Sitting of 31 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.

    WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
    WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

    CROMER PROTECTION BILL [Lords].
    (Queen's Consent signified). Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    (Queen's Consent signified.) Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords.]
    (Queen's Consent signified.) Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    GREAT YARMOUTH WATER BILL Lords.
    (Queen's Consent signified.) Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments,
    HASTINGS HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and; passed, with Amendments.
    NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    (Queen's Consent Signified.) Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  OYSTERMOUTH RAILWAY OR TRAM-ROAD BILL [Lords].
    WOLVERHAMPTON TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered to be read the third time.
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
    NORTH-EASTERN AND HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAYS (JOINT DOCKS) BILL [Lords].
    As amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.ߞ(Dr. Farquharson.)
    (Queen's Consent signified.) Bill read the third time accordingly, and passed, with Amendments.

    PAISLEY AND BARRHEAD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; a clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
    ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    [Not amended], considered.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    Bill read the third time accordingly, and passed, without Amendment.

  WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, with out Amendment.
  PETITIONS.
    BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872.
    Petition from Bedwellty, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    GAFOOR, ABDUL.
    Petition of Abdul Gafoor, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
    Petition from Nur Khan, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
    POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1845.
    Petitions for alteration of Law; from Girvan, Kilmuir, Bracadale, Snizort, and Bathgate; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.
    Petition from Trawden, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
    Petition from Marylebone, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
    BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (CHANGES IN WAGES, ETC.).
    Copy presented,—of Report and Statistical Tables relating to Changes in Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour in the United Kingdom, 1898, with Statistical Tables [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.
    Copy presented,—of Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent on the Strikes and Lock-Outs of 1898, &c. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    COLONIAL LOANS.
    Copy presented,—of Financial Returns as to Colonies, &c., to which it is proposed to advance Loans under the Colonial Loans Bill, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
    Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 21st July; Mr. T. W. Russell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 308.)
    HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890 (METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES).
    Copy presented,—of Order of the Secretary of State for the Home Department permitting further modifications in the London (Churchway, St. Pancras) Improvement Scheme, 1895 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
    Copy presented,—of Forty-third Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Copy presented,—of Return showing (1) the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of

    843
    the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Value of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the Estimated Assets, and the Exchequer Balances at the close of each financial year from 1835–6 to 1898–9, both inclusive; and (2) the Gross and Net Expenditure charged Annually during that period against the Public Revenue on account of the National Debt, and other Payments connected with Capital Liabilities (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [C. 8966] of Session 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
    Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 16th June; Sir Henry Fowler]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 309.)
    IRISH LAND COMMISSION (RULES).
    Copy presented,—of Rule, dated 20th July 1899, in relation to proceedings under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    MADRAS LAND REVENUE.
    Address for "recent Correspondence between the Secretary of State for India and the Madras Government concerning sales of Land for arrears of Revenue and alleged shortcomings in the Madras Land Revenue arrangements"—(Sir William Wedderburn.)
QUESTIONS.

  WAR OFFICE DECENTRALISATION.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a Committee is now sitting to consider how best to carry out all the recommendations of the Committee on War Office decentralisation, as regards the diminution of the correspondence, returns, etc., which go through the War Office, and which have been approved by the Secretary of State; and, if so, when he expects it to Report; and whether any reduction in the clerical staff of the War Office has been made since the Secretary of State approved of the suggestions contained in the Schedule to the Report, or whether any, and, if so, what, reduction is contemplated.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): A Departmental Committee is inquiring into the civil establishment of the War Office, and I am not able to say how soon it will report. The Committee is, I need not say, taking into account the effects of the measures of decentralisation which have resulted from the Report of Mr. Brodrick's Committee).

  MILITARY EXPENDITURE.
  SIR CHARLESDILKE (Gloucestershire,): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the total estimated expenditure in the present financial year on military works and barracks, whether under the present Military Works Bill or under previous. Military Works Acts and Barracks Acts.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The total expenditure is estimated at £1,462,000.

  WEI-HAI-WEI.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Colonel Bower, of the Indian Staff Corps, is now in military command at Wei-hai-wei; and whether the War Office proposes to make Wei-hai-wei a Royal Engineer command; and, if. so, whether this officer of the Indian Staff Corps will be dispossessed of the command by conferring on some junior officer of Royal Engineers such superior local rank as may be necessary to effect that purpose, in accordance with the method adopted by the War Office at Esquimalt, to displace the officer of Royal Marine Artillery in command at that place by his junior in the Royal Engineers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Colonel Bower, who commands the Chinese battalion which is being raised at Wei-hai-wei, is the senior military officer now on the spot; but an officer of Royal Engineers, senior to him, has been selected for the military command at Wei-hai-wei.
  SIR J COLOMB: Arising out of that answer, may I inquire why the same course was not pursued at Esquimalt?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not think that arises out of the answer at all.

  SPIRIT DUTIES IN LAGOS.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the decision of the Government to tax stocks of spirits in the Lagos Colony at the time of the recent raising of the duty has been altered, and, if so, for what reason; and whether the Government intend to adhere to their decision with regard to this matter in the other West African Colonies and Protectorates; and whether he would be good enough to furnish a table of the imports of gin and rum into Lagos during each of the first five months of this year compared with the similar months of 1898, seeing that it is reported that there has been a large increase of the import of spirits into Lagos during the last few months.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The proposal to tax stocks of spirits was not carried out in Lagos because the Acting Governor considered it preferable to raise the duty at once to 3s. per gallon, and I approved of this being done. In the Niger Coast Protectorate it was necessary under an arrangement with Germany to give one month's notice of any change in the duty, and, as it appeared that a large importation of spirits was taking place in anticipation of an increased duty, the proposal to tax stocks was carried out. In Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast the duties already amounted to or exceeded 3s. per gallon, and have not been increased, and there has therefore been no question of taxing stocks; but, if necessary, the principle of taxing stocks will be adopted. The number of gallons of gin and rum imported into Lagos was 508,091 in the first five months of 1898, and 626,218 in the same period of 1899. I shall be glad to forward the particulars to the hon. Member if desired.

  PROPOSED POLICE GAZETTE FOR SCOTLAND.
  MR. PIRIE (Aberdeenshire, N.): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing that the establishment of a Police Gazette for Scotland has been strongly recommended by former inspectors of constabulary for Scotland, as also by the officer at present holding that appointment, steps will be taken to carry out this recommendation.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I understand, upon inquiry, that the English. Police Gazette publishes all the criminal information of importance which it at present receives from Scottish police forces; and that this Gazette is circulated to the majority, if not to all, of the police forces in Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland considers that this sufficiently meets the requirements of the Scottish police service, at all events until the English Police Gazette is no longer available for the insertion of Scottish information regarding criminals.

  OUTDOOR ROMAN CATHOLIC PROCESSIONS IN LONDON.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask Mr. Solicitor General whether his attention has been called to an outdoor procession at Hatton Garden on Sunday the 16th July, in honour of the "Feast of our Lady of Mount Carmel," when various Roman Catholic clergymen walked in the procession; whether, in view of the provisions of 10 George IV., Chapter 7, Section 26, which imposes a penalty on Roman Catholic ecclesiastics who take part in such processions, and also of the proclamation against Roman Catholic processions issued on the 15th of June, in the 15th year of the reign of the Queen, Her Majesty will be advised to renew such proclamation in maintenance of the law.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): The only information I have with regard to this matter is a newspaper report to which my hon. friend has called my attention. It is not proposed to renew the proclamation.

  SCHOOL RENTS.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there is any objection to an owner charging a new rent or an increased rent for school buildings and teachers' residence, when new and increased subscriptions are given for the purpose of meeting it, so as to show clearly the whole cost of maintenance and the real amount of voluntary contribution.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDU CATION (Sir J. GORST,): There is no objection, provided that the amount of rent is reasonable.

  CONVICT OFFICERS' DUTIES.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether officers in the service of convict prisons who, if on day duty, would receive their Saturday half holiday, forfeit the same when on night duty; whether the prevalence of this rule results in night watchmen losing thirteen days annually of holidays which would otherwise be allowed; and if he will take steps to remedy this state of things.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The night watchmen in convict prisons are always off duty in the daytime, so that the question of a Saturday half holiday does not arise. The aggregate number of hours they work is about six hours per week more than the ordinary discipline officers, but the nature of the duty is so different that there can be no comparison between them, and I do not therefore think that any alteration in the present system is called for.

  MRS. MAYBRICK.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state if any, and, if so, what, action has been taken by the United States Government in the case of Mrs. Maybrick; have petitions been addressed on her behalf by American public bodies and persons; and have representations been made in her favour to Her Majesty's Government by the American Minister on various occasions since her conviction, and if so, can he see his way to present such Papers to the House, along with the replies which are made by the Home Office or the Foreign Secretary.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Representations have been made in favour of Mrs. Maybrick by the American Government through the American Ambassador, and numerous applications have been received from individuals. It would be contrary to practice to present to the House Papers relating to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.

  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD AND WORKMEN'S DWELLINGS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state the result of his communications with the London School Board and the Education Department respecting the displacement of working class occupiers of houses acquired by the Board in Bethnal Green under its statutory powers; and whether he is now in a position to state the nature of the provisions respecting the re-housing of displaced persons which it is proposed to insert in the Educational Department Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill at present before Parliament.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have made the inquiries which I promised and find that in several cases in the last few years the London School Board have obtained powers over labouring class houses in two successive sessions for the purpose of what was essentially one scheme, and have thus not come under a statutory obligation to rehouse the persons displaced. I concur with the Education Department in thinking that steps should be taken to prevent the recurrence of this practice, and as regards the Bill now before Parliament I propose to move the insertion of words which will enable the cases during the last five years, which I have referred to above, to be dealt with as though they had originally come within the obligation to re-house.
  MR. FLOWER: May I ask whether the School Board have made proposals to modify the retrospective action of the Amendment which the Home Secretary has put down, in order that it shall apply only to cases where twenty or more houses are required in one parish for the purpose of one particular school site, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to these proposals, in view of the great difficulty of carrying out the retrospective Amendment.
  SIR M. W. RIDLEY: I have received a communication from the School Board objecting to the proposal which I shall ask the Committee to put in the Bill; but I am bound to say that I cannot agree with the School Board's representations.

  A MISSING TELEGRAM.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether any, and, if so, what redress is left to Mr. William O'Brien in the case of the non-transmission of an important telegram from Westport to Dublin to the solicitor engaged in the case of M'Hale versus Sergeant Sullivan, of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether, in view of the fact that no record of the sending of this message is to be found in the telegraph office in Dublin, he can see his way to institute a sworn investigation in connection with this matter.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): All that can be done is to refund to Mr. O'Brien the amount paid for the transmission of the telegram in question. The Postmaster-General has already made full inquiry in the matter. He has no power to institute a sworn investigation. If, however, Mr. O'Brien has grounds for suspecting any malpractices, and will furnish any evidence in his possession, the matter shall be considered further.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the objection to holding an inquiry to be found in the danger of disclosures?
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir. The Postmaster-General has no power to hold a sworn investigation.

  CURZON-STREET POST OFFICE.
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether any complaints have been received from the female telegraphists, sent from the Western District Office to the Curzon-street Post Office, of the insanitary condition of that office; and if he can State if the authorities intend making any improvements in the arrangements.
  MR. HANBURY: The post office in Curzon-street is a sub-office, and the premises are provided, not by the Department, but by the late sub-postmistress. Recently, it has been necessary to take the management out of her hands, and the office is in charge temporarily; but the Department has no power to interfere with the premises. The accommodation for the staff is poor, but the
  850
  medical officer reports that it is not insanitary. Arrangements, however, have been made to replace the women employed there by men until other accommodation can be obtained, so that the staff will no longer be a mixed one.

  HOME CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many clerks have entered the Home Civil Service under the Higher Division scheme of examination since 1891; how many, if any, of such clerks are at present in receipt of salaries in excess of that which they would have attained under their ordinary service scale of pay; what is the amount of such salaries; and to what Departments are the clerks attached; and how many of the clerks entered since 1891 are now chief clerks; what is the date of their entrance; and the amount of their present salaries.
  MR. HANBURY: The number of clerks who have entered the Home Civil Service under the Class I. Examination since 1891 is 124. There is no "ordinary service scale of pay" common to all these clerks, nor is there any definite grade of chief clerks extending throughout the service. It is therefore impossible for me to answer the question in its present form, and, while a Return might be given covering the points which the hon. Member presumably wishes to raise, the labour involved in its preparation would be very considerable, and the return, when complete, would not be of sufficient value to justify it.

  SHIPS' DOCTORS.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to revise the medical scales for merchant vessels that, as regards merchant ships which carry no medical man, no ship should be allowed to proceed on a long voyage unless there should be someone on board who has passed through a course of instruction in First Aid to the wounded, and also that it should be made compulsory on every mate who presents himself for examination for a master's certificate that he

  851
  should produce evidence that he has passed through a course of instruction; and whether he will have these recommendations carried out as soon as possible in merchant vessels and fishing smacks.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir, the recommendation to which my hon. friend refers was laid before me in May last and is receiving careful consideration. At present the Board of Trade are in communication on the subject with the several interests concerned. I may add that the recommendation only refers to long voyage ships, and does not include fishing smacks.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT AND BEER SALES.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the County Council of Derbyshire requires a deposit of 10s. from any person claiming to have a beer cask tested; and whether the requirement of such deposit is in accordance with the Statute, and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been called to the practice referred to by the hon. Member, and I have been in communication with the Derbyshire County Council on the subject. The council have informed me that they consider casks to be vessels, such as those contemplated in Section 22 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, and not measures used for trade. They have, however, instructed their inspectors to test the capacity of casks when asked to do so, on payment of 10s. for each day's work, not for each barrel. Such testing would not appear to be done by the inspector as part of his employment under the Weights and Measures Acts, inasmuch as the barrels are not verified and stamped as measures, and the Board of Trade have no power to deal with the matter.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain brewers in the Nottingham and Leicester districts sell beer in casks by weight and not by measure, contrary to the law, and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; I am not aware that the facts are as stated, nor that the sale of beer by weight is necessarily an offence under the Weights and Measures Acts.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, so far as it relates to brewers' casks used as measures in the trade, is not adequately enforced; and what steps, he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am not aware that the law is not properly enforced. Its enforcement rests with the local authorities, and not with the Board of Trade.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what local authorities in England and Wales are, responsible, under the Board of Trade, for the due administration of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878; and if he will lay upon the Table of the House a list of the names of the said authorities for the various districts of England and Wales.
  MR. RITCHIE: The local authorities in England and Wales responsible for the administration of the Weights and Measures Acts are the councils of counties and county boroughs, and the corporations of boroughs having at the time of the census of 1881 a population of not less than 10,000. I hardly think that it would serve any useful purpose to lay upon the Table a list of such counties county boroughs, and boroughs.

  ARMAGH QUARTER SESSIONS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that representations have been made to the proper authorities in favour of having the quarter sessions for County Armagh held alternately in Portadown and Lurgan; and that the county court judge has expressed himself in favour of such a change; and whether, seeing that courthouse accommodation in Portadown has been provided at considerable cost by the municipal council to enable the alternation desired to be carried out, he will give this matter his serious consideration.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR. IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Representations have been made in favour of the establishment of quarter sessions at Portadown twice each year alternately with Lurgan, but I am not aware whether the county court judge has publicly expressed himself in favour of the change. The matter was before the Privy Council so recently as the 7th instant, when after due consideration of the objections raised by all parties concerned it was decided not to comply with the application. The matter is entirely one for the Privy Council to determine, and I have no power to interfere.

  ORANGE PROCESSIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 1st July, when the members of the Clonkeen Loyal Orange Lodge were proceeding to Kildallon Church, they were stopped at the priest's house by the priest, who said he would not allow them to play music past his house or chapel, although the Roman Catholic band had frequently played in passing Kildallon Church during divine service without interference; and that, on the lodge band again commencing to play, the priest caught the drum, and put his foot through it; and whether any action will be taken by the Government to prevent such incitements to a breach of the peace.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): It is true that the band referred to in the first part of the question was stopped by the Roman Catholic clergyman, who stated he would not allow it to play when passing his house or the chapel, but it is not the fact that he put his foot through the drum. The Roman Catholic band has frequently played when passing the Protestant church, though I cannot say whether it has done so during divine service. The reverend gentleman has since expressed regret for what he did on the occasion, and has stated that he will not interfere with the band in future.

  SANITATION AT DUNGANNON.
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is
  854
  aware that an application was made on 17th February to have the town of Dungannon constituted an urban sanitary district; whether, as the result of that application, an inquiry was held by Mr. Robert Agnew, Local Government Board inspector, on 21st March, and the approval of the county council was obtained on 2nd June; and whether, in view of the fact that the water supply is deficient, and is at present shut off at six o'clock in the evening, he will take steps to have the Order making Dungannon an urban district expedited.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The facts are correctly stated in the first and second paragraphs. It would not be desirable that any transfer of jurisdiction made by an Order of the Local Government Board should come into operation until the termination of the current financial year, and I am not aware that there is any necessity for pressing forward the consideration of this case. It will be dealt with in its proper turn among other applications of a similar nature. I may add that the Rural District Council have the same powers as the Rural Sanitary Authority in regard to the water supply in the town, and no attempt appears to have been made, until the present time, for the past twenty years to transfer such powers to an urban sanitary authority. The Rural District Council should discharge their duty and remedy any defects in the waterworks under their control.

  OUTRAGES AT STONEYFORD.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, owing to the numerous outrages committed in Stoneyford and the vicinity, he can see his way to establish a police protection station in that locality, seeing that the nearest police station to Stoneyford is Lisburn, which is five miles distant; whether his attention has been called to the fact that quite recently the licensed premises belonging to a Mr. MacMurrough, which he had purchased at a cost of over £200, were burnt down in his absence; and also to the fact that, within the past two years, there have been several malicious burnings of hay, including a £30 lot belonging to the rector, the Rev. Mr. M'Knight, and a lot belonging to a Mr. John Laird, and that damage to the extent of £17 was done to

  855
  the brass fixings of the new waterworks; and can he recommend the establishment of a police station at this dangerous place.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is true that within the past two years a quantity of hay belonging to the Rector and to Mr. Laird was burned, and that the waterworks at Stoneyford were damaged. These incidents occurred more than eleven months ago. It is also the fact that the house of Mr. MacMurrough, which was purchased for less than one-half of the sum mentioned, was recently destroyed by fire. The information before me does not bear out the hon. Member's description of this place as "dangerous," and it is not considered necessary to establish a police station there.

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is contemplated to confer by charter the title and status of city upon the new metropolitan borough of Westminster.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Perhaps the hon. Member has seen in the newspapers the statement that, as soon as the necessary arrangements under the London Government Act have been completed, there will be conferred on the borough of Westminster, as constituted under the Act, the title of city, originally conferred in the time of Henry VIII.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Will the chief magistrate be entitled to the dignity of Lord Mayor?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that follows.
  (Later on) MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to give notice that on an early day I will call attention to the proposed grant of the title of city to Westminster as an overriding of the deliberate and expressed determination of Parliament by the exercise of the Royal prerogative, and a breach of the distinct pledges given by the Leader of the House during the passage of the London Government Act.

  BEN NEVIS OBSERVATORY.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the
  856
  Treasury whether the Government will take steps to prevent the closing of the Ben Nevis Observatory, which has been announced for next October, in view of the fact that it is the only high-level observatory in the United Kingdom, and that valuable scientific results have been, obtained from the observations carried on. there.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that this question has been answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury twice in the course of the present session, and I have nothing to add to their answers. I may remind the hon. Member that it is primarily a question for the Meteorological Society, to which the Government give a large contribution, rather than for the Exchequer.
  MR. BUCHANAN: But is it not the case that a new question has arisen in the fact that this high level observatory will be discontinued in October unless money is forthcoming?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have heard this statement made, and I have no reason to doubt its truth. But, unless my memory fails me, the facts are these The Government have given more than £15,000 for the purpose of meteorological observation. This money is given to a society which is supposed to, and does, expend it to the best advantage in the three kingdoms. If that society holds; as they appear to do, that a high-level observatory is not of sufficient importance to make it necessary to spend out of the £15,000 a few hundreds more in order to keep that station open, it appears to be a. matter for it to decide rather than for the Exchequer, which, after all, cannot be regarded as authorities in meteorological investigation.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Is it impossible to give a few hundreds in order to keep this, important station open?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: that is just my point. If the society responsible for this £15,000 a year do not think that this observatory is of sufficient importance to justify their spending out of that money the necessary sum for the upkeep of that station, it does not appear to me

  857
  to be a case in which the Government can interfere.
  MR. PIRIE): Is it not the case that if this observatory were situated in England instead of being in Scotland—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I put the usual question as to the course of business?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible for me to state with precision the order of business to-morrow, but I hope to be able to advance the Naval Works Bill, the Military Works Bill, and the Colonial Loans Bill a stage, and to take the Board of Education Bill. If the House shows very great ardour in transacting the business, which I hope is in the main uncontroversial in character, it is not absolutely impossible that the House may be up on Wednesday week; but it will require some energy.
MR. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the Dublin Corporation Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I had overlooked that. Still, if the House can finish substantially its work on the Bills on Wednesday, take the final stages of Committee of Supply on Thursday, and the final stage of Report of Supply on Friday, the Appropriation Bill will be read a first time on Friday, a second time on Monday, Committee stage on Tuesday, and, though it is perhaps sanguine, we may finish the session next day.

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.
    Without Amendment.

    BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL.
    With an Amendment.
    Amendments to—

  HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords].
    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [Lords].
    Without Amendment.

    COLONIAL LOANS BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time".
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs): I do not wish to occupy much time on this question, but I desire to develop somewhat the observations I made on the introduction of this Bill. It is a very extraordinary Bill, because its Second Reading is moved at the end of July, while it is of a nature which ought to receive, and is designed to receive, the fullest attention and consideration of the House. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a Colonial Loans Fund Bill, which was so framed that it organised certain machinery dealing with this department of public business; but any loan that was to be put forward with the specific approval of Parliament was to be embraced in a clause of the Local Loans Bill. But objection was taken that if a loan or loans were dealt with in that way there would be no opportunity to the House of Commons to.

    859
    make itself thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances, the necessities, and the quality of the loan, and to obtain all the information which was necessary. That having been the feeling of the House of Commons last year with regard to loans which might be embedded in that Bill, based on a comprehensive measure which had received the assent of the House of Commons, the right hon. Gentleman now asks us to approve a specific measure of two clauses, but containing in the schedule a list of no fewer than seventeen loans, all of which will receive the sanction of the House if this Bill passes into law. On the face of it, is it not an overreaching altogether of the proprieties of the case to ask the House in the last week of the session to deliberately give its approval to seventeen separate loans, a good many of which are entirely new, and of the particulars of which we can know nothing? Some of those loans are exceptional. There are two loans of small amount to meet the distress and the damage caused by the hurricane in the West Indies. They stand on a separate footing. But most of the others are loans of which we have absolutely no knowledge whatever at this moment. If there was such a strong opposition to the prospect of having one or two loans dealt with in a somewhat regular and deliberate manner, what shall we say of the seventeen loans now brought before us, without any opportunity whatever being given to the House of knowing what they are for? I regret that the matter should be in this condition. I know the right hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us that arrangements have been made, almost necessarily, anticipating the assent of Parliament. There may be a case on that account, but that is no reason why, owing to the arrangement of Government business, this question should be pushed over to the last hour of the session. In these circumstances I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it is reasonable to expect the House of Commons to take this Bill into consideration.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to make such an appeal. I think it has been always understood that this Bill would be introduced towards the close of the
    860
    session. The First Lord of the Treasury referred to it some time ago, when making arrangements for the progress of business, and he said it would be a daughter Bill depending on the Colonial Loans Fund Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not a daughter; it is a litter.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman has argued on an entirely erroneous assumption. Last year, in deference to objection which was taken to our original proposal, I promised that the Colonial Loans Fund Bill should merely be a Bill for instituting the machinery for making loans, or rather the fund out of which loans should be made, and that before a loan could be made the separate authority of Parliament should be obtained. I never thought for a moment that each particular loan to a colony, perhaps of £20,000 or £30,000and no more, should be the subject of a separate Bill. Any such proposition seems to me—
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But ample time should be given to Parliament to look into them. That is my point.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: It has been all along understood that this, like the Public Works Loan Bill, is necessarily one of the Bills to be introduced towards the end of the session. Objection is taken to this, as an extraordinary proceeding on the part of the Government. Just let the House consider for a moment what happens with regard to local loans. Parliament is asked in a Bill, always introduced towards the close of the session, to provide and sanction this year no less than seven millions sterling for local loans within the United Kingdom. Those local loans are decided in individual cases, not by the Government, not by Parliament, but solely by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. Once the Public Works Bill of the year is passed, Parliament retains no control whatever over the grant to individual cases. By this Bill Parliament does exercise control over loans in individual cases, however small they may be. The right hon. Gentleman has not asked me, and it is not my duty to explain to Parliament, the particulars of any one of those loans. The Secretary of State for the Colonies will readily un-

    861
    dertake that task, just as the representative of the War Office or of the Admiralty is responsible for the proposals of the Naval Works or Military Works Loans Bill. It is quite true this Bill involves the making of these loans, not out of a Colonial Loans Fund, but out of the Local Loans Fund already established by the authority of Parliament. I understand that the hon. Member for Poplar objects to this, on the ground that it constitutes a new departure. I can only say that by no conceivable process would it be possible to bring to the knowledge of Parliament future proceedings with regard to these loans more effectively than by making them out of the Local Loans Fund. Parliament has been asked in previous years, from time to time, to guarantee loans to colonies in need of such assistance, and it has done so in a casual kind of way, without any provision for communicating to Parliament how far the loans have served their purpose, and to what extent they have been repaid. But under the procedure we now propose, Parliament will be informed, just as it is this year, by the Return annually presented relating to loans made within the United Kingdom of the future of every one of these loans, the repayments made from time to time, and of all particulars in regard to them, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General will audit the accounts, just as he now audits the accounts of the loans that are made to local authorities in Great Britain and Ireland. That is the reason why I propose the loans should be made out of the Local Loans Fund, rather than by a separate guarantee. I hope the speech of the right hon. Gentleman does not presage any great opposition to the Bill. I have made such inquiries as were possible to me, and I gathered that those hon. Members who were opposed to the Colonial Loan Fund Bill were opposed to it on the ground that it did constitute an entirely new departure in finance by the institution of a Colonial Loans Fund, and that it imposed no limit whatever on the amount which might be issued. Some one suggested the total might run up to 200 or 300 millions, but of course that was neither our intention or expectation. Therefore, I understood that I was meeting the wishes of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite by making the present proposal for a limited amount to be lent to colonies where such loans are required. This question must necessarily
    862
    form part of the examination of the process of utilising the Savings Banks deposits and investing them in various ways, which will come under the notice of Parliament next session. One of my reasons for introducing this Bill was that that subject might not be prejudged, and that we might make those loans which are absolutely required without binding Parliament as to its future action in the matter. Seeing that the Colonial Loans Fund Bill passed its Second Reading practically without opposition, it was anticipated that the measure would become law this session, and various Colonial Governments incurred expenditure on matters referred to in the schedule for which money will have to be provided and which cannot be provided in the ordinary way. Loans for those purposes which would otherwise have been issued have been kept back for something like eighteen months, and it is now impossible to issue them all at once under the old system. The great bulk of them will be extremely remunerative to whoever may lend the money. If hon. Members like to refer to any stock or share list in regard to the credit in the market of some of the colonies to whom loans will be made under this Bill, they will see, for example, that Jamaica Three per Cent. stock now stands at par, Mauritius Four per Cent, stock at a premium of more than 20, Trinidad Three per Cent, stock at par, and that Barbados Three-and-a Half per Cent. stock stands at 107. So that hon. Members must not imagine that the great bulk of these loans come into the category of charitable or eleemosynary loans. In my belief they will be extremely good investments for the savings banks deposits if Parliament will sanction that investment. There are others, like the loans to Barbados and St. Vincent on account of the damage done by the hurricane, which are more in the nature of an eleemosynary loan, but these loans have been announced many months ago, and I do not think any single voice was raised in opposition. If hon. Members oppose the other loans set out in the schedule to which I have referred, I think they will be depriving the colonies of an advantage, which may be safely extended to them, of obtaining money at ¼ per cent. less than they would in the open market, and they will certainly be depriving the depositors in the savings banks of an. admirable investment for their money.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to the nature of the opposition which we find ourselves compelled to offer to this Bill. It is not so much, as far as I am concerned, the principle contained in the Bill to which I object; on the contrary I think that loans to our colonies for railways, and the two which are known as "hurricane loans," meet with our approval. What I do object to is that this is practically a new departure not only in our relations to many of our colonies, but also in regard to the source from which loans are to be made; and I object very strongly that in the last working days of the session the House should be committed to that policy, and to such an enormous extent as £3,300,000. I entirely agree with what fell from the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the hurricane loans. I do not think anyone will object to them. What we do object to is that a new policy is introduced by this Bill for the first time, and we are asked to give the advantage of imperial credit to many of our colonies. The right hon. Gentleman talked as if this had been done constantly in the past, and as if we were now simply regularising that system; but I find that we have hitherto only made four such loans, and now at the extreme end of the session we are being asked to sanction an entirely new policy. The right hon. Gentleman says that he did not give a promise that each loan should be put into a separate Bill, but I believe the general impression in the House was that, while some loans might be classed in one Bill, it never was intended to include seventeen different loans for all sorts of purposes in the same Bill. Such a course puts some hon. Members in the very difficult position, if they do not accept the Bill, that they will be practically opposing some loans to which they do not object. When this subject was discussed the other day the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself most distinctly that the fullest possible explanation should be given of all these loans, but up to the present there has not been a single word of explanation even from the Colonial Secretary. Indeed, I think it would be rather difficult at this period of the session to give a full explanation of seventeen different loans. With the hurricane loans and some other loans I should be inclined to agree, but there
    864
    are other items, such as those with regard to Jamaica, to which, I for one, should strongly object. I do not think it is the business of the Imperial Parliament to lend her credit for such matters as securing the efficiency of railways and the payment of interest on railway debentures. It ought to be remembered that there has been a very considerable development of this policy of loans under this Bill, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year said two things; in the first place, that he did not expect that for some time to come the Crown would be likely to assume any large amount, and in the second place that he did not think it would be necessary to make loans to the West Indian colonies. Yet now we are asked to advance £3,300,000, and of this, sum half a million is to go to our West Indian colonies! It only shows that this is a policy which is likely to rapidly develop if we once approve the principle. I do not think the House ought to be committed to the principle of the Bill at this stage in the session, and in the circumstances I shall certainly oppose the Bill.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I regret very much to hear the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he held out no hope of any modification in the procedure in regard to this Bill. He told us that there was no understanding come to when the Colonial Funds Bill was under discussion, that each separate loan should be brought forward in a separate Bill. I remember very well, however, what occurred when objection was being taken on the ground that the authority of Parliament over the various loans might not be preserved. The right hon. Gentleman told us that on that point we were perfectly safe, because a separate Bill would be brought forward to deal with the loans. These words, of course, might not imply a separate Bill for each loan, but I am bound to say I understood it to convey that meaning, and. my view is strengthened by the first clause, in which I find the following words:
    "Where a loan under this Act to a colony is by a separate Act relating to colonial loans authorised to be made within the time, to the amount and for the purposes therein specified, such loan may be advanced out of the Colonial Loans Fund."
    Surely, the meaning of these words is, that the intention, of the Bill was that each.

