent and powerful systems of lobbying I have ever witnessed during the eighteen years I have been in this House. Not content with confronting every Member in the Lobby, it has infested every part of the House with its influence, and this clause is one of its chief results. I have great admiration for the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman struggled against tremendous influences to emancipate the telephone interests of this country, but the result only confirms me in the opinion I formed very early in these discussions, that the best and cheapest way to deal with such a monopoly is to buy it out as soon as possible. My conviction is that every year added to the life of a company adds to the price you will have to pay to purchase it, and the more it will be able to secure from the community. We were led to believe that the principle would be used to whittle down the property of the National Telephone Company, and that when its licence expired the company could be extinguished at less cost. I venture to say that when the company is eventually bought out the public will have to pay four times the price for it that it could be purchased for now, and the public will look back with longing eyes on the amount for which

349
they could have bought out the company. Nobody desires to confiscate the property of the company, but the Post Office ought to exercise its right to purchase it at a reasonable price, which would honestly repay the outlay of the shareholders. We are now asked to part with that right, and the result will be to establish a practical monopoly, and ultimately I venture to say that the public will be compelled to meet the company on its own terms. Just as at present we are being asked to pay£860,000 to the Niger Company for a charter which contains a clause empowering the Government to revoke it, so by-and-by there will be another transference of public money to the telephone company for rights conferred on it by Act of Parliament.
MR. MOULTON: It is a curious commentary on the fashion of putting two companies on equal terms to say, according to this clause, that if the National Telephone Company has its licence extended because a licence has been granted to a new company, that extension will
not be on the terms given to the new company, but on the extravagantly liberal terms on which the original licence was granted to the National Company.
MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken; it will not be on the old terms, but on the new terms.
MR. MOULTON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is perfectly true that these two things called concessions will be inserted in the extended licence, but otherwise the provisions of the original licence of the National Company will remain in force. The consequence is that one company will be under the control of the Post Office, and the National Company will be practically without control. And that is called putting them on equal terms!
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 108; Noes, 38. (Division List, No. 301.)

AYES

Arrol, Sir William

Fardell, Sir T. George

Milward, Colonel Victor

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Monk, Charles James

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Finch, George H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Baird, John George Alexander

Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

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

Fisher, William Hayes

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

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

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Banbury, Frederick George

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Foster, Col. W. H. (Lancaster)

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Gedge, Sydney

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Beckett, Ernest William

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Purvis, Robert

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Pym, C. Guy

Bethell, Commannder

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

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bigwood, James

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Ridley, Rt. Hon Sir Matthew W.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm.

Russell T. W. (Tyrone)

Butcher, John George

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Seely, Charles Hilton

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

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Cawley, Frederick

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

Chamberlain Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Kemp, George

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Charrington, Spencer

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Valentia, Viscount

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

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

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

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Wrightson, Thomas

Curzon, Viscount

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool

Wylie, Alexander

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. W (Cumb.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Denny, Colonel

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Doughty, George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

TELLEES FOR THE AYES—

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

M'Killop, James

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Middlemore, J. Throgmo ton.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Asher, Alexander

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Healy, Timothy M. (N.Louth)

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Billson, Alfred

Horniman, Frederick John

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Lough, Thomas

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Colville, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Williams, John C. (Notts.)

Dewar, Arthur

M'Crae, George

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders.

Dillon, John

Moulton, John Fletcher

Doogan, P. C.

O'Connor T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Duckworth, James

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Captain Sinclair and Sir James Joicey.

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Pirie, Duncan V.

DR. CLARK: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, I beg to move, in Clause 3, page 3, line 8, to leave out "a local authority, or." I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. I think the Government have been very fair so far as the first portion of the clause is concerned, that where the National Company has spent a large amount of money on way-leaves, we ought to give them time to get it back. I think any new company ought not to have a special privilege any more than the National Telephone Company, but when you are dealing with a local authority it is an entirely different matter. If any corporation spend their money on a telephone system, the profits will go to the citizens. I am against a monopoly either to the National Telephone Company or to a new company. I am only in favour of a monopoly to the State or municipality, where the citizens get the benefit of the profits.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 8, to leave out the words 'a local authority or.'"—(Dr. Clark.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'a local authority or' stand part of the Bill."
MR. HANBURY: I am glad that the hon. Member admits that when a new company gets a licence, it is perfectly fair and legitimate that the licence of the National Company should be extended. I can see no distinction between the competition of a new company and that of the local authority, except that the competition of the local authority may be more vigorous. In resisting the Amendment I am following the suggestion of the Select Committee.
MR. LABOUCHERE: We are not absolutely the slaves of the Select Committee. We respect the Committee very much, but surely we are not to be put out every minute by the statement that the Select Committee did this or that. I think the distinction which my hon. friend has drawn between the local authority and a company is a fair and legitimate one. The company competes only for the benefit of its own shareholders, whereas the municipality represents the public, and carries on the business for the public. We have very great difficulty in knowing how to vote. I observe that the front bench on this side of the House is empty. We are as sheep without one single shepherd. I am certain that a great many hon. Gentlemen take a deep interest in this matter. I would like, for instance, to know what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton thinks of it. I hope my right hon. friend will really consider this Amendment, which I think a fair one.
MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the finding of the Select Committee for this provision in the Bill. But this provision was put in in the Grand Committee, and was not suggested by the Select Committee. It is a very fair position to take up, that if a new company is allowed to compete, the two companies ought to be put in the same position. My objection is not to the facilities being given to the National Company as opposed to a new company, but as opposed to the municipality or the State. It is an extraordinary position for the right hon. Gentleman to take up, to say that the same protection should be given to the National Company as against a municipality, as against a new company. He goes even further, and says that the competition of a

353
municipality would be stronger than that of a, new company. But the competition of the municipality is a competition of the people for their own sake. Therefore, to put upon the same footing the competition of the municipality, which represents the ratepayers, and the competition of a new company, which seeks dividends for its shareholders, is, in my opinion, perfectly preposterous. I trust the Amendment will be pushed to a Division.
MR. COLVILLE: There is another substantial reason why this Amendment
should be accepted, and that is that many municipalities decline absolutely to grant way-leaves to the National Telephone Company.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would like to ask the Government how long they intend to sit. It is now half-past one, and I would suggest that after the Division the discussion should be adjourned.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 33. (Division List, No. 302.)

AYES.

Arrol, Sir William

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fardell, Sir T. George

Milward, Colonel Victor

Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Morrell, George Herbert

Baird, John George Alexander

Finch, George H.

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Beckett, Ernest William

Foster Harry S. (Suffolk)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bethell, Ferdinand Faithfull

Gedge, Sydney

Purvis, Robert

Bethell, Commander

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Big wood, James

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chs. Thomson

Boscawen, Arthur Griflith-

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St.Geo's)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Seely, Charles Hilton

Butcher, John George

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Smith, Jamesparker (Lanarks)

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Cawley, Frederick

Hudson, George Biekersteth

Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

Cecil Evelyn (Hertford East)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Johnston William (Belfast)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

Kemp, George

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Keswick, William

Valentia, Viscount

Charrington, Spencer

Lawrence, Sir EDurning-(Corn.

