Sitting of 6 April 1903

Preamble
The House met at two of the Clock.

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

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bath Corporation Water Bill, read the third time, and passed.
Bridgwater Gas Bill (Kings Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
Broadstairs Gas Bill; Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas Bill; Great Northern and City Railway Bill; Ipswich Gas Bill; Market Drayton Gas Bill; Stoke Newington Borough Council Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill; Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Bill; Romford and District Tramways Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1).
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Mitchelstown, in the county of Cork, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Gerald Balfour.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Brixham, Brumby and Frodingham, Dawlish, Horbury, Hucknall-under-Huthwaite, Newton-in-Makerfield, Orrill, Scunthorpe, Sidmouth,
1094
and Yeovil, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Gerald Balfour.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Auckland (Rural), Carisbrooke and Northwood, Drayton - in - Hales, Illogan, Ingleton, Port Dinorwic, Sevenoaks, South Shields (Rural), Stafford (Rural), and Wilmslow, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1.) BILL.
"To conform a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Mitchelstown, in the county of Cork," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Brixham, Brumby and Frodingham, Dawlish, Horbury, Hucknall - under - Huthwaite, Newton-in-Makerfield, Orrel!, Scunthorpe, Sidmouth, and Yeovil," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Auckland (Rural), Carisbrooke and Northwood, Drayton-in-Hales, Illogan, Ingleton, Port Dinorwic, Sevenoaks, South Shields (Rural), Stafford (Rural), and Wilmslow," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders Confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.

MAIDSTONE GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SITTINGBOURNE DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION.
MR. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners in pursuance of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899:—Sir Charles B. Renshaw; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. W. J. Maxwell.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Halifax, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
Petition from Southampton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
Petitions in favour: from St. Helens; Oldham; Walsall; Batley; and Andover; to lie upon the Table.
DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petitions in favour: from Glenmuick; Perth; and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION IN THE METROPOLIS.
Petition from Lambeth, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Petitions for alteration: from Queensbury; Annan; Inverkeithing; and Renfrew; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Renfrew, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES
Petition from Andover, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
Petitions against: from Devonport; Finsbury Park; Bristol; Watford; and Kingston-upon-Hull; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petition from Brixton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CERTIFIED DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (PARLIAMENTARY GRANT)
  Paper [presented 3rd April] to be printed. [No. 107.]
LUNACY (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented, of Forty-fifth Annual Report of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland by Command]; to lie upon the table.
PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented, of Twenty-fifth Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being; the Sixty-fourth Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
OFFICERS' EXPENSES.
Copy presented, of Report of the Committee on Expenses incurred by Officers of the Army [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MUNICIPAL ELECTION PETITION (BOROUGH OF SHREWSBURY).
Copy presented, of Report made by Morton William Smith, esquire, barrister-at-law, the Commissioner appointed for the trial of the petition against the election of a town councillor for the Castle Fields Ward of the borough of Shrewsbury, holden on the 1st November 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EXPLOSIONS (IGNITION OF POWDER AT THE E. C. POWDER COMPANY'S FACTORY AT STONE, NEAR DARTFORD).
Copy presented, of Report by Captain J. H. Thomson, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Explosives, to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an accident which occurred in the drying house for smokeless powder at the Factory of the E. C. Powder Company, Limited, at Beacon Wood, Stone, near Dartford, on the 3rd March 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BANKING, RAILWAY, AND CANAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented, of Report on the Banking, Railway, and Canal Statistics of Ireland for the half-year ended 31st December 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
Account presented up to 31st March 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
Account presented up to 31st March 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2950 and 2951 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Local Education Expenditure—Accounts.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the President of the Local Government Board when it is proposed to issue new instructions as to the accounts of the educational expenditure of local educational authorities under the Education Act of 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have in preparation circular letters on this subject, which will, I hope, be issued very shortly.

  Census of England and Wales—Houses Building.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the figures in the Census for England and Wales, showing that the total number of houses building in 1901 was 61,909, as compared with 38,387 in the previous decade; if he can state how many of these houses building were cottages or workmen's houses; whether each tenement in a flat or block is reckoned as a separate house; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing that more detailed particulars will be given in future census returns.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) As regards the first point, I am aware of the figures on the subject. The answer to the next two points is in the negative. With respect to the concluding part of the Question, the Registrar General is at all times willing to give careful consideration to any practical suggestions made to him for the improvement of any future census, and note will be taken of the suggestion made by the hon. Member.

  Newspaper Publication in Gibraltar.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will explain why the application, dated 19th November 1902, to license a paper to be called El Eco del Derecho (The Echo of Right), and to be published in Gibraltar, from Andres Fernandez, which was accompanied by copies of correspondence on the

  1099
  matter between Andrés Fernandez and His Excellency the Governor of Gibraltar, was refused.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The granting of licences for the publication of newspapers in Gibraltar is vested by Law in the Governor of the fortress. The Governor informed me that he had refused Fernandez a licence because he was convinced that the publication of the proposed paper would be prejudicial to the interests of the fortress, for the protection of which he is responsible, and I saw no reason for overruling his decision.

  Postal Deliveries in Glenavy District, County Antrim.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been directed to the fact that owing to an alteration of the mid-day delivery of letters in the Glenavy district of county Antrim certain houses which were formerly included in the delivery are now excluded; and, if so, will he consider the desirability of extending the delivery to those houses which formerly enjoyed the advantage of a mid-day delivery.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Yes; I hope to be able to make arrangements of the kind suggested in the Question.

  Telegraphic Department—Resignations and Transfers.
  MR. BAYLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the number of telegraphists who have resigned the Telegraph Department since 1897 for service elsewhere, and the number of telegraphists since that date who have been transferred to higher branches of the Postal Telegraph Department.
  (Answered, by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The causes of resignation are not always stated, but, so far as can be ascertained, about 100 telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office have resigned since 1897 for service elsewhere, of whom twenty-six took up duty as telegraphists under the South African Administrations. The number of telegraphists who have been transferred to higher branches of the Postal Telegraph Service is 142.

  Postal and Telegraphic Services—Double Increments for Dual Qualifications.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state whether a telegraphist who has been transferred as such from an amalgamated office and subsequently acquires postal qualifications, is entitled to a double increment for dual qualifications, or whether the rules regulating double increments for dual qualifications only apply when a servant possessing postal qualifications subsequently acquires telegraphic qualifications.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) An officer originally appointed to an amalgamated office bears the designation, of sorting clerk and telegraphist, and as such is by the terms of his appointment liable to be employed on both postal and telegraph duties at any office to which he may be attached. Under ordinary circumstances such an officer is not entitled on transfer to the double increment for dual qualifications which is granted to officers who were originally appointed as sorter, sorting clerk, or telegraphist, and were not liable to perform both postal and telegraph duties.

  Central London Railway—Damage by Vibration.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state when arrangements will be completed for stopping the annoyance and damage from vibration arising on the Central London Railway; and whether the Board of Trade will now take steps to compel the adoption of the suggestions of their Committee, in view of the answer of the President of the Board of Trade on the 26th of November last.†
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Central London Railway Company assure me that they are doing their utmost to carry out with the least possible delay the recommendations of the Committee: referred to. With that object sixty-four motor cars were ordered in May of last year. Several cars have already been delivered, and six motor car trains are now in actual service, while a seventh
  † See (4) Debates, cxv., 498]

  1101
  will be added in the course of the present week. The remainder of the cars will be put into service as soon as they are delivered to the company.

  Safety Rails on Fishing Boats.
  MR. CROMBIE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the recent loss of life from men falling overboard steam, trawl, and line fishing vessels; and whether he will consider the advisability of requiring that such vessels should be fitted with safety rails to prevent such accidents.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Board of Trade have given attention to this subject, and ever since 1890 have pressed upon skippers the desirability of providing stanchions and life lines The Department will continue to urge the expediency of using such appliances, but it has no power to require their adoption.

  Description.

  Cattle, Sheep, and Swine.

  1892.

  1902.

  No.

  No.

  Cattle

  502,237

  419,488

  Sheep

  79,048

  293,199

  Swine

  3,826

  —

  Description.

  Dead Meat.

  1892.

  1902.

  cwt.

  cwt.

  Beef

  2,923,022

  4,438,917

  Mutton

  1,768,378

  3,745,095

  Bacon, Hams, and Cork

  5,494,971

  7,432,632

  Rabbits

  107,630

  451,457

  Meat other than Beef or Mutton (Preserved otherwise than by salting)

  163,098

  247,434

  Meat (unenumerated) (salted or fresh)

  150,573

  655,023

  Total Dead Meat

  10,607,672

  16,970,558

  Damage by the Sea at Hallsands, Devon.
  MR. MILDMAY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the condition of the village of Hallsands in the Start Bay; and whether he is now prepared to make any statement on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The matter is still under consideration.

  Imports of Cattle, Dead Meat, etc.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the number of cattle, sheep, and swine and weight of dead meat imported into the United Kingdom in the years 1892 and 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) The number of cattle, sheep, and swine and the weight of dead meat imported into the United Kingdom in the years 1892 and 1902, respectively, are as follows:—

  Plague in India—Suggested Commission.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that 500,000 people died last year in India from plague, and of the spread of the disease, he will consider the advisability of sending out a Commission consisting of practical sanitarians, with a scientific expert at their head, to investigate the causes of the disease and devise a remedy.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The hon. Member is probably not aware that the subject of plague in India has recently been investigated by a very strong Commission, fully competent to deal with it in its scientific, administrative, and sanitary aspects. Their Report is accepted as the standard authority on the matter, and has been of the greatest value to the Indian Government in combating the disease.