    865
    separate loan should be passed through this House by a separate Act, so that the House might have an opportunity of considering it on its merits.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: It meant an Act separate from the Colonial Loans Fund Act.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I am aware that that is a possible meaning, but I think the obvious meaning of the words I have quoted is that under this Act loans should only be advanced by means of a separate Act. In the past, whenever the Imperial credit has been pledged on behalf of a particular Colony, it has always been done in a separate Act, and I am certain that the general idea the House gathered from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the authority of Parliament would be amply maintained in future in the matter of these loans. But is the authority of the House of Commons being so maintained on this occasion, when we see a Bill brought in during the last week of the session by which a totally new departure in regard to financial arrangements with our Colonies is being introduced, and we are asked to advance a sum of over three and a-quarter millions for various purposes as to which we have absolutely no information? I do not think that that is a fair way of treating the House of Commons. It is invidious to put upon anyone at this period of the session the duty of criticising, however feebly, the proposals of a Bill into the details of which it is almost impossible to enter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that these loans are likely to be remunerative, and he has referred to the financial position of some of the colonies to which they are to be advanced. Surely, if a colony can borrow at 3½ per cent., it is proof that there is no really substantial need to give it financial assistance. I always thought that the policy of the Government was to make these colonies as far as possible independent and self-governing, and I certainly cannot see how you are increasing their independence by thus coming forward with indiscriminate offers of assistance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also spoke of this as affording an admirable opportunity for the investment of Savings Bank deposits. I do not think that that is a fair argument. We know that the matter of the
    866
    investments of these deposits is to come before us next session, and I do not think we ought to be asked by this totally new departure in the mode of making loans to our own colonies to establish a new fund in which to invest our Savings Bank deposits. Let the House consider what are really the proposals of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the fact that this is practically a daughter Bill of the Colonial Loans Fund Bill, and my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that it is not the birth of one but rather of a litter. Here we have a proposal to make seventeen loans to twelve different colonies, and the gross total proposed to be advanced is £3,300,000. What are the purposes for which this money is to be advanced? We are asked in the schedule of this Bill to vote a sum of £1,680,000 for West African railways. That is an astounding proposal to be made in the last week of the session. The information which has been afforded to us in regard to it has been of the vaguest possible character. Is it necessary that this money should be advanced? I have been looking into some Returns with regard to the West African Colonies, and I find that Sierra Leone in 1873 borrowed £40,000 on her own security for the purpose of certain harbour works. I do not know what progress was made with those works, but the interest of the loan and the capital sum as well have been paid off. Surely, then, there is no great need for this advance for railways in Sierra Leone. What security is there that the interest and the principal of the loans will be paid? Clause 2 of the Bill provides that the principal shall be a charge on the revenues and assets of the colonies; but the present financial condition of some of the colonies is not first class. In the case of the Gold Coast, for instance, it is admitted that the colony cannot pay its way, and of late years the Imperial Parliament has made increased grants in aid of its revenue. Could there be anything more absurd than trying to hoodwink the public into the idea that you are advancing money on good security, when you yourselves have recognised in the last year or two that the colony cannot pay its way, and needs grants from the Imperial Exchequer to enable it to cover its current ordinary expenditure?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The grant was made in aid of the northern territories. It was quite exceptional, and did not arise under the ordinary expenditure and revenue of the colony.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I accept that explanation, but it only shows the difficulty the House is in. May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether the railways are entirely in the Gold Coast Colony or in the northern territories?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The railways are practically entirely in the colony, but there is a proposal to carry the railway to Kumassi.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I understood that the part of the grant in aid which related to telegraphs was given to the colony and not to the northern territories.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The telegraph is in the northern territories. My feeling in regard to all these matters is that where money is being expended for the development of the territories it should be granted by way of loan; but where the money is required in order to make provision against possible aggression—which, fortunately, has now been rendered unnecessary by the Convention with France—I hold it is not fair the abnormal expenditure required should fall on the colony.
    MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether the revenues of the Gold Coast are the security for the railways?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
    MR. BUCHANAN: In the short time which has been at our disposal, it has been impossible for outsiders to closely examine the matter; but I have looked through the Colonial Office List, which gives a summary of the revenue and expenditure of some of the colonies within recent years, and I find that, as to the Gold Coast, in 1888–89 there was a deficit, in the three following years a surplus, in the three next years a deficit, and last year the revenue was £237,000 and the expenditure £406,000. What kind of
    868
    security will the revenue of the Gold Coast be for a loan of half a million sterling? Lagos and Sierra Leone are to get between them a million sterling for railways, but the House has been afforded no information in respect to those places. Half a million is to go to the Malay States, in all of which, except one, there is a deficit. The security, therefore, does not look very first class. £450,000, divided into five different purposes, is to go to Jamaica. One purpose is railway rolling stock, a very strange object for which to lend money from the Imperial Exchequer. It certainly is not a very promising form of investment, and I think we ought to have had some explanation about the proposed payment for debentures. It seems to me that the creditors, seeing a prospect of getting a loan from the Imperial Exchequer, have been holding out for better terms. But no information has been vouchsafed us at all.
    MR. J, CHAMBERLAIN: I will give it now.
    MR. BUCHANAN: It is rather too late. I am not speaking for myself, but I say the House of Commons is not being fairly treated by being asked to pass this Bill without information during the last week of the session. There is an item of £150,000 to Jamaica, for what purpose? In aid of the revenue. Loans are to be made on the security of the revenue, and at the same time Parliament is making a grant in aid of the revenue. Surely, that is taking money out of one pocket to put it into the other. I will not go further into detail, but I do say there are two strong arguments against proceeding with this Bill at this period of the session. The first is the absolute want of information as to the purposes for which we are asked to advance this money, and the second is the absence of information as to the security to be given. Surely, it is an extraordinary thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, at this late period of the session, propose to advance over £3,000,000 without informing the House as to the security on which this money is to be invested. This is a distinctly new departure both in financial and colonial policy. The Secretary for the Colonies has been in the habit of making interesting speeches upon the subject of his colonial policy, and his desire to develop

    869
    the backward colonies out of the Imperial Exchequer. There may have been Votes of this character passed by this House, but this House has not been committed to that course, and there is a strong objection, indeed, to public credit being used for the purposes of constructing these public works and building these railways in backward colonies, in order to promote their commercial development. That is a question which ought to be discussed and debated, and the House ought to have an opportunity, in full session, of debating it. I do think that the mode in which the Government have brought forward this very important Bill, which contains so many novelties, both financial and political, at the very fag end of the session, is really playing with the control of the House, and I think we are entitled to an explanation. I beg leave to move the adjournment of the Debate.
    MR. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that motion.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Then I move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the question to add the words, 'upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. Buchanan.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: We have voted no less than £14,000,000 during the last fortnight, and it can only be said in regard to £6,000,000 of that sum that full notice was given to the House. That is the amount which the House has been called upon to authorise the payment of within the past fortnight. It seems to me that a very strong ground of objection to the present proposal can be taken upon that fact alone. By bringing forward this proposal at this late period of the session, we are committing the House and the country to a principle which, I submit, has never been discussed. It is quite true that, earlier in the session, the Colonial Secretary indicated what his policy would be, for he described it as one of active and vigorous Colonial development. We were, however, promised full opportunity for discussion; but we are
    870
    now called upon to give our adhesion and consent to the Second Reading of a Bill containing a principle which there is not time to fully consider. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in February last, that—
    "Before a loan is made a proposal will come before Parliament, and a full explanation will be given as to the reasons why it is asked for."
    Here we are asked to authorise a series loans to the various colonies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself expressly excluded. With regard to the argument that these loans will offer good investments for the Savings Bank Fund, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that that was a matter requiring consideration; therefore, I can hardly think that he is entitled to assume that the House will be disposed on that ground to assent to this Bill. In the discussion upon a similar Bill last year, it was clearly indicated that the result of this policy would be to bring about a consolidation of the loans already given to the colonies. We are not only assenting to the loans mentioned in the Schedule, but we are opening the door to the proposition hinted at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it may be convenient to take advantage of this machinery to enable the whole of the colonial loans to be consolidated into one fund similar to the Local Loans Fund of this country. Practically, we are giving up, once and for all, our control by assenting to a principle which has never been discussed by the House. I know the same practice has been adopted by foreign countries for the development of their colonies, but it is open to doubt whether the commercial men of those countries approve of it. It is a very serious matter to ask the House, within a week of the end of the session, to adopt such a proposal, when it is impossible to discuss the Bill thoroughly, and when many hon. Members who could contribute valuable information are absent. I think the Government is exercising its predominant power to the very great detriment of the confidence which the country might be disposed to have in the future deliberations of this House. It seems to me to be straining representative institutions to the utmost, that no consideration should be given to the very weighty reasons which have been advanced for postponing this Bill.
    MR. COHEN: I do not share the regret of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentlemen opposite at this Bill being passed through Parliament at the end of the session. I do not share that regret, because it embodies a principle which I have strenuously advocated—namely, that the credit of the mother country, on reasonable and solid security, should be granted to the aid of Crown colonies in cases where justification has been made out for it. Therefore, I am glad that, even at this eleventh hour, this Bill has been introduced, and I hope it will pass into law without alteration. But in saying this, I must be allowed to express my regret that a Bill, embodying an entirely new principle, should be introduced and passed into law without proper discussion in this House, and without proper consideration outside. I do not object so much on the ground of procedure, for I would rather sacrifice procedure than principle, but I do feel that this is a great departure from the financial regulations which govern the administration of the finances of this country, and I am sorry that that new departure cannot be, and will not be, subjected to that discussion and examination in the country which it ought to receive. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 23rd February last, said:
    "I was desirous of introducing this Bill before, because I felt it was a measure which it would be advisable should be known and discussed in this House and in the country."
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: It was discussed.
    MR. COHEN: The Bill was very little discussed in this House, and cannot now be discussed in the country at all. This Bill differs very much from the previous Bill, and requires not equal but more examination than the other Bill. My right hon. friend may recollect that when the other Bill was introduced Amendments were suggested which I thought were unreasonable, but in the present case what is going to be done? Not only are we unable to have the Bill examined as it ought to be examined, but we cannot receive what my right hon friend told us we should obtain, and that is a full explanation of the purposes for which the Bill is required. I am bound to say that I differ from the right
    872
    hon. Gentleman as to the nature of the securities, and on this point I share the opinion of my right hon. friend below. Here we are going to transfer the administration of these loans, and a Department of State is to make these advances and report to the House, not before but after the money has been spent. We are going to authorise a Department of the State to make these advances and report to us, not before but after the money has been advanced. I have a little experience in loans, and if the control of the House of Commons is worth anything, surely the House should be consulted before, and not after, the advance is made.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: It is being consulted now.
    MR. COHEN: I do not think that my right hon. friend will claim that the examination which we are now allowed to institute is a very searching or critical examination; but, even superficial though it be, it does enable us to discriminate between advances which are urgent advances which are not. We all approve of the House of Commons being asked to aid the West Indies in connection with hurricanes and other emergencies; but a railway in Sierra Leone, or a harbour and railways and irrigation in Cyprus, do not appear to me to partake of the urgent nature which distinguishes the advances to Barbados and St. Vincent. There is another principle which I also think ought not to be sanctioned by this House in this casual way, and that is with reference to the employment of the Post Office Savings Bank Funds. Personally, I am not desirous that these funds should be invested in any security that has not at the back of it the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. If these funds are invested in these loans, it is the State that will run the risk. That is an important departure from the principle on which we have hitherto acted. In spite of these objections I do not wish to prevent this Bill passing into law. (Opposition laughter.) I am not aware why hon. Gentlemen should laugh. As I said at the outset, this Bill embodies a principle I have always advocated. I hope it will be passed, but I regret that it has not been submitted to sufficient examination and investigation.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Member appeared surprised that we on this side laughed just now. I believe we had reason. The hon. Member made an excellent speech against the Bill, and then he finished up by hoping that the Bill would be passed. I might have hesitated as to whether I would vote for or against the Bill, but the hon. Member has so thoroughly convinced me that this is a bad Bill, that he himself is to a certain extent responsible for the action of my legs in taking me into the Lobby against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used a most extraordinary argument in favour of this Bill. He said that we required investments for the Savings Bank Funds, and that therefore he created these investments. Of course, they will be safe enough as far as the Savings Bank is concerned if you give a Government guarantee; but I never heard of a Government giving a guarantee and then saying they give it in order that they might be able to invest in a good security. The question really is, whether we will have good security ourselves, or whether we may be called upon to pay under the guarantee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a director of an insurance company, and I ask him, would he in that capacity regard this loan as an Al security without a guarantee? Of course he would not. Why, then, should he ask the country to invest in these securities, which would not be regarded as A 1 for an insurance company's purpose? I look through the Schedule of this Bill and find most extraordinary things. We are asked to believe that a grant to Jamaica in aid of revenue is a good investment. Jamaica cannot carry on on its own revenue, and we are asked to supply the deficit and to hope that in the future Jamaica will be able to repay us with interest. Then there is to be another advance to Jamaica for the completion and equipment of a railway, and the very next item for Jamaica is "interest on railway debentures," which means that the railway is unable to pay the interest on its debentures. Then, again, we are asked to advance £314,000 to Cyprus for "Harbour and Railways and Irrigation." Why, Sir, we know perfectly well that the first charge on Cyprus is the amount of £100,000 per annum,
    874
    which is paid practically in tribute to the Turkish Empire. At the present moment Cyprus cannot bear the expenses of administration, and we are expected to believe that in the future she will be able to meet her expenses and pay the interest on this loan. We know perfectly well what will occur. After a little while we shall be told that Jamaica, Cyprus, and the other places cannot pay, and that we shall have to pay. I have observed that in Turkey, China, and other remote parts of the world, there is great competition for concessions to build railroads among financiers; but even the wildest financier would never dream of taking, even as a gift, the right to build railroads in Jamaica or Cyprus. We are asked to vote certain sums of money for these purposes, but we are not told whether more money will be required. Surely these railroads are not to be left half finished. Our great complaint is that the Bill has been brought in so late in the session, and at a period when it was understood controversial measures would not be introduced. No one will deny that this is a very controversial measure. On the Schedule alone it will be my painful duty to divide the House at least fifteen times—and allowing fifteen minutes for each Division, that means nearly four hours—and allowing an hour for discussing each item, which cannot be regarded as excessive, that means nearly twenty hours on the Schedule alone. Under the circumstances, if we go on with this Bill, the session is not likely to end at the period which is now contemplated. We want to go away for our holidays—we fully admit that—but we are ready to sacrifice ourselves. There are hon. Members on these benches with such determination and patriotism—I am not speaking of myself—that they will sit during August and September rather than allow this Bill to go through in this reckless fashion. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that, whether the Bill be good or bad, it is too important, and too controversial, to go through this session, and that accordingly it will be at once withdrawn.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 66. (Division List, No. 317.)

    AYES.

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

    Arnold, Alfred

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Nicholson, William Graham.

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

    Flower, Ernest

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Percy, Earl

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Perks, Robert William

    Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

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

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Purvis, Robert

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Rentoul, James Alexander

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

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

    Bethell, Commander

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Bill, Charles

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hogan, James Francis

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

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Brassey, Albert

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Seely, Charles Hilton:

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Caldwell, James

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Lecky, Rt. Hn. WilliamEdw. H

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

    Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool

    Valentia, Viscount

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lloyd, Archie Kirkman

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

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Macdona, John Cumming

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

    Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

    M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    M'Killop, James

    Wyndham, George

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Curzon, Viscount

    Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

    Young, Commander (Berks E.)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Middlemore, Jhn. Throgmorton

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Monk, Charles James

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Drage, Geoffrey

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    NOES.

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

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

    Asher, Alexander

    Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Palmer,Sir Charles M. (Durham

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

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

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Birrell, Augustine

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Blake, Edward

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Labouchere, Henry

    Steadman, William Charles

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Lambert, George

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Campbell-Bannerman Sir H.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Wallace, Robert

    Causton, Richard Knight

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

    Clough, Walter Owen

    M'Crae, George

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Crilly, Daniel

    M'Ewan, William

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    M'Leod, John

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

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Maddison, Fred.

    Woods, Samuel

    Dewar, Arthur

    Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

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

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Buchanan and Captain Sinclair.

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Fenwick, Charles

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

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Main Question again proposed.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Before the Bill is read a second time, I should like to—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The
    hon. Member has already spoken on the main question. The question is that the Bill be now read a second time.
    The House divided—Ayes, 124; Noes, 69. (Division List, No. 318.)

    AYES.

    Allsopp, Hon, George

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

    Murray. Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

    Arnold, Alfred

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bagot, Capt. Joseeline FitzRoy

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fison, Frederick William

    Oldroyd, Mark

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

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Percy, Earl

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Flower, Ernest

    Perks, Robert William

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Gedge, Sydney

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Purvis, Robert

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

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

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

    Richards, Henry Charles

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

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Bethell, Commander

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

    Robertson Herbert (Hackney)

    Bill, Charles

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Round, James

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hogan, James Francis

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenh'm)

    Brassey, Albert

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Caldwell, James

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Chamberlain, J. Aust'n (Worc'r

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

    Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Liverpool

    Valentia, Viscount

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

    Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

    Cox, Irwin Edward B.

    M'Killop, James

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Wyndham, George

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Curzon, Viscount

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Monk, Charles James

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Doxford, William Theodore

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Morton, A. H A. (Deptford)

    NOES.

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

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Asher, Alexander

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Dewar, Arthur

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Labouchere, Henry

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lambert, George

    Birrell, Augustine

    Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Fenwick, Charles

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

    Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Hrbrt. John

    M'Crae, George

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

    M'Ewan, William

    Carvill, Patrick George H.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    M'Leod, John

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

    Maddison, Fred.

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Crilly, Daniel

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

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

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

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Woods, Samuel

    O'Connor, James Wicklow, W.

    Steadman, William Charles

    Yoxall, James Henry

    O'Connor, T P (Liverpool

    Sullivan Donal (Westmeath)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Buchanan and Captain Sinclair.

    Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wallace, Robert

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

    MILITARY WORKS BILL.
    As amended, considered.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I beg leave to move an Amendment restricting the item in the Schedule of "ranges, including accommodation for manœuvring and mobilisation," to the sums provided under the Military Works Act of 1897. My object in moving this Amendment is to carry out a pledge which I gave to the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire.
    Amendment proposed accordingly
    MR. BUCHANAN: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in accepting this Amendment, and so obviating a repetition of what happened under the Act of last year, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed the Government, under the ambiguous phrase in question, to purchase land at Salisbury Plain, including the right hon. Gentleman's own property. The record of that transaction never came before the Public Accounts Committee, but was hidden away among the items in the Military Works Bill of that year.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH): The hon. Member has made a personal charge against me, on which I must say a word. He has said that by a phrase or expression hidden away in the Military Works Act, 1897, the Government were enabled to purchase a large area at Salisbury Plain, including my property, for the purposes of manœuvres, without the knowledge of Parliament,
    MR. BUCHANAN: I did not say that.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I am not inclined to rest under what is obviously intended as a personal reflection, and I should just like to state in a very few sentences my connection with the matter. Some three years ago, very soon after the Government was formed, my noble friend the Secretary for War informed me that, in the opinion of himself and his advisers, it was necessary that the Government should obtain possession of a large area of land for the purpose of exercising troops. I suggested to him that, in my opinion, the most convenient place would be adjoining Aldershot, where, of course, the Government already possess a considerable area of land. He proved to me that land near Aldershot could only be purchased at about £100 an acre, and that it would be impossible, under the circumstances, to purchase there the large area of land that he required. I then suggested that an area should be purchased somewhere in the midland counties, and I think I indicated Cannock Chase. For reasons which appeared sufficient to my noble friend and the War Office, that area could not be chosen, on account of the nature of the ground, or something of that kind. He then said they had made up their minds, and they desired to purchase a large area at Salisbury Plain. I said that was not a matter on which I could say Aye or No, as the scheme must necessarily include property belonging to myself, and that if the Government decided on such a policy, I could not deal with it as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the Cabinet must deal with it without my advice. The Cabinet having adopted the policy, I requested my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury and my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who had previously held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, to do what was properly my duty in the matter—namely, to check the financial aspect of the question. The whole transaction was carried out by them, acting with Lord Lansdowne, as Secretary

    881
    of State for War, and Parliament was completely informed of the intention of the Government to purchase this area by the present Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs when he brought in the Military Works Act of 1897. Subsequently, when it came to a question as to whether my property should be purchased and the price to be given for it, I took no part whatever in the decision; the whole matter was carried through by arbitration. Neither in the decision to take land on Salisbury Plain, nor in the purchase of my property, did I take any part. I think the hon. Member owes me some apology for his offensive and unfounded imputation.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I must say I had no intention of making any imputation upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if my words were susceptible of such an interpretation, I beg in the most unqualified way to withdraw them What I did say was, that of the purchase of the property on Salisbury Plain, including that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was no record in the public accounts, and it was paid for out of this item of "ranges, including accommodation for manœuvring and mobilisation. "There is an ambiguity in the public accounts which I should think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be himself anxious to remove, and I am glad that it will be removed by the Amendment. I desire once more in the most unqualified way to apologise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if I have injured his feelings in any way—which was far from my intention—for, of course, we all know that the right hon. Gentleman is the very soul of honour.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBTS].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the remission of certain debts due to the Commissioners of Public
    882
    Works in Ireland from certain boards of guardians in Ireland, and from the Wick low Harbour Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present session relating to Public Works Loans.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION (ADDITIONAL JUDGE).
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There is a motion down on the Paper in my name for an address to Her Majesty, asking for an additional judge to be added to the Chancery Division of the High Court. There was an addition to the judges of the Chancery Division, which was asked for, I think, authoritatively, by a Committee over which Lord Esher presided now a good many years ago, and subsequently to that I think two successive Governments, in 1886 and 1888 respectively, announced their intention of asking the House to grant this additional strength to the Chancery Division. For reasons which it is not necessary now to mention, these intentions never were carried out, and reforms which Lord Esher intended to inaugurate by the appointment of a new judge have in consequence never been carried into effect. Hence we are not only suffering from arrears of business due to an insufficient staff, but from arrears of business due to the imperfect condition of the courts which are dealing with Chancery business. I do not know that it is necessary for me to remind the House that, if these evils of arrears of business were already manifest as far back as 1886 and 1888, they have not diminished but increased since then; and inasmuch as the courts show no power to deal with the arrears which exist, it seems to be high time that steps should be taken to strengthen them. An hon. friend of mine put a question to me the other day on this subject, suggesting that additional strength to the Chancery Division should be taken from the Common Law Division, and cited a case which occurred recently, where a judge went down to Wales and found no judicial business laid before him, except that of releasing a youth upon his own recognisances—not a function of sufficient importance to make it necessary

    883
    to send a judge of the High Court down to Wales. But, Sir, while I am far from denying that in existing circumstances there may be, and perhaps must be, some undoubted loss of judicial strength, I doubt whether it is possible to have a circuit system at all in which a certain amount of waste is not necessary—I may go further and say that I am not prepared to deny that improved organisation may result in something material to prevent that waste; but when my hon. friend and those who think with him go a step further and say that, because there is now a certain waste of judicial strength, it is desirable that a judge should be lent by the Queen's Bench Division to the Chancery Division, I would point out that nobody, as far as I know, suggests that a judge could be permanently transferred from the Queen's Bench Division to the Chancery Division; and any relief from that source would take the form of lending a judge for a certain number of days in each year. Of the propriety of that course I am not in a position to form an opinion from any original observations or experience of my own; I have to take my opinions on trust; but those who are competent to advise me upon the point seem clear that the idea of lending a judge temporarily for a certain number of days in the year by one division to another is but a makeshift, and is likely to produce, on the whole, many inconveniences. I therefore, after consideration, reject that proposal, and I am more strengthened in that view by the fact that I understand that the Queen's Bench Division is not at the present moment of more than the proper strength to carry out the work that comes before it. I believe the Lord Chief Justice gave a somewhat rosy view of the condition of work in that division; but in recent years we have had to throw more work on the Queen's Bench Division than it used to have. A Railway Commissioner has been taken from amongst the judges, additional bankruptcy work has been thrown on it, and under an ecclesiastical Bill of a year or two ago further work of a different kind has been entrusted to it. In these circumstances I feel obliged to reject the suggestion. We are, therefore, brought face to face with the Chancery Division and the Chancery Division alone, and all we have to ask ourselves is, Can that division do the work the
    884
    public require of it? Ten years ago there; were arrears, fifteen years ago there were arrears, and if we compare the statistics of the court at present with what they were ten years ago, we shall find that the arrears have been actually augmented. In those circumstances one of the primary duties of the House and the Legislature is to see that justice is administered to Her Majesty's lieges. I think there can be no doubt as to the propriety of the resolution I propose to the House. Cheap justice we shall never be able to give. That is an ideal to which no reformer has ever been able to attain; but if we cannot give cheap justice, we may do something towards speedy justice, and I think it would be a pity if the House should allow a state of things to continue under which one of the chief courts of the kingdom remains avowedly and undoubtedly undermanned.
    Motion made, and question proposed—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, representing that the state of business in the High Court of Justice is such as to require the appointment of an additional judge, and praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a new judge of the said High Court in the Chancery Division thereof, in pursuance of the eighteenth section of The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876."—(Mr. Balfour.)
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: I cordially agree with the closing; remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—that it is one of the primary duties of this House to secure, as far as possible, a speedy administration of justice. I also agree with him that in the present state of affairs in our courts there is very good ground for complaint as to delays, and I might also say the confusion which takes, place under our present system. But I am not prepared at once to accept the remedy which the right hon. Gentleman proposes without venturing to submit one or two considerations to the House bearing on the question. I think we must remember that we are dealing on this occasion with an exceptional state of things. There is no doubt that the administration of justice has, during the last three months, been very seriously interfered with in this country by the absence from England of the Lord Chief