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

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

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Loigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Wriglitson, Thomas

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Wylie, Alexander

Curzon, Viscount

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Long. Rt. Hon. Walter (Liverp'l

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Denny, Colonel

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Doughty, George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

M'Killop. James

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Asher, Alexander

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Billson, Alfred

Joicey, Sir James

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Macaleese, Daniel

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Colville John

M'Crae, George

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dewar, Arthur

Moulton, John Fletcher

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Dillon, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Doogan, P. C.

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Duckworth, James

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dr. Clark and Mr. Labouchere.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Other Amendments made.
Another Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 19, to leave out the words from the word 'exceed' to the end of paragraph (c), and insert the words 'the maximum rates and (where the company are empowered to lay underground wires) shall not fall below the minimum rates authorised in that behalf by the Postmaster-General within the area specified in the new licences."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have not moved the adjournment of the discussion until a substantial Amendment has been reached, which will take another hour's Debate. I beg to move that the discussion be now adjourned.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
SIR J. JOICEY: I beg to support the motion. This Bill has really been discussed amid great difficulties, because there have been so many new clauses, and I think it is very much in the interest of the Government that they should accept the adjournment.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I trust the hon. Gentleman will not press his motion. We are now within measurable distance of the conclusion of our labours on this Bill, and I think it would be in the interest of the whole House, in the interest of the remaining business of the session, and in the interest, let me add, of an early holiday, that we should finish the Bill at this sitting.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 27; Noes, 108. (Division List, No. 303.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Duckworth, James

Pirie, Duncan V.

Asher, Alexander

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Billson, Alfred

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Horniman, Frederick John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan E.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

Macaleese, Daniel

Williams, John Carvell (Notts'

Colville, John

M'Crae, George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Dillon, John

Moulton, John Fletcher

Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Sir James Joicey.

Doogan, P. C.

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

NOES.

Arrol, Sir William

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

Baird, John George Alexander

Curzon, Viscount

Hare, Thomas Leig

Balfour, Rt Hon A J (Manch'r)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

Denny, Colonel

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Dewar, Arthur

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Beach, Rt Hon Sir M H- (Bristol)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Beckett, Ernest William

Doughty, George

Kemp, George

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Keswick, William

Bethell, Commander

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn

Bigwood, James

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamHart

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fardell, SirT. George

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Bullard, Sir Harry

Finch, George H.

Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool

Cawley, Frederick

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Chaloner, Captain R. G W.

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Chamberlain Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Gedge, Sydney

Macdona, John Cumming

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Goldsworthy, Major-General

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

M'Killop, James

Charrington, Spencer

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

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Morrell, George Herbert

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

Morton, A. H. A (Deptford)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Nicholson, William Graham

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Wrightson, Thomas

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Wylie, Alexander

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Purvis, Robert

Talbot, Lord E. Chichester

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Valentia, Viscount

Original Question again proposed.
MR. PROVAND: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to reconsider the terms of this proposal. It allows the existing company to make its rate as high as it pleases, which permits a very great latitude to the company. The terms are different with regard to the low rates which may be fixed by the Postmaster-General. I think we should have some limitation with regard to the minimum rates, and not allow the Telephone Company to compete unfairly with the local authority, or another company. Why should not the power of making the rates too low be taken away from the company? It has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, again and again, that competition should be fair; but competition cannot be fair if one company is allowed to make the rates so low as to practically prevent competition at all. I am not much concerned about Glasgow and Edinburgh, I am speaking in the interests of the smaller local authorities, which have not a large amount of capital at their back. It is impossible that any small local authority could maintain competition against the National Company if the company said, "If you make your rate £4, we will make ours £3;and if you make your rats £3, we will make ours £2." The local authorities have to get the money on the security of the rates, and the ratepayer, might say, "You must not compete with the company, because we do not want to risk losing our money."
MR. HANBURY: I think the hon. Gentleman will see that a distinction must be drawn where way-leaves have been granted, and where they have been refused. As a matter of fact, if the
358
Telephone Company so unduly abused its rights as to make competition impossible, it would be quite within the power of the Postmaster-General to intervene.
Question put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE: It has been decided by the Court of Appeal, in the case of Glasgow, that local authorities are compelled to give to the telephones the rights which the Post Office have. This is an alteration very different from what the right hon. Gentleman explained to the Grand Committee.
MR. HANBURY: The words are an improvement on the words in the original Bill, and my hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that the decision to which he refers can possibly apply to the Amendment.
MR. MOULTON: I do not think the right hon. gentleman can understand the point raised by the hon. Member. The point is, that where the company is empowered to lay underground wires, the minimum rate shall not fall below the minimum rates authorised by the Post Office.
MR. HANBURY: I am quite prepared to insert after the word "empowered" the words "by agreement with the local authority."
MR. COLVILLE: If the company can lower its rate to any extent, no corporation can compete against it.
MR. HANBURY: The minimum rate must extend over the whole exchange area. Take the case of Glasgow and

359
Govan. These are in the same exchange area: one has way-leaves and the other has not. If the Glasgow Corporation applied for licences even over their own area, Govan would have the right to have the minimum rate fixed, and it would apply just as well to Govan as to Glasgow.
MR. COLVILLE: In the event of Glasgow declining to grant rights to open streets it is expressly provided that the National Telephone Company shall have the right to an unlimited extent to accept licences at unremunerative rates in order to cut down competition.
Proposed Amendment amended, by inserting after the word "empowered" the words "by agreement with the local authority."
Words, as amended, inserted.
Another Amendment made.
Amendment proposed in
"Page 3, line 24, to leave out the words from the word 'period' to the word 'but' in line 25, in order to insert the words, 'specified in the
new licence of the local authority or new company for the duration of such new licence.'"—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill,"put and negatived.
Question proposed—"That those words be there inserted."
MR. MOULTON: I understand that these words have been proposed in order to meet the danger that this clause would apply to original licences. I am quite sure these words have been chosen for the purposes of meeting the danger, but I do not think it will do so. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the point he will see that the clause will cover every licence.
MR. HANBURY: I have acted under legal advice in the matter, and my advice is that in every case of extension a period of twenty years will be specified.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 25.—(Division List No. 304).

AYES.

Arrol, Sir William

Finch, George H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morton, Arthur H A (Deptford)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Baird, John George Alexander

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Nicholson, William Graham

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gedge, Sydney

Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M.H. (Bris.)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Purvis, Robert

Bethell, Commander

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

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W

Bigwood, James

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gouldirig, Edward Alfred

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Greville. Hon. Ronald

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Seely, Charles Hilton

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Kemp, George

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Keswick, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Charrington, Spencer

Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.