  Interest on Government Rupee Paper— Fixed Rate of Exchange.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will consider favourably a proposal of the Chambers of Commerce in India to the Government of India to guarantee payment of interest on Government rupee paper enfaced for payment of interest in London at the fixed rate of 1s. 4d. per rupee.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The proposal to which the hon. Member refers has not been laid before me by the Government of India. Should it be submitted to me, it will receive careful consideration; but I cannot now give any indications of the probable decision.

  Payment of Income Tax—Statistics.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state at what rate per pound Income Tax was paid in the last financial year by persons having incomes of £200, £300, £400, £500, and £600 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The virtual rate of Income Tax in the year 1902–3,
  1104
  after allowing for the effect of the several abatements, was for persons with incomes of £200, 3d. in the £; £300, 7d.; £400,. 9d.; £500, 10½d.; £600, 1s.

  Secondary Education Assistance by Endowed Schools.
  MR. BRIGG: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to provide that, in places where county councils find that the supply of secondary education is inefficient, the trustees of endowed schools shall be required to assist the county councils to carry out their duty.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The existence of an endowed school in any locality provides for the supply of secondary education to the extent of the capacity of the school. The object which the hon. Member has in view would be better attained by arrangement between trustees and local authorities than by legislation which would enable local authorities to put compulsion upon the trustees.

  Voluntary Schools.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state by what name the Board propose in future to call the schools known before the passing of the Education Act, 1902, as voluntary schools.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board propose to continue the name "voluntary schools" to describe schools the fabric of which is provided and maintained by voluntary effort.

  Education Grants.
  MR. CALDWELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will explain why, in addition to the sum of £1,100,000, representing one half year's grant under Section 10 of the Education Act, 1902, there is also borne on the Estimates for the Board of Education a full year's grant to school boards under 33 and 34 Vic. c. 75, s. 97, and 60 and 61 Vic, c. 16, amounting to £315,000, instead of one half year only, seeing that the grants under The Education Act, 1902, are in lieu of the grants under the former Acts.

  1105
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) It was necessary to include a full year's grant, under 33 and 34 Vict., c. 75, s. 97, in the Estimates for 1903–4, because this grant runs from September to September, and the year 1903–4 beg in with half a year's grant accrued, and maturing for payment during 1903–4.

  Inishowen Rural District Council— Appointment of Clerk.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Inishowen Rural District Council recently appointed an assistant clerk without publishing the vacancy in any local or other paper; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Local Government Acts, and of the fact that the Council increased the salary of the clerk without notice to the ratepayers, he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) In September, 1899, a Committee of the Council reported in favour of an increased salary to the clerk and of the payment of a salary to his assistant. These recommendations were adopted by the Council and approved by the Local Government Board. The Local Government Acts and Orders do not require the publication of an advertisement in connection with the appointment of an assistant cleck.

  Land on the Skerrett Estate, County Clare-Case of Rev. W. J. Elliott.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish Land Commission in November, 1901, advanced to the Rev. W. J. Elliott, rector of Ballyvaughan, a portion of the price of a holding on the Skerrett estate, at Newquay, County Clare, thereby enabling him to purchase same under 40th Section of Land Act; that Mr. Elliott acquired the tenant's interest by purchase some months previously by public auction; and that although there were three sub-tenants occupying the entire holding in three different parcels, and who are still in occupation, Mr. Elliott, or some person acting on his behalf, swore an affidavit that he was in actual occupation of this holding, and that there were no sub-tenants on it; will he say what steps, if any, the
  1106
  Land Commission took to ascertain its accuracy; and what steps were taken to acquaint the sub-tenants that the head tenant was trying to purchase their several holdings; and whether, seeing that during the negotiations Mr. Elliott induced two of the three sub-tenants to sign agreements to be monthly and conacre tenants respectively, which were subsequently set aside at Ennis Quarter Sessions in June, 1902, and that Mr. Elliott has commenced ejectment proceedings against one of these sub-tenants, and proceedings against another for recovery of rent in excess of the amount due, will he say what steps the Land Commission intend taking to carry out the requirements of the Act of Parliament as regards occupation and sub-letting.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Before any advance to Mr. Elliott was sanctioned, he had acquired, by purchase, the interest of the tenant of this holding, and had also obtained from the sub-tenants of portions of the holding the surrender of their interests. The interest of the tenant became thus absolutely vested in him and he was in actual occupation. On this state of facts the advance was properly made. Litigation has since taken place between Mr. Elliott and two of the sub-tenants in respect to the real nature of the surrender, but the suit is still pending.

  Granard Union—Printing Contracts.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount paid in Granard Union to the contractor for printing and advertising for the year ended 31st March last; and the amount at which the contractor has obtained the printing and advertising contract this year; and whether, seeing the lowest tender was not accepted for this work in March, 1902, he will state whether the auditor has surcharged the difference between the highest and lowest tender to the parties responsible; and if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The amount paid in respect of the contract for printing books and forms for the past year was £50, and for advertising £6 12s. For the current year the amount of the contract for printing and advertising is

  1107
  £27 10s. The audit for the half year ended September last has not yet taken place. It will be open to any person interested to appear before the auditor on the occasion of the audit and lodge an objection to any item to which he takes exception.

  Longford Union and Longford District Council—Printing Contract.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total amount paid in Longford Union and Longford District Council for the years ended March, 1900, 1901, and 1902, respectively, for printing, books, advertising, and stationery; the amount of the contract for this work for the present year for Union and District Council; and when were tenders received in these years for the District Council printing and advertising; and, seeing that the lowest tender was not accepted by the guardians in March, 1902, will he say whether the auditor has surcharged to the parties responsible the difference between the highest and lowest tenders, and also the sums paid where no contract was entered into with the District Council; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham) The amounts paid in Longford Union for this work in the years mentioned were £95 16s. 1d., £113 7s. 7d., and £87 7s. 10d. respectively: and by the Rural District Council £109 1s. 7d., £74 0s. 7d., and £65 18s. 1d. The amount to be paid in the union and rural district for the same work during the current year is £65. No tenders were received in these years by the District Council. The lowest tender was accepted by the guardians in March, 1902.

  Labourers' Cottages in Ireland—Application of Thomas Smith.
  MR. M'GOVERN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the application of Thomas Smith for a labourer's cottage on the farm of Thomas Simons, in the townland of Corobay, Ashfield Rural District, Cootehill Union, was refused.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The application was refused by the inspector
  1108
  inasmuch as the applicant at the time of the inquiry was living in the Cootehill Urban District. Independently of this initial objection, however, it was given in evidence at the inquiry that there were several vacant houses available for labourers in the neighbourhood mentioned in the Question, and on this ground also the application, which was originally grounded on the alleged insufficiency of house accommodation in the district, would have been rejected.

  Irish Land Bill Cost of Investigating Titles.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the cost of investigating titles under the Irish Laud Bill will be borne by the purchaser; and, if not, upon what fund will this cost be charged.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The cost connected with the investigation of title will be defrayed out of the purchase money, save to the extent that such investigation will be made without charge under the provisions of Clause 22 (8) of the Bill.

  South African War—Colonial Contingents.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say whether the terms stated in telegrams numbers 17 and 18,:3rd October, 1899, Cd. 18, under which over-sea colonial contingents were sent to South Africa in 1899, also governed the despatch of similar contingents which went to South Africa in subsequent years; and, if not, what were the terms upon which the later contingents were despatched; and what were the numbers of men despatched from the several colonies under the different arrangements
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The later over-sea colonial contingents were not sent to South Africa on precisely similar terms as those which governed the first. The conditions are too varied to admit of my including them in an answer to a Question. The numbers were as follows; 1st Contingent, Canada, 1,105; 1st Contingent New South Wales, 461; 1st Contingent, South Australia, 121; 1st Contingent,

  1109
  Queensland, 248; 1st Contingent, Victoria, 240; 1st Contingent, New Zealand, 203; 1st Contingent, Tasmania, 76; 1st Contingent, West Australia, 125; 1st Contingent, Lumsdens Horse, 289; 1st Contingent, Ceylon, 122; 2nd Contingent, Canada, 1,823; 2nd Contingent, New South Wales, 821; 2nd Contingent, South Australia, 110; 2nd, Contingent, Queensland, 146; 2nd Contingent, Victoria, 249; 2nd Contingent, New Zealand, 244; 2nd Contingent, Tasmania, 45; 2nd Contingent, West Australia, 97; 3rd Australian Contingent, Australian Bushmen, and 4th Australian Contingent, Imperial Bushmen, 3,279; 3rd New Zealand Contingent, New Zealand Roughriders, 249; 4th New Zealand Contingent, New Zealand Roughriders, 541; 5th New Zealand Contingent, New Zealand Roughriders, 468; 5th and 6th Australian Contingents and Drafts, 5,540: 6th and 7th New Zealand Contingents. 1,118; 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Canadian Mounted Rifles, and 10th Canadian Field Hospital, 2,885; 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Australian Commonwealth Contingents, 4,020; 8th, 9th, and 10th New Zealand Contingents, 3,284; Ceylon Volunteer Company, 100. Speaking generally the majority of the later over-sea colonial contingents were enlisted for one year or the period of the war. As regards pay the first two contingents received ordinary Army rates, which I believe were augmented by the various colonies on a basis of 3s. 4d. a day for privates (others pro rata.) The later contingents received Imperial Yeomanry rates of pay from Imperial Funds.