    885
    Justice, and of one of the Lords Justices of Appeal. Now, I should be the very last man to use any word which would imply any doubt—if any doubt at all existed—as to the extraordinary capacity and qualification which these two judges possess for the public duty they have undertaken. But I venture to think that the first duty of the Lord Chief Justice of England is the administration of justice in England, and that no public duty which could possibly be imposed upon him, at all events of an ordinary character, is any sufficient justification for the Government of the day removing him from the high judicial duties which he, and he alone, so long as he fills that office, can fill. I am aware that the lamented death of Lord Herschell created a vacancy which we all deplore, one which, perhaps, it was not unnatural the Government should for the moment think might best be filled by the appointment of another great judge. But Lord Herschell's position was essentially different from that of the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice has public duties at home to discharge—duties that I think are of greater importance to the suitors of this country than the settlement of the dispute on which he is at present arbitrating. Lord Herschell, on the other hand, had no such primary duties devolving upon him. I think the circumstances are aggravated by the fact that a very learned and eminent Lord Justice of Appeal was also taken away. at the same time. In passing, I would only make this remark, that I do not think the resources either of diplomacy, or of statesmanship are exhausted, and I think, with all my admiration and respect for Lord Chief Justice Russell and Lord Justice Henn Collins, two other distinguished men might have been found whose selection would not have involved. the very serious injury which I think has been inflicted upon the administration of justice in this country. But, passing from that, I admit that the normal state of affairs, even if these two judges had been at home, is most unsatisfactory, and I think the time has arrived when a remedy should be found. But I would ask the
    886
    House, whether the first consideration should not be whether our existing judicial time, and our existing judicial power, should not be better economised than at present, and whether we are getting—I will not say the most advantage—but the ordinary amount of advantage which we ought to get from so powerful, so expensive, and so valuable a machine as the judges of our Supreme Court constitute. Our difficulties arise both in criminal and civil trials, and it is to be regretted that our criminal judicial system, even now, allows so long an interval often to elapse between the committal of a prisoner for trial and his trial. It is a very poor consolation to a man who has been in prison three or four months to be discharged without a stain on his character. That is an evil which ought to be remedied at all costs, but is the course the right hon. Gentleman now proposes the best course to take? The circuit system is a very expensive and extravagant way of spending judicial power, and when I see judges sent round to try, not only quarter sessions cases, but insignificant quarter sessions cases, I feel that those who advise the Government have not considered the question of the readjustment of judicial time. So far as quarter sessions are concerned, I think they are steadily improving in their judicial character. There was a time when there was a just outcry for the appointment of officers to preside over quarter sessions similar or equivalent to the recorders who preside over borough sessions. But so far as I have been able to watch the trend of opinion amongst magistrates, the tendency of the last few years has been for magistrates to elect as chairmen of quarter sessions men who, though, perhaps, not practising lawyers, have displayed to a great extent the judicial faculty, and who have made excellent chairmen of quarter sessions. Without saying whether it is desirable or not to add to our Courts of Quarter Sessions trained judges, the extension of the jurisdiction of those courts would be an economical and a speedy mode of relieving the criminal business of the High Court, leaving to the judges of that court the criminal business of the more serious character: Then there is another waste of judicial power, irrespective of the distribution of circuit work—I mean the Divisional Courts. In the Chancery Division of the High Court one judge is considered sufficient to decide in court of

    887
    first instance matters of the gravest character, involving the largest amount of property and the most difficult questions of law. By what I think was not the intention of the Legislature in 1875, we have Divisional Courts consisting of two judges, and, as one of the judges said to me the other day, that means a divided responsibility and, to a great extent, so far as one judge is concerned, no responsibility at all. I think it is a waste of judicial power that two judges should be sitting on one side of the Courts of Justice to decide matters not comparable in magnitude and importance to those which on the other side are decided by one judge, and if that were reformed there would be great saving there of judicial power. There is another point, and perhaps this is the most important of all, and that is the anomalous and unsatisfactory condition of the county court jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is at present limited to£50. We have an expensive and elaborate system of county courts, an evolution from the old debt-collecting system. Many of the county court judges are most capable men and qualified to sit on the bench of the High Court. They, together with the registrars, administer, no doubt to some extent, a system of justice, but devote a great part of their time and energy simply to debt-collecting, fixing the times in which debts can be paid and ought to be paid. I think before the Government asked the House to make an addition to the High Court, they ought to have dealt with the question which was before the House in 1888, and again and again since—namely, the extension of the jurisdiction of the county courts, so that they would have the power to deal with a larger class of cases than they have now, leaving to the High Court the cases of greater magnitude. The question has been repeatedly brought before the House by the hon. Member for Gloucester, and those who have preceded him in the office of President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and an extension of the county court jurisdiction is the desire of all the commercial classes of the country. In 1888 a few reforms were introduced by means of the Consolidation of County Courts Act. I well remember that Mr. Gladstone was rather severe upon some of us who thought that that was an appropriate opportunity of trying to make some
    888
    amendments of the existing law in regard to the administration of county courts. I am happy to say that, notwithstanding his undoubted reluctance to introduce any Amendment in that Consolidation Act, laying down the sound and wise principle that a Consolidation Act should not alter the law, certain Members of this House, one of whom was the present Lord James, did effect some very valuable improvements in that Bill. But a great many improvements which were then suggested have never been carried out. There are some county court judges who do the full amount of judicial work that it is possible for judges to do, and they do it remarkably well. There are other county court judges who do not sit a hundred days in the year, and whose appointments are practically sinecures. There was a power given in the Consolidation Act to alter the districts and to distribute the judges; there was power given to the Executive to make the idle judges work harder and to relieve the judges of the great towns in their judicial work by the addition of other judges. But practically nothing has been, done. There has been no redistribution of the circuits, and the old evils have gone on. We have not availed ourselves of the remedies at our hand, we have allowed these arrears to accumulate; and now, when the hereditary instincts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to resist the appointment of an additional judge have been overcome, this rough-and-ready-method is proposed, and things will go on as before. I very much regret that in the course of the session more time has not been given to the question of the administration of justice. I do not ask for more time in this House. I quite understand the great labour that devolves on the House of Commons and the Ministry of the day; but I think, if there was a branch of public administration which deserved and demanded the attention and supervision and reform of another place, it is the administration of justice. If a scheme of utilising, both in criminal and civil jurisdiction, our present staff of judges, of the readjustment of the limits of county court authority, had been matured in another place, this House and the country would have been very much indebted to that House, and some solid progress towards law reform would have been made. At all events, the present proposal does nothing; but we cannot refuse, and

    889
    certainly I shall not refuse, to join in the motion of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe it to be a necessity, although I do not think it is the most excellent way of providing a remedy for the present state of things. The right hon. Gentleman has given up in despair the idea of cheap justice. Our justice is a long way from being cheap. It is the dearest system of justice in the world. I admit that it is the best; but I think that every reform that has been made in the administration of justice, at all events during the last thirty years, has added enormously to the cost of justice and to the delay, has prolonged the time given to individual cases, and has produced, and is producing, a general state of dissatisfaction amongst all classes of the community. The present system cannot go on. The right hon. Gentleman has proposed a stopgap, and that may, perhaps, stand the strain upon it for some little time, but sooner or later our judicial system will have to be reconstructed. It can be carried on, and ought to be carried on, at a much less cost and with much greater rapidity than at present, and I hope that some day a Minister will arise who will endeavour to carry out that reform, which is, perhaps, a greater reform than many others on which public attention is more generally concentrated.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I wish to associate myself generally with everything which has been said by my right hon. friend who has just sat down. I have been professionally connected with the administration of the law for five and forty years. This has certainly given me some experience in the matter, and I doubt whether matters were ever really in a worse condition during that time than they are now. All the reasons, I think, have not been mentioned. In the earlier days, I remember, it was the custom of the Lord High Chancellor himself to sit as a judge almost daily, except when he was engaged in the House of Lords. The work of a distinguished judge of that, description was, of course, of very great assistance in clearing off arrears and in giving that speedy justice which is desired. I have even known a Lord Chancellor—Lord Selborne—to sit as a Judge of First Instance when there was a difficulty in the work being done. It is a very rare thing indeed for the present Lord Chancellor to sit, except, in the
    890
    House of Lords, and now and then, as one of the members of the Court of Appeal Great advantage would be gained if his Lordship would occasionally—I do not say regularly—when not engaged in the House of Lords, sit as a judge in the Court of Chancery. Another reason why there are these arrears is that the work is not got through as it might, be by the judges, and also the fact that there are a great many appeals which might be avoided. It is always a very disagreeable thing to say anything about anyone who is not present, and especially one does not like to make any invidious remarks with regard to any of the judges. At the same time, there is no doubt that a great deal of the way in which justice is administered depends upon the men who are selected to be judges, and the manner in which they are selected. It has been stated, not in this House, but in newspapers—not in newspapers of a party character, but in the law journals—that there is a great want of confidence in the manner in which judges have been selected by the present Lord High Chancellor.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not see how that is relevant to the question as to whether a new judge should be appointed.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I will show the relevancy. The relevancy is that if this judge is to be appointed by the Lord High Chancellor, some of us may have such a want of confidence in the appointment as to vote against this motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is altogether remote from the question before the House.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I must, of course, bow to your ruling. I understand it is not open to me, in discussing the question whether another judge should be appointed, to make comment upon the manner in which judges are appointed. If that is your ruling, of course I must cease doing so, pointing out, however, that while every other public official is open to the criticism, of this House, that particular public official is not so open, but can do what he pleases without interference from us. I will therefore go on to the other part to which I wish to call attention.

    891
    Under the old system you could choose your judge. You cannot do that now. The judge to whom a particular cause goes is fixed by ballot, and the consequence is that when you have a question of a particular character to be decided you have to take your chance of the matter being dealt with by a judge who is simply incompetent to decide such a question. I have in my mind the case of the construction of a will. It was a friendly suit. We would if we could have selected the judge to decide it, and all parties would have been content with his decision. The ballot took us before Judge B. His decision was so hopelessly and ridiculously wrong that on appeal it was laughed out of Court.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Upon the motion which is now before the House, it is not competent for the hon. Member to discuss the decision or the conduct of a judge in the High Court.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I bow at once to your ruling, but I regret that it is not possible for me to justify, by instances inside the House, what is common talk outside.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: Before this resolution is accepted, I should like to say a word or two on the larger question mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. The acceptance of this resolution must be a matter of course to the House, because, as has been said by my right hon. friend, it is perfectly clear that the Government have felt, after many representations at different times, that it is impossible to refuse that relief which is required by the state of business in the Chancery Division, and the question of the expense of a new judge is a very small matter indeed, compared with the importance of enabling the Chancery Division to carry on its work. I entirely agree that the administration of justice in this country is now a matter which ought to be very seriously considered by the Government and by both Houses of Parliament. I am not prepared to agree entirely with some of the suggestions of my right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton, but it is clear that, with regard to the administration of the law at Quarter Sessions and the calls made upon judges of the High
    892
    Court to go about the country trying what are very often small and unimportant cases, there is room for a rearrangement of judicial work which would save a great deal of time, and—what I look upon as still more important—would save the inexcusable delay there is at present in the administration of criminal justice. A far more important thing than the question of the wasting of a day of the judges' time is the detaining of a man who may turn out to be innocent for three, four, or five months before he is tried. That is a much more important side of the question. I believe that, with regard to this question, we have something like a promise from Her Majesty's Government. I understand that the Lord Chancellor has said that it is not proposed to appoint a Commission. I am very glad that is so with regard to this matter, because all the facts are easily ascertainable, and the Lord Chancellor and the legal advisers of the Government are perfectly competent to make proposals on the subject. It was said that here, or in another place, proposals are to be made at an early period. I am glad that promise has been made, and I think we may wait with some confidence for the fulfilment of that promise especially as the present Lord Chancellor is one of the most experienced lawyers in regard to the administration of criminal justice. He has distinguished himself as a Chancellor by the diligence with which he has discharged his judicial duties both in the House of Lords and in the Privy Council, and, when necessary, in the Court of Appeal. He is one of the greatest judges we have, and certainly one of the most diligent. No doubt there is room for some rearrangement of the work in connection with the county courts. The present county court judges all over the country are almost overburdened with work, and it would be impossible, without making considerable changes in the staff of county court judges, to deal with the jurisdiction of the county courts owing to the important matters which are remitted to them from the High Court. Of course, this proposal before the House refers to the Chancery Division, and is intended only for the relief of the Chancery Division; but the administration of justice in the Queen's Bench Division is at the present time in a very unsatisfactory state. We are now deprived of the presence in the law courts

    893
    of two of our most distinguished judges. I do not know why the Lord Chief Justice was taken away from his proper duties and removed from that which ought to be the occupation of his life—the superintendence and direction of the affairs of the Queen's Bench Division—in order to sit upon an Arbitration Commission in Paris. But there is one matter in regard to the administration of justice in the Queen's Bench Division, which is not only a mischief to the public, but is also a great inconvenience and disadvantage to the judges themselves. The judges now, in consequence of the change which has done away with the three divisions of the Common Law Courts, have become, practically, a crowd of judges having no special duty or relationship one to the other, and the arrangements for the discharge of their work are not superintended by any judicial direction at all, so far as I know, but depend upon a casual list drawn up by some under officer, and no judge of the Queen's Bench Division knows from day to day what he has to do, or where he will be called upon to sit. It is a very grave misfortune, and I hope, if there is to be any serious attempt to consider the administration of justice in all its branches in this country—and the time is quite ripe for it—there may be serious consideration to see whether it is not possible to restore the old plan under which there were three divisions of the Common Law Courts, under which we had the Exchequer dealing mainly with revenue matters, the Queen's Bench dealing with Crown affairs, and the Court of Common Pleas dealing more especially with commercial business, and in which we had a Court of Appeal which was the best ever invented. The old system of three divisions created esprit de corps among the judges, and it made each judge interested in the success of his own division. I do trust that the question of restoring that old system of the threefold division of the Common Law Courts will be seriously considered when an inquiry is made into this matter. With regard to the appointment of an additional Chancery Judge, I think every lawyer will be grateful to the Government for relieving the pressure by consenting to the appointment of another judge. I only hope that they will also undertake the larger and more important task, and that in the near future they will make some pro-
    894
    posals which will have the effect of giving a more satisfactory administration of justice in all the High Courts.
    MR. BROADHURST: In giving notice to oppose this by a Division, it is not my desire and intention to say one word wanting in respect to the judges of the High Courts. We have known many of them here, and we have known them outside. We have the greatest regard for all their merits, and all of them we respect when once they become commissioned as one of Her Majesty's judges. We do that on account of our desire to gain respect and consideration for the law as well as for those who administer it. My objection to this motion is that I cannot help thinking that if the Government like to take the trouble to rearrange and reorganise the judicial system, they will find that there are plenty of judges to do the work that is necessary to be done, and it might be done well and probably in less time than it is now done. There is the case which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has mentioned, of a judge going on circuit for three weeks to pick up a little case which might just as well have been dealt with by some county court judge. There are numerous instances where judges go on circuit and practically have no work to do. The South Wales instance is a notorious case, where a judge goes prancing about from town to town at enormous cost, and involving an enormous waste of time; and whilst cases are waiting to be tried in London, our judges are careering about round a remote part of the United Kingdom with nothing whatever to do except to kill time and to incur cost. Why should we not make the re-arrangement roughly sketched by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, and then this increased expenditure with regard to the judges would be altogether unnecessary. My opinion is that the judges might systematically sit a few hours longer than they do now. They are highly paid, and they hold positions of great dignity. They hold positions which are sought after by many members of the Bar. I know there are members of the Bar earning so much money in their profession that they would not leave it in order to take the position of a judge; but it is not always the best

    895
    lawyers who make the best judges. I have seen—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is getting away altogether from the question before the House.
    MR. BROADHURST: Yes, I think, perhaps, I am. My contention is that there are at present quite sufficient judges if the time and work were so distributed as to employ them a reasonable number of hours per day, and a reasonable number of days per year. I should think the long vacation could very easily and advantageously be shortened. The judges take three months' holiday in the autumn; they have holidays again at Christmas, and I believe there is another vacation at Easter; and then a large portion of the time of the judges is spent on circuit, which is very much of the nature of holidays also, and the duties of a judge may become a succession of holidays. I think, when we are so parsimonious in dealing with other branches of the public service, we ought to review the position of the judges. It was only the other day that we learned from one of the Ministers of the Crown that all men between sixty and sixty-five years of age, according to their physical capacity, were to be discharged from the public service without any pension or any consideration at all.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must point out to the hon. Member that the matter he is discussing does not arise upon the question as to whether the time of one judge can be saved without any new appointment.
    MR. BROADHURST: My intention was to show that the money which is now going to be expended in the appointment of another judge, which I consider to be unnecessary, would have been much more profitably expended in connection with the pensioning of some of our old public servants; but, if I am out of order, I will not further pursue that argument. It was strongly in my mind, and I could not suppress it, and I apologise for letting it out. I do appeal to the Leader of the House, whose sweet reasonableness is susceptible to appeals even from this side of the House, whether it would not be advisable for him to withdraw this motion this session, and take the time between now and the next session in framing such a scheme or rearrangement of the judicial
    896
    work of the country as will make this motion unnecessary. That is my point, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will take that course. I am not a lawyer, and that is my misfortune, but I cannot help thinking that some arrangement might be made whereby circuit work might be concentrated in particular parts of the country. Of course, the objection to this would be that it would be costly to the litigant who lived a long way from the court; but in my judgment it would be far cheaper to the country to pay the personal expenses of the litigant, for in that way you might save sufficient of the judges' time to more than compensate for the cost of travelling and other expenses of the litigants. In the case of North Wales, for instance, you might have Chester as the centre, or some other equally important place, such as Carnarvon, where all the North Wales cases might be concentrated. Look at the enormous saving of time and money this concentration would accomplish. If you take this reasonable and commonsense course in the reorganisation of your judicial system, there is no reason why you should appoint an additional judge at all, and in all probability, in the course of a year or two, you may be able to discharge a few judges. I really think that would be the case, and we should get justice more quickly administered than it is now. I feel that this motion on the part of the Government is one which is unnecessary, although I make no reflection on the judges, for they are simply the creatures of the system. If a judge is idle for a day, a week, a fortnight, or three weeks, as was the case in South Wales, it is not the judge who is to be found fault with and criticised, although he has to bear the blame at the hands of a great many laymen who do not understand the present organisation. A judge is the creature of circumstances, and he must go where he is bidden to go; and if time is wasted, and money is poured out like water, it is not his fault, but the fault of the Government, who do not take the trouble to carry out a little reform in the way of reorganisation, which is certainly wanted and highly necessary in many parts of the country, and which would save all necessity for mischievous motions such as the right hon. Gentleman has moved to-night. From my experience as a layman I do think that there is a

    897
    great deal of work now done by the judges which might be perfectly well dealt with by Quarter Sessions. He is perfectly right in saying that in many Quarter Sessions districts the chairman is no longer the old port-drinking squire In most cases he is at present a man of large experience in public affairs, and is often quite as capable of dealing with many of the small cases now sent to the assizes as the judge himself. I think if the Government would take the advice of my right hon. friend in that respect, an enormous amount of time might be saved in our assize courts. I also believe that much of the work of Quarter Sessions might be given to Petty Sessional Courts, which ought to have the power to deal with many of the cases which are now sent up to Quarter Sessions.
    SIR. EDWARD CLARKEdissented.
    MR. BROADHURST: Perhaps the hon. Member for Plymouth does not practise in Petty Sessional Courts, for he is a past master in the High Courts. By increasing the powers of Petty Sessional Courts, I think the work of Quarter Sessions might be considerably lightened with advantage. Why cannot this work be undertaken, for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have plenty of time? He has the highest skilled advice he can get, and if the advice of the Solicitor-General is insufficient, surely the Member for Walsall might be called in for assistance. I cannot imagine why the right hon. Gentleman does not take that course, instead of coming to the House to make further calls upon the public revenue for work which could easily be done by the present bench of judges if their work was properly re-arranged. I shall certainly divide the House, if anyone will vote with me, against this motion, because I think the proposal is entirely unnecessary and unwise in the public interest.
    MR. RICHARDS: After the speech we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, I think we shall all agree that his experience as Under Secretary to the Home Department has not made him acquainted with the necessity of having trained lawyers to deal with matters of this kind. Does anyone contend that the humble peasant would prefer to be tried at Quarter Sessions
    898
    instead of by one of Her Majesty's judges? I venture to say it is the inalienable right of every Englishman to be tried by one of Her Majesty's judges in the county in which he has been committed, and I cannot help remarking that the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester shows his ignorance of circuit matters. I can tell him that Her Majesty's judges do sit late and early in order to enable them to get to the next Assize town on the day when the Commission is opened. I have been in towns where the present Lord Brampton has sat till twelve o'clock at night, and I have known Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams sit from eight o'clock in the morning until twelve o'clock in the evening, in order to be at the next town by the Commission day. But what I want the House to realise is that all this has nothing whatever to do with the question of appointing an additional Chancery Division judge. The experiment of sending Chancery judges on circuit has been tried, but it was not continued for more than two years. I think it would be equally unsatisfactory to transfer judges from the Queen's Bench division to try Chancery cases. Does the hon. Member for Leicester, or the hon. Member for Walsall, suggest that the Chancery Division is too fully equipped with judges? I am sorry the hon. Member for Walsall has departed, because I am very much surprised that he did not deal with the matter touched upon by the Member for Wolverhampton in reference to the question of cheap justice. I can only say that the ratepayers of London found cheap justice impossible while the hon. Member for Walsall was connected with the London School Board. As one who knows something of the circuit system, I venture to say that it is not on the criminal side that we have to look for any alteration. With regard to the administration of justice in reference to crime in this country, I think Her Majesty's judges are the proper persons to deal with it in each county. I believe the Lord Chancellor has under consideration a scheme for concentrating the work of the circuits, but I am sure nothing will be done which will deprive the humblest peasant in every county of the opportunity of having his case tried by one of Her Majesty's judges. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton has spoken of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions with whom he is acquainted; but I know some-

    899
    thing of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions in other districts who is not a port-drinking squire, but who is one of the most incompetent Chairmen I ever came across. He is a teetotaler, and presides regularly at the meetings of the Young Men's Christian Association, and it would be a disgrace to send cases before that man which ought to be tried before a judge. A great deal is said about the waste of time on circuit, but what about the number of cases that are continually left over in the Chancery Division? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton is quite wrong in his opinion with regard to Divisional Courts. I think it is only right that when an appeal comes from a judge in chambers or from a county court judge it should be decided by two judges and not by one. I only rose to protest against the suggestion that those who know anything of circuit work from practical experience have any desire to alter the circuit system, so that the trial of prisoners could be transferred to Quarter Sessions or that counties should be grouped. Both would be unjust to prisoners and to the witnesses for the defence. I should have thought that the experience that the hon. Member for Leicester had at the Home Office would have taught him that one of the great difficulties which prisoners of the humbler class have to face is to get witnesses to attend at the assize town unless the county pays the expense. To ask those witnesses to come 100 or 200 miles away from their own homes would be a gross injustice on the humbler classes of society.
    MR. BROADHURST: I propose to pay their expenses.
    MR. RICHARDS: I am glad the hon. Member is a convert to that extent, but his remark is not an answer to the question, Does the Chancery Division to-day need another judge? I am sure the hon. Member is only influenced by a desire to do justice, but I hope he will not prevent this resolution from being unanimously carried. I regret that the hon. Member for Walsall, who used this opportunity to make an attack on a judge, was not present to hear my remarks upon it.
    MR. HALDANE: Many topics of a varying degree of interest, and of a still more varying degree of relevancy, have been discussed in connec-
    900
    tion with this motion, which, after all,. only relates to the appointment of an additional judge in the Chancery Division. I was extremely glad to hear from the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth that the Government are about to make some proposals for the reform of the judicial system of the country, which would afford an opportunity of full discussion in this House. I am sure such an occasion would be of great interest, and that the whole matter of the administration of justice would be debated very fully, with a view to the removal of what is conceded to be the very great evils of the existing system. The present state, of business in the Chancery Division is somewhat serious. It is business of a. peculiar kind, which cannot be patched up or dealt with by importing temporary assistance, and which is quite different from the business at assizes or quarter sessions, or even in the Queen's Bench. Owing to the way in which the Government keep the accounts, one would imagine that the cost of the Chancery Division is excessive, but a large part of the Chancery business is concerned with the administration of funds in court which result in a very great profit to the Exchequer. They do not come into the ordinary judicial estimates, but they fully justified the Government in seeing that the administration of funds and property is sufficiently and satisfactorily carried on. The more efficient the provision is for that business, the more revenue there is for the Exchequer. But this is a question of more than money. In the Chancery Division there are tried suits of a more particular degree of intricacy and pecuniary importance than on the other side. They go to the Chancery Division because they have that characteristic, and the public chooses that division because they want a careful and thorough sifting of complicated and intricate issues, which: can only be done by a judge armed with the peculiar machinery possessed by the Chancery Division, and which is available for the purpose of working out that peculiar kind of legal problem. In the present congested state of business in the Chancery Division there is a system of sending down cases to be tried, elsewhere, with the result that the cases are mangled, and great dissatisfaction is manifested on the part of suitors. Surely, the business of the Chancery Division is important enough to have it efficiently

    901
    performed. That, however, cannot be done by asking the judges to sit longer hours. I think the long vacation might be curtailed, but as far as the hours are concerned, speaking from twenty years' experience, I should like the House to note the diary of the life of a Chancery judge. On Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday he sits in court from half-past ten a.m. to four p.m., and on Saturday from half-past ten to four, working as hard as any man can work. On Monday he sits in Chambers from half-past ten a. m., not until four o'clock, but until five o'clock, six o'clock, or seven o'clock in the evening, and I think it is impossible to put more work on the shoulders of the existing Chancery judges. Some are quick and some are slow, but as far as I have been able to observe, there is no more hard-working and conscientious set of public servants in the country. The Government have been pressed for a long time to appoint another judge, and if they are to be blamed at all, they are only to be blamed because they have not brought forward this resolution before. The motion has my support, and among those who are really familiar with the deplorable state of the case, there can be only one opinion.
    MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent): I think the First Lord of the Treasury somewhat misunderstood the proposal which I ventured to make to him the other day. I suggested that a judge from the Queen's Bench Division should be transferred, not temporarily, but permanently to the Chancery Division; I meant that in future there should be six judges in the Chancery Division, and only fourteen in the Queen's Bench Division, because, although Chancery judges are hard worked at the present time, I do not think that the same remark applies to judges of the Queen's Bench Division. We have the Report of the Bar Counsel, stating that a great waste of time takes place on circuit, and I think some alteration of that system ought to be made before we appoint an additional judge. Those who read the newspapers cannot have helped noticing that a judge of assize recently adjourned his Court in order to be present at a cricket match. If the First Lord of the Treasury made a similar proposal to us, I for one would support him, but then we are not paid at the rate of £5,000 a year. This question ought to be looked
    902
    at, not merely from the point of view of the practising lawyer, but also from the point of view of the tax-payer. From the latter point of view, I cannot understand the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he introduced his Budget, he lectured us on our extravagance, and now he puts this additional burden on the tax-payers, which it seems to me might well be spared, because if we get more work out of the existing staff of judges there is no need for it. The question arises, Can we get more work out of the present staff? The hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire said that the judges could not sit longer hours, and I quite agree; but if the vacations were curtailed, I think we could get much more work from the judges than at the present time. The judges have now three weeks' holidays at Christmas, ten days at Easter, ten days at Whitsuntide, and two and a half months during the long vacation. That amounts to nearly four months in the year, which is too long a holiday for those drawing £5,000 per annum. I think we ought to see whether the judges would not put up with a much shorter vacation. If you appoint an additional judge, it will only mean one extra judge sitting for eight months of the year; but if twenty judges sit one month more in the year than at present, you get twenty months of additional judicial time per annum. I would venture to suggest that the Whitsuntide vacation should be given up altogether. It is not too much to ask a judge to sit from Easter until the 11th or 12th of August, after which he will have over two months' vacation. The point I wish to submit to the First Lord of the Treasury is whether, before he asks us to incur this additional charge, he could not see whether the judges could not work one month more a year without breaking down in health. If there were any sign of a judge breaking down under the strain placed upon him, I would be the last person to ask that the judicial holidays should be curtailed.
    MR. BAINBRIDGE (Lincolnshire, Gainsborough): I wish to bring before the House one point which has not been mentioned in this Debate. I presume that the Government would only be too glad to have suggested to them any means by which the present Chancery judges and the existing Chancery Courts can carry on their work without increase of