Valentia, Viscount

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

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Leigh- Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Look wood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Curzon, Viscount

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Wrightson, Thomas

Dalkeith, Earl of

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

Wylie, Alexander

Denny, Colonel

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcv

Doughty, George

Macartney. W. G. Ellison

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

M'Killop, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fardell, Sir T. George

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Milward, Colonel Victor

NOES

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Asher, Alexander

Joicey, Sir James

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Billson, Alfred

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan E.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Caldwell, James

Macaleese, Daniel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

M'Crae, George

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Doogan, P. C.

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Duckworth, James

Pirie, Duncan V.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Mr. Moulton and Mr. Colville.

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Bill read a second time and committed for to-morrow.

Other Amendments made.
Amendment proposed:—
"In page 3, line 27, at end, to add—'(5) If the licence of an existing company is, under the provisions of this section, extended in respect of any exchange area for a period of not less than eight years beyond the term existing at the passing of this Act, the company shall, at the request of any other licensee of the Postmaster-General providing public telephonic communication in the whole or any part of that exchange area, and under such circumstances and on such terms and conditions as may, within six months from the passing of this Act, be prescribed by an order of the Postmaster-General, made with the approval of the Treasury, afford all proper facilities for the transmission of telephonic messages between persons using the system of the company (either in the whole or in part of the exchange area, as the Postmaster-General may prescribe) and persons using the system of such other licensee, provided that the licensee so requiring inter-communication shall in any such case afford similar facilities. (6) For the purposes of this section the expression "exchange area" means an exchange area as defined by any agreement made by an existing company with the Postmaster-General before the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Question proposed—"That those words be there added."
MR. BUCHANAN: The clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman relates to inter-communication with the various authorities, and is in substitution for the clause on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Huddersfield. As I understand it, it does not seem so general as that of the hon. Member. There are several limitations on intercommunication which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain.
MR. HANBURY: It is only where there is a bona fide extension of the licence that the concession of inter-communication is granted. When the subscribers to a corporation exchange are equal to
362
one-half of the subscribers of the company, then there is to be absolutely free, communication between the two exchanges, without the payment of a penny. That is a considerable concession on the part of the National Company. But even where the corporation subscribers are only a fourth in number of those of the National Company they can get inter-communication at the cost of a penny.
SIR J. JOICEY: I think this is a most valuable concession made by the National Company in exchange for the concessions they have got. It will practically solve many of the difficulties that exist where there are several systems in the same area.
MR FAITHFULL BEGG: The object of the new clause I now beg to move is to provide that a new licence when granted shall be put in effective operation. Provisional orders have been granted for electric lighting in 1890 and 1891, which have not been made use of yet. I think my right hon. friend will see that this is a reasonable provision, and that where licences are granted they should not be allowed to be bottled up.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 27, after the word 'force' to insert the words,—'It shall be a condition of every licence granted to a local authority or to a new company after the passing of this Act, that such local authority or such new company shall, within two years from the date of the granting of such licence, open and maintain an effective exchange; within the area included in such licence, otherwise the said licence shall be cancelled and shall absolutely cease and determine, and no compensation shall be payable to such local authority or such new company in respect of such cancellation."—(Mr. Faithfull Begg.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HANBURY: I think my hon. friend may be satisfied that no licence will be granted to any company or corporation unless there is an absolute assurance that there is a considerable number of subscribers.
MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: With the leave of the House I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
MR. BUCHANAN: Will the Bill be reprinted?
MR. HANBURY: No; it will not be reprinted.

GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE AT KHARTOUM BILL [H.L.]
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
MR. J. W. LOWTHER MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the chair.
MR. CALDWELL: I understand that the Isle of Man gives a fixed contribution to the Exchequer of£10,000 a year. Is the increase of duties fixed by this Bill to go into the Treasury of the Isle of Man, or into the Imperial Exchequer? I want to know what is the arrangement between the Isle of Man and the Treasury as regards these funds.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion read and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELL: We have had no explanation in regard to this Bill. Surely after two o'clock in the morning the Government might give us some explanation of their Bills. It ought to be remembered on the other side that it is the privilege and the duty of the Opposition to discuss Government measures. By this procedure of pushing Bills through at this time of the morning, the Government are depriving hon. Members of a constitutional right. I am bound to point out to the Government that in introducing this novel method of preventing fair discussion they will not be able to complain if future Governments wore to follow their example. Therefore, we should have some explanation of this Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is a non-controversial Bill, and there can be no objection to its passing.
  MR. CALDWELL: The arrangement was made that the Bill might be taken, but that, if necessary, it should be discussed.
  MR. HANBURY: The Telegraph Acts originally did not extend to the Channel Islands, and there is no means of protecting the Postmaster-General from injury by local undertakings. What is proposed by the Bill is to protect the Postmaster-General from hostile telegraphs.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL [Lords].
Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the Mouse of the 17th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at thirty minutes after Two of the clock.

MARQUESS OF HEADFORT.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Geoffrey Thomas Marquess of Headfort to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW PEERS.
The Lord KENLIS (M. Headfort)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Sir HORATIO HERBERT KITCHENERK.C.B., K.C.M.G., Major-General of Her Majesty's Forces, Sirdar of the Egyptian Army, having been created Baron Kitchener of Khartoum, and of Aspall in the county of Suffolk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
EVELYN LORD CROMER, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., K.C.S.I., C.I.E., Her Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Egypt, and Minister Plenipotentiary in the Diplomatic Service, having been created Viscount Cromer of Cromer, in the county of Norfolk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL.
  The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1.) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.

    FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

  HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL [H.L.]

    LEA BRIDGE DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
    SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
  Further correspondence relating to proposed political reforms in the South African Republic (in continuation of [C.—9345.] and C.—9404.])
  TRADE REPORTS—MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 508. Commercial education in Sweden and Norway.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (ENGLAND).
  Sixty-first Annual Report of the Registrar-General, for 1898.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June, 1899.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST.
  Annual Report of the President, for the Session 1898–99.