  South African Medals—Claims of the Derby Volunteer R.A.M.C.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that men belonging to the Derby Volunteers who volunteered in the Royal Army Medical Corps, and served in the South African War, have not yet received medals; and if so, can he say when they will receive them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It is understood that ten men in question served in the war, but of these only six can at present be traced on the medal
  1110
  rolls. Steps are being taken to issue medals to these six, and inquiries will be made concerning the other four.

  Rifle Ranges—Half-charge Ammunition.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the cost and difficulty of providing rifle ranges suitable for long-range practice, he will consider the feasibility of issuing with the new service ride supplementary half-charge ammunition, accurate up to 600 yards, so that closed ranges which are safe up to 600 yards may be reopened.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The cost and difficulty of providing rifle ranges suitable for long range practice have been to some extent overcome by the adoption of protected ranges where suitable ground is not available for open ranges. Short range ammunition, which was in use in 1895–7, was not found to be satisfactory. It is hoped that miniature ranges may to a large extent meet these difficulties.

  Railway Construction Course for Volunteer Engineers.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the course laid down for the instruction of officers, non commissioned officers, and men of auxiliary engineer forces in railway construction and management; when is the course held; how many men have had or are in course of having this instruction; and what facilities are afforded by the railway companies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No special courses of instruction are laid down for Militia or Volunteer Engineers. Two companies of the Royal Monmouthshire, Royal Engineers (Militia), are, however, to be trained with a view to being useful for railway construction work, and one officer and twenty noncommissioned officers of this corps are now at Chatham for a two months course of instruction with the Royal Engineer (Regular) Railway Company there. The 2nd Cheshire Royal Engineers (Volunteers), commanded by Colonel Cotton-Jodrell, consists of employees of the London and North-Western Railway Company; its headquarters are at Crewe.

  1111
  Sub-district Commanding Royal Engineers have instructions to arrange the annual courses for Royal Engineer Volunteers, so as to correspond as far as possible with the work the corps would have to undertake on mobilisation.

  Report on the Health of the Army.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state on what date the Report of the Health of the Army for 1900 was presented to the House of Commons; and when the Reports for 1901 and 1902 will be presented.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Report for 1900 was presented on 9th May, 1902. That for 1901 is complete and will shortly be presented. As regards the Report for 1902 many of the returns will not reach this country from abroad until next October or November owing to the enormous labour of compilation; moreover, a considerable period is required for the elaboration of the Report from the various Returns. This Report cannot therefore be produced before March or April, 1904.

  Volunteers Enlistments.
  MR. SEELY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the number of recruits enlisted for the Volunteers from the 1st November, 1902, to the end of March.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The returns for the last quarter which contain this information will not all be received before the middle of this month.

  Royal Commission on Volunteers and Militia-Representation of Volunteer Medical Service.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to appoint a Volunteer medical officer to serve on the Royal Commission to consider matters relative to the Militia and Volunteers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am afraid that I cannot promise to include officers of the various departmental corps on the Commission.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    New Recruiting Regulations.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office when the new recruiting regulations with reference to the age of recruits will be issued.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): A revised edition of the recruiting regulations is being prepared for publication, and will be got out as soon as possible.
    MAJOR SEELY: Will the information be given to the House before the Budget is introduced?
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot fix a date.

  Royal Field Artillery Guns.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he wilt state at what date the present pattern of Royal Field Artillery Gun was first issued, and for what propelling charge and for what weight of projectile the gun was originally designed.
  MR. BRODRICK: The field gun with which most field batteries are armed was first issued in 1885, and a projectile weighing 12½ lbs. and a propellant of 4 lbs. of black powder were then used. In 1892 it was decided to change this gun into a 15-pounder, using cordite charges. In 1899 an improved pattern of 15-pounder was adopted, and the new batteries raised in 1900 were armed with this gun and the Impounder Q. F. Ehrherdt gun, both firing smokeless powder.

  Canadian Meat for the Army.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of allowing the meat of Canadian-bred cattle to be included in the meat contracts for the Army.
  MR. BRODRICK: This question has been very carefully considered, and the arrangement under which home - bred

  1113
  beef only can be accepted for Army supplies at home could only be disturbed to the detriment of the home producer.

  Trinidad Riots Commission.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commission of Inquiry into the recent riots in Trinidad has been appointed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): It has not been appointed, but I am now prepared to nominate for appointment the following gentlemen:—As Chairman, Sir Cecil Clementi Smith, G.C.M.G., who has filled with great credit many offices under the Crown, including that of Governor of the Straits Settlements; Sir H. Evan James, K.C.I.E., C.S.I., who was recently a Commissioner of Sind; and Mr. S. C. Macaskie, K.C., Recorder of Sheffield. The Commissioners will leave for Trinidad on Wednesday April 15. The Secretary to the Commission will be Mr. R. V. Vernon, of the Colonial Office.

  West Indian Sugar Exports.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he can state what proportion of sugar produced in the West Indies is sold in the United States; and what amount of protection against European competition is afforded to this sugar by the countervailing duties levied by the United States Government on bounty-fed sugar.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the latest returns available of the sugar exported from the West Indian Colonies, about three-fourths in value has gone to the United States. The United States Countervailing Duties on European bounty-fed sugar of the best quality vary from about 4s. 6d. per cwt. in the case of France to about 7½d. in the case of Denmark.

  Cotton Cultivation in the West Indies.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any portion of the aid grant to the West Indian Islands in 1901 or 1902 has been devoted to encouraging the cultivation of cotton as an alternative to the production of sugar.
  MR J. CHAMBERLAIN: The only grant in aid available for the purpose is the grant in aid of Botanic Stations and Agricultural Instruction and Experiments. The Imperial Commissioner of Agriculture for the West Indies, whose Department is paid for out of this grant, has recently devoted much attention to the encouragement of the cultivation of cotton, but I am not aware that any definite sum has been appropriated to this purpose.

  Vernacular Education in Ceylon.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that it appears in the recent census returns of the island of Ceylon that out of a population of 3,565,954 souls 2,790,255 are unable to read or write; whether he will consider the advisability of establishing an educational cess to provide elementary vernacular education, seeing that the children of the Tamil labourers, who number roughly a million souls, are devoid of facilities for education.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to the facts referred to by the hon. Member, and the question of providing further educational facilities in Ceylon by means of local rates is under the consideration of a Commission on the Incidence of Taxation which is now sitting in the Colony.

  Indentured Coolie Labour in Natal.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has received any Report from the Government of India as to the result of the Conference between that Government and a Commission which was sent from Natal recently to India for the purpose of settling the conditions regarding indentured Coolie labour; whether, on the expiry of their indentures, the labourers will be at liberty to remain in the Colony without being compelled to pay a poll tax; and if he will lay the Papers on this subject on the Table of the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I have not yet received a

  1115
  Report from the Government of India on the subject referred to in the hon. Member's Question.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: Will the noble Lord ask the Government of India for an early statement on the subject?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I quite admit the importance of the subject and I have no doubt that the Government of India will report soon.

  Red Sea Lights.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the four new lights at the southern end of the Red Sea have been erected for several months; and, if so, what is the obstacle to their being utilised; and whether there is yet any prospect of a light being erected at the eastern end of the Gulf of Aden.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The four new lights referred to have been erected, but the lighting has been delayed owing to a dispute to as the amount due for their construction. With regard to the proposed light at the eastern end of the Gulf of Aden I would refer my right hon. friend to the reply given by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs on 11th November last to a question by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.† That reply was to the effect that the shipping interests are not agreed in regard to the proposal, and that no settlement has been arrived at. There is no subsequent change in the situation. If my right hon. friend has any further questions to ask on this subject, perhaps he will put them to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Are not the Board of Trade anxious to supply lights so much wanted for many years.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is well known that there is great difficulty in connection with these lights, involving much correspondence with the Foreign Office.
  † See (4) Debates, cxiv., 586.

  Railway Bates on Home Agricultural Produce.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is in a position to inform the House whether the question of railway rates is receiving his consideration; and whether he proposes at an early date to make a public statement upon this subject so far as it relates to the agricultural interests of the country.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): The question of railway rates is, in my opinion, one of first-class importance to agriculturists, and I hope, as soon as I have completed inquiries which are now going on, to put myself into communication with the railway companies on the subject of the rates charged for home agricultural produce. As the hon. Member is probably aware, there is shortly to be a conference on this question in Wales which I hope to be able to attend.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: It may be for the convenience of the House if I now state that in consequence of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman it is not my intention to move the Motion standing in my name for tomorrow evening.

  Inspection of Danish and Dutch Bacon.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has any official reports showing what inspection of Danish or Dutch bacon for trichinæ takes place in the country of exportation; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House.
  MR. HANBURY: In the case of Denmark regulations are in force under a law of 1897, which prohibits the exportation of swine flesh and other meat which has not been previously examined by an official veterinary inspector, and certified to be sound and fit for human consumption. No specific reference is, however, made to trichinosis. In Holland, trichinosis of swine is a scheduled disease under the Diseases of Animals Acts, and provision is made for the inspection of

  1117
  swine and swine flesh with a view to the detection of the disease. I should be happy to obtain copies of the Dutch and Danish laws and regulations and to supply them, with a translation, to the hon. Member, if desired.