    903
    staff. I will put a common-sense and practical suggestion before the House. In doing so, I would wish to draw attention to the contrast which exists between the mode of procedure in the Chancery Courts and in the Court of Session in Scotland. It is perhaps not known to the House and to the First Lord that at the present time the Chancery judges take down in longhand nearly every word given in evidence by a witness, whereas in the Court of Session the evidence is taken down by a sworn shorthand writer, and the work is naturally done in a very much shorter time. If this proper and necessary change were made, and an effete and an out-of-date system was abolished the whole work of the Chancery Division could be easily done by the present judges. I am speaking, not in the interests of hon. and learned Members who shine in this House, and who earn their livelihood elsewhere, but in the interests of suitors and of the taxpayer; and I venture to think that if my proposal were adopted, thousands of pounds would be saved by the country, and scores of thousands of pounds would be saved by litigants, and the judges themselves would have the advantage of a much more accurate report than if they depended on their own notes. I venture to recommend the suggestion to the First Lord of the Treasury and to the House.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I will not attempt to cover the very wide field traversed by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth. I will only say that I quite associate myself with his observations, except in so far as he approves of the appointment of an additional Chancery judge. I may say at once, in order to remove all misconception, that I recognise that the present Chancery judges are, if anything, overworked, and I recognise the zeal and diligence they display in the discharge of their duties, and also that the character of their work is exceedingly difficult and responsible. But, although I make these concessions, I shall certainly associate myself with my hon. friend the Member for Leicester in dividing against this proposal. I should like to know whether the new judge is to be a judge simply for the trial of causes, or is it proposed that he shall have chambers, and all the paraphernalia attaching to a Chancery judge who
    904
    has to deal with other matters. It is said, and said truly, that judges are overworked, but let me invite attention to the fact that the total number of days on which a judge sits, including Chamber work, averages 206 per year. That is the: return in the latest judicial statistics. That is not the fault of any particular judge; it is the result of our system of legal vacations. Then, with regard to the trial of actions; the Chancery judges sit five days a week for that purpose. The total number of actions tried by Mr. Justice North during the last year for which statistics are available was thirty-seven, and the total number tried by Mr. Justice Stirling was precisely the same. Curiously enough, Mr. Justice-Kekewich tried no fewer than 139 cases, and I do not pretend to know the cause of the disparity. Mr. Justice Romer tried seventy-eight, and Mr. Justice Byrne 128. Compared with the number of cases tried by a judge in the Queen's. Bench Division, the disparity is remarkable. I draw attention to those figures for the purpose of asking what is the cause of the extraordinary slowness with which cases are disposed of in the Chancery Division. It is very largely due to the considerable number of cases involving long technical investigation that are now imported into the Chancery Division. Hon. and learned Members will confirm me when I say that a single cause, say a patent case, relating to a bicycle or sewing machine, will occupy a judge ten, fifteen, or even twenty days. I have had an opportunity of talking this matter over with persons competent to express an opinion, and I venture to suggest that, if we could relieve the Chancery judges of these long technical causes, instead of Mr. Justice North and Mr. Justice Stirling being only able to try thirty-seven cases, they would be able to try double and triple that number. It would be perfectly possible for cases of this sort to be sent to experts or to official referees, who would deal with the expert evidence and report to the judge, who would then be able to frame his judgment. This is no crude suggestion, and, although I will not, mention names, I know it has the approval of at least two eminent judges. Then, again, there is another cause of the; congestion of the Chancery Division. It. is the common practice of solicitors to set down actions there when they might properly be tried elsewhere. One of the

    905
    most eminent solicitors in the City of London told me that, whenever he had an opportunity, he always set down cases in the Chancery Division. Something may be said about a more careful trial, but the chief reason is that the scale of remuneration for solicitors is higher in the Chancery Division. I have given these two reasons against the appointment of a new judge. I can assure hon. Members that I am not approaching this question in any Party spirit, but I ventured to intervene in this Debate, because I have taken some interest, very ineffectual I am afraid, in the reform of the administration of the law. The Bar Committee has condemned in the most unqualified way the present Circuit system, as a disgraceful and scandalous waste of judicial time. The Press of the country, from The Times downwards, has, by leading articles, and by correspondence from eminent lawyers, drawn attention to that scandalous state of things. But no attention whatever has been paid to these representations, although they have extended over a number of years. Do hon. Members really appreciate what the circumstances are? Do they understand that, although the vacations eat up nearly one-half of the whole calendar, half of the remaining moiety is appropriated by the judges, who ought to be trying actions in London, to travelling about the assize towns? I do not blame the judges; I do not say a word against the bench in that respect, although I should not be afraid to do so if necessary. But a couple of learned judges go down to some remote Circuit town, where one prisoner is set down for trial, and three or four days are given to that trial. Then they go on to an adjoining county town, and four days are there occupied with, perhaps, no prisoner at all to try. That is a true and not exaggerated statement. Now, why, in the name of common sense, is this archaic system not dealt with? I am not going to enter at large into this matter, but at least, if you will not change the system, you should have some plan by which a learned judge might go and deal with the crime of a district at a convenient centre. Many of the crimes might as well, however, be tried at the Quarter Sessions. A man ought only to have the right of being tried by a judge if he is charged with having committed a crime of a given gravity; but there are a great number of cases which are dealt with now by judges
    906
    of Assize, which might very properly be sent to the Quarter Sessions. For these reasons, and I might give many more, I object to the present proposal. I fully recognise the strain that is on the Chancery judges, but I ask the Solicitor-General to give a plain answer to these questions—What is the difficulty in the way of referring these long patent cases, which eat up so much time, to some referees who would take the technical parts of the evidence? and, What is the reason why solicitors are encouraged and permitted to enter on the Chancery side actions which might very properly be tried on the Queen's Bench side? Unless I have more cogent reasons than have been given in the very general observations of the late Solicitor-General for the appointment of a new judge, I shall feel myself bound to associate myself with the hon. Member for Leicester, and to vote against the proposal.
    MR. TOMLINSON: If anyone were to take the estimates of the expense of judicial administration, and deduct the amount received in fees, he would inevitably come to the conclusion that there must be courts which more than pay expenses. That must be so, at any rate, in the Chancery Division. And it is right that it should be so, because it deals with large quantities of property, and those who call upon the judicial system of the country to administer their property should pay for it. The more cases, therefore, which are heard, the larger the surplus from the fees that come in, If you increase the judicial staff, the more you will increase the fees, and consequently the appointment of a new judge in that Division will not cost the country anything.
    MR. LAWSON WALTON: The speeches of more than one hon. Member have been so full, that there is very little for me to say in accepting the proposal which the Government has made for dealing with the present administration of the law. That proposal has been subjected to a great deal of criticism, and there is a very obvious feeling that the Government's suggestion does not adequately settle this complicated and extremely important question. The remedy proposed for the block of business in

    907
    one division of the courts is to relieve the congestion of causes by the very simple expedient of appointing a new judge. Now, anyone familiar with the administration of the business of the courts knows that this congestion of work is not confined to one division, and no adequate method of dealing with this question can be effective until many reforms, some of which have been foreshadowed during the Debate, have been considered by competent authority and dealt with by the Government. As I have said, the proposal now is to remedy the congestion in the Chancery Division; but I must point out to the House that there is another important Division—the Queen's Bench Division, where difficulties are scarcely less great than in the Chancery Division. The Queen's Bench has more than once come to the assistance of the sister courts. The company business and the bankruptcy business has been taken from the Chancery Division to the Queen's Bench, and has absorbed the time of one of the judges in the Queen's Bench Division, and the result has been that at this moment the Queen's Bench Division is in a condition which has scarcely any parallel—at all events in the recent experience and history of the courts. The metropolitan courts administer justice for over five millions of people living in London. They also administer justice in these courts to parties not only in London, but from every part of England and Wales. For the last few weeks there have been some three or four courts, and sometimes only two courts, dealing with the litigation of this large number of people. I often wonder that the Members for the metropolis don't insist upon a guaranteed minimum—a few years ago there was some talk that there should be a guaranteed minimum—of six courts administering justice in the High Courts of Justice in the metropolis. The condition of the metropolitan courts now indicates a complete collapse of the machinery of the Queen's Bench Division. Are there any explanations for this state of things? A common cause assigned is the existence of the much-abused circuit system. No lawyer is wedded to the circuit system; it is antiquated, troublesome, and costly; but the friends of the circuit system are the members of the various counties in this country who sit
    908
    in this House, and are most anxious that that time-honoured method of administering justice locally at the hands of the Queen's Justices should not be seriously impaired. It is this strong feeling which has hedged the circuit system from all attacks, and I doubt whether Her Majesty's Government would have the courage to bring forward any proposal to interfere with it. Accept that as a condition of the administration of justice in this country. The people of the country prefer the circuit system, and they are I willing to pay for the circuit system, and I do not see any reason for failing to gratify the popular wish. What is the next suggestion? It is that made by my right hon. friend the Member for Wolver-hampton. He told us that we might relieve the courts of some of the cases by sending them to be tried by the County Court judges. If these judges are to do the work of some of the High Court Justices, you will require a new order, a subordinate order in the judiciary to dispose of the business of the present County Court judges. I fail to see how that argument can be founded on any consideration of expense, or that the change would do more than complicate the system of justice as it exists. The only remaining suggestion is an increase in the number of judges. Of course I don't object to the staff of the courts being sufficient to administer justice in a way to command public confidence and general satisfaction; but until there has been a thorough examination of this question I doubt if this expedient will be accepted as the only expedient which, under existing conditions, should be adopted. Why should we not take into consideration the very grave difficulties connected with the present position of the Court of Appeal? The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth said that under the ancient system we had an admirable Court of Appeal, which dealt most efficiently with the business before it. But at this moment there are no less than 170 cases standing for hearing in the Court of Appeal. Appeals arising out of the Workmen's Compensation Act and questions of mere legal procedure have, since the abolition of the Divisional Courts, been sent to judges of exceptional position and qualification, and the result has been that for weeks, if not months, the Court of Appeal is in arrear with their ordinary

    909
    work. It is obvious that something must be done. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Plymouth suggested—and I was glad to see the suggestion was welcomed in authoritative quarters on this side—that if we could revive the old method of having three Divisional Courts in the Queen's Bench Division; if we could fan once more into flame the espritde corps which used to animate Her Majesty's Judges in the conduct of business before them; if, instead of having one Chief Justice to preside over a large body of judges, you had smaller bodies of judges of exceptional experience dealing with special classes of cases, we should find it unnecessary to increase the present staff. I hope that the First Lord of the Treasury will take the suggestion I have made into serious consideration between now and the next session.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): I do not propose to go at any length into the various suggestions made in the course of the Debate in reference to the work of the Queen's Bench Division. Indeed I doubt whether I should be altogether in order in doing so. I do not think there is any probability of a return to the system of having three separate Divisions of the High Court. I do not believe that is practicable. We must look in another direction for a solution of the difficulty by which we are beset. There was very great force, I think, in what has been said as to the uncertainty of the sittings in London. One week you have only two or three judges sitting, in another week you have so many judges that there are not courts sufficient for them to sit in, and they must either crowd together in greater numbers than are wanted or take a compulsory holiday. I believe a very great deal could be done by the adoption of another system, telling off, some time before the beginning of every term, so many judges for work in town, each to sit in his own court during the term, just as the Chancery judges do, the other judges to hold sittings in the country. The old circuit system has undoubtedly broken down, but sittings in the country might be arranged so that you would have in every term so many judges sitting regularly in town and so many sitting regularly in the country. Now,
    910
    the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton said that some reform was wanted with regard to the Divisional Courts. That is a matter on which I have felt strongly, and I had the honour, as a private Member, of carrying through the House a Bill which took away new trials from the Divisional Courts to the Court of Appeal; and that has been supplemented by other legislation in the same direction. But I think the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that there is a certain class of business in the Queen's Bench Division for which you must have more than one judge. There is all the Crown work, all the Revenue work, and the appeals from inferior courts. What is really wanted with regard to the Divisional Court or the Court in Banc—for I prefer that time-honoured name—is more uniformity in its composition. I should like to see a strong Court in Banc with the Chief Justice presiding, and if you had that, I believe four sittings a year of ordinarily limited duration would be quite sufficient to keep Under all the work. From that court I would have no appeal except to the House of Lords, and I believe the Court of Appeal might be materially relieved by transferring to such a Court in Banc such appeals as those brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act and from the judge in Chambers. I will turn from this tempting subject—for it is tempting to develop the views I have upon it—and only say one word with reference to a matter which concerns both divisions. It has been said that the scale of taxation ought to be not merely in theory but in practice uniform for the two divisions. I cordially agree with that. In theory the scale of taxation is the same, but in practice, for some inscrutable reason, the scale of taxation in the Chancery Division is more liberal. After all, the question is whether there should be a new judge for the Chancery Division. What are the alternative suggestions? One is that the Queen's Bench Division should lend a judge. That, I think, is quite impracticable. It would disorganise the business of the Queen's Bench, and it would not be satisfactory to the borrowing division. Another suggestion is that a judge should be transferred permanently from the Queen's Bench to the Chancery Division. There are two answers to that. In the first place the Queen's Bench Division cannot spare a judge, and, in the

    911
    Second place, for Chancery work you want an Equity man, and I think either of those answers would be sufficient. It has been suggested that the vacations might be shortened, and that time might be saved by having an official shorthand writer. There is a great deal to be said for both those suggestions, but I do not believe either of them or both of them together would supply the pressing want which is now experienced in the Chancery Division of another judge. The question is whether the Chancery Division should have another judge. That judge, of course, must have his clerk, but if any question should be raised as to whether he should have a staff, such as is attached to most of the judges of the Chancery Division, it would come up for after consideration. The hon. and learned Member below the gangway opposite said that the work of the Chancery Division might be lightened by transferring a great many of the heavy cases to official referees or experts. I say at once I think that would be a most mischievous system.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I did not suggest the reference of cases; I suggested that scientific or expert evidence might be referred to an official referee, or some other person, whose duty it would be to report thereon to the judge.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: One has often heard such a suggestion made, but I think the general experience of the profession is that a double trial of that kind is most unsatisfactory. When you come back to the report of the expert you do not know where you are. Very possibly it may be found necessary either that the judge should take a leap in the dark or send back to the expert in order to clear up a point. I cannot agree with my hon. and learned friend that that suggestion of his presents even the possibility of a solution; and having examined all the other suggestions which have been made, we come back to that made by my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury, which I hope the House will adopt unanimously.
    MR. ASQUITH: The discussion has travelled over a very wide field; and indeed it is impossible ade-
    912
    quately to debate the question whether a fresh judge should be appointed to the Chancery Division without glancing at the general features—many of them very unsatisfactory—of the present system of administering justice. For my own part, I confess that I look with reluctance, and even with suspicion, at the proposal to increase our judicial staff. It is so much the easiest way of avoiding difficulties, and blinding your eye to the existence of abuses, that one is tempted to take it. But I must say I am satisfied, not only with what has been said, but by my knowledge and experience of the ordinary working of the courts, that this is a case in which the appointment of an additional judge is irresistible and unanswerable. The condition of suits in the Chancery Division, the long arrears of cases untried, and the impossibility of the judges, who. are already overworked, overtaking the duties which the law imposes upon them, is a condition so undeniable and so scandalous as to make it imperative for Parliament to increase the present staff. But while I entirely assent to the motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I trust that, after the discussion which has taken place, Her Majesty's Government will not regard this as a solution of the difficulty. It has been admitted by every speaker, and by no one more than by the Solicitor-General, that the present arrangements are chaotic, unbusinesslike, and in the highest degree unsatisfactory. Some reference was made to the simultaneous absence on a. foreign mission of the Lord Chief Justice and another of Her Majesty's judges of the High Court. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, when they referred to that, did not mean to cast any blame whatever either on the Lord. Chief Justice or the Government which selected him for the position. I am perfectly certain the task was undertaken from a high sense of public duty. When you consider that the United States are represented by the Lord Chief Justice of their Supreme Court, as well as by another eminent judge, and that this country was lamentably deprived of the services of the late Lord Herschell, I doubt whether any other appointment could have been made which would have given so much satisfaction, and I believe that the country is unanimous that it

    913
    was Lord Russell's duty to accept the appointment. But the fact remains that we are increasingly liable to these drains on our judicial reserves, and that may be an additional reason for this new judge. What I wish to impress upon the Government is, that between now and next session they should take the opportunity of reconsidering the whole of our judicial arrangements, not merely in Chancery, but in the Queen's Bench, with the view of dealing adequately and permanently with the question.
    MR. DILLON: If you are short of judges in this country, we have twice too many in our country, and if an appointment is to be made to strengthen the Chancery side of the courts of this country, I see no reason why that judge could not be drawn from the Irish Bench. There is additional and strong reason why the Government should keep in mind the fact that they can draw from the Irish Bench, without injury to its strength, three or four of its members. I noticed with interest that the Solicitor-General, in his speech, pointed out that the difficulty with which you have to deal in this country when you appoint a Chancery judge is that you require an
    equity man. In Ireland no such thing exists, and I personally do not know an Irishman who, if he is appointed, is not prepared to act as a Chancery judge without knowing anything of equity whatever.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!The hon. Gentleman is out of order in discussing the Irish Bench on the motion before the House.
    MR. DILLON: The only object I had was from the point of view of expense. If my point of view is accepted by the House, the country would save a large sum of money.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is a separate question. The first question is, whether a judge shall be appointed. Whether, in order to save expense, an Irish judge shall be abolished is a wholly difficult question.
    MR. DILLON: I am sorry, Sir. However, I have said all that I wish to say.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes, 28. (Division List, No. 319.)

    AYES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Asher, Alexander

    Charrington, Spencer

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

    Gull, Sir Cameron

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

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

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Balfour. Rt. Hn. J Blair (Clackm

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

    Henderson, Alexander

    Barnes, Frederie Gorell

    Cox, Irwin Edward B.

    Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

    Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Curzon, Viscount

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

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

    Dewar, Arthur

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Houston, R. P.

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Howard, Joseph

    Bethell, Commander

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Joicey, Sir James

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Keswick, William

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Kimber, Henry

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn)

    Butcher, John George

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Caldwell, James

    Fowler, Rt Hon. Sir Henry

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Fry, Lewis

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Gedge, Sydney

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

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

    Lowe, Francis William

    Lowles, John

    Percy, Earl

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Purvis, Robert

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

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Tennant, Harold John

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Thornton, Percy M.

    M'Crae, George

    Ridley, Rt Hon. Sir Matthew. W

    Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

    M'Ewan, William

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Ure, Alexander

    M'Killop, James

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Wallace, Robert

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Robson, William Snowdon

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

    Monk, Charles James

    Round, James

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

    More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

    Muray, Rt. Hn. A. Grahm (Bute)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

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

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Wyndham, George

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

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

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    NOES.

    Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Steadman, William Charles

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Blake, Edward

    Hogan, James Francis

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Woods, Samuel

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lambert, George

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'lnd.

    Crilly, Daniel

    Lewis, John Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Coghill.

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Dillon, John

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, representing that the state of business in the High Court of Justice is such as to require the appointment of an additional judge, and praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a new judge of the said High Court in the Chancery Division thereof, in pursuance of the eighteenth section of The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876.
    To be presented by Privy Councillors and such Members as are of Her Majesty's Household.

    TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, ETC.) BILL.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    SIR J. JOICEY: The discussion of this Bill has been continued during its various stages under very great difficulties, because the
    916
    Bill at every stage was a different Bill to what it had been previously. The Bill we are now discussing is altogether different to that which was brought before us on the Second Reading, and although on the Report stage important clauses were moved, the discussion was carried on under much difficulty, because we had not the facilities of the Committee stage, when we might have spoken more than once upon the subject. Her Majesty's Government have completely changed their front with regard to this measure. When a Government introduces a Bill into this House, it ought to know what policy it intends to pursue in regard to it; but in this particular case, either the Government had no opinion, or they have changed the opinion which they had altogether. As the Bill made progress after the Second Reading, it was sent to a Grand Committee, where its various provisions were discussed and decided upon, and at that time we all thought that the Government were strongly opposed to the National Telephone Company. But after the Grand Committee had done its work, and the Bill came to this House on the Report stage, the Government changed

    917
    their views with regard to the National Telephone Company, and came to an arrangement with the company which was never contemplated either at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill or during the Committee stage. I have strong objection to this Bill on various grounds, not the least of which is that the Government propose to treat London altogether differently to any other part of the country. It is proposed to devote a portion of the two millions of money provided by this Bill to the development of the telephone services in the country, but unless there is every intention to give an active competition to the National Telephone Company in London this Bill in my opinion is the merest trifling. Of all parts of the Kingdom London requires the least assistance from the Post Office with regard to this matter. I think the Government ought to have taken over the whole system and nationalised the telephone, but if they do not do that they should at least have had an effective competition. But they have given up the idea of any competition under this Bill, because I see it is intended to prevent the National Telephone Company from establishing a service in any area in which they have not at present a service already working. This means that those areas will be either worked by the Post Office or by a licensee in the shape of a municipality, or they will be left out entirely. The Government not only gives that advantage to the company, but they also propose to extend the licence of the company beyond 1911. I have protested against that action again and again, and I think it is my duty to make a last protest now, although I cannot expect any protest of mine to be very effective with a Government with so large a majority behind them. But I challenge them to leave this an open question, even at the eleventh hour, and let their supporters vote on this Bill exactly as they choose, and I feel sure that if they are left free to use their own minds the Bill will not be passed. I have no animus against the National Telephone Company. I have had some experience in telephone work in this country. I quite admit that under the circumstances the company has done its work well, and that if it had not been hampered as it has been it would have done much better. It has selected certain
    918
    districts where it has established a service in order to make as much profit as possible, and I do not blame it for doing that, because the first object of a company of this kind is not to create a public benefit, but to make a profit for its shareholders. But I blame the Government in this matter, because they are the culprits in this and not the company. The Post Office has the power of establishing telephones all over the country, and instead of doing so in order that they might encourage competition, they discourage competition, and have entered into negotiations with the Telephone Company, because, no doubt, they look forward to the time when the Post Office may take over the whole system, and they preferred to deal with one company in place of many. I have heard of no real objection on the part of the Government to the policy of the nationalisation of the telephone. The one solitary objection that has been made so far as I have been able to see is that it would necessitate the employment of a very large number of persons, and the Government do not see their way to increase the number of their employees. I think the Government should have the strength to resist the pressure brought against them by these people. I do not. see why the Government should refrain, from giving a telephone service because they think a few votes might be lost to them. If the municipalities take on the, telephones themselves the voters who may be against it may be infinitely larger than they would be in the case of Government employees, and there is far greater danger in increasing the number of municipal employees than there would be if the Government took over the telephones and employed a larger number of persons themselves. There is one great objection I have to this Bill, and that is, I do not want to see municipalities become suppliers of the telephone service. They have got quite enough to do at present to attend to their proper duties. There is a very great tendency on the part of municipalities to speculate, and we have municipal gas and municipal trams and municipal water; but they have never taken over any of those companies until they have satisfied themselves that the companies are substantially and physically sound. But there are men of a more speculative character, who would be likely to spend public money in these matters, and I do not think that it is the

    919
    work of the municipality. We have heard lately of municipalities borrowing money on the cheap. I have heard of municipalities trying to borrow money at 3½per cent., and it was a complete failure, and I am not surprised, but my chief objection to the Bill is that it will defer the nationalisation of the telephone system of this country for many years, if, indeed, it does not put it off altogether. The Committee who considered this question was of opinion that 1911 was quite long enough for any licence to extend to for the supply of telephones, and the Committee which sat in 1892 was of the same opinion, and yet, in the face of these facts, the Government has resolved to extend the licence of the National Telephone Company beyond 1911. We do complain most bitterly that the Government did not allow us to go into this question specially before the Select Committee last year, because I think we could have produced such evidence as would certainly have prevented the Government from taking up the present position. I was under the impression that the Government had made up their minds not to extend the licence of the National Telephone Company beyond 1911, and we consequently believed that in 1911 the telephone service would be transferred from the National Telephone Company to the Post Office. I think the Government behaved most unfairly in coming to an arrangement to extend the licence beyond 1911. I am satisfied in my own mind that there will never be a more favourable opportunity of getting a national system than there is at the present moment. If you give a number of municipalities power to make telephones in their own areas, you will find that where these telephones pay you will create a vested interest which will be far more powerful than the National Telephone Company, and I feel sure that with the influence which will be used by the Members representing the different localities in this House, no Government would venture to terminate these licences in 1825. There was, indeed, a special recommendation made by the Select Committee to provide for justice being done if the licences terminated in 1911. The recommendation was that the Government should be authorised to purchase all the plant of the various licensees at the end of 1911, and one of the reasons why Members who held views like myself
    920
    signed the Report was because we thought by this means we should get over the difficulty of being unjust to the National Telephone Company. But there is another reason why I want a national system. I think as time goes on, and other licences are created, you will find that there will be considerable friction between the owners of the local lines and the Post Office, who hold the trunk lines. Already there is great grumbling in my part of the world because whenever persons want to speak over the trunk line they find the trunk line occupied, and communication cannot consequently be obtained with another town. I venture to say that the friction will become so great between the municipalities and the Post Office that the public will compel the Post Office to take over the municipalities, even if they have to pay a large sum to do it. I feel very strongly in my own mind that we have reached a crisis in regard to the question of the telephone service, and if we do not now bring the question before the Government in the strongest possible way the opportunity will be lost, and the country will, at some future time, have to pay a very large sum to place itself in the position in which I desire to see it at the present moment. I cannot help saying that Her Majesty's Government have not acted fairly by the Committee. They have not brought in a Bill in accordance with the conclusions come to by that Committee. We recommended in Committee that there should be competition. I maintain that this Bill will not secure competition. If there had been competition, competition should have been by the Post Office, but the Post Office does not intend to compete. I maintain that the Bill will put the National Telephone Company and many other licensees in such a strong position that when we have to deal with them again in 1925 the Government will have to pay an enormous sum in order to get possession of the system. I feel sure that if the whole of the facts were put before the country, the Government would not have the support of the commercial classes nor of the country districts. The commercial classes are, as a whole, opposed to the policy of the Government, and I am certain that this is also the case in the rural districts. On the grounds that I have given, I beg to move that the Third Reading be postponed for three months.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Sir James Joicey.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. HEDDERWICK: No one, I think, will deny that this is a Bill of far-reaching importance. Indeed, I shall not be using the language of exaggeration if I say that it is the most important Bill which has been introduced this session. It does not concern merely a private interest or one particular part of the country; it affects the whole commerce of Great Britain. Yet this measure, notwithstanding its importance, has been introduced at what one might call the fag-end of the session, and it has been pressed forward from the day of its introduction until now with exceptional urgency. I confess that from this point of view it compares very unfavourably with the London Government Bill. That, no doubt, was a measure of very considerable importance, but as compared with the Bill now in question it might not unfairly be described as purely parochial, yet days, if not weeks, were devoted to the discussion in Committee of the details of the former, whereas the latter is being practically rushed through the House. It may have been, of course, that the Government in the case of the London Government Bill were influenced by the reflection that there were seventy London Members to be considered. But as far as the relative importance of the two measures is concerned, it would have been very much better if the Government had introduced this Bill instead of the London Government Bill, at the date when the latter was brought forward. That, I think, is a ground for desiring that more time should be afforded for the consideration of so weighty a matter. But there is another reason for delay which I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit should have some weight attached to it. It is this—the right hon. Gentleman has been subjected to pressure. In the course of previous discussions upon this very Bill, it has been repeatedly asserted that the Bill is not as he would have drawn it if he had been left to himself, but that private influence has been brought to bear
    922
    upon him which he has been unable to resist. If that be the case—and I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman deny that it is so—we may feel some commiseration for the right hon. Gentleman, but we can scarcely be expected to pardon him for yielding to private pressure where he ought to have stood firm in the public interest. That, I think, is another and a good ground for delay. But while he cannot recommend this Bill to the House as his ideal, yet the right hon. Gentleman does recommend it to the House and to the country—to use his own words—"because he believes it will be cheap, efficient, and popular." The right hon. Gentleman, I fear, cherishes a delusion. As far as popularity is concerned, what have been the facts? Why, chamber of commerce after chamber of commerce, including some of the most important bodies in the three kingdoms, have steadily denounced the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman has been the recipient of many strong communications similar in character from other quarters. On his own side of the House, moreover, men of high standing in commercial centres in England have protested against the Bill. It has also been assailed by men of great weight and standing in commerce on this side. I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman buoys himself up with the idea that this Bill will prove to be popular, he has already had ample proof to demonstrate to him how false are the hopes upon which he relies. The question of efficiency, of course, is one which must remain to some extent speculative. I cannot help thinking, however, that the efficiency which is to come from rival companies which are to be set in operation all over the country, and which, it is presupposed, will work in harmony, is an efficiency which is not likely to prove satisfactory either to the community at large or to the municipalities where these rival companies are to be created. The question of cheapness also is entirely speculative. It may be that if you have genuine competition the cost of the telephone service will be reduced to the subscribers, but to the country, if it should ever hereafter be desired to nationalise the whole service, it must inevitably prove to be the dearest system that the right hon. Gentleman could possibly suggest. That brings me to the main reason why I support the rejection of this measure.