  JAMAICA.
  Report of the finances of Jamaica by Sir David Barbour, K.C.S.I. (in continuation of [C.—9177], February 1899).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Lord Ashbourne.) (No. 180.)
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I should like to know when the Second Reading of this Bill will be taken. There are many noble Lords from Ireland who would like to be present on that occasion.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I think we might take the Second Reading on Monday, and, if noble Lords do not think it too sharp practice, the Committee stage on Tuesday. That is a matter, however, for the convenience of noble Lords from Ireland.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.) (No. 181.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: May I ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland when he proposes to take the Second Reading of this Bill? It would be convenient to Scotch Peers that no delay should occur, and I would suggest, if I might, that the Second Reading be taken on Thursday.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): I understand that the printers will be able to circulate the Bill to-morrow, and, under those circumstances, and being desirous of meeting the convenience of noble Lords opposite, I have no objection to taking the Second Reading on Thursday. I should otherwise have put it down for Friday.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WINDSOR: My Lords, the Bill which I am about to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to is a much more modest one than the Bill which I introduced earlier in the Session, but which I did not proceed with when I discovered that the Local Government Board objected to several of its clauses. I have made myself acquainted with the clauses to which the Local Government Board object, and have agreed to withdraw them—namely, Clauses 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9, and I now ask your Lordships to allow the Bill to be read a second time subject to that reservation. What remains is only a small portion of the Bill, but it contains, however, one or two clauses of considerable importance. The Bill had been drafted by those who have practical experience of the working of libraries, and its object was not to increase the powers of library authorities, but to make the Libraries Acts more workable. That was the sole object of the Bill, but the Local Government Board objected to certain clauses on the ground that they unnecessarily enlarged the powers of

  193
  library authorities, and, as I have said, I have dropped those clauses. Clause 6 is a very important one. The Public Libraries Act, 1892, empowers a library authority to make regulations for the use of their buildings, but no power is given to enforce such regulations. Following the precedent of the Public Libraries (Scotland) Act, 1887, Section 22, it is proposed to give the library authority power to make byelaws, subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board, for the regulation of the buildings under its control, and for other definite objects, so as to meet many practical difficulties which have been experienced by library authorities in the past. Clause 7 is also considered an important clause. The library authorities of two or more parishes or of two or more urban districts may now agree together for the joint use of one library, but authorities in an urban district and a parish may not so agree. This clause would enable the library authority of any district to agree with any other library authority for the joint use of a common library, etc. Although the Local Government Board do not agree with all the remaining clauses, I understand that they will not oppose the Second Reading if the five clauses I have referred to are cut out of; the Bill. On that understanding I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved—
  "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Windsor.)
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, the withdrawal of the clauses referred to has, I understand, been agreed upon between the Local Government Board and the noble Lord; but in assenting to the Second Reading of the Bill the Local Government Board wish it to be understood that they do not commit themselves to the approval of the clauses which remain after those mentioned by the noble Lord have been struck out. I refer particularly to Clauses 6 and 10, the latter of which abolishes the present requirement of the approval of a parish meeting or vestry in certain cases. The Local Government Board is doubtful whether that clause is advisable. With this reservation I shall not oppose the Second Reading.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

SMALL HOUSES (ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP) BILL.
House in Committee, according to Order.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:—
LORD NORTON: My Lords, I have an Amendment to move to this clause, which deals with the conditions under which a house purchased by means of an advance under the Bill shall be held. The Bill, on this important point, is in the teeth of the general legislation of the country, and my Amendment will provide that any house or land which a local authority may become possessed of by default in complying with the provisions of the Bill, or breach of its conditions, shall, as soon as possible, be sold for the best price that could be obtained for the same. The principal Act which touches the subject is the Act of 1875, which deals extensively with local authorities becoming possessors of land. That Act compels local authorities who purchase land for a special purpose to immediately sell that land which exceeds the amount absolutely required, the principle being that local authorities should not be holders of real property in their boroughs. The section, the addition of which I am moving as an Amendment, is a reproduction of the words of the Act of 1875, with the addition of a proviso that the original owner of the house or land shall have the first option of purchase. The Colonial Secretary, who is the author of the Bill, has obtained a private Act for his own city, by which the condition of a forced sale is abolished, and the local authorities enabled to become the owners. It is evident, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman takes a very different view from that which I take; but I believe, nevertheless, that the addition of some such provision as that in the Amendment is in the interests of the country and the people. It has been said that the original owner has no claim of re-entry. I quite agree on that point, but I contend that it is in

195
the interests of the inhabitants of the boroughs that he should, if possible, repurchase the land which for benevolent purposes he had parted with. I feel that the interests of our boroughs are very much in the hands of the large private proprietors, who are the only people who can carry out large extensive improvements affecting the interests of the whole of the inhabitants. The powers of these local authorities are being multiplied very rapidly, and they now possess functions for the exercise of which they were not intended. They have already got permission to promote and oppose Bills in Parliament. That is to say, they have already got considerable powers of affecting legislation, and they are now ambitious to become proprietors of real land in their districts. There seems to be no limit to the ambition of the local authorities, and if they are given the power of becoming possessed of freehold property, the amount of patronage they will have at their disposal will bring most of the inhabitants of a town into their pay, and so make them locally omnipotent. I can hardly think your Lordships would consider that a desirable result. When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) said the measure was so complicated that it would not be likely to operate. I think it is a bad defence of any Bill to say it is so drawn and so complicated that it is not likely to come into operation. It does not seem to me that the Bill is drawn in the interests of the working classes, because their interests are mobile. It is a doubtful thing whether public loans can be usefully employed in enabling working men to purchase houses, which would compel them to live in one particular spot. With regard to my proviso, I do not know what objection there can be to saying that the original owner of the house should have the first option of re-purchase when the local authority becomes possessed of the house by default in complying with the provisions of the Act. I have heard that there would be a difficulty in working this proviso, but I cannot see how any difficulty can arise. If the condition of a forced sale is not put in, and local authorities are enabled to become owners, opportunities will be given for jobbery. I am thoroughly opposed to this Americanisation of our local institutions, and I hope your Lordships will adopt my Amendment, es-
196
pecially as the principal Acts now on the Statute Book dealing with this question are hostile altogether to the possession of real property by local authorities, beyond that which is absolutely necessary for special purposes.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 3, page 3, line 33, after 'bankruptcy,' to insert, '(6.) Any house or land which a local authority may become possessed of by default in complying with the provisions of this Act, or breach of its conditions, shall, as soon as possible, be sold for the best price that can be gotten for the same; and the original owner thereof shall have the first option of purchasing it.'"—(The Lord Norton.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (the Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment is evidently afraid that, under the Bill, the opportunity for speculating in house property will be given to the local authorities. I would ask your Lordships very particularly to bear in mind that a local authority can never, under any circumstances, act by way of speculation under this Bill. For the local authority to appear at all, it is necessary for a man, who can prove that he is a bonâ fide resident occupier, to go to the local authority and ask them to assist him to become the owner of his house. The Bill, in Clause 3, prescribes that where the ownership of a house has been acquired by means of an advance under the Bill, the house shall, until such advance with interest has been fully paid, or the local authority have taken possession or ordered a sale under the Bill, be held subject to various conditions. Sub-Clause 3 provides that, where default is made in complying with the Statutory condition as to residence, the local authority may take possession of the House, and where default is made in complying with any of the other Statutory conditions (whether the Statutory condition as to residence has or has not been complied with), the local authority may either take possession of the house, or order the sale of the house without taking possession. Sub-clause 5 enables the local authority, in the case of the bankruptcy of the proprietor of the house, or in the case of a deceased proprietor's estate being