  Trichinæ in Imported Bacon and Pork.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that outbreaks of trichinosis among swine have lately taken place in Denmark and Holland; that bacon and pork from these countries have lately been condemned in Smithfield market as unfit for human food; and will he say whether he has any reports as to the danger of trichinæ in bacon to the public health; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to prevent the importation of bacon infected with trichinæ into the United Kingdom.
  MR. HANBURY: The last case of trichinosis in swine in Holland as to which we have any information occurred in 1900. We have observed no reports of the existence of the disease in Denmark. Pork of Dutch and Danish origin has recently been condemned in Smithfield market as unfit for food, mainly on account of the presence of tuberculosis, but no case of trichinosis has been discovered in the City markets for the past twenty years, although a special microscopic examination is made for the detection of trichinæ. It rests, however, with the Local Government Board, and not with myself, to take any further steps which may be considered necessary for the protection of the public health from the danger to which the hon. Member refers. I may state, however, that no case of trichinosis has been observed in this country for at least sixteen years.

  New York Mail Service—Slow Steamers.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if ins attention has been called to the fact that under the Transatlantic Combine the midweek mail to New York has been carried for several weeks since the beginning of 1903 by the "Cedric," "Celtic," and "Cymric," vessels which cannot steam from Kingstown to New York in seven
  1118
  days even in the finest weather, so that it has been impossible of late to send replies by the steamer leaving New York on Saturday to letters which left by these boats on Wednesday in the previous week; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the conditions of the contract with the White Star Company shall be fulfilled as in previous years.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): I am aware that the three vessels mentioned have been employed in the mail service to New York when none of the faster steamers of the White Star Line have been available. I am assured that their use was due solely to the fact that the "Majestic" and "Teutonic" had been withdrawn for purposes of overhauling. The hon. Member will be glad to learn that it is the Company's intention to have their fastest steamers regularly running on the mail service after the 15th of this month. In ordinary conditions of weather, letters sent by the "Celtic" and "Cedric," sister ships, should be delivered at New York in time to admit of replies being sent by the Saturday mail.

  Telegraphic Communication with Westray.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that for over two months the important island of Westray has been without telegraphic communication, and whether any steps are being taken to repair the cable.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has already called my attention to the interruption of the cable to Westray, and I have explained that the weather has not been suitable for repairing operations in those waters. In addition to this, the cable ship has had to go into dock; but she will shortly be ready for sea, and she will then proceed to the North to repair the Westray and other cables.

  Children in State aided Schools and Dentistry.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, having regard to the fact that the Admiralty estimate that 10 per cent. of the recruits for the Navy are

  1119
  rejected on account of bad teeth, will he consider the expediency of arranging for dentists to visit State-aided schools so that the children of ten years and upwards may have facilities for obtaining advice as to the best means to be taken to preserve their teeth.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): The Board will consider the propriety of communicating with local authorities on this subject, as it would appear to be one with which local authorities might most properly deal.

  Glasgow Slums.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will explain why the sanitary conditions of the Public Health (Scotland) Act are not enforced in respect of slum property in Glasgow.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I cannot admit the hypothesis on which the hon. Member's Question proceeds. The Public Health Act in Glasgow, as elsewhere, is administered by the local authority under the supervision of the Local Government Board.
  MR. WEIR: Very well, I will give the hon. and learned Gentleman information which will show that his information is wholly inaccurate.

  Island of Lewis—Report on Social Condition.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is yet prepared to introduce legislation dealing with the suggestions contained in the Report on the Social Condition of the Island of Lewis.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The matter referred to in the hon. Member's question is now under the personal consideration of the Secretary for Scotland.

  Dublin Divisional Magistrates.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney - General for Ireland, whether he is aware that all prosecutions at the instance of the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District
  1120
  Council have been dealt with by Mr. Thomas Chalmers Drury since his appointment as a divisional Magistrate of the Metropolitan District of Dublin; and whether, in view of the fact that this Gentleman prior to his appointment as divisional magistrate was standing council for the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council, arrangements will be made for any future prosecutions at the instance of this council to be dealt with by some other magistrate.
  THE ATTORNE-YGENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): There is no foundation for the statement contained in the Question, and, if possible, still less for the imputation apparently intended to be conveyed by it against an upright and efficient magistrate. Out of the fifty-eight days on which prosecutions of the nature mentioned came on for hearing, Mr. Drury presided on seventeen. The cases he dealt with came before him in the ordinary rotation of business and were adjudicated upon by him without objection by any of the parties interested. No change in the practice of the Court is in my opinion called for.

  Disqualified Irish Councillors.
  MR. CULLINANI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will grant the Return standing on the Paper to-day re Disqualification of County, District, and Urban Councillors in Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): I have forwarded to the hon. Member a return containing this information. I see no necessity, however, for laying it on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper.
  Appended is the Return referred to in this Question:—
  County and District Councillors (Ireland): Return giving the names and residences of the County, District, and Urban Councillors who have been disqualified from acting as such because of their being sentenced to terms of imprisonment with hard labour.

  Irish Evicted Tenants.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will grant the

  1121
  Return standing on the Paper to-day relating to evicted tenants in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; the Return will be granted.
  Appended is the Return referred to:—
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland)—Return showing the number of Tenants evicted in Ireland within the past twenty-five years who have not been reinstated in their holdings, as follows: number under £10 yearly rent; number over £10 and under £20; number over £20 and under £50; number over £50 and under £100; number over £100 and under £200; number over £200.

  Disqualification by Crimes Act Sentences.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the number of local representatives who were disqualified from acting on local representative bodies in Ireland in consequence of being sentenced to hard labour under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act since 1898.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Fourteen.

  National Library, Dublin.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the opinion of the Trustees of the National Library, Dublin, to which attention has again been called in the latest report, the completion of the east wing of the library can be carried out in accordance with the plans as originally approved of.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is not practicable to make provision for this work in the Estimates for the current year, which have already been published. But the whole question of the necessity for, and the amount of the additional accommodation recommended will be considered in connection with the Estimates for next year.

  White Estate, near Bantry.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the receiver on the White Estate, near Bantry in serving a number of these
  1122
  tenants with civil bills for arrears due; and whether, in view of the position of these tenants, he will cause the immediate sale of the White Estate, which has been listed since 1898, in order that said arrears may be arranged in the purchase.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Twelve tenants on this estate have been served with civil bills. The receiver, who is responsible to the land judge for any action he may take, states he has been impelled to take these proceedings because there is a disposition on the part of some of the tenants to withhold payment of rent pending the sale of the estate. In reply to the concluding inquiry, I must refer to my answer to the hon. Member's Question of Thursday last.†

  Glengarriffe Burial Ground.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between the Bantry Rural District Council and the Irish Land Commission; and, if so, whether he will explain why the Land Commission, as the successors of the Church Temporalities Commission, refused to vest the Glengarriffe burial ground in the said district council in view of the Irish Church Act of 1869.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am making enquiries into this matter and will communicate to the hon. Member the result.

  Select Committee on Irish Valuation.
  MR. WOLFF: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to re-appoint this session the Select Committee on Irish Valuation.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir.
  MR. WOLFF: When?
  MR. WYNDHAM: On as early a date after the Recess as possible.

  Margaretta Buoys, Galway Bay.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade
  † See page 922.

  1123
  whether he can say on what date the change in the character of the Margaretta Buoys, Galway Bay, was made; and whether, seeing that the notice to mariners of the 1st November, 1897, stated that when the changes were carried out a further notice would be issued stating the fact, he will explain why that course was not taken with respect to the other buoys mentioned in the notice of November, 1897, and why, when the changes were made, the west buoy was marked by a triangle instead of a diamond and the east buoy by a diamond instead of a triangle.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have communicated with the Commissioners of Irish Lights who state that the change in character of the Margaretta buoys was carried out on the 14th and 17th June, 1898. The Commissioners add that through an oversight a Notice to Mariners was not issued announcing the changes of these and other buoys alluded to in the notice of November, 1897. The sanction of the Trinity House for top marks of the Margaretta buoys was in accordance with the recommendations of the Buoyage Conference of 1st May, 1883, and the top marks are still carried by these buoys, viz., west buoy a diamond, and the east buoy a triangle.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what notice was taken of this serious omission to notify the change in these buoys in the usual manner?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no power over the Irish Lights Board?

  Straw Island, South Arran and Roancarrig Lights.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will say on what dates Straw Island, South Arran, and Roancarrig Lights were brought into conformity with their description as given in the Admiralty Light List; and whether he can state in degrees to what exactitude the sectors of catoptric and dioptric lights can be cut.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that it is absolutely impossible to state the exactitude with which catoptric and dioptric lights can be cut, as asked
  1124
  for, until the actual conditions of each particular light are known. The Commissioners add that no alterations have been made in the cuts of either Straw Island, South Arran, or Roancarrig Lights.