    923
    The right hon. Gentleman has thrown away, or at all events has failed to seize, a great opportunity by declining to purchase. I find it difficult to understand precisely upon what ground he has absolutely shut his ears to the suggestion. I have heard it said tonight that his reason for doing so is that he is afraid of the increase of the staff which would necessarily follow. I cannot understand that that is a sufficient reason for declining to take this step, if, apart from such an objection, it were in the interest of the people that the system should be nationalised. Again, it has been said that the price asked was too great. But the right hon. Gentleman really had the National Telephone Company at his mercy. He could—I do not say that he ought—but he could have compelled the National Telephone Company to sell at any price he chose; he certainly should have compelled the National Telephone Company to sell at a fair price. I understand the right hon. Gentleman also objects, or did at one time object, to purchase because the Government, if they did purchase, would be purchasing a lot of old plant, and also because in 1911, when the present licence expires, the Government would be in a position to obtain the whole of the plant for practically nothing, and without paying anything for goodwill. But when the right hon. Gentleman refuses to consider the question of purchase, he seems to forget altogether the enormous profits which the National Telephone Company have been earning. I may be wrong, but I understand that the National Telephone Company have been earning something like half a million a year. If they have been earning that on a capital of seven millions, surely there was ample margin for the Government, with its great borrowing powers, having purchased at a fair price, by means of a sinking fund, to have presented the country with the whole of the goodwill and plant by 1911 without, practically, the cost of a penny. Well, that opportunity has been entirely thrown away, and now we understand that the Government are going to start an enormous system in which the National Telephone Company and municipalities are to compete in harmonious rivalry for the public benefit. But what does this great system mean? It means a duplication of plant in every municipality where the system is taken advantage of, and not
    924
    only a duplication of plant, but an enormous consequential waste of capital. There are other serious objections. Necessarily in every municipality which takes advantage of the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman has prepared a great disturbance of the ratepayers must take, place during construction, and most probably a serious addition to the already oppressive burthen of the rates in municipalities. And not only will there be such a disturbance, but there will probably be a delay of years, in some cases at all events, before a decision is actually arrived at, and certainly before the construction of lines is completed. Assuming for the moment the success of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, up to a certain point, assuming that innumerable municipalities all over the country rush in to compete with the National Telephone Company, and assuming also, as the right hon. Gentleman has hinted, that at some time or other the Government will step in and purchase the telephones for the country, at what price will the right hon. Gentleman then be able to buy? His difficulties will be incalculably increased. He will then have to deal not with one company only, as at the present time, but with innumerable companies, with every conceivable variety of system, and with a volume of business which will probably have so vastly increased that a. price will be demanded which will be practically prohibitive. Suppose, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman were to purchase now and to create a. sinking fund from the profits, he might grant leases to those municipalities which are said to be anxious to acquire control of the telephone within their jurisdiction. He might even advance money where it was required for improvements, securing the Treasury against loss by an additional rent charge. The advantages would be immense. The municipalities would be placed in immediate possession with a staff ready made to their hands. The ratepayers would be undisturbed either in their minds or in their premises. The country would become the owners of a valuable property, the actual possession of which they would obtain at any date the Treasury chose to fix, and the responsibility and work entailed upon one department of the State by the acquisition would be gradually assumed. I venture to think that if the right hon.

    925
    Gentleman had had the courage to buy out the National Telephone Company, he might by means such as have been suggested have secured in 1911 a national telephone system at practically no cost at all. It is because I think the Government are throwing away a great opportunity, and because, if this Bill be now rejected, the Government may have the courage to introduce next session a scheme such as I have foreshadowed, that I support the rejection of this Bill.
    SIR HARRY BULLARD: I have consistently, I hope, followed the details of this Bill, and have supported Her Majesty's Government. I believe that by adjourning this question to another session we should be wasting time. Having sat on the Select Committee and waded through all the evidence that we did for many days, and having also followed the progress of the Bill when it was brought down to this House and read a second time, I certainly think we ought to proceed to alter the state of things as it exists in the country at the present time. Loud and deep complaints from my own constituency have reached me as to the existing state of the telephone system, and I therefore deem it my duty to support the proposal to effect an improvement at the earliest possible date. I also wish to allude to the circumstance that we have had the opinion of many Chambers of Commerce on the subject. I notice that in the Select Committee many statements were brought forward on behalf of the telephone company by their most able manager, Mr. Gain; and I also notice that in a long discussion in the council of the city that I have the honour to represent, the same arguments were used; they were cast, so to speak, in the same mould and were of the same metal. The adherents of the present arrangement are a very active and able body of people, but I do not think they appreciate what is necessary for the advancement and utility of the telephone. I believe that the municipalities and companies can work mutually together and be conducive of good, but if we still keep waiting, it will be detrimental to the utility of this very useful invention, the telephone.
    MR. PIRIE: I can only look upon this question as a very fitting finale to a session which has been marked by measures which have placed private and sectional interests before the public benefit and the general good of the nation as a whole. As far as regards the telephone question, I desire to enter my strongest protest against what came out in the Debate on the Report stage of this Bill. General charges were made throughout the Debate that Members had been influenced and certain localities more or less "got at" or "squared." I think that when it comes to influencing a Member or squaring any special locality, such things are equally disastrous both for the reputation of this House and for the general welfare and prosperity of the country. It is the duty of this nation, in view of the tremendous rivalry in commerce to which we are exposed from Continental rivals—a rivalry which is becoming more and more keen every year, and which is diminishing the lead we formerly possessed—to make every possible effort to maintain, if not increase, our commercial supremacy. In nothing could we find a greater help in that direction than in the development of the telephone. We are far behind other countries in this matter. I need only give one striking instance. Stockholm, with a population of a quarter of a million, has no less than 700 telephone call offices; whereas, in the London area, with 6,000,000 of people, there are only a little over 200 call offices. This Bill is more likely to perpetuate our present inferiority than to remove it. The tendency of the Bill will be to make the telephone specially available for the rich, instead of making it equally accessible for rich and poor alike. The promoters of the measure cannot have had any clear conception of the object to be aimed at. That object should be nationalisation. We ought to aim at having a universal telephone, just as we have a universal telegraph; the Government ought to occupy the whole field. The same characteristic appears in this Bill as in the Adulteration of Foods Bill which was recently passed. In the present Bill the companies are directly encouraged to give a bad service in order to induce competition, because the very fact of the existence of competition means an extension of their licence for something like fourteen years. The same trait was in the Adulteration of Foods Bill, only in

    927
    the reverse way. In that measure there was a direct check on competition. In this case the hands of the public are tied, because by trying to free themselves from this Telephone Company, they fasten the burden on their shoulders for fourteen years more. Two points came out in the course of the Committee Debate. One was the general admission that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was not himself responsible for the Bill; that he was a good man struggling against adversity; that he had the public welfare at heart, but was not able to free himself from the incubus of his colleagues. I say that if the right hon. Gentleman had the public welfare really at heart, he would find more real supporters on this side of the House. The other point was the constantly reiterated and never refuted charge that there had been persistent Lobbying, and that Members had been influenced and got at. For the credit of this House, notice and refutation of such a charge ought to be made. Above all, what this House sets an inestimable value on is the possession of a conscience; and by this Bill, either through Party feeling or through personal interest, the edge of that conscience has been allowed to be somewhat blunted, and I hope this will be the last measure of such a sort that we shall see for a long time. The end of the session is approaching, and when the nation as a whole becomes acquainted with the personal interests and the local interests which, to my mind, have been the moving action in regard to this Bill, they will emphatically recognise that their interests have not been looked after as they ought to have been. The only people to be congratulated on the passing of the Bill are the National Telephone Company themselves; they have been wise in their generation; they have buttressed themselves up with influential men in both political Parties, and they alone are to be congratulated, while the nation as a whole deserves to be commiserated. For these reasons I strongly oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Not one of the hon. Gentleman who have objected to the Bill have done so on the same grounds. The hon. Member opposite objected, because it introduced a double telephonic system, and
    928
    that that would give rise to all sorts of inconveniences and discrepancies The hon. Member for Wick Burghs wished the Government to assume control of the telephones, and thought that that could be done without any expense, by borrowing the money to buy up the system, and recouping ourselves by a sinking fund. Why, he said, license the municipalities? for if the Government are going to take over the telephones in 1911, there will be no necessity for licensing the municipalities, or anyone else. My hon. friend the Member for North Aberdeen objected to the Bill on account of the element of Tammany which had been introduced into it. I do not see where the Tammany element comes in. He divided hon. Members into three classes—first those who voted for the Bill on account of private interest. These I suppose are Members interested in the National Telephone Company. The second class are Members who support the Bill in the selfish interests of the localities they represent, which I presume is the class to which I belong. I must, say on that point that I have supported, this Bill in the interest of all the localities of Scotland, and especially in the interest of Aberdeen, which sent up a deputation to give evidence before the Select Committee of 1894. Aberdeen was the strongest of all the Scottish municipalities in demanding licences from the local authorities, and its representatives even went the length of saying that they would be willing, if they got the power, not only to accept a licence, but to buy up the existing telephone system. A further class were those, to which I suppose my hon. friend himself belongs, who have regard only to the wide interests of the nation as a whole. But my hon. friend must give others credit for having a regard to the interests of the nation as a whole as well as himself. I think my hon. friend would have much better preserved the interests of the nation as a whole by supporting, rather than opposing, this Bill? What were the objections urged against the Bill in the course of the Debate? The hon. Member for Chester says the Government would be forced into buying up the telephone systems, and paying an exorbitant price for them. Now, the whole danger and risk of an extravagant bargain with the National Telephone Company arose from the fact that there was no competition with them, and that

    929
    their business was a gigantic monopoly. If that business had gone on unchecked until 1911, the Government would have been confronted with a state of matters by which they would have been compelled to buy up the company's business at any price the company chose to fix, or to have the whole telephone business of the nation thrown into absolute disorder. What we have got to look at is, how the matter will work out. My right hon. friend has been twitted with having said that he had not altogether a free hand in this matter. Of course he had not a free hand. The National Telephone Company had a licence, and he was obliged to have regard to that licence. Under that licence, too, the Post Office had no control, and he was obliged also to have regard to that fact. But the right hon. Gentleman has been able to secure a great number of advantages in the course of the negotiations for this Bill. At a very early stage it was made manifest to the supporters of the National Company, and the supporters of the nationalisation of the telephones, that the House was not inclined to support them, and that was what made the National Company willing to enter into these negotiations. I cannot be accused of being a friend to the National Company. I have been engaged in a most active contest with them ever since 1894. In the Committee of 1894 I venture to say that my position of antagonism to the company was as marked as that of any member of the Committee, and the manner in which I cross-examined the witnesses in every possible way was such that there was no great love lost between us. It is because I am desirous of bringing about an improved state of the telephonic communications of this country that I support this Bill in its present shape. It is, in its present shape, a vast improvement on the measure as it was when first introduced. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman has got concessions quite as big as those he has granted. In the first place, the Post Office will establish a competing telephone system in London, and the company will at once lose their monopoly in the most valuable area under their control, and where there are five-sixths of the entire number of their subscribers. Moreover, it will be impossible for the company in 1911 to receive any extension of their licence, and the Post Office will be in control. When that licence falls in, as to a moral certainty
    930
    it will, in 1911, no matter what may be the ideas of the Government of that day in regard to nationalisation, London will be nationalised. Further, the moment this Bill passes, the National Company lose the privileges which their licence gives them over a large area of the country. Wherever they have not already established an effective exchange, their rights cease and determine at once, and the first step which the Post Office will take will be to occupy the ground too long neglected, and establish a system of rural telephones throughout the country. Then, in a large number of boroughs the company's licence will certainly not be extended, for there will be no competition, as the municipalities will not care to enter into the business. In other places where there is competition, like Aberdeen, all that Aberdeen has to do when it applies for its licence, is to ask for the licence only to 1911, and there will then be no extension of the National Company's licence beyond that date. In 1911 the Government will be firmly seated in the business, as far as London is concerned, and it will have established a considerable system of rural telephones. In certain places the licences will fall in, but in a manageable manner, and the Post Office will not have to deal with the whole country at once; and as for the other towns, it will be in a still better position to deal with them when the extended licences fall in. Now, on the other hand, it is quite possible that in 1911 the Government may not care to assume national control altogether, and in that case assuredly, if this Bill does not pass, the National Company will require to get an extension of their licence. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of these negotiations has made changes in the Bill, which will enable the competition to be real and widespread, and which will induce municipalities and new companies to apply for licences, and bring about that improvement in the telephonic system in the country which, I am sure, will result from fair competition alone. My hon. friend referred to the case of Stockholm as being the best in the world. Why, they have there three competing companies, and hence the remarkable success of the scheme so repeatedly referred to in the course of these Debates. I wish, as one who has worked for many years for the improve-

    931
    ment of our system of telephony, which at present I consider to be a disgrace to a country in the position of Great Britain, and as one who represents the city which was in the very fore-front of the agitation for a municipal licence, to say that I most heartily support this Bill in the assurance that it will be a greater success in its present shape than when it was introduced. If my hon. friends are so ill-advised as to go to a Division, I shall go into the lobby with the Government.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I will not detain the House any length of time at this period of the session and this time of the evening. But inasmuch as the people of Liverpool feel so strongly that this Bill has been a mistake, it is only right that I should enter my humble protest against its passing. The Liverpool Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce, the Dock Board, and the Navigation Board all oppose this measure; and it is very evident from the terms of the Bill that it is only one step in the direction of the nationalisation of the telephones in this country. In the first place the City of London is going to enjoy a system of nationalisation without delay, and at the expense of the general taxpayers, and what London will receive to-day the provinces will receive to-morrow. The country districts will not rest content till the facilities which are given to London are extended to them. In the interests of the State and the taxpayers it would be well if the Treasury were to buy up the existing telephone system while it is still in its infancy, instead of postponing the time for twenty years, when they will have to pay 100 per cent, more than the present value. As, however, the Bill gives to London what it denies to Liverpool I do not see my way to support it.
    MR. CAWLEY: As a Liberal Member I support the Bill, because I believe it carries out the recommendation of the Select Committee that general, immediate and effective competition is desirable and should be set up, and I believe this Bill is the only way in which it can be set up. Various hon. Gentlemen oppose this Bill for different reasons. The hon. Member for the University of London does not wish to see municipalities trading, and the logical inference to be drawn from his remarks is that he wishes the company to go on as before. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street wishes the Government to buy out the company; but if the Government did that, having regard to the million and a half of watered stock of the company, the country would not get any benefit by it. This Bill is an honest attempt to give the country a cheap and effective system. And the fact that the National Company has granted intercommunication will foster competition, and I believe great benefit will be derived from it. In my constituency, which is partly urban and partly suburban, this will be of inestimable advantage to the small shopkeepers and others, who by it will obtain a cheap service. There is one other point to which I would desire to draw attention, and that is the industry of making telephone plant in this country. If a man makes telephone plant now he only has one customer—the National Telephone Company—and no one would set up large works for one customer without a guarantee, the result of which is that all the telephone plant is now brought from abroad. I think we ought to keep the industry in this country.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 132; Noes, 29. (Division List, No. 320.)

    AYES.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bethell, Commander

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

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

    Bigwood, James

    Cawley, Frederick

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Barnes, Frederick Gorell

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

    Barry, Rt. Hn. A. Smith-(Hunts

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Charrington, Spencer

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

    Butcher, John George

    Clough, Walter Owen

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

    Caldwell, James

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

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Round, James

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Runciman, Walter

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenh'm)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Lowles, John

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Flower, Ernest

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Fry, Lewis

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Steadman, William Charles

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    M'Killop, James

    Strauss, Arthur

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Maddison, Fred.

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Monk, Charles James

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Henderson, Alexander

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Wylie, Alexander

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wyndham, George

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Percy, Earl

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

    Howard, Joseph

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Purvis, Robert

    NOES.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Dewar, Arthur

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Wallace, Robert

    Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Dillon, John

    M'Crae, George

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Doogan, P. C.

    Moss, Samuel

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir James Joicey and Mr. Pirie.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Second to Seventh Resolutions agreed to.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

    PATRIOTIC FUND BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee).
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
    MR. LEWIS: I have no objection to this Bill, which appears to be an attempt to remedy an injustice. But when a Bill of this kind is brought before the House I think it is only right that the House should know the amount of the fund to which the Bill refers. The Committee ought to have more information upon Clause 1. The sections which have to be referred to in other statutes should be set out, and I protest against this fresh instance of the growing and mischievous practice of legislation by reference.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. WYNDHAM, ): I admit that there is a good deal to be said against legislation by reference. Still it is permissible in a Bill of this kind. The Royal Patriotic Fund was established at the time of the Crimean War to relieve the widows and children of soldiers who were either killed or died from their wounds in that war. The fund has been administered under a Commission which has been confirmed by Acts of Parliament. The Bill only embodies the moderate and unanimous recommendations of a Committee which had recently sat. In 1881 an Act of Parliament was passed which brought under the same administration five other small funds, each of which has also issued from a public subscription on the morrow of some great disaster such as the wreck of the "Captain." But the five funds, before they were brought under the administration of the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, were administered with greater latitude than the Patriotic Fund; relief from them could be given, not only to the widows and children, but to any dependent upon the men lost. The phrase "widows and children" was imported into the fourth section of the Act of 1881, so that the Act placed a greater restriction upon the five small funds than there was upon them formerly. The first purpose of the present measure is to restore to the five subsidiary funds the latitude they originally enjoyed, and at the same time to extend it to the Patriotic Fund itself.
    MR. LEWIS: As far as I am concerned, this Bill is entirely unopposed so far as regards the principle, which, as I said before, is a most admirable one. I only desired to draw attention to what appear to be certain drafting irregularities, and in doing that I shall rest contented.
    Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    RESERVE FORCES BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL [Lords].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
    Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4 amended and agreed to.
    Clause 5:—
    MR. TREVELYAN (): I beg to move to leave out from the word "Act" in page 3, line 11, to end of clause. The object of my Amendment is to bring this Bill into conformity with the Blind and Deaf Children Act of 1893, on which this Bill is framed. This Act contains the following provision:
    "A school shall not be certified by the Education Department as suitable for providing elementary education for blind and deaf children…unless it is either managed by a school authority, or the annual expenses of its maintenance are to the extent of not less than one-third defrayed out of sources other than local rates, or moneys provided by Parliament, and are audited and published in accordance with the regulations of the Education Department."
    In other words, this Act recognises that public control should go with public money, and I hope that the House will be inclined to see that the principle is not contravened in the case of this Bill. I do not think there is any reason why any different course should be taken in this Bill from that taken in the case of the Blind and Deaf Children Act. The London School Board, which has paid the very greatest attention to this subject—in fact, I think it may be regarded as the promoter of this special legislation.—protested the other day against this part of the clause. I may say that it would not in the least affect the Voluntary schools in the country, and I think it is only in accordance with established practice that there should be control of public money by some public body.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 11, to leave out from 'Act' to end of clause."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,)said that he was very sorry that he could not accept the Amendment, and pointed out that the money in question was subject to the public control of the Education Department.
    MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs): There is one question which I would like to bring before the notice of the Vice-President. The Bill provides that no requirement should be made as to the proportion of the expenses to be defrayed out of private sources. Under the provisions of the Act which has been referred to that requirement was at least one-third. Is it understood now that a school may be under denominational management, even though the local subscriptions may not amount to more than 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., or perhaps nothing at all? If that is the case, I think there is great force in the contention of my hon. friend, because I think if we make an additional grant of public money we certainly ought to have control of the schools. Many of these schools are managed locally by one person only, and I think it would not be right for us to make a large grant of public money without proper control. With the main object of this Bill I am in entire and most cordial agreement, but I think the local schools ought either to be placed under public management, or, if they are to be under private management, there ought to be a certain proportion of private expenditure upon them. That is a principle to which I think we on this side of the House shall all be prepared to assent. I do not think we ought to set up in this Bill an additional number of schools, the management of which may be placed in the hands of a single individual. I should, however, be glad to hear from the Vice-President that I am wrong in that respect. If I am
    938
    not I hope my hon. friend will go to a Division.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I still think that my Amendment is one which ought to be introduced into the Bill. However, in view of the fact that the Government intend to oppose it, and that this Bill is of an exceedingly valuable nature, I shall not press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    New clauses added.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    BODIES CORPORATE (JOINT TENANCY) BILL [Lords].
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    TANCRED'S CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    As amended, considered; Amendments Made.

    LINCOLNSHIRE CORONERS BILL [Lords].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
    Clause 1:—
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 9, to leave out from the word 'Acts,' to the end of the clause."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): The Amendment of my hon. friend cannot be accepted, because it interferes with the purpose of the Bill.
    MR. CALDWELL: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman knows anything about the Bill; he is reading from some notes. It would be much better to report Progress and proceed with something else, because I assure the right hon. Gentleman that these Amendments of mine are absolutely right. The Member in charge of the Bill in the House of Lords perfectly agreed with them.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    MARRIAGES VALIDITY (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  MANCHESTER CANONRIES BILL [Lords].

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs): I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Bill, the object of which everybody will approve. I would remind the House that Nonconformist Bills do not receive the same indulgent treatment as do measures of this kind. I hope this Bill will prove to be the thin edge of the wedge, and that the principle of equalisation will be applied in a great many other directions
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Will this measure operate as regards existing canons, because there is a provision that nothing in the section shall operate to reduce the income of any person who is a canon at the passing of the Act except with his, consent?
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,)was understood to say that the words were introduced to prevent any injustice being done to existing canons.

  COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES BILL. [Lords].

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill it is necessary that I

    941
    should tell the House that the object of the measure is solely to simplify and to facilitate the management of existing commons. The rights of the lord of the manor are safeguarded, and there is no reason to fear any addition to the rates through it. As far as the Government are concerned they have no objection to the passing of the Bill.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I do not propose to offer any objection to the passing of this Bill, especially as it has now been moved from the Government side of the House. In its original form it was a Bill we very strongly approved, but during its passage through the House of Lords it was altered to such an extent that we do not care much whether it passes or not. I believe it does on the whole make some improvement in the present condition of things, and therefore I shall not oppose it.

    PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    SUPPLY [28th JULY]
    Resolutions reported.
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.

    CLASS II.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £31,405, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her
    942
    Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration."

    CLASS I.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £209,705, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, &c., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expense of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade."

    CLASS II.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council."
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,594, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales, including the Endowed Schools Department."
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £28,405, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of" payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £39,407, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of

    943
    payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General."
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,912, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of. Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."
    Resolutions read a second time.
    First Resolution postponed.
    ghth Resolution—
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Debate arising.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
    Postponed Resolution to be considered To-morrow.

    SUPPLY.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.

    CLASS I.
    1. £65,000, Supplementary, Public Buildings, Great Britain.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Does this Vote include the item for the London University?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): Yes.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I should like to hear some explanation in reference to the circumstances in which the London University are to occupy the Imperial Institute.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The money now asked for is to purchase a portion of the Imperial Institute for the housing of the London University. The arrangement is as follows: The lease under which the buildings are held from the Commissioners of Exhibition of 1851 will be transferred to the Office of Works, who will become responsible for the maintenance, rates, custody, and protection of buildings. A portion of the buildings—those at the western end—will be assigned for the use of the Institute, free of rent, but with the responsibility for internal maintenance and repair. The eastern and central portion, including the principal entrance, vestibule, and staircase and great hall, together with upper floors and temporary wooden structure now in northeastern court, will form the new home of London University. The space will give far larger accommodation to the London University than that now enjoyed at Burlington Gardens. In consideration of transfer of lease, the Government will provide funds sufficient to pay off existing mortgage of £40,000, and discharge floating debt of£15,000. The structural alterations will cost £7,000, making in all£62,000; The remaining£3,000 is for half-year's maintenance and repair, together with fuel, lighting, and the necessary furniture.

    945
    There has been a strong feeling for some time that better use might be made of the buildings of the Imperial Institute, and there is also a very strong feeling that it is a very suitable place for the London University. I trust the short explanation that I have given has fully explained to hon. Members the proposals of the Government in regard to finding a home for the new London University.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS III.
    2. £500, Supplementary, Miscellaneous Legal Expenses.