197
administered in bankruptcy, either to take possession of the house or order the sale of it. Clause 5, Sub-section 1, enacts, that where a local authority takes possession of a house, all the estate, right, interest, and claim of the proprietor in or to the house shall vest in and become the property of the local authority, who may either retain the house under their own management, or sell or otherwise dispose of it as they think expedient. There is, therefore, under the Bill, no obligation on the local authority who have taken possession of a house to sell it. The only case which is really contemplated by the noble Lord is the case, which I think we must admit would be exceptional, where men make default. If a man, having fulfilled all the conditions, and having become the owner of his house by the assistance of the local authority, subsequently fails in the Statutory conditions, or becomes bankrupt, or dies insolvent, the local authority, for the protection of the public purse, enter into possession of the house; but a discretion is left them either to sell the house at once, or to retain possession permanently, or with the object of selling it at another time. The Amendment of the noble Lord would make it absolute on the local authority to sell the house at once, and he justifies that proposal on the ground that it is against the principle of the law of the land for local authorities to be the owner of real property. I am no lawyer, and it would be presumptuous on my part to give an opinion upon the principles of the law of the land; but I know what the facts are, and I know that local authorities at the present time do own a great deal of real property, and that in Ireland a whole series of Acts have been passed with the expressed object of enabling local authorities to become owners of real property. Therefore, it is going too far to say that the discretion of the local authority must be swept aside at once, simply on the general principle that under no circumstances should a local authority become the owners of real property. Look at the practical objections to this Amendment! Local authorities are only entitled under this Bill to recoup to the public the outlay which the public has incurred. If, after a sale, there is any balance, it is to be handed over to the defaulting owner; and instances may probably occur where it will be necessary, in the interest of the local authority as
198
well as the proprietor, that the house should be retained in the hands of the local authority until a better price could be realised. A forced sale on the local authority might tend to depreciate the market value of the house, and might seriously affect the financial conditions established by the Bill. The noble Lord proposes, in addition to making the sale compulsory, that the original vendor should have the first option to buy the house. You must remember that there is not a single word in the whole Bill to compel any landlord to sell any land at all, and, therefore, the landlord who sells a piece of land to the local authority for the purpose of this Act does so for no other reason than that it suits him to sell the land. Therefore, having parted with the land in a purely voluntary manner, I do not see why any priority of option should be given to him.
LORD NORTON: But he sold it for a benevolent purpose.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is not suggested in this Bill that he should sell it under its value. He would sell it to the local authority just in the same way as he would sell it to a private individual. How is it possible to ensure the best price being obtained for a house if the original owner is to have the first right of purchase? You cannot have an auction in which it is understood that one person has a prior right to buy the house over the head of the man who offers the highest price. There would be few buyers under those circumstances, and as the Bill now stands there is nothing whatever to hinder the original owner going to the auction himself and buying the property; nor is there anything to prevent him buying a house back on private terms if he offers terms which are considered sufficient. Therefore, I am unable to accept this Amendment, which, I think, would introduce complications into the Bill, and seriously affect its financial conditions.
On Question, "That these words be here inserted," resolved in the negative.
Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I have an Amendment to omit this clause, and to insert a new Clause 8. The Bill, as it stands, applies the Registration of Land Acts, 1875 and 1897. The history of this Amendment is as follows: After the Bill had gone through the Grand Committee in the House of Commons, the Law Society affirmed that the insertion of this clause was a breach of the understanding arrived at in Parliament during the passage of the Land Transfer Act of 1897, and which was to the effect that, after the first Order in Council applying that Act, no further Order in Council on the subject was to be made for another three years, even if a locality so desired it. At the Report stage in the House of Commons, Mr. Chamberlain accordingly proposed to omit this clause and to submit a clause under which the local authorities should be required to keep at their offices a book containing a list of any advances made by them under the Act. The clause the right hon. Gentleman then proposed was identical with the first of the new clauses which I am now moving. He stated that he had been informed that a pledge had been given during the passage of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, that its compulsory provisions should not be extended for three years; but when the Committee assured him there had been no such pledge, he withdrew his proposal in order to consult the Attorney-General, and said the matter would be dealt with in another place, if necessary. The Attorney-General had then gone to Paris to attend the Venezuelan Arbitration, but, on reference being made to him, he was able to show that a pledge had been given which the Government are obliged to consider binding. Therefore it is that I move to strike out Clause 8, and to insert the Amendment which I have on the Paper, the effect of which will be to make a temporary provision in the first new clause—Clause 8—and in Clause 9, to endeavour to bring it into line with the stipulations of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, so that districts affected by this Bill may be brought under its operations.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 8, and insert as new clauses:
"8.—(1.) A local authority shall keep at their offices a book containing a list of any advances made by them under this Act, and shall enter therein with regard to each advance—

(i) a description of the house in respect of which the advance is made;

(ii) the amount advanced;

(iii) the amount for the time being repaid;

(iv) the name of the proprietor for the time being of the house; and

(v) such other particulars as the local authority think fit to enter.

(2.) The book shall be open to inspection at the office of the local authority during office hours free of charge.
"9.—(1.) The registration of the title of houses in respect of which advances are made shall be compulsory under this Act—

(a) in any county or part of a county where registration is compulsory in pursuance of an Order made under section twenty of the Land Transfer Act, 1897: and

(b)in any county or borough the council of which, at any time after the expiration of three years from the making of the first Order under section twenty of the Land Transfer Act 1897, pass a resolution that the registration of the title of houses in respect of which advances are made shall be compulsory under this Act.

(2.) Where the registration of the title of houses in respect of which advances are made is compulsory under this Act, the following provisions shall apply with respect to advances made under this Act after the date on which the registration so becomes compulsory:—

(a.) Where a local authority make any such advance they shall cause the ownership (including any interest held by the proprietor on his purchase of the ownership) in respect of which the advance is made to be registered under the Land Transfers Acts, 1875 and 1897, and shall pay the cost of such registration out of the advance.

(b.) Rules under those Acts—

(i) shall adapt those Acts to the registration of ownerships under this section and. provide for the easy transfer of such ownerships, and for the fee upon any such transfer not exceeding ten shillings; and

(ii) shall on the application and at the expense of a local authority provide by the appointment of local agents or otherwise for carrying into effect the objects of this section; and

(iii) shall provide for preventing the removal from the register of a house to which the statutory conditions apply.