  Mr. Wyndham's Speech on the Irish Land Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the sum of £410,000 said by him to have been saved from the Irish Estimates during a period of three years has been placed to the credit of any Irish account.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think I can reply to the hon. Member. The excellent report which appeared in The Times of the speech in which I introduced the Land Bill, contained an error which, I am sure, was due to myself and not to the reporter. What I was doing was this. I was comparing the amount of the civil government charges expended on the Irish Estimates in the year 1901–02 and the same amount for the year 1896–97, and I said, I believe quite accurately, that it was lower in the former year than in the earlier year. I made a parenthetical allusion to the fact that in three out of the intervening years there had been a decrease, but in the other two there had been an increase. These minor fluctuations in the Estimates are not matters which can be treated in the method which the hon. Member suggests. I was saying that we expected to make a reduction of £250,000 a year, and I pointed out that in recent years there had not been an increase but the reverse on the civil government charges in Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But have the savings been devoted to any Irish purpose?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member cannot have listened to what I said. On the three years there were savings amounting to £410,000, but on the other two years there were increases. Would the hon. Member suggest that the savings should be earmarked for Ireland, and the increases earmarked for Great Britain? The relations of the two countries cannot be conducted in that way.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am quite certain that that is what will be done.

  Irish Gold Ornaments.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will say in what position the case in reference to the Irish gold ornaments in the British Museum now stands.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I do not think I have anything to add to the answer I gave to a similar Question the other day, which was that the case would probably be tried in the course of the next sittings after Easter.†

  Naval and Military Education.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take the opinion of the Committee of Defence on the possibility of making arrangements whereby the new director of naval education may also be charged with the direction of military education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not otter any opinion as to whether this is or is not a proper subject to be dealt with by the Committee of Defence. That Committee is at present occupied with subjects far beyond the Departmental range suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and they certainly have not time to deal with this question at the present moment.

  Royal Patriotic Commission.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Bill to deal with the future administration of the funds controlled by the Royal Patriotic Commission will be introduced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Bill will be introduced very shortly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what business he contemplates taking on the days immediately after the holidays.
† See page 780.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the Tuesday on which we return, in accordance with the almost invariable custom, we shall take Supply. I shall be very glad to state to-morrow what we shall take on the Wednesday.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Which Supply?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Civil Service Estimates. I will endeavour to make the Estimates on Tuesday as little controversial as possible. I cannot give the same pledge for the Wednesday. Both days will be allotted days.

THE VOTE OF CENSURE.

  THE PENRHYN QUARRY DISPUTE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he can give a day for the discussion of the Motion which stands in the name of my right hon. friend the Member for East Fife with regard to the Bethesda dispute.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the Motion is couched in the form of a Vote of Censure on the Government. Of course I shall give a day, and I shall make that day as convenient as I can for hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. The Thursday after we return is devoted to the Budget, and I think the Monday following will be a convenient day.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Post Office Sites Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
NEW BILLS.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (AUDIT) BILL.
  "To amend the law relating to the audit of the accounts of Municipal Corporations in England and Wales," presented by Major Seely; supported by Sir James Fergusson, Sir Barrington Simeon, Mr. Galloway, and Mr. Flower; to be read a second time upon Monday, 27th April, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]
TRAWLERS' CERTTFICATES SUSPENSION BILL.
"To enable Courts to suspend the certificates of trawlers convicted of illegal trawling," presented by Mr. Bignold; supported by Mr. Irwin Cox,; Mr. Leveson Glower, Mr. J. E. Gordon, and Mr. Cathcart Wason; to be read a second time upon Monday, 18th May, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]
PARLTAMENTARY VOTERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
"To amend the law for the Registration of Voters and other purposes pertaining to elections," presented by Mr. Cremer; to be road a second time upon Tuesday, 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

THE PORT OF LONDON.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I rise to introduce a Bill "to establish a Commission, for the administration of the Port of London, and for transferring to the Commission the undertakings of certain dock companies, and certain powers and duties of the Conservators of the River Thames and the Waterman's Company, and for other purposes connected therewith." This Bill is the outcome of the valuable comprehensive Report presented by the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the question of the administration of the Port of London. The Commissioners recommended that a new port authority should be created which should take over the powers and duties of the Lower Thames Conservancy, of the Waterman's Company, and of the Trinity House, so far as the duties and powers of the Trinity House relate to the Port of London. They recommended, in addition, that the new authority should purchase the undertakings of the principal dock companies—that is to say, the London and India Dock Company and the Surrey Commercial and Millwall Docks Companies—subject, however, to the obligation to lease or sell the warehouses belonging to those companies as soon as that could conveniently be done. They further recommended that, in order to bring the port up to modern requirements, the new authority should forth-with proceed to carry out extensive
1128
works in connection with the deepening of the river channel and with the improvement of the existing dock accommodation and the provision of further dock accommodation. They estimated the expenditure on the deepening of the river channel at a sum of £2,500,000, and the expenditure upon the docks at a sum of £4,500,000. Finally, they advised that the large financial commitment involved in these proposals should be met partly by empowering the new authority to raise dues upon the goods entering the port as well as upon the ships, partly by a municipal contribution to the expense of deepening the river, and partly by an issue of Port stock in payment of the undertakings of the dock companies, such Port stock to have behind it the guarantee of the London County Council and the Corporation of the City.
In its main outlines the Bill follows the recommendations of the Commission; but there are some not altogether unimportant exceptions which I will proceed briefly to indicate. In the first place, it is not proposed to include the powers and duties of the Trinity House among the powers and duties which are to be transferred to the new authority. It is generally admitted, I believe, that the Trinity House has done its work in connection with the Port of London well; and the Commissioners themselves seem to have recommended the transfer of its functions rather on the ground of abstract symmetry than in order to meet any practical complaint of the manner in which those functions have been discharged. Moreover, it appears to the Government on further inquiry into the subject that this transfer would have the effect of raising difficulties in connection with the lighting of the port and the pilotage quite out of proportion to any advantage likely to ensue from it. We have accordingly decided not to include Trinity House within the scope and operation of this Bill The proposal to purchase the undertakings of the dock companies is undoubtedly a very far-reaching one—it is really the keystone of the scheme which has been put forward by the Royal Commissioners. After most careful consideration, and weighing as well as we were able the arguments for and against, we have

1129
come to the conclusion that the Commissioners were right in the importance which they attributed to this proposal. In one respect, however, we have been unable to agree with the recommendations of the Commissioners as to the purchase of the docks. As I have already stated, the Commissioners advise that the new authority should be placed under an obligation to dispose as soon as possible, or, at all events, within a stated time, of that part of the property of the dock companies which consists of warehouses There appears to me to be a very great consensus of opinion, in which we also share, that that proposal is not a workable one. Accordingly we have decided to leave it open to the new authority either to dispose of the warehouses at present belonging to the dock companies or to retain them as they see fit. As regards the financial arrangements, our proposal differs in two respects from that made by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission suggested that a municipal guarantee should be given jointly by the London County Council and the Corporation of the City. I under-stand that the Corporation of the City is not in a position to give such a guarantee; and accordingly the Government propose that it shall be given by the County Council alone. The Bill also provides for what appears not to have been contemplated by the Royal Commissioners—namely, that the debenture stock of the dock companies shall be compulsorily redeemable. We naturally take all precautions in the Bill that that shall be carried out without any injustice to the reasonable interests of the holders of debenture stock.
Lastly I come to the question of the constitution of the new port authority. With regard to this important point the scheme of the Bill differs materially from the scheme proposed by the Royal Commissioners. Under the scheme of the Royal Commissioners the port authority was to consist of forty members, fourteen of whom were to be elected and twenty-six nominated. We maintain the total number of forty, but we exactly reverse the proportions of elected and non-elected members—that is to say, we propose that twenty-six shall be elected and fourteen nominated. The constitution of the authority under our proposal will
1130
be as follows:—Appointed by the London County Council, eight; by the City Corporation, two; by the Admiralty, one; by the Board of Trade, one; Trinity House, one; and the Railway Association, one; elected by the payers of dues on ships, ten; by the payers of dues on goods—that is by the mercantile community—ten; by the wharfingers, four; and by the owners of river craft, two. It will be noted that under this scheme, while we very materially increase the number of the representatives of shipowners and the mercantile community, we very materially diminish the numbers of those who are to be appointed by the local authorities. I imagine that this change will be received with general favour, and that the only question that is likely to arise is a doubt as to whether the pecuniary interests of the London County Council, as the guaranteeing body, have been adequately secured under it. I may say that the Royal Commissioners themselves indicated their view that, apart from financial considerations, they would propose a smaller representation for the County Council and the Corporation of the City.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: They proposed eleven.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is so. I may, however, point out that the County Council cannot really be protected from financial incompetence on the part of the new authority unless they actually have a majority of members on the board; and that is, of course, absolutely out of the question. We have therefore to look in another direction for the protection of the interests of the ratepayers, which we fully admit they are entitled to. What we propose is that, if at any time the revenues of the port are insufficient to meet its obligations and the interest upon the Port Stock, and recourse has to be had to the guarantee, the County Council, as the guaranteeing body, shall be then entitled to move the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade shall have power to make an order upon the dock authority fixing the dues upon goods and ships at such a rate as will make good any deficiency that may have arisen. I have now described, as briefly