    CLASS V.
    3. £367,801 (including a Supplementary sum of £75,000), to complete the sum for Colonial Services.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary two questions in regard to the Niger territory. I use the expression in the largest inclusive sense, for we have repeatedly during this session endeavoured to obtain an explicit declaration from the Colonial Secretary upon two points—one is the question of the legal status of slavery, and the other the importation of intoxicating liquors. We have never been able to get a specific declaration from the right hon. Gentleman on these two points. On both these subjects I gather from what has been said on former occasions that there has been a distinct retrogression on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and this has not been denied by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has assured the House that the Colonial Office are actuated by the best motives. In regard to slavery in the Niger Company's territory, the legal status of slavery was abolished in 1897, but henceforward in that and other portions of the territory there will be no
    946
    standing abolition of the legal status of slavery. Those people who have lived in that country all hold that great importance should be attached to the abolition of the legal status of slavery. I do not question the motives for this change of policy
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): What I said was that the legal status of slavery was abolished by proclamation of the company, and we shall continue to observe that proclamation. There has been no change whatever.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I myself and many others interested in this subject have heard and read the replies of the right hon. Gentleman, and we understand that with the company will disappear the decrees of the company, and, unless the Government specifically declare the legal status of slavery to be abolished in these regions, we understand that if this is not done there will be no abolition of slavery. I think we ought to have from the right hon. Gentleman some clear statement as to what the intention of the Government is with regard to this question. I know that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put down slavery, and he has said that he will do his best to abolish the legal status of slavery in the Niger Company's territory.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I never said anything of the kind. The hon. Member has attributed to me a series of statements not one of which I made. I challenge him to prove any single one of these accusations. What I have said is as clear as language can make it. I have said that the abolition of the status of slavery, as begun by the Niger Company, would be continued by the Government.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman should not regard what I said as an accusation, because I did not accuse him of anything except that he will not give us a clear statement as to the aboli

    947
    tion of the legal status of slavery. I give the right hon. Gentleman credit, as I have said before, for trying in his administration to do the best he can to minimise and reduce the evils of slavery. It may be due to our want of comprehension, but the right hon. Gentleman has never said that throughout the whole of these territories the legal status of slavery will stand abolished.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I have. I have said it again and again in the clearest possible language. With regard to all the territories of the Niger Company, the abolition of the legal status of slavery, declared by the company's proclamation, will continue to exist.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not alone in failing to understand what the right hon. Gentleman said. I will pass on to the question of the importation of spirits. In regard to this question, we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that he will do his best to check the importation of spirits, but he said that, in consequence of the amalgamation of these territories, there would be great difficulty in preventing the transportation of spirits.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I never said anything of the kind. I wish he would quote the words which he thinks justify him in making these statements. As regards the northern territories of Nigeria, I do not think there will be any difficulty whatever in continuing the prohibition established by the Niger Company, and, undoubtedly, every effort I can bring to bear will be brought to bear to secure the absolute prohibition of the importation of spirits within that area.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: In a letter recently written by Bishop Tug well he
    948
    states that he was disappointed to find that Mr. Chamberlain does not propose to abolish the legal status of slavery, but that the Government were going to reinstate it, and he said he would like to know definitely whether that is the case or not. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not resent my having brought forward this question, for it is an important subject, and I have failed to understand clearly what difference there will be in the administration of those territories compared with what the administration was before the Government took them over.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I asked the Secretary for the Colonies, the other day how this proposal would affect the rest of what I might call United Nigeria, and his answer was that slavery had never been recognised there, and would not be recognised in the future. That was not quite an answer to my question, and I wish to put one or two further questions to him. Our difficulty is this. The right hon. Gentleman knows that part of the Niger Company's territories now form part of Southern Nigeria. I should like to know what will happen in that part of the Niger Coast Protectorate which was formerly part of the company's territories. What we want is an assurance that for the future in the rest of Nigeria—in. Southern Nigeria and in Lagos—the legal status of slavery will be abolished, so that the administration of the Colonial. Office will not be behind that of the Niger Company. The discussion which took place in 1895 has often been alluded to, and the right hon. Gentleman himself took part in it, and he laid special stress upon the fact that the abolition of the legal status of slavery in the mainland strip opposite Zanzibar was a most important question. The right hon. Gentleman also told us what a disgraceful thing it was that the British flag should fly over any piece of territory where slavery was recognised.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I really have found the greatest difficulty in understanding the object of these repeated inquiries, which I have answered again and again in the clearest possible manner. It is difficult for me to suppose that hon. Members opposite are unable to comprehend these answers, and I find the greatest difficulty in understanding why it is that they bring these questions up again and again. The hon. Member who has just sat down suggests an answer. He said that in 1895 I expressed myself strongly against the continuance of the legal status of slavery in Pemba and Zanzibar; at that time I suppose he was supporting the then Government in resisting any change of that sort. As I happened to differ from him then he wants to turn the tables upon me now. Whatever I said then I adhere to now, and I am just as ready to see that the legal status of slavery is not continued in the territories over which the Colonial Office will shortly have control as I was then anxious to urge the Government to abolish the legal status in Pemba and Zanzibar. The hon. Member for Forfar-shire hopes that I will not resent his interference in this matter, and I may say that I do not do so in the slightest degree. I do, however, resent the statement that he made that I have been evading this question. If the hon. Member for Forfarshire would only have taken the trouble to read my answers to the Committee he would have found how entirely erroneous his view is. I was asked, in the first place, whether it was true that the Niger Company had by proclamation abolished the legal status of slavery. I answered "Yes." I also said, what is the fact, that by this proclamation they abolished the legal status of slavery in countries, a large portion of which had not been trodden by white men, where the Niger Company itself had no posts or authority, and where, therefore, the proclamation was in the nature of a pious opinion. I entirely approved of it, but at the same time it was hardly to be considered as an operative document in regard to those districts. I added, also in answer to a question, that the Government had no intention whatever of altering the status which had been created by the Niger Company. So far as the Niger Company's proclamation was operative, I think it will be operative with us; and in no court established
    950
    by us, and in no part of the territory over which we have any authority, will the legal status of slavery be recognised. Now, is that made clear to hon. Members? I really am anxious that they should understand the position, and I assure them there is nothing whatever held back. The statement I made to them is an absolute statement; there is no change whatever in the condition of things which was established by the Niger Company. Then the hon. Member went off again on the question of the importation of spirits. He challenges me—who have done at all events a great deal more than anybody has ever done in my place to increase the duties upon spirits and lessen the consumption of spirits in these West African colonies—and he seems to suspect me of a desire to re-introduce or introduce the traffic in spirits in districts in which it has never hitherto existed. He is utterly mistaken if that is really his opinion. I intend to maintain in all their strictness, and even to increase the stringency of, the regulations which have been made by the Niger Company. The Niger Company prohibited the sale of liquor beyond a certain zone. Prohibiting is another thing to carrying out the prohibition. Of course, I shall continue the prohibition, but I am more anxious to see that the prohibition is effective. I have explained to the Committee on a previous occasion that it is my intention, following out the suggestion by Colonel Lugard, to see whether I cannot establish a neutral zone, and by that means prevent the transportation of spirits and the smuggling of spirits into the northern part of: the territory. As I said before, I have every reason to believe that these regulations will be effective. I beg hon. Members to take this for granted—that however stringent the Niger Company may have been both with regard to the status of slavery and with regard to the importations of spirits, they will find me at least as stringent, and I think more stringent.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman says he is doing his best to prevent the sale of spirits, but in the Debate on the Niger Bill, he said that, apart from the question of smuggling, it was necessary to allow spirits to be imported because it was

    951
    required for trading purposes. That seems to me to introduce a new element into the matter. We were under the impression that only a small quantity of spirits would be allowed into the country in order to prevent it being brought over the frontier, but the right hon. Gentleman now says that spirits are necessary for the purposes of trade. There is another question I should like to ask. We are asked for a Supplementary Vote for £75,000 for what is now, I suppose, a protectorate or a colony. We know that the expense of administration has exceeded the customs duties by more than £22,000, and I think we ought to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman on the matter.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is quite correct. What I said was, that if foreign countries were able to import spirits into our territory we should not only lose the trade in spirits, but the trade in other goods. That is not a new argument, because it has been the argument of traders from the first moment this question was raised. Since I have been in office the duties on spirits in every one of these West African colonies have been considerably raised, and we have not yet arrived at the end of what we intend to do in that direction. I think it is rather hard, because I have gone further than anyone else, that I should be pressed to go further than I think it prudent to go at the present moment. We have already gone further than our foreign competitors have gone. Of course, it would be possible to prohibit the importation of spirits into those districts, but if we were to do that, let us, at all events, look at the responsibility we should undertake. Immediately trade would be absolutely disorganised, the revenue would be also entirely disorganised, and the whole burden of these colonies would be thrown upon this country. I think that by proceeding gradually, but still with reasonable rapidity, we may immensely reduce the sale of spirits in the country without injuring our trade. The particular Vote before the Committee is required for new buildings and general arrangements for starting the new administration. It is in view of that we have to ask for £75,000, but it will not be a periodical demand, and I have every
    952
    reason to hope that the amount will be sufficient.
    MAJOR JAMESON: It seems to me extraordinary how the status of slavery and the sale of spirits have been mixed up in this Debate. I cannot understand why the principle of free trade should be taken away from the Niger territory. The Secretary of State for the Colonies leads us to infer that there is to be an extra tax on spirits, and if that is so, surely this £75,000 will note be required.
    Vote agreed to.

    Class VII.
    4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £23,175 (including a Supplementary sum of £9,175), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and other expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries, including a Grant in Aid of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland)."
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Every year we have to take note of the fact that, in spite of the recent words of the Prime Minister with reference to Commissions, there is a continual increase in their number. The Liquor Commission is an example to the whole country of the futility of appointing Commissions of this kind on any subject. The only really useful questions I would wish to put is, What is likely to be the fate of the Commission which is inquiring into local rating in this country, which is presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh? I do not know whether we can get the information on this Vote. I have a great objection to these ponderous Commissions, the Reports of which are always inconclusive.
    MR. LEWIS: I think we ought to have some information regarding the progress made by the Local Taxation Commission. The question submitted to it is one of enormous importance, in which the House and the country are deeply interested. During the Debates

    953
    on the Tithes Bill, constant reference was made to the work of this Commission. It is extraordinary how easily the Government, when they want to take a particular course, can get an interim Report in favour of that course. I think the Government ought to make some statement regarding the progress of the Commission.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It would be quite out of order to discuss now the progress made by a Royal Commission.
    MR. LEWIS: May I ask when the Commission is likely to report? We are asked to vote the sum of £1,465 for salaries. Last year we voted £1,705 for that purpose, and I want to know whether we are getting value for our money, and how long these salaries are to continue. We consider it is high time that there should be a conclusion to the work of this particular Commission, because the interests involved are very large, and the country is eagerly awaiting some definite scheme for the solution of the taxation problem which presses so heavily on certain portions of the community. Unless the Government can give us some indication of when we may expect the Report of the
    Commission, I shall have to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I believe that the Commission is making rapid progress. The hon. Gentleman himself has referred to the magnitude of its work, and I think the Committee ought not to be unduly impatient as to the time occupied in its, discharge.
    MR. LEWIS: The Commission has dealt with its work in a piecemeal fashion, which is not satisfactory to hon. Members on this side of the House, and I therefore move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £100.
    Motion made, and Question put—
    "That a sum, not exceeding £23,075, be granted for the said Service "£(Mr. Lewis.)
    The Committee divided:£Ayes, 49; Noes, 114. (Division List, No. 321.)

    AYES.

    Asher, Alexander

    Hazell, Walter

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

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

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Joicey, Sir James

    Steadman, William Charles

    Caldwell, James

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Labouchere, Henry

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lambert, George

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'd)

    Ure, Alexander

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Wallace, Robert

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T,

    Dewar, Arthur

    M'Crae, George

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Maddison, Ered.

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

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

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Moss, Samuel

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon Herbert J.

    Oldroyd, Mark

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Lewis and Mr. Hedderwick.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Rickett, J. Compton

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Arnold, Alfred

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

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

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

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

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Bethell, Commander

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Bigwood, James

    Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

    Charrington, Spencer

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Round, James

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Sharpe, William Edward T

    Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

    Lowles, John

    Side bottom, Wm (Derbysh.)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somereset)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Strauss, Arthur

    Duncom be, Hon. Hubert V.

    M'Killop, James

    Strutt, Hon. Chas. Healey

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

    Flower, Ernest

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gedge, Sydney

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Williams, John (Falkirk)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

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

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

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wylie, Alexander

    Greene, Hen. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Percy, Earl

    Wyndham, George

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Hanbury.Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm.

    Purvis, Robert

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

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

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

    Ritchie. Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I now beg to move to report Progress.
    MR. DALZIEL: I should like to ask what is the object of this motion at the present time. Several of my hon friends are interested in some of the votes yet to be taken, and it would be more convenient to go on with them.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Do I understand from the hon. Member that some of his friends desire to discuss the remaining Votes to-night? I should like the Votes to be taken, but I cannot afford the time to-night, as there are Bills yet to be discussed.
    MR. DALZIEL: The right hon. Gentleman will see that it is very inconvenient when certain proposals are on the Paper that business should be upset at a moment's notice.
    MR. CALDWELL: May I point out to my hon. friend that this is not a Supply night. The object of taking Supply was merely to pass certain Supplementary Votes which had to be passed
    956
    to-night, otherwise the sitting would be devoted to Bills.
    Committee report Progress.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    NAVAL WORKS BILL.
    Read a third time, and passed.
    POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
    Considered in Committee,
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
    Mr. LEWIS: This measure Ought not to be passed without any discussion whatever, because it is only introduced once in the course of every Parliament, and I think we have a right to discuss it, especially as the system to which the Bill relates is capable of very considerable

    957
    modification, and certainly ought to be modified to suit the public convenience. The object of the Bill is to enable hon. Members of this House to nominate a certain number of persons to serve in Petty Sessional Divisions as Land Tax Commissioners. Unfortunately the method by which these Commissioners are called together is one which I think could, with very great advantage, be amended. The Land Tax Commissioners never hear of the meetings that are to be held from time to time. They are never summoned and they only have an opportunity of knowing when the meetings are to be held if they are regular readers of the London Gazette, and that is not of such an interesting or fascinating character that the general reader pays much attention to its contents. These names are published in the London Gazette, and that is the only way in which the Land Tax Commissioners know that their services are required for a particular meeting. That is a state of things to which the House ought to give early attention. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that practically the election of the Income Tax Commissioners is left in the hands of a very small clique indeed. There will be absolutely no opposition whatever from this side of the House if the right hon. Gentleman will promise to introduce an Amendment of this character. There is a growing feeling that this important question of the appointment of the Income Tax Commissioners ought to be placed on a fairer, a more business like, and a more constitutional basis than it is at the present time. In regard to the qualification, it is £100 a year in most of the counties, but in five counties in South Wales that qualification for some reason or other has been abolished. The requests I make are that the system of electing Income Tax Commissioners should be changed and put into the hands of a representative body; and secondly, that the Land Tax Commissioners who elect the Income Tax Commissioners should be drawn from all classes of the community, in order that they may be in every respect above suspicion.
    MR. DALZIEL: This is a Bill which ought to have been passed some three or four years ago. I do not think it is too much to ask that a reply should be made to the questions put by my hon. friend
    958
    as to the question of nomination. In the interests of the passing of business, I hope the Government will reply. If they do not I am prepared to say that other Members may be inclined to press this point still further.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move that we report Progress.
    Motion made and Question proposed—
    "That the Committee report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    SIR CHAS. DILKE: I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take that course, for I am sure it is not the desire of my hon. friend to prevent this Bill passing, and I entirely agree with the points which he has raised. As there is a very strong feeling on this matter I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not adhere to the Motion which he has made.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If this discussion may now be considered to be at an end I have no desire to press the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    LUNACY BILL [Lords].
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [Lords].
    Order for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading [4th July] read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1897–8.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    1. That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1898, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

    (a) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £595,246 2s. 1d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £2,038,302 12s. 8d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £1,443,056 10s. 7d.

    b) That the receipts in aid of certain Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £13,137 17s. 8d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £59,218 9s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £46,080 11s. 8d.

    (c) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Total Surpluses

    2,041,004

    0

    5

    Total Deficits

    551,866

    18

    2

    Net Surplus

    £1,489,137

    2

    3

    2. That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
    3. Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
    (See Schedule A).
    4. That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st day of March, 1898, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

    (a) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £151,696 5s. 6d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £167,041 2s. 10d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £15,344 17s. 4d.

    (b). That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £46,536 1s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £133,300 13s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £86,764 12s.

    (c). That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

    Total Surpluses

    £235,876

    18

    1

    Total Deficits

    133,767

    8

    9

    Net Surplus

    £102,109

    9

    4

    SCHEDULE A.

    Gross Expenditure.

    Appropriations in Aid.

    Number of Vote.

    Navy Services, 1897–98. Votes.

    Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.1.

    Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure. 2.

    Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts. 3.

    Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts. 4.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1

    Wages, &c., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

    …

    78,418

    3

    7

    …

    9,034

    16

    3

    2.

    Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

    …

    18,436

    8

    9

    12,023

    18

    9

    …

    3.

    Medical Establishments and Services

    —

    4,557

    7

    7

    —

    1,875

    10

    3

    4.

    Martial Law

    734

    0

    8

    —

    10

    16

    5

    5.

    Educational Services

    —

    1,788

    17

    0

    838

    15

    8

    6.

    Scientific Services

    —

    299

    2

    3

    —

    685

    4

    6

    7.

    Royal Naval Reserves

    —

    22,298

    14

    8

    —

    18

    17

    2

    8.

    Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

    Sec. 1

    Personnel

    59,255

    16

    3

    —

    57

    1

    4

    Sec. 2

    Materiel

    348,753

    17

    10

    —

    —

    31,655

    18

    8

    Sec. 3

    Contract Work

    —

    1,884,638

    15

    7

    —

    1,712

    10

    0

    9.

    Naval Armaments

    62,153

    8

    7

    —

    —

    7,757

    7

    9

    10.

    Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad

    —

    27,865

    3

    3

    —

    2,255

    4

    0

    11

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    103,857

    5

    2

    —

    —

    4,211

    4

    5

    12.

    Admiralty Office

    1,068

    4

    0

    —

    —

    15

    9

    9

    13.

    Half-Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

    1,754

    4

    1

    —

    58

    10

    0

    14.

    Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

    10,071

    6

    7

    —

    9

    15

    6

    —

    15.

    Civil Pensions and Gratuities

    4,780

    3

    9

    —

    —

    14

    6

    7

    16.

    Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters

    42

    16

    0

    —

    139

    0

    0

    Amount written off as irrecoverable

    2,574

    19

    2

    595,246

    2

    1

    2,038,302

    12

    8

    13,137

    17

    8

    59,218

    9

    4

    Net Surplus,

    £1,443,056

    10

    7

    Net Surplus,

    £46,080

    11

    8

    Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer—

    £1,489,137

    2

    3

    5. That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of
    the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the esti-
    mated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so
    much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits

    SCHEDULE B.

    Gross Expenditure.

    Appropriations in Aid.

    Number of Vote.

    Navy Services, 1897–98. Votes.

    Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.1.

    Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure. 2.

    Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts. 3.

    Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts. 4.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1.

    Pay, &c., of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

    52,171

    3

    11

    …

    …

    3,572

    10

    4

    2.

    Medical Establishments: Pay, &c.

    6,211

    18

    10

    …

    …

    170

    14

    2

    3.

    Militia: Pay, Extra Pay, Bounty, &c.

    …

    …

    …

    12,804

    1

    3

    …

    2,191

    19

    13

    4.

    Yeomanry Cavalry: Pay and Allowances

    …

    475

    11

    9

    …

    3

    0

    0

    5.

    Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances.

    …

    …

    …

    1,378

    12

    7

    …

    180

    9

    6

    6

    Transport and Remounts

    23,350

    4

    0

    …

    …

    11,223

    15

    7

    7

    Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

    40,856

    10

    5

    …

    …

    11,534

    4

    3

    8

    Clothing Establishments, and Services

    14,742

    3

    2

    …

    15,554

    12

    7

    9

    Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

    …

    99,201

    19

    2

    …

    90,970

    12

    4

    10

    Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Staff for Engineer Services

    …

    37,643

    13

    4

    30,864

    4

    4

    11

    Establishments for Military Education

    …

    1,281

    17

    3

    …

    1,476

    7

    6

    12

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    5,044

    9

    8

    …

    …

    557

    14

    6

    13

    War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges.

    …

    3,336

    13

    11

    140

    0

    11

    14

    Non-effective Charges for Officers, &c

    6,541

    15

    6

    …

    …

    8,296

    2

    4

    15

    Non-effective Charges for Men,&c …

    …

    10,918

    13

    7

    …

    2,983

    3

    3

    16

    Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

    2,539

    13

    7

    …

    117

    5

    0

    Balance irrecoverable

    238

    6

    5

    151,696

    5

    6

    167,041

    2

    10

    46,536

    1

    11

    133,300

    10

    11

    Net Surplus,

    £15,344

    17

    4

    Net Surplus,

    £86,764

    12

    0

    Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer

    £102,109

    9

    4

    —Mr. Hanbury.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th day of this instant July,
    on other Grants for Army Services.
    6. Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
    Mr. Speaker adjourned the House with-out Question put.
    Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made. Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
    WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 3a, with Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
    WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL [H.L.] 21
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
    SHEFFIELD CORPORATION MARKETS BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
MOSS SIDE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.]
  RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
    STRETFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, With Amendments.
  WESTON-SUPER-MARE, CLEVELAND' AND PORTISHEAD TRAMWAYS COMPANY (LIGHT RAILWAY) EXTENSIONS) BILL [H.L.]
    WITHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
    Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
    Financial Returns as to Colonies, &c., to which it is proposed to advance loans under the Colonial Loans Bill, 1890.
    BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (WAGES AND HOURS OF LABOUR).
    Report relating to changes in rates of wages and hours of labour in the United Kingdom in 1898, with statistical tables.
    CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
    Forty-third Report of the Civil service Commissioners.
    IRISH LAND COMMISSION (RULES).
    Rule, dated 20th July, 1899, under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts.

    STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.
    Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade on the strikes and lock-outs of 1898; with statistical tables.
    Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

    HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890 (METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES).
    Order of the Secretary for the Home Department permitting further modifica-

    799
    tions in the London (Churchway, Saint Pancras) Improvement Scheme, 1895; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PETITIONS.
    SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
    Petition for amendment of; of Bristol and District Grocers and Provision Dealers Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
    SMALL HOUSES (ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP) BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee, with further Amendments; the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 187.)
  AGRICULTURAL AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to accord a Second Reading to this Bill, I present for your acceptance a measure which has been before the public in Ireland, and to which the public opinion of Ireland, has been addressed, for a considerable time. The Bill and its provisions have been discussed by the Press, and it is, I think, regarded as an interesting and important measure calculated to promote the material prosperity of that country. I, myself, entertain no doubt that the measure will develop and foster the resources of Ireland, and by that means work out its material prosperity. I would naturally and reasonably expect that the expenditure which is contemplated under this Bill would be largely reproductive expenditure; that is to say, that it would so foster the industries and the resources of that country, and the habits of thrift of the people, as to soon produce a return which may fairly be called reproductive. The Bill comes to your Lordships accredited by a close criticism and examination in the House of
    800
    Commons, where, speaking generally and broadly, I may say the Bill was most favourably received on all sides. On none of its stages was it challenged in. principle. There was no Division taken against its introduction, or against the Second or Third Reading. Some of its clauses were criticised, but I think I am entitled to say that it passed through the ordeal of the House of Commons and the examination in the Standing Committee in a way which clearly indicates that it was framed in a manner which, in the opinion of all competent judges, was likely to result in benefit to Ireland. The objects of the Bill are to promote, foster, and encourage agriculture and all the kindred industries that are connected with that great pursuit, and also to promote, foster, and encourage technical education. I need not tell your Lordships, for I know there are many here who are closely connected, either by family, property, study, or official life with Ireland, that Ireland is very largely an agricultural country, and that anything which tends to improve its agriculture, and to foster and develop the many industries connected with agriculture, must have a great effect in the development of the resources of the country. Nor is it necessary for me to inform your Lordships that there are many parts of Ireland which lend themselves most favourably and encouragingly to the fostering of fisheries. I do not see why the sea fisheries round the coast of Ireland should not be fostered so that they could do great good to the inhabitants of Ireland. This is a matter which has attracted great attention for many years past. People connected with other countries are acquainted with the value of the fisheries in the neighbourhood of the Irish coast, and it is important that the Irish people themselves should be encouraged to work those fisheries. With regard to technical education, the people in Ireland yield to none in intelligence, in quickness of wit, and in the power of adapting their keen intelligence to everything that goes to learning and acquiring a knowledge of what is called technical education. We have not, however, had, up to the present moment, as much to encourage and develop technical education as was desired, but this Bill makes a very large and substantial advance in that direction, and I am sure there is not one of your Lordships who will not look with

    801
    pleasant anticipation to the prospect of an increase in technical education in Ireland which may result from this Bill. We have an example of what can be done in Ireland to foster and develop the great industry of agriculture and all the kindred industries in the working of the Congested Districts Board. I know nothing more encouraging to anyone who takes an interest in the well-being of Ireland, than to read the Reports of the Congested Districts Board. They show solid, interesting, useful work all round. The Board has applied itself, with, I think, a very earnest purpose and a very steady effort, to accomplish the object for which it was created—namely, to encourage the population in the congested districts to adopt better systems of agriculture, to improve the breeding of cattle, to improve the fisheries, and in other ways to develop the poorest and most populated part of the whole of Ireland. The proposals and the idea of this Bill are not new. In the year 1891, on the motion of the late Lord Waterford, a Return was obtained of a Correspondence with the Land Commission, going to show the work which was done by the Commission which might be worked up into an Agricultural Board. As recently as two years ago a Bill, largely on the lines of the one which I am now asking your Lordships to read a second time, was introduced in the House of Commons by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary. But that Bill was not proceeded with, because it was indicated then that it was desirable, in the first instance, to postpone that Bill until the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill. As the latter Bill has since become an Act of Parliament, this Bill has now been introduced, with the knowledge that there is in Ireland a local government administration with a real and earnest desire to accomplish the great objects that I have shortly indicated. This Bill sets before itself three large and substantial objects, every one of them entitled, I venture to think, to sympathy—firstly, to concentrate in one Department the functions in relation to agriculture and kindred industries that are now scattered amongst five or six Government Departments and offices; secondly, to extend to all Ireland the principles and tasks that are set before themselves by the Congested Districts Board; and, thirdly, to extend, develop, and foster technical edu-
    802
    cation. The mechanism that is sought to be applied to carry out these important practical objects is the creation of a Department, composed of the Chief Secretary and a vice-president, who shall be given the power, as is usual in such offices, to sit in Parliament, and they will have the main executive and administrative authority. To them is transferred the power of dealing with diseases of cattle, etc., which are now in the hands of various authorities and Government departments. The Bill also transfers to them everything in Ireland which goes to make up the present technical instruction and education, and also transfers to them and makes them responsible for the work of the fishery inspectors. The list of powers transferred is considerable; but, without going into detail, I think I have indicated in broad outline the nature and the character of the powers and authorities that are so transferred. It is important to note, in connection with the powers transferred, the financial resources that are placed at the disposal of the new Department to work out the results that are intended by the framers of the Bill. In addition to moneys that are voted by Parliament for the keeping up of the Department and other purposes, it is calculated that the total income from all sources at the disposal of the Department will be something between £160,000 and £170,000 a year; and that income is to be applied to aiding and encouraging agriculture and other industries, and also technical education. This is, of course, a very substantial and real sum, and it is made up from the following sources. They will receive £78,000 of the money now paid to the Commissioners of National Education out of the beer and spirit duties. That is selected, because it is an exact analogy to what is done in England and Scotland to provide for the spread of technical education in those countries. It is not intended that this shall result in any loss to the Commissioners of National Education, because Parliament will no doubt make due provision for the money taken away. The Irish Church Fund will provide a sum of £70,000, and £12,000 a year will be received under the Irish Judicature Act of 1887. This latter sum is calculated to be the amount of the saving of the abolished judgeships, and in the various legal Departments in Dublin. A novel clause was introduced into that

    803
    Act, providing that any of the savings that could be worked out under that Act should be applied in a way that should be sanctioned by Parliament. Then there is a sum of £6,000 a year, voted money, for the Albert Agricultural and Dairy Training Department at Glasnevin, and for the Munster Dairy School and Agricultural Institute; one gets £4,000, and the other £2,000. That works out to a total of £166,000. The Department to whom the duties are so transferred, and to whom these moneys are so devoted, will not be left to its own unaided intellect to carry out the duties which are cast upon it; because it will be aided, and it is contemplated that it should be aided, by the advice and assistance of certain popular bodies. Three of them are called into existence. There is, first, a Council of Agriculture; then there is an Agricultural Board, and a Board of Technical Instruction. The clauses in relation to those bodies are rather long, and I do not think it is necessary for me to read them, because it will be found on reference that they are bodies that are to a large extent popularly elected. I may as well state, as an instance of that, that the Council of Agriculture itself will consist of the following members:—Two persons to be appointed by the county council of each county (other than a county borough) in each province; and a number of persons resident in each province equal to the number of counties (exclusive of country boroughs) in the province, to be appointed by the Department with due regard to the representation on the council of any agricultural or industrial organisations in the province. The Agricultural Board is naturally a much smaller body, and will be constituted as follows: Two persons to be appointed by the provincial committee of each province, and four persons to be appointed by the Department. The Board of Technical Instruction, as will be seen at a glance on reference to Clause 10, is to be composed of a considerable number of persons appointed and elected by popular authority, and of four persons to be appointed by the Department. These bodies have very wide and important duties. The money is proposed to be divided in the following manner. The sum of £55,000 per annum will be devoted to technical instruction, and it is intended that the portion allotted to the county
    804
    boroughs shall be administered by the local authorities, subject to the approval of the Department. It will be found that very substantial powers with reference to the distribution of the whole fund for technical instruction are given to the Board. The sum of £10,000 a year is to be given for the assistance and development of sea fisheries, and the remainder is given for agriculture and other industries of a rural character, and also sea fisheries. Many people have said that they would like to see the funds larger; but I am afraid that it is a common Irish desire, and I, myself, as an Irishman, always feel an intelligent sympathy with the suggestions on the subject of fair expenditure in reference to Ireland. These sums, contrasted with what has been done by other Departments and in other countries, are very large and considerable, and if properly applied can work out very great and beneficent results. The Department will be assisted by the two Boards I have mentioned in their several spheres, and, although the executive and administrative authority, in reference to the matters I have referred to, is vested in the Department, the two Boards—the Agricultural Board and the Board of Technical Instruction—have wide powers of approval and dissent. Their functions are primarily of an advisory character,. but they have real influence and real power, as the concurrence of one or the other Board is required in most cases of their expenditure. A rating power of a limited character is given to county councils and to urban district councils, and thus it may be stated, and I think it is a wise provision, that, as a general rule, no money is to be spent by the Department on any local object without some contribution from local sources. A moderate power of rating is given for that purpose,. and no doubt the Department will be able to see that the local rating authority exhibits an intelligent interest in what they suggest, by coming forward with a moderate contribution to aid in the proposals they present to the Department as worthy of their acceptance. There are other clauses in the Bill, but I think I have mentioned the main objects of the measure in broad outline. I hope I have done so in sufficient detail and sufficient clearness to enable your Lordships to understand them, and I earnestly trust that the Bill, when it becomes law,.