(3.) The proprietor of a house for the purposes of this Act shall be—

(a.) where the ownership of the house is registered in pursuance of this section, the person appearing on the register for the time being as proprietor; and

201

(b.) in any other case the purchaser of the ownership, or, on any devolution or transfer, the person in whom the interest of the purchaser is for the time being vested."—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I wish to say, on behalf of the Irish Office, that the clauses moved by the noble Earl are altogether inapplicable to Ireland, and I shall be obliged to bring up Amendments on Report dealing with the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, we all understand, of course, that if a bargain has been made it should be kept, but I was not at all aware of this bargain. I hope this example will not be followed of exempting from the ordinary law of registration this, that, and the other thing the legislature may enact. Though I understand a pledge was given by the Attorney General which ought to be kept, I observe that this was partly justified on the ground of some supposed pledge in 1897 on the Land Transfer Act. There is not the least pretence for saying that there was any bargain then that future legislation would not touch land transfer. No such pledge was given. I acquiesce in what has been done here, because, when a bargain is made, it should be kept, but I protest against these exemptions being made from the ordinary law of registration.
On Question, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill," resolved in the negative.
On Question, "That the new Clause 8 be here inserted," agreed to.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Before the second of the two new clauses proposed by the noble Earl is agreed to, I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor) would give us some explanation as to what it means. I have read the new Clause 9 proposed, but am greatly puzzled as to its effect.
LORD THRING: If the noble and learned Lord has gone through this clause and approves of it, I will say nothing, but it is inconsistent with the Land Transfer
202
Act. Is it really meant that a small town with only, perhaps, one house to register, must have an agent to carry the Land Transfer Act into operation? The clause provides that a proprietor of a house, for the purpose of the Bill, shall be (a) where the ownership of the house is registered in pursuance of this section, the person appearing on the register for the time being as proprietor; and (b) in any other case the purchaser of the ownership or, on any devolution or transfer, the person in whom the interest of the purchaser is for the time being vested. Well, how could it be otherwise?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Where registration under the general Act has been made compulsory, surely it is not necessary to declare, in another Act, that it shall be compulsory. That appears to be absolute nonsense. This clause requires careful consideration, or it will lead to the greatest confusion and misunderstanding.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not say I differ from the noble Earl with regard to the complexity of the clause, but I take the real meaning to be that, where you are dealing with houses purchased under the powers of this Act, the local authorities are to have something in the nature of a little registration of their own, unless they choose to place themselves under the Land Transfer Act.
LORD THRING: But the clause does not say so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think, perhaps, it would be rather indecorous if we pass a clause with so much doubt expressed upon it by practical persons. I should think that, without running any serious risk, we might abandon this motion now, reserving to ourselves the power to take it up on the Third Reading, if necessary.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Or on Report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Either on Report or Third Reading.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have not the slightest wish to dispute the

203
necessity of the clause. What I object to is its form.
On Question, "That the new Clause 9 be here inserted," resolved in the negative.
Clause 9:—
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have an Amendment to Clause 9, which I entertain some hope Her Majesty's Government will be able to accept. It provides that if the council of any urban district, not being a county borough, or of any rural district, passes a resolution undertaking to act under the Act, that council, "with the consent of the council or county borough," shall be the local authority in that district. I stated the ground upon which I proposed to move this Amendment on the Second Reading of the Bill, but perhaps it will be better if I again explain it. The proposal in Clause 9, as it stands, is that a local authority, for the purpose of the Bill, shall be the council of any county or county borough; but that if the council of any urban district, not being a county borough, or of any rural district, containing respectively a population according to the last census for the time being in excess of 7,000, passes a resolution undertaking to act under the Bill, that council shall be the local authority in that district for the purposes of the Act, and shall be entitled to oust the county council. I ventured to point out the other day that this proposal to give the duties under this Bill to rural district councils having over 7,000 inhabitants created, so far as the purposes of this Bill are concerned, a new local jurisdiction. I pressed upon the House on that occasion the extreme undesirability of in any way multiplying our local jurisdictions or areas, or adding to the complications which already exist in local affairs in consequence of the variety and number of those local jurisdictions. Anyone who has anything to do with county business knows perfectly well that great difficulty is caused in local administration through the variety of these areas, and it certainly seems to me undesirable to add to that complication in any degree whatever. I would urge your Lordships to take out this new jurisdiction of districts having 7,000 inhabitants, and leave the matter primarily
204
in the hands of the county councils. I do not wish to prevent altogether these rural and urban district councils from dealing with this Bill under suitable arrangements. I quite admit that they may be fit persons to administer the Bill under certain circumstances, but I feel that it is unnecessary to remove altogether the power of the county councils in regard to this matter. If urban or rural district councils are anxious to take over the duty, let them do so by all means, but with the consent of the county council. That is the nature of my Amendment. The smaller local bodies are very anxious to get larger powers into their hands. I am not sure that it is always to the advantage of the public that they should be entrusted with larger powers, but I do not object to their possessing them if it is for the public advantage. The fear is that the smaller districts may be unfitted for the purpose, and in such a case you may be sure the county council would not agree to the transfer. I think, if you omit the limit as to population, and require the consent of the county council, you will have a suitable and effective check against the administration of this Bill falling into the hands of bodies too small to properly carry it out.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 13, to leave out from 'district' to 'pass' in line 14; and in line 15, after 'council' to insert 'with the consent of the council of the county or county borough.'"—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
LORD THRING: This clause, again, has evidently been drawn by a person unacquainted with the details of local government. The areas chosen are altogether contrary to the system ordinarily adopted. An urban district very often contains considerably fewer than 7,000 inhabitants, whilst rural districts often contain considerably more. Therefore, whenever a population limit has been applied, it has always been placed at 10,000. Why, in this Bill, is 7,000 fixed, contrary to all precedent, and contrary also to common sense? I have never seen a clause in a Bill which was more calculated to produce the maximum of friction and the minimum of efficiency than this clause. What is to happen if, when the county council has taken this matter in hand and bought houses, a

205
small district should say, "We will do this ourselves," and oust the county council from its jurisdiction? There is not the slightest provision in the Bill for an adjustment of the accounts. Then, again, difficulty will arise with regard to the applications. Persons will apply to their district council to buy a house for them. The district council will say, "No, we will let the county council do it." The applicants will then go to the county council, who will probably say, "The district council must help you." I do not think a clause has ever been introduced before which left it to the option of the smaller authorities to interfere at any time with the larger authorities, and which provided no rules for an adjustment of accounts. The clause condemns itself in its present form. The Amendment will do everything that is desired. There will be no conflict of jurisdiction, and the county council will agree, before any delegation is made, as to adjustment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, this clause has suffered owing to its having been the scene of the familiar battle between the county councils and the non-county boroughs, which has echoed in Parliament ever since the Local Government Act of 1888. In this quarrel Her Majesty's Government take neither side. The advocates of the urban district council, and, in a less degree, of the rural district council, as against the county council, contend that this Bill affects aggregations of population. County councils are mainly composed of gentlemen who represent the rural and scattered population, and, although the Act in some cases might be sympathetically worked by such councils, yet in other cases it is feared that, unless strict provision is made for the rights of urban and rural district councils, county councils might obstruct the operation of the Act in those areas. This is the objection which has been put forward, but I guard myself from adopting such a view. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that if the Act was applied without restriction to any council, however small its area, the effect might be to put the working of an Act of great delicacy and complication in the hands of bodies too small and of insufficient experience. As a via media the Government have adopted the figure of 7,000, because that compromise would
206
exclude no small town of importance, and the Act will be probably more sympathetically administered by the district than the county council, a body which would not have that local knowledge which is thought necessary for the carrying out of the spirit of the Act. As regards the Amendment of the noble Marquess, he will allow me to point out that the words "or county borough" have crept into his Amendment unnecessarily.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: That is so.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I admit that it cannot be denied that the provisions, as they stand, do not tend to simplification. I am afraid we are always pursuing the ideal of simplification in local government, but we never obtain it. The point brought forward by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Thring) is one to which I have given attention, and I find that the figure of 10,000 has many exceptions.
LORD THRING: I admit that. What I said was that the general rule has been 10,000, and they are classified in all the books under that figure.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: As I have said, the figure of 10,000 has many exceptions, and this will be another. I quite understand the object of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, but it would not be possible for the Government to accept it, for it would, as drafted, leave it in the discretion of a county council to veto any application by an urban council to become the authority under the Act. There are urban district councils with very large populations—I believe as large as 100,000—and having the importance, if not the status, of municipalities; and the Government could not assent to give the county council the veto power over such urban councils. On a general consideration of the case, we have thought that the line is safely drawn at 7,000; but what I would be prepared to do would be to insert words which, in respect of all districts under 7,000, would give the county council power to say whether those authorities should become the local authority under this Bill, or not. That is to say, the limit of 7,000 would be withdrawn in its present affirmative sense, but words would be put in providing that