1131
as I can, the principal provisions of the Bill; and I trust the House will be content to leave any further explanations or justification of the proposals that may be required to a future date, when hon. Members will have the text of the Bill in their hands. In conclusion I will only say that the problem presented to the Government has been by no means a simple one, and I myself, after devoting a great deal of attention to the subject, doubt whether any solution could be found that would be entirely free from objection. But the need for doing something is urgent; and, on the whole, I believe that the more the question is studied the more it will be recognised that a bold and thorough solution, such as that put forward by the Commissioners and substantially embodied in this Bill, will be the one most likely to lead to useful and fruitful results. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Commission for the administration of the Port of London, and for transferring to the Commission the undertakings of certain dock companies, and certain powers and duties of the Conservators of the River Thames and the Watermen's Company, and for other purposes connected therewith."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that in the few minutes open to them for discussion he did not propose to discuss the principles or details of the Bill. Before doing that they must have a copy of it in their hands. But speaking for himself, and on behalf, he hoped, of most hon. Members, he welcomed the action of the Government in dealing with this matter, and congratulated them upon the extraordinary promptitude with which they had carried out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it being the rule for Governments to take a long time to consider such recommendations. In some respects he thought the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman improved upon the proposals of the Royal Commission, but in others it worsened them. He was very glad the right hon. Gentleman was going to base the financial oper-
1132
ations on the credit of the rates, without which, in his opinion, it would have been quite impossible to carry them through, either in regard to the buying up of existing interests, or the raising of the new capital essential for the prosperity of the port. He was glad to think that the County Council, on behalf of the ratepayers of London, were to finance the undertaking. That was an improvement on the proposal of the Royal Commission to set up a sort of dual control. But with regard to the composition of the body which was to undertake the management of the docks, he heard with surprise and disappointment that they were to have only one-fifth of the whole representation on the new authority. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that if the new body got into financial difficulties, the County Council should be able to move the Board of Trade to move the dock trust to put up the rates. That was a most clumsy device. He hoped that in Committee they would insist that the County Council should have a fair representation on the authority, and then he would much rather leave it to those representatives to see that the interests of the ratepayers were preserved than, when the extremity had come, resort to the clumsy expedient of moving the Board of Trade. As to the exclusion of Trinity House from the purview of the Bill, while the House was agreed that the great confusion and chaos of authorities having jurisdiction on the river should be ended, if leaving Trinity House in its present position would not lead to that confusion he had no objection. He regarded this Bill as an earnest on the part of the Government that they wished to deal with this matter in a broad-minded and satisfactory way. There were one or two other points to which, on the Opposition side of the House, there would be considerable resistance, but as this matter was not one of party or politics, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would leave it to be discussed and decided according to the general feeling of the Committee. He had heard it stated that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to send the Bill to the Grand Committee.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid his proposal was that it should go to a joint Committee of Lords and Commons, as the Water Bill did last year.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: And it will then come back to this House and be discussed in Committee?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As at present advised that is my intention.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid this was clearly a matter which the House itself ought to have the opportunity of discussing, seeing that it dealt with a trade which represented £250,000,000 sterling yearly. Again he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having introduced the Bill, although of course they must wait till they had it in their hands before they could form an opinion as to whether it was a satisfactory measure.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERput the Question in pursuance of Standing Order No. 11.
Question agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Bonar Law.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
"To establish a Commission for the administration of the Port of London, and for transferring to the Commission the undertakings of certain dock companies, and certain powers and duties of the Conservators of the River Thames and the Watermen's Company, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. URE, in moving that no measure dealing with licensing
1134
reform in Scotland would be satisfactory which failed to include provisions securing direct popular control of the liquor traffic, said that in doing so he would not challenge the claim put forward by the Lord Advocate in introducing the Bill, viz., that it was an honest and fair attempt to tackle a ticklish question. The Bill had received approval from many quarters, in some cases under reservations more or less ample. The House would agree that any measure dealing with the liquor traffic proposed by any Government under any conceivable conditions would certainly fail to please everybody. Many of them thought that the Bill did not go far enough; some of them thought that it went too far; but they were all agreed that it was a step in the right direction. He was sure the Lord Advocate was sick of that phrase. He abominated it, because it was characteristic of countless statutory measures of social reform, which bad perished at their birth. They lacked something which their authors seemed unable or unwilling to give them—a living force. They were all steps in the right direction, but steps which somehow or other did not seem to lead anywhere. He asked why a step? Why not a stride, or a series of strides? If they saw the path straight before them, and the goal on ahead, why should they not tread that path? He supposed they would be told that they must proceed warily, by slow steps, or else they would lose the support of the moderate man. He did not believe it. It was the influence of the moderate man that paralysed reform—the armchair politician, the weak brother, the man who laid low, and who looked wise and said nothing. He (Mr. Ure) was satisfied that temperance reform in Scotland had been delayed for more than a generation of men because of the unreasoning dread of this particular moderate man. He did not say anything of the opposition which the trade and their friends and supporters would undoubtedly give to a measure of temperance reform. He discounted it, he took it for granted, and he made no complaint of it. If he were a publican, or the son of a publican, he should fight to the last gasp for his vested interests. He would do this justice to the trade at all events.

1135
Their position was quite frank and candid. A resolution passed at the conference of the Wine and Beer Trade Defence League at Sheffield on 28th March, 1900, made their position plain and unmistakable. When he found a highly respectable brewer in Edinburgh talking of a pistol being put to their heads, he was speaking simply of the inoffensive Bill they were discussing; and when they found a respectable licensed grocer from the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that he should hustle his Member if he did not do what he was told—all he would say was that the House had no complaint to make of plain speaking. They knew exactly where the trade stood. But he made a request, and one only, and he supposed it would be readily granted. It was that the trade would not expect them to discuss again de novo the arguments for and against direct popular control. They must maintain the possibility of making a man sober by Act of Parliament. Why did he affirm that the Bill was unsatisfactory and inadequate and fell short of what they were entitled to expect? Brushing aside all Committee points, such as later openings and earlier closings, extinction of the licensed grocer or the separation of his grocery business from that of the sale of alcoholic liquor, he affirmed that the Bill was unsatisfactory and inadequate because it was in the main a police measure and nothing more, strengthening, no doubt, and enlarging, the powers of the police authorities to put down drunkenness, but not even touching, not even professing to touch, that vast social and national question connected with the drink problem. It did not even touch the fringe of it.
When they considered the appalling dimensions of the problem which confronted them, the provisions of this Bill seemed almost ludicrously inadequate. He would not cull selected passages from the writings or speeches of teetotal lecturers or preachers. He did not turn even to the Minority Report, but he referred to a document which no man in that House would say exaggerated in any degree the extent of the mischief. After making every allowance for the zeal of countless temperance reformers, for the spread of education, the taste for writing, the passion for games and
1136
athletics, the Majority Report of the Royal Commission went on to say—
"It is undeniable that a gigantic evil still remains to be remedied, and hardly any sacrifice would be too great which would result in a marked diminution of this national degradation."
What did this Bill do to deal with that gigantic evil; how did it seek to alleviate the national degradation? The habitual drunkard would be blacklisted, but he would have by way of compensation for his compulsory abstention from alcohol the joy of knowing that his portrait would adorn the walls of the scenes of his former revels. The licensed grocer had got to sell his wares in sealed or closed vessels. The bonâ-fide traveller was a thoroughpaced humbug, for no one who wanted to walk wanted to tipple, and no one who wanted to tipple wanted to walk, and the man who wanted to do both was a pure figment of the licensing laws. Clubs, if they sold drink, were to be put upon a register. That, stripped of the necessary wording in an Act of Parliament, was a brief statement of the measure so far as it proposed to deal with the gigantic evil of national degradation.
Part I. of the Bill dealt with the reconstitution of the licensing authority. He did not brush lightly aside by any means the proposal to reconstitute these licensing authorities; especially when he saw the very ample powers with which they were in future to be armed. What did it come to in the end? It was more than likely that there would be an appeal, and a gnashing of teeth on the part of at least forty odd Royal Burghs, whose ancient privileges were to have ruthless hands laid upon them by the Lord Advocate. He, in company with his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, shared a sympathetic ear with the Provost of South Queensferry and the Provost of Linlithgow when the Lord Advocate proposed to deprive them of their ancient right to supplant and uproot public houses within their own burghs at their own free will. After all, what did this amount to? It was mere mechanism mere machinery. What was its real value in the Bill? Was the Lord Advocate's proposal to limit the number, and make definite the constitution of these licensing boards, to secure continuity of policy, and a sense of responsibility which they looked for in vain