    805
    as I hope it will within a very few days, will achieve the good results we all anticipate from it.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Ashbourne.)
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:My Lords, I do not think I need apologise to your Lordships for trespassing on your indulgence on the present occasion, for I venture to think I was the first person who pointed out the absolute necessity for creating a Board of Agriculture for Ireland similar to that proposed in the Bill which is now before your Lordships. I advocated the establishment of this Board, in a speech I delivered five years ago at Portadown, in order to develop the resources of the country which at the present moment are undeveloped, and which can only be developed by means of a system of instruction of a technical character. I ventured to point out on that occasion what should be the duties of the Board, and the great advantages which, in my humble opinion, would accrue were such a Board created. Therefore, I need hardly say that I rejoice most sincerely in seeing a measure introduced somewhat on the lines which I indicated five years ago, and which my noble and learned friend has informed us will in all probability be the law of the land in a very short time. I am convinced that if this measure is supported and taken up by the Irish people as it ought to be, we shall see an entire change in Ireland, and in certain parts of the districts which are now poor we shall see, if I may use the term, a reign of prosperity. In dealing with this question, I should like to point out to your Lordships, as I have often done before, that, although Ireland may appear to be a small island on the map, there are, in reality, several Irelands in in it. We have, in the north-east, the prosperous and industrious city of Belfast. In the counties in the south of Ireland there are grazing lands of an excellence almost unknown in England; while in the poorer districts on the west and south coast there exists a state of pauperism which has been alleviated to a very great extent by the efforts of the Congested Districts Boards, but which I think this Bill will go a long way to still further
    806
    alleviate. You must remember that, from whatever point of view we regard Ireland, she must be considered as a poor country as compared to England. Except in the north-east, to which I have alluded, Ireland has no great industries, and, as the noble and learned Lord has told us, her main industry is agriculture. Consequently, we should do everything in our power to enable Ireland to make the most of her chief industry, and in that way to improve her own position arid also her relations with England. Holding these views, and recognising that this measure must do a great deal to develop the resources of the country, I need hardly tell your Lordships that I shall do all in my power to enable the Bill to become law as soon as possible, and I shall endeavour, in Ireland, to prove to the people of that country that it is in their interests, and in the interests of the country itself, that they should make the Act a success. I am sure my noble and learned friend will believe me when I say that any criticisms I may make on the measure will be made in no unfriendly spirit, but rather with a desire to make the Bill a thoroughly useful and practical one, and one which in years to come may be looked back upon by the people of Ireland as the turning point, or, I may say, the starting point in their career. I shall not give my own opinions only; I shall give the opinions of gentlemen with far greater experience than myself. I have only this morning returned from Ireland, having had an opportunity of spending a week in Belfast, where I invited suggestions and hints from gentlemen whose names are household words in connection with all efforts to promote the welfare and prosperity of Ireland. The first point to which I would allude is the amount of money to be granted to the proposed Board. I sympathise most sincercely with my noble and learned friend when he states that he is always anxious to see money from England pour into Ireland. I endorse that view, and consequently I should like to have seen a larger sum placed at the disposal of this Board. As far as I can gather, the amount the Board will have at their disposal, including the amount voted and now used by the Congested Districts Board, will be about £230,000 a year. My noble friend thinks that is a large and substantial sum. I confess that I should like to

    807
    have seen it larger. We have to cope with other countries, and where competition is very keen we ought to be furnished with every advantage, and one of the greatest advantages is the sinews of war. Let us compare the position of Ireland as an agricultural country with that of other agricultural countries. The sum proposed to be voted to the Board of Agriculture is £230,000 a year, or at the rate of 1s. per head. Let me turn to Hungary. For agriculture alone the sum of £1,700,000 is given, but in addition to that, £1,800,000 is given to industries, making a total sum for the two purposes of £3,500,000 a year, or 3s. 9d. a head. In Austria £915,000 a year is given for agriculture alone, or 10d. per head; but, with the amount given for industries added, the total is £1,550,000 a year, or 1s. 6d. per head. These sums are made up by local contributions. I will not weary your Lordships with further statistics, but Switzerland has the largest grant of all, and Belgium, Berlin, France, and Bavaria all follow the same principles as those I have quoted. It will therefore be seen that the sum of £230,000 for agriculture and industries in Ireland is not by any means a large or exorbitant one. I know the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I sympathise with him in not desiring to give more; but I hope evidence will prove that he or his successors will be justified in increasing this sum, and that they will find that the money will be of a reproductive character. I trust that, after this Bill has had an opportunity of working, Ireland will be in a position to contribute considerably more to the general British Exchequer than she has been able to in the past. I wish to say a few words with regard to the establishment or constitution of this Board, and I note that in the constitution of this Board it is proposed that the Chief Secretary should be the president. My friends in Ireland whom I have consulted do not approve of this suggestion, and I agree with them. I would not say one word derogatory of my right hon. friend the present Chief Secretary. I think if he were going to be the permanent Chief Secretary we should be glad to see him at the head of this Board, but we object to the principle of the Chief Secretary, whoever he may be, being at the head of the Board of Agriculture and Industries. We object to it on this ground. If the
    808
    Chief Secretary is the head of the Boards, it must be, and will be, considered an offshoot of Dublin Castle. As it will be the most important Board in Ireland, it should be presided over by a Minister of Cabinet rank in the House of Commons, responsible to Parliament and to nobody, else. England is not so dependent on Agriculture as Ireland, and yet you have, a Cabinet Minister as President of the English Board of Agriculture, who is responsible to no one but the Prime Minister, and is, therefore, responsible only to Parliament. I cannot but think, and my view is shared by a great many of those who are thoroughly conversant of Irish affairs, that the mere fact of the Department not being presided over by a President, will act very detrimentally to it in the future, and will not give that confidence in the creation and the work of the Board which would be the case if it had a gentleman presiding over it of equal rank with the President of the English Board of Agriculture. If the Chief Secretary, as President, is to exercise supremacy over the Board, if his supremacy is to be real, there is no independence for this Board, which will be merely, as I have said, an offshoot of Dublin Castle, and will inspire no confidence, as it will be considered to be a subordinate Board, and under what is called the Castle influence. On the other hand, if the Chief Secretary is to be merely the nominal head, why, in order to allow the Chief Secretary to be the nominal head, are you to diminish what ought to be the popularity of the Board, by taking away from it that confidence which ought to exist, but which will not exist if you have the Chief Secretary at the head? It is possible that you will have a very strong Chief Secretary and a very strong Vice-President. If a difficulty arises, what is to happen? The Vice-President must naturally go to the wall. That cannot happen in England. You will understand why it is that we feel that a Board of this importance should be presided over, as in England, by a Minister of Cabinet rank, responsible directly to Parliament and to nobody else. As I have said before, if the present Chief Secretary held that position permanently, we should be very glad to see him the permanent head of the Department, but you must remember that this Bill is not intended to come into effect until April next. I do not suppose the present

    809
    Government can stay in office more than two years longer, and it does seem to me rather hard that the Chief Secretary, who thoroughly deserves to reap the reward of his efforts, should be placed at the head of the Board, when he will be so soon succeeded by somebody else who may not increase, but, perhaps, diminish, the prestige of that Board. In Clause 6, I see that it is the intention of the Government to employ a secretary and two assistant-secretaries—one in respect of agriculture, and the other in respect of technical education. I have discussed this clause closely with my friends in Ireland, and we are somewhat in the dark. We should like a little explanation as to the position which these two assistant-secretaries are to hold. I gather that they are intended, one for the purpose of disseminating technical education from an industries point of view, but I am at a loss to understand what their position will be. The Chief Secretary, in the Committee stage of this Bill, said, in the House of Commons, speaking upon an Amendment:
    "He could not see his way to accept the Amendment, having regard to the fact that the administrative capacity of the officers was so important an element when considering their election."
    And, later on, he says:—
    "A large part of the duties will be administrative, and a man might be well able to do that, and might not have the whole of the qualities which would be considered necessary in an expert."
    My friends in the north of Ireland and myself differ from the Chief Secretary on this question. We do not consider that these gentlemen need have administrative powers. We are of opinion, considering the enormous importance of the duties entrusted to them, that they ought to be experts in the education of the people. To our minds, it is absolutely necessary that the very best men that can be obtained should be appointed to disseminate this knowledge. The responsibilities cast upon these gentlemen will be very great indeed, and, consequently, to discharge those duties, the very best men should be selected. Of course, we recognise that the services of the very best men cannot be obtained unless they are provided with very large salaries. My friends in the north of
    810
    Ireland would not consider even £1,500 a year too much to be paid to these gentlemen, provided you get the best men that can be obtained. In other countries the very best men are appointed, and paid large salaries, and I do not think we ought to grudge the money necessary to obtain the services of the very best men. To have these duties properly discharged, the men appointed should be experts. They will have to develop the resources of the country, which at the present moment are not sufficiently developed. I would not say one word detrimental of any official, because I have the highest opinion of them; but I do not think an official, no matter what his capacity may be, is the class of person to discharge these duties. He has not had practical experience in making experiments. He has had no opportunity of dealing with questions of a tentative character. Moreover, the officials, whoever they may be, would be all tainted with the Castle brush. Let me point out what the duties of the experts are. Their duties are to study closely the industries of those different parts of Ireland to which I have alluded, and which require the greatest attention and knowledge. There is no part of Ireland, no matter how poor, but, if the details of this measure are properly discharged, will not have the opportunity of bettering its present position. By that I mean that they have industries in all parts of Ireland which, if properly cultivated and properly ministered to, should do something to supply some article which at the present moment England buys from foreign countries. Let me turn to the poorer districts. The poorer districts have the opportunity of supplying a demand for which England annually pays an enormous sum to foreign countries. I refer to the supp'y of eggs. I have not got statistics of the money paid last year, but I have the Return for 1897. In that year, England paid no less than £4,356,849 for foreign eggs imported into this country. That is an industry which should be cultivated in Ireland. Ireland should be able to produce a large proportion of those eggs which at the present moment are bought from the foreigner; and, if Ireland were taught to produce them, I do not hesitate to say that England would gladly buy the eggs from Ireland instead of obtaining them from the foreigner. The egg industry, to a rich country like England, may seem a paltry matter to talk about, but an

    811
    industry which might bring several millions a year into Ireland is a very important item to that country. I was told yesterday, by a practical friend of mine, that he himself had seen at Dieppe a train containing nothing but eggs brought from the furthermost part of Italy and consigned to London. It would be necessary for the people of Ireland to be instructed by experts as to the manner in which those eggs can be supplied. They should be taught, in the first place, to improve their breeding of fowls; and, in the second place, when they have collected their eggs, they should be instructed as to what to do with them, whether to send them off at once to England or retain them; and, if they retain them, how to preserve them so that they would arrive in England in an eatable condition. With regard to grazing land, I think Ireland has advantages of dairying such as are unknown in England. Great strides have been made in improving matters connected with dairying, by the untiring efforts of my good friend, Mr. Horace Plunkett, than whom no man has done more in this direction to promote the welfare of Ireland. He has started co-operative creameries, which are already doing enormous work, but a great deal more requires to be done. In the year 1897, England paid very nearly £16,000,000 for foreign butter, and nearly £2,500,000 for margarine, all imported from abroad. England could get a large portion of its supply from Ireland if the system of dairying in that country was improved. Denmark is a very poor country. It has a population of only half that of Ireland, and yet no less a sum than £6,748,000 has been paid to Denmark by this country for butter alone during the past year. There is another very important industry with which I, myself, am to a certain extent connected. Your lordships know well that the linen industry is one of the most important industries in Ireland, and to make linen the very best flax is required. I live in apart of the country which years ago produced an enormous amount of flax, but I am sorry to say that a great deal of that has disappeared in later years. In 1864, no fewer than 130,000 acres in Ireland were under flax; but, in 1898, that number had been reduced to 34,889 acres. That means that the great linen mills in Belfast and the surrounding districts are obliged to buy their flax from abroad. I
    812
    know that one of the explanations of this decrease is that flax takes so much out of the land that it is seven years before another crop can be obtained; but I contend that the experts to whom I have alluded can prove, from chemical experiments, that the land can be so treated that it can grow a good crop the following year. When I tell your Lordships that the price of flax varies from £90 to £6 a ton, it will be seen how necessary it is that good flax should be grown; and it can only be grown by the best instruction of a technical character being given to the owners of the land. The egg industry, the dairy industry, and the flax industry have, to a certain extent, languished in Ireland, and in those three industries alone England paid, in 1897, no less a sum than £25,500,000 to foreign countries. Surely, when you see this large sum going to other countries, it is a proof of the fact that it is absolutely necessary that something should be done to develop the resources of Ireland. These articles could be produced in Ireland, but they have not been produced because Ireland has not received proper education in their production. I am constantly told by people in this country that the people of Ireland do not support this Bill, and that Mr. Dillon seems to have done his utmost to prevent the Bill passing through the House of Commons. I say that Mr. Dillon, in this matter, does not represent the views of any lovers of Ireland. Mr. Dillon, in the manner in which he has approached this Bill in its various stages through the House of Commons, has been willing to wound, yet afraid to strike. I am glad to think that he has not succeeded in inducing the Chief Secretary to drop this measure. I have yet to learn what policy has ever been originated by Mr. Dillon which has tended to promote the general prosperity of Ireland. On the contrary, he has kept aloof from everything we have done to promote the prosperity of Ireland. He kept aloof from the Recess Committee, from the Irish Agricultural Association, from the Industries Association, and from the Tourist Development Association, and in future he will be handed down to posterity as the man who is responsible for the most disastrous policy ever adopted in Ireland—namely, the Plan of Campaign. At the time I sketched, some five years ago, what should be the policy of the Government in regard to this Bill, Mr. Dillon had just addressed

    813
    a gathering within a few miles of Portadown, where I was speaking, and he predicted that if the Tories ever got back into power before Ireland received Home Rule, there would be one of the biggest land agitations that had yet been seen. That is the policy of Mr. Dillon, which I think accounts for his endeavouring to damage this Bill in another place. He knows that if the Bill is taken up by the Irish people, as I have every reason to think it will be, there will be no more agitation in Ireland, and then Mr. Dillon's occupation, like that of Othello, will be gone for ever. I believe this measure will be the death-knell of agitation, and the commencement of a new era for Ireland. I believe that you will find that this measure will be taken up by the Irish people, who are sick of agitation. They require to be told that, if they receive assistance from the British Government, they must assist themselves; and no better words of advice were ever given to the agricultural classes in Ireland than were given by Mr. Horace Plunkett, when he said:—
    "Self-help is required by mutual help".
    That should be the motto of the Irish people when they take advantage of this Bill. I believe, as I have said, that this will prove the starting point in a new career for Ireland. I believe, by teaching the people, you will enable them to supply England with goods which England now buys from abroad. Once that money is diverted into Irish channels, Ireland will become a prosperous and contented country, and this Bill will be looked upon as having opened up a new vista to that country, and made her a true and loving sister isle.
    THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to give this Bill my most hearty support. It has been introduced in response to a demand from all classes and all creeds of the Irish people. I will put aside all questions with regard to Mr. Dillon, and what he said upon this Bill, and congratulate the Government on having listened to the demands which have been made. The main scheme of this Bill will be found in the Report of
    814
    the Recess Committee, and that Committee consisted of representatives of all creeds and of every class and of every shade of politics in Ireland, and it was formed and presided over by my old friend, Mr. Horace Plunkett, who I am sure everyone was, sorry was not in his place in the House of Commons to see his many years' labour brought at last to a successful conclusion by the introduction of this Bill. This Committee inquired into the agriculture, the industries, and technical education in Ireland, into foreign competition as against Irish produce, and the ways in which State-aid was granted on the Continent to agricultural and technical education. When that Committee issued its Report, it was supported by the Chambers of Commerce in Ireland, by the Corporations of all the principal towns, and by many Boards of Guardians. In fact, I know of no public body in Ireland that condemned the Report. Two years ago, the Chief Secretary introduced a Bill in which he endeavoured to meet the demand for a Board of Agriculture in Ireland, but that Bill did not embody the elective principle recommended by the Recess Committee, nor were its financial conditions satisfactory to Ireland. The Chief Secretary was in no way to blame, because he had no constituencies to go to, and the Bill was dropped. The Local Government (Ireland) Act of last session paved the way for this Bill, because it created constituencies, and from those constituencies is formed the Council of Agriculture, from which we have the Board of Agriculture, the administrative body under this Bill. The elective principle is what commends the Bill to us in Ireland. We approve of it also because this Board of Agriculture will have a large voice in the financial expenditure. The Chief Secretary is to be president of the new Department, with a vice-president under him with a seat in Parliament. I should have liked to see a Minister of Agriculture, responsible only to Parliament, for this great Department, independent entirely of the Chief Secretary. I do not wish in any way to say anything personal, but the Chief Secretary for Ireland is, and always has been, President of the Local Government Board, the Board of Works, and, indeed, of so many Boards in Ireland, that one would really think he had quite enough, to do.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: He is not President of the Board of Works.
    THE EARL OF MAYO: Then I stand corrected on that point. However, the Chief Secretary has created this Department, and is anxious to be its president, and he has carried his point. In expressing this opinion, I am not putting forward merely my own view. This view was expressed by the Recess Committee and by every public board in Ireland with regard to the Bill of 1897, which contained the same provision. For the arguments in favour of the Chief Secretary being president, and of there being a vice-president, you have to refer to the proceedings in the Grand Committee, where the Chief Secretary argued that the new vice-president and himself would have more weight in any future legislation than if the Department was placed under the charge of a Minister, who would necessarily be one of the subordinate Ministers receiving £1,200 a year. Seeing that Ireland is a purely agricultural country, and that the new Department now being created will certainly in the future become a most important Department in that country, I feel, with many others, that there should be a Minister of Agriculture, responsible only to Parliament. You have a Minister of this description in England, which is not a purely agricultural country, and what we ask, without any disrespect to the Chief Secretary, who has carried this measure so successfully through the other House, is that a Minister of Agriculture should also be appointed for Ireland. There must be a Minister of Agriculture in the future if this scheme is to grow. It has been said by some that this Bill creates another Castle Board. In my opinion it absorbs a great many of the Castle Boards, and in so far as it does so it is are form. The administration of the grant to Science and Art in Ireland is taken over, as also is the grant in aid of Technical Education, and the powers and duties of the Department of Science and Art in relation to the public buildings in Ireland. I take that to mean that the Science and Art Museum in Dublin is taken over by the new body. I feel that we are in this matter entirely cut off from South Kensington, which has the power of lending many valuable and interest-
    816
    ing collections to provincial museums and to the museum in Dublin If we are entirely cut off from this very useful provision, the artisans, artists, and handicraftsmen in Ireland will suffer; and if the Government can see their way to keep our museum in touch with South Kensington—the finest museum in the world, and containing the finest specimens of art and handicraft that are known—it would be greatly appreciated. I will now pass to the provisions in reference to the fishery inspectors. The whole of the duties of the Fishery Board are transferred to the new Department, and eventually there will be one inspector instead of three. I have not the slightest objection to this, for I consider one inspector quite sufficient. The Bill, however, says that the sum of £10,000 shall be applied for the purpose of sea fisheries. But, as regards inland fisheries, no money is provided, nor are inland fisheries mentioned except in connection with agriculture. Our fisheries in Ireland have got into such a deplorable state, that it was only last May that I had the honour of introducing a deputation to the Lord Lieutenant on the subject, and his Excellency, Lord Cadogan, has promised to appoint a Vice-Regal Commission to inquire into the whole question of the deterioration of inland fisheries and its causes. One would have thought that this Bill would have provided for our fresh water fisheries. In the Grand Committee, the Chief Secretary stated that, the case of the fresh water fisheries was already covered, because agriculture was defined as including inland fisheries. You might define agriculture as meaning anything, but to say that agriculture means inland fisheries is a most extraordinary proposition. The definitions of agriculture are in Clause 30, and they include horticulture, forestry, dairying, the breeding of horses, cattle, and other live-stock, and poultry, home and cottage industries, the cultivation and preparation of flax, and inland fisheries. Our inland fisheries are worth to Ireland £1,200,000 per annum, and I would ask your Lordships what chance, amongst this host of objects, will inland fisheries have? They are only entitled to rank with all these objects in any surplus of money which may exist. Every Amendment which was put forward for a grant for fresh-water fisheries was resisted by the Chief Secretary, mainly on the ground.

    817
    that, if inland fisheries were specially treated by grant, Amendments might be moved for a grant for horse-breeding, etc. When an Amendment was proposed that a Sub-Committee should be appointed, called the Sea and Inland Fisheries Board, the Chief Secretary said:
    "It surely was obvious to the Committee that when the inspectors of fisheries were transferred it followed that there would be in the Department a sub-department dealing with this branch of industry, Such a course did not require legislation, but followed naturally."
    This follows naturally with regard to sea fisheries, but there is no indication whatever in the Bill that it follows naturally with regard to fresh-water fisheries. I contend that the Department should be enabled to carry out those duties in as effective a manner as formerly, and that in the Bill inland fisheries should not be classed with numerous forms of agriculture, which will result in fresh-water fisheries being neglected altogether, as there will be no money provided for them. I shall move an Amendment to Clause 5 in Committee to allow of the Department making inquiries, experiments, and research, and collecting such information as they may think important in regard to sea fisheries and inland fisheries. I hope Her Majesty's Government will accept that Amendment. I desire to say a few words with regard to the financial aspect of the Bill. The only defect I find is that all the money does not come from Imperial sources, and that the Irish Church Fund is again drawn upon. This is not the time or the place to discuss the claim we have on the Imperial Exchequer, based on the question of Irish financial relations. I for one do not abate that claim one iota, or think we weaken our position by accepting the financial provisions of the Bill. On the contrary, I consider that the provisions make our case stronger. There is one provision in the Bill which I should like to mention. The Department has the power of appearing before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and any expense incurred may be paid by the Department. I consider this to be one of the most useful provisions in the Bill, because everyone who knows what agriculturists have to suffer owing to the high railway rates will recognise that if this provision is properly carried out it will
    818
    prove of the utmost benefit. The Irish agriculturist is at present completely harnessed and overloaded by these railway rates. I will give your Lordships an instance which happened to myself. I ordered some peat moss litter from Portadown to my own station, about eighteen miles from Dublin, the carriage of which was £8. I foresee that this provision, giving the Department power to appear before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and pay the expenses of that appearance, will be most useful, and I hope the Irish agriculturists and farmers will press the Department to appear before the Commissioners as soon as possible after the passing of this Bill. It is exceptionally pleasant to have to praise an Irish measure, and not to have to divide against the Government upon it, even though we beat them. This Bill, which has passed through its various stages amidst a shower of praises, will, in my opinion, increase the material prosperity of Ireland, and for that reason I give it my hearty support, and I congratulate the Government, and especially the Chief Secretary, upon having brought in a Bill, and carried it so far, which will prove of such great benefit to the people of Ireland.
    LORD PLUNKET: My Lords, it was my good fortune to have been invited by my friend, Mr. Horace Plunkett, to join in the movement of which this Bill is the outcome, and in a small part, as his follower, I have had special opportunities of observing how that good man is regarded by the agricultural classes in Ireland. I shall not detain your Lordships by urging upon you the merits of this Bill, and the vital importance of according, by means of it, all the assistance we possibly can to the agricultural industry of Ireland, which, though it has under many unfortunate circumstances languished, must always provide the main employment for, and sustenance of, the Irish people. I desire to take this opportunity, speaking from my own experience, of giving the honour of the inception of the policy of this measure where that honour is due, and to tell your Lordships that there are peculiarly opportune circumstances surrounding the introduction of this measure which may fairly lead us.

    819
    to hope that it will be welcomed with unanimity, and received in a practical spirit to an extent which rarely, if ever before, was accorded to any Act passed for Ireland. When Mr. Horace Plunkett started twelve years ago on his mission of teaching the Irish agriculturists the importance of spontaneous efforts on their part, and the advantage of co-operation, he was considered as an "amiable enthusiast," and failure was very generally predicted for his efforts. But he resolutely pursued his course, addressing lectures here, distributing pamphlets there, pointing out that the technical instruction and supervision given by foreign countries was one of the chief reasons why the Irish farmer was being cut out of the markets of the world. It was weary work enough, at first, particularly as agrarian agitation was rife in the land. But he gathered around him a small band of patriotic Irishmen of all shades of religious and political opinions to help him in what I may call his crusade. Amongst them was the Rev. Father Finlay, a most able and distinguished Irish Roman Catholic clergyman, who very early joined himself to this movement and zealously supported it. Mr. Horace Plunkett succeeded in starting an important agricultural organisation. He formed the Recess Committee, composed of Irishmen of all shades of politics, and he obtained from them a unanimous Report, which, I think, may fairly be said to form the basis of the legislation now before your Lordships. What has struck me most, from my own experience in connection with this subject, is the fact that, though the Irish farmer has generally been found to be suspicious and timid to a degree when he has been individually asked to alter his own bad system of culture—the only one, indeed, which he had ever heard of—when he is associated, as he has been in this movement, with his neighbours, he takes a perfectly different view of the advantages thus offered to him, and is prompt to grasp and carry out the advice he receives. The light which has come from the efforts of the Recess Committee has spread rapidly, and the advantages of improved methods are becoming more and more better known among the farmers of Ireland. There are now over 400 societies, organised by Mr. Plunkett's Committee, all over the land, with over 40,000 members, and these societies have
    820
    helped large numbers of the people to realise what this measure means, and to grasp the fact that it is not formed for the distribution of indiscriminate doles, but rather to back up their own efforts at selfhelp, and thus assist them to secure again a place in those markets in the world where better instructed and more progressive nations are now supreme. I venture to think the time is opportune for the advantages now offered to them, not only because there exists at the present time a more tranquil disposition in the minds of the Irish people, and a more complete immunity from the curse of agitation, but because the minds of my fellow countrymen have been turned to the practical politics of making their daily lives more prosperous and contented by making more productive the efforts of their daily toil. Therefore, I think we may all hope, not perhaps for immediate success, but for steady and increasing benefits from the passing of this measure, which I feel sure, coupled with the Act which instituted the Board dealing with the congested districts, will greatly help to bring that, prosperity to Ireland which it is everyone's wish she should enjoy.
    THE EARL OF ARRAN: I do not intend to trouble your Lordships with a speech, but I should not like this Bill to pass its Second Reading without embracing the opportunity of expressing my hearty satisfaction at its introduction, and my earnest hope that it will do that good to Ireland which its originator intended. I think we should have a little more information, however, upon the point raised by my noble friend, the Marquess of Londonderry—namely, whether it is a wise thing that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should be the head of this Board. As the noble Marquess said, if the present Chief Secretary were always to remain with us we should have no possible objection to his being at the head of that Board, but the fact that the Chief Secretary is here to-day and gone to-morrow, must destroy that continuity of policy which is so useful everywhere, and which in Ireland is more necessary than anywhere else. I do not see how one man, who has not the strength of Hercules, can possibly do all the work which the Chief Secretary has to perform.