207
no council with a district whose population is less than 7,000 would be able to become the local authority under this Bill except with the consent of the county council.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The exordium of the noble Earl's remarks was somewhat embarrassing, because he said the Government have, on the general principle, no opinion at all. I understood the noble Earl to say that the Government take no side in the conflict of opinion as to the local authority.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said we did not identify ourselves with either of the extreme partisans, but that, as a via media, we adopted the figure of 7,000.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There is a tendency on the part of the smaller local authorities to resist being placed under the larger local authorities, and, if possible, to secure more powers. One of the great recommendations of the measure which was passed by a Conservative Government, creating county councils, was that for the first time it would disregard to a considerable extent the outcries of the small authorities, who, with true parochial instincts, objected to the smallest powers being taken away from them, although the placing of those powers under a more central authority was nesessary for the government of the country. The measure to which I have referred placed under the county councils very important urban districts. Even in the county in which I live, we have two boroughs of ancient fame which are under the county council, and, although they now acquiesce in the arrangement, it was not without great heartburnings and great regret on their part. I think it is an advantage that there should be a concentration of authority, except in the case of large county boroughs which, of course, enjoy separate jurisdiction. I was disappointed to hear that the Government put forward no view on this matter. It might have been expected from the authors of the Local Government Act that they would take a distinct line, and would not assent to the established system of local government being gradually pulled to pieces. I admit the difficulty that there is in resisting the pressure of these small authorities, but I think the Government might have exercised their authority
208
in the matter, and have enlarged the figure beyond 7,000.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is a very refreshing change in the atmosphere of criticism which we have passed through at the hands of the noble Lords opposite. In respect to the Tithe Bill, we were censured because we had a policy of our own, and because we stuck to it determinedly, which was supposed to indicate a very reprobate frame of mind; but now, because we are willing to listen to persuasion, the noble Earl considers us worthy of nothing but condemnation. The difficulty, of course, is, when you are fighting over numbers, that there is absolutely no principle to guide you. You must take those numbers which are most agreeable to the persons who have authority to speak on the matter. I do not imagine that there is any particular virtue about the figure of 7,000; that was taken as the number which would be most likely to lead to a general agreement. I am surprised to hear the contempt which the noble Lord expressed for any intermediate policy. When we tell him that we are pursuing a via media, he says that is no policy at all. I hope that when we get back to theological discussions the noble Lord will forget that unfortunate observation.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What I said was that there ought to be a policy which is not a via media. I was disappointed at it not being indicated to which side the Government would have inclined if they had not been obliged to resort to a compromise.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understood the noble Lord to express contempt of the action we had taken in adopting the via media, and I only repeat that, from so good a Protestant as the noble Earl, I was surprised to hear such an observation.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I would ask the Government to accept the figure of 10,000, by means of which they will prevent the creation of any more confusion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What the noble Lord wants is five figures.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Indeed, it is not What I want is the figure known to the law, and which is already in operation in most cases.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Her Majesty's Government identify themselves with the noble Marquess in his desire to simplify matters. It is, in fact, their own policy which he has done them the compliment to adopt; but, in respect of this particular Bill, they thought the via media proposed was a fair one, because the case of the small urban communities was unusually strong. If 10,000 were accepted as a compromise, and were generally approved, I should be willing to agree to it on one condition—namely, that there should be an appeal against an adverse decision of the county council to the Local Government Board.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am not unwilling to accept that arrangement. My only object is to make the Bill a good one. Though I accept an appeal to the Local Government Board, I must say that my confidence in that Board, and in its way of dealing with county councils, is not great. I withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will amend the Bill, as stated, in the Standing Committee or on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I beg to move that the words, "the expression 'house' shall include 'lands'" be omitted from this clause, which applies the Act to Scotland. I am informed by a most remarkable consensus of legal opinion that the words are unnecessary, and that any small parcel of land really accessory to the house, whether in the shape of a garden or yard, is undoubtedly included in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 20, to leave out 'the expression "house" shall include "lands"'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," resolved in the negative.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:—
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I have an Amendment to this clause, providing that the word "house" shall be deemed to include lands—the words which have just been omitted with regard to Scotland. The noble Earl has stated that the words are not considered necessary, because a yard or garden would be deemed to be included with the house; but I am not sure whether that would hold good in respect to Ireland, where the vast majority of labourers' cottages have half an acre of land attached. Will the noble Earl inform me?
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: With regard to lands, the definition would be the same in Ireland as in England and Scotland. I am afraid I shall not be able, on behalf of the Irish Office, to consent to the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My reason for moving the Amendment is to make the Bill operative in Ireland. If this extension is not granted, so as to include the little plots of land attached to the cottages, the Bill will have little effect in Ireland, and will create great disappointment. One of the main objects of the Bill, as stated by the noble Earl who introduced it, is to enable the working classes to become the owners of their houses, and in that way to add to the social stability of the country. I do not think it can be stated that social stability is more firmly secured in Ireland than in England, or that Ireland should be deprived of any of that ballast which is considered necessary for England. It is clear that unless the Bill can be made to apply to the class of agricultural labourers, it will have very limited application indeed in Ireland. Anybody who has known Ireland well, during the last ten years, will have noticed with gratification the enormous improvement which has taken place in the dwellings of the agricultural labourers, and it is highly desirable to encourage them. The best way to do so is to hold out the hope that by thrift and industry they may become the owners of their own houses. If the expression "house" does not include land, it is certain.