1137
in promiscuous and fluctuating gatherings of men? He had no doubt that the controversy would be prolonged and very bitter; but did they not all know, as practical men, that when the conflict had subsided, and when the smoke had cleared away, A, B, and C, who were nominated to do a certain thing before, would be elected to do that very same thing.
What the Bill lacked was driving power, vital energy, and living force to cope with this gigantic evil, and to alleviate the national degradation. He proposed to give flesh and life and living force to this measure—not mere machinery with nothing to drive it; and he proposed to look for his motive power at the very root of the gigantic evil, and at the very seat of the national degradation. He proposed to look among the people themselves, whose lives were so very closely bound up with this evil. He proposed to find the people on the widest possible existing franchise. He did not propose absolute prohibition; he did not propose management cither by the local authority or by a company from which the element of private profit was to be altogether eliminated; he did not propose a reduction of the number of public houses in any locality in the ratio of population. What he did propose was that the people, to whom this was not a mere matter of academic discussion, but in many instances a matter of life or death, should be left themselves to choose which of these remedies they thought best adapted to the localities in which they lived. He proposed that the limitations under which the people should apply the remedy should be clear and definite, and should be as few as possible, because flexibility and freedom were essential to his plan, and uniformity and rigidity fatal. The needs of one locality were totally different from the needs of another in variety and distribution of population, and in economical and industrial conditions. To ask the people in any locality to give an answer "Yes" or "No," if it were to be prohibition alone, management alone, or reduction of licences alone, would usually mean that they would have no answer at all to the question. Freedom and flexibility he regarded as absolutely essential. He
1138
did not believe that on the application of the remedy would instantly come the remedy, as no one knew what the people in any given locality might say. What he asked was that those who were most deeply interested, and, therefore, had the best right to consider and decide the question, should get a chance of saying what the remedy might be, and how they proposed to mitigate this national degradation. He proposed to give to the people themselves exactly the right which the law of Scotland gave to every landed proprietor in the country, exactly the right which the law gave to magistrates in however insignificant a Royal Burgh—if there was an insignificant Loyal Burgh—exactly the same right that the nominees of: the Lord-Lieutenant of the county at the present moment exercised.
The arguments were all contained in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission under eleven heads; and under eleven heads also would be found the objections to direct popular control. Two of the eleven objections were applicable exclusively to prohibition; the other nine to popular control. It would be asked were the people of Scotland in favour of direct popular control; and were they ready to undertake the duty and responsibility of deciding this question, in which they were so deeply and vitally interested. He believed they were; but he would not make an unqualified assertion on the subject, as the people of Scotland had not yet been polled on it. Small blame to them. It was no fault of the Opposition, because the last time they went to their constituents there was only one question submitted to them, and electors were told that every vote given to members of the Opposition was a vote given to their enemies in the field. When he came to the Majority Report he found silence on this subject; and there was not a word to indicate whether his countrymen were in favour of this measure or not. The Minority Report, on the other hand, was clear and unhesitating in saying that Scotland was now ready for a wide measure of direct popular control. He had read and re-read every word of the evidence on the subject. The Solicitor-General, who gave most valuable and distinct evidence before the Committee, would find, when he turned up the Index, only one reference under the head of

1139
"Objections to Direct Popular Control." That was in the evidence of the Chief Constable of Greenock; but even he had no objection to the plan of direct popular control he had just sketched. The Chief Constable's objection was to prohibition pure and simple, and what he desired with regard to prohibition was magisterial discretion tempered by local control. Out of the 10,000 answers given by Scottish witnesses before the Royal Commission, he challenged any man to produce any answer which was hostile to direct popular control such as he had sketched. The last time the question of prohibition came forward in this House, forty Scottish Members voted in favour of it and fifteen against. If he were asked what tests they had of the feeling of the people as distinct from their representatives, he would offer two. Dundee, sixteen years ago, had an opportunity of declaring its opinion, and there were nine to two in favour of direct popular control, three to two in favour of prohibition, seven to two in favour of the reduction of licences, and seven to four against any new licences being granted. The great city of Glasgow, which the Solicitor-General would not deny was the embodiment of the collective wisdom of Scotland, had this opportunity a few years later; and by a majority of 77,000 odd against 8,508 declared in favour of direct popular control; and by a majority of 87,000 against 19,000 declared in favour of prohibition.
He must own that his scheme was incomplete and impracticable if it led to the conclusion that a publican of unimpeachable character, who had managed his business without complaint, might suddenly, as the result of the exercise of one of these options, be deprived of business and turned loose on the world with probably a wife and family dependent upon him. Such a conclusion would probably be fatal to any scheme of direct popular control. Vested interests in licences were in Scotland not comprehended. Any limitation upon the absolute, unqualified, unchallengeable right on the part of magistrates and licensing justices to exercise discretion in gradually reducing licences equally he did not
1140
understand. Again, compensation in the strict and narrow sense of the word, the proposal to dip their hand into the ratepayers' pockets in order to hand over money to a dispossessed publican was to a Scotsman simply grotesque. But Scotsmen clearly recognised that the people had legalised this trade, and they saw every day that publicans whose conduct had been unimpeachable had, as a matter of course, their licences renewed. In reliance on this inveterate practice the publicans had embarked considerable sums—oftentimes the savings of a lifetime—in the purchase of licensed businesses. The law had recognised this practice, but it did not ask the publican to appear in Court every time his licence was renewed. They saw quite well that it would be unjust and inequitable to suddenly deprive that man of his livelihood for no fault of his own. Consequently they recognised the justice of giving him a long time notice to quit, and if they did not give him that notice they recognised the justice of giving him money compensation in lieu thereof. They said it was wholly unjust, impracticable and utterly impossible for even the strongest Government to propose to take compensation money out of the pockets of the ratepayers, and they looked, as logical men, for the source of such money payment to the gigantic monopoly which belonged to the people, which they had created and which they had handed over, almost gratuitously, to the publican. An hon. Member proposed seven years as the time notice to be given. He could assure him that the most zealous temperance reformers would not squabble with him about the number of years notice. At this stage there was no room for doubt or difference. He supposed the House would agree that licensed property would probably reach its high water mark in the great city of Glasgow. There twice over within his own knowledge, and within the experience of the Solicitor-General for Scotland the question of the market value of licensed property had been decided by trained lawyers, and the result was that in one case seven and a half years purchase, and in another case eight years purchase, of the net profits were awarded. There was therefore not very much room for difference of opinion, but never again

1141
would pure points of detail be allowed to divide the energies and paralyse the hands of temperance reformers, who had not read aright the history and lessons of the last twenty years if they did not see that in order to gain their main end, viz., control on the part of the people, they must set a great many minor issues in the background. The right hon. Member for East Fife once said in Edinburgh to a zealous band of temperance reformers that the history of this question was a history of lost opportunities. He entirely agreed with that statement, and he would regret to think that this, in one sense probably the most favourable opportunity which had ever been afforded to the House of Commons, of securing the right of popular control, should be lost. The Lord Advocate had in that Chambera steady, sure, and firm majority which would enable him to beat down all his foes. The Government which survived the publication of the Spion Kop despatches, which came up with its majority smiling and triumphant after that long persistent attack on its flank and rear which characterised the opening weeks of the Session, was far more than equal to the Lord Advocate's modest enterprise of giving his countrymen an opportunity of applying their practical sagacity to the solution of a problem, difficult he admitted, but not insoluble, which so closely touched the future of his countrymen. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out all the words from the 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'no measure dealing with Licensing reform in Scotland will be satisfactory which fails to include provisions securing direct popular control of the liquor traffic'"—(Mr. Ure.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. EUGENE WASONformally seconded the Motion.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (MR. SCOTT DICKSON,)said he should treat the question as he thought the people
1142
of Scotland intended to deal with it, viz., as a practical matter. No doubt the Lord Advocate, as well as himself, had received almost innumerable petitions and requests from all classes of people in Scotland, temperance and otherwise, to support the Bill as it stood, subject no doubt to possible Amendment in Committee, but he had not received a single suggestion that be or any one should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. With one consent all Scotsmen desired this Bill to pass, and they quite recognised that the Amendment was distinctly a Second Reading Amendment. It went to the principle of the Bill, and he might paraphrase a now famous saying:—"Every Vote for this Amendment is a Vote against the Bill." Apart from pressing the Amendment to a division there was a legitimate reason for bringing it before the House. While they in proposing the Bill quite recognised they did not go so far as many desired, on the other hand they understood perfectly that those on both sides of the House who were more advanced than the Bill did not intend by accepting it to commit themselves against going further. Therefore he agreed that it was quite legitimate that such an Amendment should be proposed in older to make it perfectly plain that whatever might be the good wishes towards the Bill it was not to be regarded from that standpoint as a settlement of the question. The Government might congratulate themselves on the manner in which the Bill had been received. No doubt it was recognised that on many important points, questions for discussion and amendment would be raised in Committee, and no doubt the Lord Advocate would listen to all suggestions with care and consideration, and in some cases, with sympathetic and friendly consideration. But that was an entirely different matter from adopting the Motion now submitted to the House. It would serve little good purpose to discuss the merits of local option, because that had been discussed over and over again in that House, until the question had almost assumed the character of the "hardy annual." But so far as he remembered, it had never received the assent of that House in any shape or form, and while it was an interesting subject of discussion so long as private Members toyed with it, it had had most