    821
    I have not gone into figures, but I cannot help thinking that the Council will prove unworkable if this provision is insisted upon. I should like to ask my noble and learned friend, who is in charge of this Bill, whether, under the term "person" in the tenth clause of the Bill, women are included. I ask this because, with the exception of what has been done by the Congested Districts Board, which is comparatively a recent institution, and what has been done by the Earl of Mayo, nearly the whole of the technical instruction given in Ireland has been given by ladies. It was begun and carried out with great success by the nuns over the different parts of Ireland. It has been taken up and carried out by various ladies in the districts in which they reside, and I cannot help thinking that there might be considerable advantage in enabling those ladies to give of their experience on this question. There is another point on which I should like to ask a question. Will the power to raise a poor rate of 1d. in the £ be outside the poor rate as it stands under the Local Government Act and be met by the Agricultural Grant, or will it fall equally on everybody? I am sure no one in Ireland will object to bear their proper share of this additional impost, but I think we should know how the money is to be raised. With these few words, I beg to express the hope that the Bill will pass through your Lordships' House and become law in a few days.
    LORD MORRIS: My Lords, if the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been present I think he would have heard with honest pride the universal chorus of approval of the Bill which now stands for Second Reading. That approval was put into language of an eloquent character by my noble friend behind me (Lord Plunket), who shows that eloquence is hereditary, and that the name he bears is one which is likely to revive, at all events in the Debates in your Lordships' House, a recollection of the race from which he springs. While joining most heartily in the chorus of approval with which the Bill has been welcomed, I must say that I am not carried away by any idea
    822
    that there is to be a sudden change in Ireland, and that this Bill is going to bring about an immediate and extraordinary reform in the agricultural industry of the country. The cause of the failure of agriculture in Ireland depends upon circumstances much deeper than anything that could be done by a grant or education. Everyone will admit that the great falling off in the agricultural industry of Ireland has steadily progressed year by year since Free Trade was adopted. In 1846, 7,000,000 acres of Ireland were cultivated—more than one-third of its area. Now, fifty years afterwards, only one-eighth of the area of Ireland is under cultivation. That is not the result of want of education, nor will it ever be repaired by education. But that is no reason why we should not try and improve the present state of affairs. My noble friend, the Earl of Mayo, has rather suggested a short cut by which we can compete with Normandy in the matter of butter—namely, by compelling railway companies to convey goods not at a rate which would repay them, but at a rate which the noble Earl thinks would be satisfactory to himself. I am not a shareholder in railways, because I have long foreseen that an attack would be made, after landed property in Ireland, upon railway property. Railways are not established for philanthropic purposes, but to pay dividends. Few railways in Ireland pay any dividend at all, and the Midland and Great Western seldom pays more than 4 percent. Therefore, to say that railways are to be selected as being the medium by which the west of Ireland, or any part of Ireland, is to be brought into the same proximity with London as Normandy or Dieppe, is equal to saying that you are going to confiscate the railways. The noble Lord the Earl of Mayo said he was pleased that the new Board of Agriculture would have power to appear before the Railway and Canal Commissioners to contest with railways as to the prices they should charge, but I disagree altogether with this provision. At the present moment anyone aggrieved can lodge a complaint. Why should there be an invitation to this Board to spend public money in coercing companies to carry goods at a price which would not be remunerative to them, but which would satisfy my noble friend and enable him to get his peat

    823
    moss litter? My noble friend says it is inconsistent not to make a grant to fresh water fisheries. Sea fisheries are public property, but inland fisheries are private property. If there are to be grants for private property I suppose the State will want a share in that property in return for the grants. My noble friend said he agreed that one inspector would be sufficient. If you go on in the direction to confiscate the inland fisheries no inspector at all will be necessary. I also dissent from the noble Lords who have wished that the Chief Secretary should not be the President of this Board. I am very glad he is to be the President of the Board. The argument that has been used is that Parties will change and so also will the Chief Secretary. But will not the Vice-President change also? If the proposal with regard to the President is considered improper because he will go in and out with the Government, does not this also apply to the Vice-President? I do not think anything will be gained by appointing secretaries at £1,500 a year. Very few of the under-secretaries of the great Departments in England get £1,500 a year. I am in favour of the Bill generally as it stands, and, although I think the benefits to be derived from it have been over estimated, I shall give my support to the Second Reading.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am under some apprehension, in rising to say a few words on this Bill, lest I should seem to introduce a discordant note. I welcome the Bill, although I cannot bring myself to believe, like the, noble Earl opposite, that it will create a new era in Ireland. I think it will be a very useful Bill, but I agree with what has been said that what we have to look to is self-help. At the same time, that self-help may be supported and strengthened by the action of the new Department. I think that one of the most encouraging things I have seen a long time—since my connection with Ireland—is the movement set on foot by Mr. Horace Plunkett and his friends, and, so far as I can learn, the societies established by them are really producing successful results, and stimulating the agriculture and industries of that country. Although I think there may be more for the Board of Agriculture in Ireland to do than in England, judging from my experience of the Board of Agriculture in
    824
    England, I must say that I believe that the power of the Board which is to be set up in Ireland will be very limited. The Board of Agriculture in England has never been able to come up to the expectations of those who advocated it. It has not been able to do much, except deal with diseases of animals, and if there was any justification for a Minister of Agriculture it would be in the most successful operations of Mr. Long in suppressing that terrible disease, hydrophobia. I hope the new Department in Ireland will show the same perseverance and courage in dealing with this disease. It is intolerable that a disease should be allowed to exist, when it can be proved that by sufficient precautions you can prevent it. The noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has truly said that the great change in agriculture in Ireland dated from the introduction of Free Trade, but I would point out that that change has consisted principally in the diminution of the corn area in Ireland. The riches of Ireland in agriculture consist in its extensive pasture land, and there has been a great and marked improvement in the production of cattle. I speak for the county in which I live, and which is mainly dependent on Ireland for the cattle which it fattens, and over and over again I have been told by farmers, with the greatest admiration, of the remarkable improvement which has taken place in Irish cattle. In fact, there are no finer cattle produced anywhere than in Ireland. That shows what can be done in one class of produce, and there is no reason why Ireland should not supply as good dairy produce as any country in Europe. The noble Marquess pointed out with truth that the egg industry is not one to be despised, and that Ireland is a country in which that industry might be increased. Lastly, there is flax culture. I agree with the noble Marquess in regretting the diminution in flax culture; and if the cultivation of flax in the north of Ireland can be revived, it will be of great benefit to that country. As to the contention that the new Department should be under a Minister of Cabinet rank, I consider that would be a very dangerous innovation. I am very glad that the Government has placed the Department under the Chief Secretary. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the Vice-President, by this Bill, may sit in Parliament. He will,

    825
    no doubt, and will change with the Government. Therefore, in point of fact, no advantage would be derived in placing the Department under a Vice-President. The present Cabinet consists of nineteen members—the largest Cabinet that has ever existed in this country—and to add another would bring it up to twenty. If you go on adding more members you will break down the system of Cabinet Government altogether, and with Cabinets of such a size you run the risk of repeating with respect to the Cabinet the history of the Privy Council, which became so large that a smaller body had to be carved out of it. I object, also, to the principle that is contemplated to be laid down, that no one can be an efficient head of a Department unless he is a member of the Cabinet. I deny that entirely. I am not so well acquainted with all that has been going on in Ireland as to know what is the origin of the very complicated provisions of this Bill, but I am very much struck by the proposal for the creation of a Board to which matters are to be referred by the Minister, and upon which he is to receive their advice. This is another instance of what appears to me to be the commencement of a new system of government. The noble Duke opposite has created a Consultative Committee for the Board of Education, and now you are about to create another Consultative Committee of a more remarkable kind, because the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education is appointed by the Minister himself, but this Consultative Committee is to be appointed by local bodies. I believe this is the first time in our history that we have had san Elective Committee taking part in the administration of one of the Departments of Government. I confess that I prefer to see this new and somewhat daring experiment tried first in Ireland. If it works well there it will no doubt come over to this country, but I do not think it will work well. It is evident that the Bill has large support in Ireland, and therefore it will have a fair chance of success. I sincerely hope it may be more successful than I anticipate it will be.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I have listened, as I am sure we all have, with interest to the discussion which has taken place on this Bill. The various
    826
    speeches, I think, reflect truly the opinion entertained out of doors. They indicate the feeling which prevails in Ireland, and which found a voice in all parts of the House of Commons. I agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken that it is not wise to expect from any legislative measure that it will at once work a miracle; but this is an honest effort to develop what needs development in Ireland, and to improve agriculture and the fisheries, and to enlarge technical education. If the nation applies itself loyally to co-operate with the intentions of this Bill, there is no reason why the expectations of those who framed it should not find ample realisation. I entirely agree with the views pronounced on the part of the Government with respect to the proposal to put the Chief Secretary at the head of the new Department. It will strengthen the Board, give it greater authority, and give unity to the general administration of the country; and I am glad that this view had the general concurrence of the noble Earl (Lord Kimberley), and of Lord Morris. The administration will be largely left to the Vice-President, who must, with the Chief Secretary, leave office when there is a change of Government. The new Government which will come into office will then have the responsibility of working the mechanism which is called into existence in this Bill. I can see no advantage in endeavouring to make in Ireland a dual system of authority, which would happen if the Vice-President was placed at the head of the Board. It would be an entirely new departure to call into existence a Department which would permeate a great part of the general legislation of Ireland, in reference to which the Chief Secretary would be only in touch as President of the Congested Districts Board, and to deny him a right to take the responsibility of the administration in Parliament. The point raised by the noble Marquess as to the two assistant secretaries is a matter more for Committee. I anticipate that as good men will be obtained for the Assistant Secretary ships as can be secured—a man probably well acquainted with technical education for one, and a man thoroughly acquainted with agricultural affairs for the other. If they wanted expert assistance funds would doubtless be available for

    827
    procuring it. My noble friend, the Earl of Mayo, spoke in favour of giving further aid to inland fisheries. The inland fisheries are grasped in the Bill abundantly. I heard with very great pleasure my noble friend, Lord Plunket, take part in the Debate, not only for the valuable observations which he made, but for the manner in which he showed that he can maintain the traditional power of speaking which belongs to his name. I am sure we all heard with sympathy his reference to Mr. Horace Plunkett, with whom we all feel such deep sympathy. We all know the great interest he has taken in this subject, and there is not one of your Lordships who does not wish that he may soon be restored to health. I do not think it desirable at this stage to go into other matters more in detail, but I trust that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships that I should name the Committee stage of the Bill to be taken to-morrow.
    THE EARL OF ARRAN: Will the noble and learned Lord answer my question as to the word "person"?
    LORD ASHBOURNE: I will look into it by to-morrow. I have not had my attention directed to the point before.
    On Question, agreed to.
    Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.

    PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.]
    House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 118.)

    OYSTERS BILL [H.L.]
    Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
    LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships' permission to move
    828
    that the Order be discharged. I must explain to your Lordships why this is necessitated. Your Lordships referred this Bill to a Select Committee, and in the course of that inquiry their Lordships came to the conclusion that for the authority which had been placed originally in the Bill—namely, the, councils of counties and boroughs should be substituted the local district fisheries committees. The intention of the Local Government Board, in introducing the Bill, was to protect, as far as possible, the public health from attack from diseased oysters, and the Board, therefore, selected as the local authorities by which the Bill was to be put into operation the councils of counties and boroughs, which are concerned to some extent with the sanitary matters of their districts. But the Select Committee, to whom the Bill was referred after the Second Reading, came, after a division, to the conclusion that sufficient attention had not been given to the bivalve itself, and decided that this was a matter which concerned primarily the health of the oyster rather than the health of the human being, and on a Division they substituted the Local District Fisheries Committees, which look after the well-being of fish, for the councils of counties, which are concerned with the public health, as the authority in the Bill. The Bill, as amended, went back to the Department concerned for consideration, and, as in duty bound, the Local Government Board consulted the Board of Trade, which is concerned with fisheries, and the Board of Trade advised the Local Government Board, as has also the Irish Office, that the change rendered the Bill impracticable. The main reason: which the Board of Trade gave for this view was that in many cases these local district fisheries committees have no jurisdiction in the estuaries where the oyster beds are situated, and that if their authority was extended to those estuaries it would conflict with other authorities who have jurisdiction there. My instructions originally were to give notice of Amendments to reinsert the original words which would have restored the authority to the councils of counties and boroughs, but I have since received instructions from the Local Government Board that, having regard to the lateness of the session, the President does not intend to proceed further with the measure. I therefore have to ask your

    829
    Lordships to allow the Order to be discharged.
    Moved—
    "That the Order to go into Committee be discharged."—(Lord Harris.)
    On question, agreed to.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    VISCOUNT CROSS: This Bill is one dealing with the question of the wine duties in the Isle of Man. It is consequent on the financial arrangements which have been recently made, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
    Moved, "That this Bill be read 2a."—(Viscount Cross.)
    On Question, agreed to.
    Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILLS.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
    VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time to-day. The sale of food and drugs, as your Lordships are aware, is at present regulated by the Act of 1875, and the sale of margarine by the Act of 1887. But, owing to many complaints that a good deal of adulteration is being carried on despite these Acts, the matter was referred for inquiry in 1892 to a Select Committee, which sat for three years. They examined no less than sixty-eight witnesses, and this Bill is founded upon their recommendations. Anyone who reads the Report of that Committee will see that what is required is not so much a great alteration in the
    830
    law as an improvement in the administration of the law. The powers which at present exist for the administration of the law should be strictly carried out in future. It is quite clear, as has been shown by the figures which were quoted by the President of the Board of Agriculture, that where repression is vigorous adulteration decreases. I should like to quote these figures to your Lordships. In London in 1887–8 there were 756 samples examined; 142 were found adulterated, or 19 per cent. In 1896–7 there was more vigorous administration of the Acts; 2,038 samples were examined, and 205 found adulterated, which is equal to 10 per cent., as against 19 per cent. If you go to Manchester and Salford you find a still more striking result. The percentage there in 1887–8 was 54, but through most vigorous administration of the Acts the percentage of adulteration had been reduced in 1896–7 to 11 per cent. I hope the House will not think for a moment that this Bill is brought in simply to enact the agricultural part; quite the contrary is the case. The President of the Local Government Board has been approached from Manchester by the Chamber of Commerce, from Liverpool by the Association of Grocers, and from the metropolis by the Butter Association, clearly showing that it is the wish of these great bodies, which have nothing to do with agriculture, that the adulteration of food should be diminished as far as possible, and that the Acts should be properly and vigorously put in force. Briefly, the principles of the Bill are that there shall be no interference with legitimate industry, or with wholesome or valuable articles of food, but that, on the other hand, the law must be put in force and obeyed, and the trades conducted on honourable and honest principles. I do not suppose anyone will dispute the righteousness of those two principles. Therefore, without saying more on the general question, I will explain shortly the various provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 insists that everything imported into the United Kingdom, whether margarine or margarine cheese, or adulterated or impoverished butter, or condensed, separated, or skimmed milk, or any other adulterated or impoverished article of food, shall be conspicuously marked with a name or description, indicating the article that is being imported.

    831
    In order to further protect the consumer the Commissioners of Customs are to have power, in accordance with the directions given by the Treasury, after consultation with the Board of Agriculture, to take such samples of consignments of imported articles of food as may be necessary for the enforcement of the provisions of this clause. Where the Commissioners of Customs take a sample of any consignment in pursuance of such directions they shall divide it into not less than three parts, send one part to the importer and one part to the principal chemist of the Government laboratories, and retain the other part. The second clause gives power to the Local Government Board, if that Board thinks that the matter affects the general interest of the consumer, and to the Board of Agriculture, if that Board thinks that it affects the general interests of agriculture in the United Kingdom, to direct an officer of the Board to procure for analysis samples of any article of food. That relates, of course, solely to the home trade. As I have said, the great fault at the present moment is the want of vigour in the administration of the Acts, and the third clause definitely lays it down that it shall be the duty of every local authority entrusted with the execution of the laws relating to the sale of food and drugs to appoint a public analyst, and put in force, from time to time, as occasion may arise, the powers with which they are invested, so as to provide proper securities for the sale of food and drugs in a pure and genuine condition, and in particular to direct their officers to take samples for analysis. The clause goes on to say that if the Local Government Board, or the Board of Agriculture, after communication with a local authority, are of opinion that the local authority have failed to execute or enforce any of the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts in relation to any article, and that their failure affects the general interests of the consumer, or the general interests of agriculture in the United Kingdom, as the case may be, the Board concerned may, by order, empower an officer of the Board to execute and enforce those provisions, or to procure the execution and enforcement thereof, in relation to any article of food mentioned in the Order. Clause 4 is a very important clause. The Select Committee recognised the inconvenience and the occa-
    832
    sional hardship arising from the absence of any standard quality in articles of food, and they pointed out the serious effect which the adoption of such a standard might have when the article produced, though pure in quality, did not come up to this standard. The Board of Agriculture takes power, under this clause, to make regulations for determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of genuine milk, cream, butter, or cheese, or what addition of extraneous matter or proportion of water, in any sample of milk (including condensed milk), cream, butter, or cheese, shall, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that the milk, cream, butter, or cheese is not genuine or is injurious to health. Of course, they will have at their disposal the best advice they can possibly get, and it will be quite certain that they will act with the sole object of doing what is right as between the producer and the consumer. The fifth clause includes margarine-cheese as well as margarine; and the sixth clause insists that, where it is required that any package containing margarine or margarine-cheese shall be branded or marked, the brand or mark shall be on the package itself, and not solely on a label, ticket, or other thing attached thereto. The seventh clause, I believe, is also a very important one, because it provides that every occupier of a manufactory of margarine or margarine-cheese, and every dealer in such substances, shall keep a register showing the quantity and destination of each consignment of such substances sent out from his manufactory or place of business, and this register shall be open to the inspection of any officer of the Board of Agriculture. By that mean the Board will be able to trace the destination of any adulterated article, and will have much more power to take care that adulterated articles are not sold. Therefore, it is essential that the register should be kept. I have received a letter this morning, saying that this proposal was rather hard upon the manufacturer, because the importer was not bound to register anything. The importer, however, generally sends it through some agency in this country, and, with the help of the Customs Board, the Board of Agriculture will be able to get all the information it

    833
    wants as to the destination of articles, without insisting on this register. I now come to the eighth clause, which provides that it shall be unlawful to manufacture margarine which contains more than 10 per cent. of butter fat. I know that many people say the more butter that is put in the better it will be, and that we should not limit the amount of butter to be mixed with margarine. This matter was very carefully considered by the Select Committee, who reported:
    "Apparently, a considerable trade is carried on in the admixture of margarine and butter which, under the Margarine Act, 1887, must be sold under the denomination of margarine. An examination of the evidence will disclose much difference of opinion amongst witnesses as to the expediency of promoting the sale of such mixtures. There can be little doubt that a vast amount of fraud is perpetrated owing to the admixture of butter with margarine, which greatly facilitates the substitution of an adulterated for a genuine article. While your Committee are reluctant to recommend any restriction on trade which would have the effect of preventing the poor classes from purchasing a useful article of food, they are impressed with the fact that fraudulent trade is facilitated by the admixture for sale of margarine and butter, and they recommend the entire prohibition of such admixture."
    It has been felt that any such prohibition as that would inflict great hardship on the persons who want to make use of margarine. There are some who think that the prohibition of the admixture of butter with margarine should be absolute. There are some who say it should be unrestricted, and there are others who say that all mixtures should be sold as mixtures. The best margarine can be sold with the admixture of some 4 or 5 per cent., at the outside, of butter, and therefore, if it is to be sold as margarine, you will not get any advantage by putting more butter into it. The effect of putting more butter into margarine makes it extremely difficult to detect how far it is adulterated, and extremely easy for the seller to sell it as butter. One of the witnesses before the Committee stated that no less than 75 per cent. of that which was not butter was sold as butter for butter prices. It is for the prevention of fraud and nothing else that we are limiting the amount of butter to be mixed with margarine. With regard to milk, I think it has been conclusively proved that since cream-separators have come into general use, much of the skim milk sold is not nutritious, and it is cruel to allow poor people to purchase it for their
    834
    children, whose health suffers from lack of nourishment. The Bill provides that every receptacle containing condensed, separated, or skimmed milk, must bear a label, clearly visible to the purchaser, with the words "separated milk" or "skimmed milk." We do not mean the ordinary skimmed milk, skimmed by hand, which is a different thing, but machine-skimmed milk; and in Committee I shall ask your Lordships to insert the word "machine" before "skimmed." With regard to the penalties to be imposed, we think that if a person is found guilty, he should be liable to a fine which may extend to £20 as the maximum for the first offence, £50 for the second offence, and £100 for any subsequent offence. But where, under the provisions of this Act, a person guilty of an offence is liable to a fine exceeding £50, and the offence, in the opinion of the Court, is committed by the personal act, default, or culpable negligence of the person accused, that person shall be liable, if the Court is of opinion that a fine will not meet the circumstances of the case, to imprisonment with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months. There is another clause with reference to the warranty. In the Margarine Act an invoice is considered sufficient warranty, and there is no doubt that in some cases it would be hard on the retailer if it were not so. I have to-day presented a petition from Bristol entirely approving of the Bill, but thinking that an invoice itself ought to be quite sufficient. Well, that is not the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, or my own opinion. Under this Bill a warranty or invoice shall not be available as a defence to any proceedings, unless the defendant has, within seven days after service of the summons, sent to the purchaser a copy of such warranty or invoice with a written notice stating that he intends to rely on that warranty or invoice, and specifying the name and address of the person from whom he received it, and has also sent a like notice of his intention to such person. I think I have explained how necessary the Bill is, and that we are not desirous of pressing hardly on the consumer or the retail dealer. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Viscount Cross.)
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have nothing to say against the main object of this Bill, and it is highly desirable that legislation against adulteration should be effective, but Clause 8 calls for observation. That clause makes it penal to put more than 10 per cent. of butter into margarine, and I cannot but say that I am not satisfied by the arguments of the noble Viscount upon this provision. I do not see myself any legitimate defence for such a provision. I assume that the framers of this Bill, and the Committee who reported, are not tainted with that foolish prejudice against margarine as such. Margarine, as far as I can understand, is a cheap and wholesome article of food, the consumption of which ought to be encouraged in the interests of the working classes, though, of course, the fraudulent sale of it as butter should be prevented. To add butter to margarine cannot be called adulteration, and I cannot understand why there is a departure in this clause from the usual principle adopted in these Bills—namely, that mixtures of wholesome articles are perfectly lawful, provided such mixture is labelled and sold for what it really is. Take the case of chicory and coffee. I do not suppose any person can find out whether there is a mixture of chicory with coffee, which is as bad an adulteration as I know of; but all the law requires is that upon every packet or vessel containing a mixture of coffee and chicory it shall be plainly and distinctly marked that it is a mixture of chicory and coffee, and if the dealer sells such a mixture without giving that notice then he is most properly punished. But why in the world he should not mix butter with margarine I do not know. If it will improve the margarine, nobody can be hurt. It has been said that great pressure has been brought to bear on the Government to protect butter from the competition of margarine. I do not accuse the Government of having that motive, but it is the motive of those who have pressed for a measure of this kind. No doubt margarine is largely bought by consumers as a substitute for butter; but a provision to promote the sale of one product instead of another, both feeing wholesome, is indefensible in a Bill of this kind. Margarine will remain a serious competitor to butter
    836
    if the producers in this country cannot improve the butter which they make, for one of the reasons why such large consignments of butter are imported is that a large quantity of the butter produced in this country is positively execrable. Until there are satisfactory systems of producing butter in this country by all the improved methods used by our competitors, I cannot say that I have very much sympathy with the butter producers. We should allow those who wish to eat margarine, which is a cheap and wholesome article, to get it, and should not throw any unnecessary impediments in their way.
    VISCOUNT CROSS: I stated distinctly that margarine was an excellent and wholesome food, and that the sole object of this Bill was to protect the consumer, and that a small proportion of butter put into margarine made it as good as it could be made as margarine. The clause is directed against the sale of the mixture as butter, and we have it stated that 75 per cent. of this stuff is at the present time sold to the consumers as butter. Let the consumers have margarine if they like. All we desire is to prevent the fraudulent dealer from palming off this mixture to people who want butter, and pay the price of butter. The clause represents the unanimous opinion of the Committee, and I am sure if the noble Earl will look further into it he will see that it is absolutely necessary.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I brought no kind of imputation of unfairness against the framers of the Bill. I only said there were persons interested who were biassed against margarine.
    On Question, agreed to.
    Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
    VISCOUNT CROSS: This is a very simple Bill. Its objects are to extend

    837
    the period for the repayment of charges under the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, from 25 years to 40 years; to allow such charges to be imposed not only on the land improved, but also on other land in which the same persons are interested; to enable the improvement companies to adopt as improvements authorised by their private Acts the improvements authorised by the public Improvements Acts; to authorise the extension of the period of repayment of existing charges incurred in respect of planting woods and trees; to extend to Scotland the additions to the improvements authorised by the Act of 1864 contained in Acts which do not extend to Scotland; and to remove a few doubts and inconsistencies.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Viscount Cross.)
    On Question, agreed to.
    Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of whole House tomorrow.

    CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
QUESTIONS.

  THE AGED AND DESERVING POOR IN WORKHOUSES.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the plan adopted by the Guardians of the Macclesfield Union for dealing with the aged and deserving poor in the workhouse; and whether this plan has been adopted in many other places. Although many Royal Commissions have had no legislative results, yet gratitude is due to some of the barren commissions which have nipped in the bud schemes either impossible or useless, and even pernicious. One of these has been the Royal Commission which has shown the impracticability of Old Age Pensions. Nevertheless, Mr. Chamberlain still pursues that will-o'-the-wisp, but his object, within the limits which he himself
  838
  has laid down, seems likely to be attained without any legislation, whether heroic, socialist, or vote-catching. What is an old age pension? It is board and lodging for a deserving and worn-out labourer, as much as can be provided for him by 5s. a week. The Macclesfield Union has established privilege wards for the deserving aged poor of sixty years of age, and the rules which that Union follows have been introduced in a Local Government Order issued about l896, recommending all workhouses to adopt some such scheme. Such provision might, with encouragement from the Local Government Board, be made in many other places, and such privileged wards or cottage homes might serve for two unions. This plan was adopted as long ago as 1850 and 1851 at Norwich by the rural guardians, but it came to an end when the town council took over the management of the workhouse. It is about a month ago that I obtained from the Master of the Macclesfield Workhouse a report of what he has done, and it seemed to me that this, if generally extended and assisted by private charity, might supply what alone is practicable in the matter of Old Age Pensions; and I am very glad to find that the Bishop of Durham is of this opinion, and has been the first to announce this publicly, and also to set an example of private assistance to these schemes. In a paragraph in the Pall Mall Gazette of the 22nd July, it is stated that:
  "In forwarding a donation to the Aged Miners' Cottage Homes Fund for County Durham, the Bishop of the diocese writes:—'One cottage can, I understand, be provided for for about twenty-one pounds. May I then have the privilege of providing for one? You know how highly I value this scheme which the men have organised. It appears to me to be a contribution towards a true solution of the problem of old-age pensions'"
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, the Local Government Board are aware of the plan adopted by the guardians of the Macclesfield Union for dealing with the aged and deserving poor in the workhouse. Two large rooms, one for males and the other for females, are set apart as privileged wards for inmates of good character and conduct. Inmates are placed in these wards by direction of the visiting committee, and special privileges are allowed them. Thus they may receive visitors, and are allowed to go out of the workhouse every afternoon.

  839
  The Board are not in possession of information which enables them to state how far the precise plan adopted by the Macclesfield guardians has been followed elsewhere. But the subject of improvement in the classification of the aged and infirm inmates of workhouses has been brought by the Board under the attention of guardians generally, and much has been done in the matter. This is recognised in the recent Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Cottage Homes, who state that they:
  "Have received evidence that in several large unions the guardians have made special efforts to provide separate accommodation for paupers sub-classified with reference to conduct. Thus at Liverpool a house has been set apart for well-behaved old women; at West Derby, Portsmouth, and Sheffield cottages have been erected in connection with the workhouse for married couples and the aged deserving poor; at Fulham a wing entirely separate from the rest of the workhouse has just been provided for the aged deserving poor; and provision of a similar character has been made at Grimsby, Hull, and Kensington."
  Other instances might be given, and it may be said generally that to a greater or less extent the subject is receiving the attention of guardians everywhere. One of the chief obstacles in the way is the lack of accommodation in some workhouses, which prevents the carrying out of further classification.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven of the clock till To-morrow, a quarter before Three of the clock.