211
that the Bill, as it stands, will exclude practically the whole of the agricultural labourers in Ireland. For this reason I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, after line 29, to insert as new sub-sections:
"(2) The word 'house' shall be deemed to include lands.
"(3) Where any district council is the owner of any house under the provisions of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, such council may advance money to the occupier to enable him to acquire the ownership of the house under the conditions of this Act provided that all moneys received from the occupier shall be applied to the extinction of any debt incurred by such council under the provisions of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts."—Lord Kenry (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I naturally should not be prepared or anxious to dispute what the noble Earl has said with regard to the desirability of doing everything to promote social stability in Ireland, nor would anybody dispute the fact that ownership of property tends rather to promote social stability than otherwise. But I would suggest to the noble Earl that, in this particular case, it would be better, if it is thought desirable to bring the labourers' cottages within the purview of this Bill, that it should be done by an Amendment of the Labourers Acts rather than in the manner proposed by the noble Earl. Owing to the complication of the many arrangements, and the number of conditions which would have to be imposed upon the occupiers, it is believed that it would be very difficult to interpret, with this Act, those necessary and complicated provisions by way of amendment. I would remind the noble Earl that the Labourers Acts were passed for the purpose of providing adequate accommodation for agricultural labourers in Ireland, and to enable local authorities to borrow money from the Board of Works and advance it on the mortgage of these houses. Many schemes have been disallowed on appeal to the Privy Council for two reasons—first, that the existing accommodation had been proved to be sufficient in the locality in question; and, secondly, that it has been shown that the houses were not intended for labourers at all, but for a different class. It is obvious that the houses should be kept for the purpose for which they were intended—
212
namely, for agricultural labourers; but I would point out that, under the Bill, there is nothing to prevent the sale of a house to any person; consequently, the houses might be diverted altogether from their original use, and get into the hands of persons who are not agricultural labourers at all. It might be necessary, under those circumstances, to start new schemes under the Labourers Acts, a process which might be carried on ad infinitum. Therefore, it has been felt that the promotion of social stability in Ireland can be better accomplished by other means, and I must ask your Lordships to refuse the Amendment moved by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I am pleased that the Irish Office have resisted this Amendment, which world create an objectionable state of things in Ireland. In numerous instances, tenant farmers have erected cottages on their farms to accommodate their labourers, and if this Amendment had been adopted, what would happen if the farmer wanted to get rid of a labourer who had bought his house? Would he have to erect another cottage on the land to accommodate the labourer he wanted? Tenants already pay their rent very badly, and Boards of Guardians will not evict; but, notwithstanding this, the noble Earl proposes to give these Boards power to lend money to buy houses, when it is pretty certain that they are not likely to get that money paid back. A house under this Bill will include the gardens or yard, but surely half-an acre of land is neither a garden nor a yard. I am delighted that the Amendment has been resisted.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: The noble Lord who represents the Irish Office has stated that my object would be better attained by an amendment of the Labourers Acts. I confess I do not see the logic of that argument, but if my noble friend will assure me that the Government will give me some assistance in carrying an amendment of those Acts, I shall be content. I cannot, however, help expressing my regret that a Bill intended for the advantage of the working classes should be allowed to pass in a form which renders it practically inoperative for the working classes in Ireland.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I should like to move, as this question has been settled, an Amendment to make it more distinct.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 23, at end of clause, to insert, as a new sub-section: 'An advance shall not be made under this Act for the purpose of a house required under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, and held by the district council under those Acts.'"—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
On Question, "That this sub-section be here inserted," agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as Amended. (No. 182.)

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
QUESTIONS.

  TRANSVAAL AFFAIRS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I wish to ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary for the Colonies a question of which I have given him private notice—whether he proposes to lay further Papers on the Table with regard to affairs in the Transvaal?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELBORNE): I believe to-day Papers will be laid on the Table containing an account of the Bloemfontein Conference, and we
  214
  hope on Thursday to lay on the Table a further Blue Book.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I beg to give notice that I shall, on Friday next, call attention to affairs in the Transvaal.

  EXCISE PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government if, in view of the inability of the Excise authorities in Ireland, owing to the admitted insufficiency of the staff, to properly administer the Excise laws relating to game and gun licences and game dealing licences, they will take steps to increase the staff, either permanently or temporarily, during the approaching shooting season; and whether they will issue special instructions to all Excise officers in Ireland to take the necessary steps to enable them in the course of the ensuing season to demand the exhibition of the requisite licence from every person in possession of a gun, or found pursuing game, or of persons dealing in game. With your Lordships' leave, I should like to make a few remarks with reference to this question. Two sessions ago I placed the same question on the Paper, and the answer I received with regard to the staff of officers who had to see that the game licences in Ireland were taken out, was to the effect that the staff was not large, and that, as each officer had to cover a large area, protection was more difficult. To show how serious this question is in Ireland, and how little the law has been carried out for the last eight years, I may mention that we have formed a Game Protection Association to put the law in force. We have appointed local inspectors and game watchers in numerous districts, and fifty cases were considered by the Committee and nineteen persons prosecuted. In several of these cases, two only of which were dismissed, very heavy fines were imposed. We now ask Her Majesty's Government if they will either increase the staff temporarily during the present shooting season, or issue special instructions to all the excise officers in Ireland. It would also help us considerably if the police were empowered to demand the exhibition of the requisite licence from every person in possession of a gun, or found pursuing game.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I ask your Lordships' permission to answer this question on behalf of the Lord Privy Seal, who has been obliged to go away. The quotation which the noble Lord has made from the speech of two sessions ago will hardly, I think, carry him quite the length he seems to imply. The staff is not admitted by the Treasury to be insufficient. It is, no doubt, the case that the staff is not relatively so large as in England and Scotland, and that the districts are, therefore, more extensive in area; but the officers have not so much duty to do, relatively to the population, as in England and Scotland, and therefore they can cover a larger area. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he cannot possibly increase the staff for the special purpose indicated by the noble Earl. The object of the Gun and Game Licence Act was to raise the revenue by taxing a special species of luxury, and not to protect game. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not think it reasonable to expect that the staff of Excise men should be increased solely for the purpose of effecting the latter object. With regard to the second part of the question, the Government have no reason to think that there is any remissness in Ireland in dealing with the offences referred to. So far as the information at the disposal of the Government goes, the number of detections and convictions in Ireland for the class of offence referred to by the noble Earl is large as compared with England and Scotland, but I am authorised to say that the Board of Inland Revenue will call the attention of their supervisors and officers to the matter, and will impress upon them the necessity of exercising the greatest vigilance against offenders. I may say, in regard to the remarks of the noble Earl, that if he will look at Return No. 223 of the present session of Parliament, he will see that the pledge to do what was possible to detect offences against the Gun and Game Laws has been adequately fulfilled, because no less than 116 prosecutions have arisen out of detections on the part of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  House adjourned at a quarter-past Six of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.