1143
disastrous results when taken up by a responsible Minister of the Government. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman for West Monmouthshire will not think I desire to make a merely personal point against him. In 1895, when the then Leader of the House introduced a Bill in favour of local option, Sir Wilfred Lawson, who then represented Cockermouth, congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his courage, and hoped he would have his reward. That reward was given by the electors of Derby at the General Election in July, 1895, who thereby showed that local option was not regarded with favour even in England.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOUKT: It had nothing whatever to do with it.
MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid that according to the public prints it had a great deal to do with it. But he did not desire to press the point further than to say that it was much easier for a private Member to make such a proposal than for a Government to take it up. The people of Scotland might be in favour of some aspects of local option, but local option coupled with compensation would in many quarters meet with no favour at all. Such a proposal was an entirely novel one, and had never been submitted to the popular voice; therefore the statistics given by the hon. and learned Member were quite beside the question. Even the Minority Report of the Royal Commission did not go so far as the hon. and learned Member put it, because the farthest they went was to say that at the end of the given period—five years—a wide measure of direct popular control might be applied under proper safeguards to Scotland and Wales. That was a very different tiling from saying, as he understood the Amendment to say, that no measure would be satisfactory which did not at once provide for direct popular control. In this Bill the Government made a large provision for increasing—he would not say the direct popular control, but for increasing the popular voice with regard to licensing questions. While he agreed at once that they were fundamentally at variance with the Motion so far as it proposed direct popular control, the House should not forget that they were making a large advance on anything that had hitherto been done. In the ordinary courts of the
1144
counties one-third of the members were to be taken from the County Councils. That was not direct popular control, but it was the very same control as the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries desired to keep in the smaller burghs. In the Appeal Courts the popular element was to be introduced by one-third of the members being appointed from the Town Council, As to whether the proportions should be two-thirds of justices and one-third of county councillors, he was aware that the two reports differed, but, personally, without in any way pledging his right hon. friend, he thought that was a very small matter which could fittingly be considered and decided in Committee. The House should treat this question, not as a subject for theoretical discussion but as a matter of practical politics. To load the Bill with local option and compensation would wreck the measure. It would be impossible to carry for Scotland—and he doubted whether it could be done even for Wales—a licensing Bill embodying the principles of local option and compensation. Therefore, as practical politicians, hon. Members should ask themselves whether it would not be the wiser course to accept the Bill as it stood, subject to the consideration of proper amendments in Committee.
It was not at all a party question. Not a few Members on the Government side of the House heartily sympathised with the views advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Linlithgow. But the question was not what might be thought proper in some ulterior stage, but what at the present day, as a matter of ordinary common-sense legislation, was likely to pass with a view to the promotion of temperance and the prevention of drunkenness, and the evils attendant thereon. Reference had been made to compensation. He did not understand what compensation was unless it was full compensation. A man could not be given as compensation less than the value of that which was being taken from him. But the questions of what should be the proper compensation, how the amount should be arrived at, whence it was to come, or the form local option or local veto should take—all these questions were not pertinent at present: they were not before

1145
the House as practical questions, and he desired to reserve his opinion upon them. He hoped he had not unduly pressed his own or the Government standpoint. The Bill had been received with a large measure of approval, and he did not wish to say anything to change public feeling in that respect. The political opponents of the Government had been more than fair in the way they had spoken of the Bill; he welcomed the reception which had been given to it, but, recognising that the Amendment struck at the principle of the measure, and that if carried it would mean the loss of the Bill, the Government had no alternative but to oppose the Motion which had been made.
MR. THOMAS SHAWagreed with the view that the carrying of the Amendment would mean the loss of the Bill, and that as practical men they ought to look at the fate of the Bill in considering the Amendment. The Solicitor-General had appealed to the House to deal with the matter as practical men. As a practical man, then, he desired to ask what would be the attitude of the Government in the ulterior stages to which the hon. and learned Member had referred. Supposing it were discovered in Committee that the views of Scot and were altogether favourable to increasing the popular control in a practical sense, would they, viewing the matter with the desire to accede to Scottish opinion, yield to those views, or would they stand to the Bill? In his opinion of temperance measures he was largely guided by the view taken by the publicans. For instance, if they regarded a Bill as a pistol presented to their heads, he thought the Bill on the whole must be a fairly good one, and he, for one, would not vote for the present Amendment in order to make that pistol miss fire. He entirely accepted the view of the Government that in voting against the Amendment hon. Members would not be committing themselves against further progress. He was in favour of popular control and allowing the community to work out their own destiny in all these matters. It was a frequent truism that Scotland was in advance of England in temperance legislation,
1146
but there was not much sign of that truism in the present Bill. In the first place they had not had this Bill in advance of England but following the legislation of last year, and there was not much sign of advance on the merits of the legislation, for in the provisions of this Bill they found that they were substantially left in Scotland where England was put by the measure of last year. In Scotland for fifty years they had had early closing and Sunday closing. In Scotland they made an improvement with regard to early closing in the year 1887. One of the advances they had made was upon the practical topic of early closing in large towns, and in order to keep Scotland really in advance that subject might have been handled in this Bill. That much-needed reform had been passed over without a word. He hoped an Amendment would be placed on the Paper to give the Government a chance of showing whether they were practically in accord with the opinion of Scotland upon this subject. He welcomed this Bill and thanked the Government for it, but he trusted that for once the Government would not be bound hand and foot by the provisions of this measure, but would give effect in the Bill to the opinion of the majority of Scotch representatives. If that course were taken they would at the end make a good Bill of it, and even in the direction of popular control they would make a very considerable advance, if, without fear and trepidation, the Government would listen to the constitutionally expressed opinion of the Scotch Members upon this eminently Scottish affair.
He wished to say one or two words with regard to what he thought were grave omissions from this measure. Viewed in the light of the standard of the measure of last year, he submitted to his two hon. and learned friends opposite that it was a grave omission that in the Scotch Bill no provisions had been introduced upon the question of separation between husband and wife. In the English measure of 1902, this separation order might be granted by a County Court judge upon an application which substantiated the fact that the wife or husband was guilty of habitual drunkenness, and the wife could get separation and aliment if the husband was guilty of

1147
desertion, cruelty or neglect. By the English Act that had been done, but why should it not be done also with regard to Scotland? He recognised that there were certain technical difficulties in the way—questions of jurisdiction if they liked, but he was perfectly sure that if his two hon. and learned friends opposite would address themselves to solving this little technical trouble they could do it in twenty minutes. He would put to them this proposition. Why should they not put a little clause in this Bill making it the law of the land that habitual drunkenness on the part of husband or wife should be held equivalent in Scotch law to cruelty, and giving the same remedy as now obtained in the case of cruelty, and granting separation and alimony accordingly. That was a perfectly simple matter, and all questions of jurisdiction might be reserved. He was quite sure that if the Government addressed themselves to this little reform, it might be in many instances in Scotland a reform of very grave importance in family life. There was no remedy for chronic drunkenness in the home at all, unless that chronic drunkenness was accompanied by extreme brutality. They recognised that one of the most serious social evils was the continued existence of habitual drunkenness producing poverty and misery, and he submitted that the Government might look at this matter with some degree of sympathy and introduce this little reform which would be good for the household, for the children, and also for the habitual drunkard himself. He thought that omission might surely be remedied.
The second omission was in regard to not including the larger burghs in the Early Closing Clause. He knew nothing sadder than the record of legislative delay in regard to the way Scotland had been treated in this matter. In the year 1887 Sir Charles Cameron passed his little Bill giving the power of early closing to all local communities, and in the other House a provision was inserted that towns over 50,000 population should not have the power of closing at ten o'clock but only at eleven. That was sixteen years ago. A Royal Commission had reported in favour of a deletion of that proviso, and here they were to-day with nothing done in this direction even in a practical Bill for
1148
Scotland. This was a deplorable exhibition of lassitude on the part of a strong Government, with a united country, practically, at their back upon this subject. Therefore, he hoped Amendments would be introduced, and that upon this subject substantial progress would be made. Passing from the omissions he came to almost a graver matter, namely, the very serious error in some of its provisions. The first was in regard to the composition of the Court, or licensing authority. He did not know why the Government had deserted the word "authority" in favour of "court." The situation with regard to the licensing authority in Scotland was that they were set up in 1828. Since that time they had had the Reform Bill, they had set up local authorities, and they had had a Conservative Government passing Bills for the institution of County Councils. Nevertheless in the year 1903 they seemed to be tied hand and foot to the old idea of local government. They still had a Court set up consisting of the nominees of the Lord Lieu tenant, because in 1828 there was no other public body known to the law to whom this work could be committed. Why should they hang on to an antiquated procedure of that kind? Why should they not rather acknowledge the institution of new representative bodies? Surely this Government ought to acknowledge them with all the more favour, because they themselves were responsible for the setting up of County Councils all over Scotland. The Solicitor-General for Scotland had spoken of the popular control set up by this Bill, but it was simply popular control according to Unionist ideas. Popular control, whether it be in connection with the Voluntary Schools in England, or in connection with licensing authorities or the Water Boards, was a popular control in which the popular element was controlled. It was popular control in which the popular element was steadily outvoted by two to one, and accordingly he could not see why His Majesty's Government should have any hesitation, except that the facts were against them, in using the term "popular control." His hon. and noble friend the Secretary for Scotland went to Scotland some time ago and defended the Voluntary Schools in England on the grounds that they were set up

1149
with downright popular control. He supposed in the same sense this was downright popular control which was being given to the licensing authorities; that was to say, it was not popular control at all, except that every popular representative had the fine prospect before him that, upon every question of importance, and notably upon the question of granting licences in the district he represented, he would always be steadily outvoted by two to one. He hoped an Amendment would be placed upon the Paper with regard to this point, so that the balance of power might be transferred to the popular element. He did not see why the justices should be included in this matter at all. If the question affected the well-being of the community, he did not see why those who represented the people should not fully control the granting of licences. This matter of the drink traffic was very closely connected with the question of police regulation, and the ratepayers were interested because they paid the police rate, and it was therefore a ratepayers' question. The local representatives were interested because they administered the police rate, and upon this point he wished to give an illustration by quoting the opinion of Mr. Arthur Sherwell upon the drink question in Scotland, who in his recently published book on "The Drink Peril in Scotland,'" said—
"The closeness of the relation between intemperance and crime has become a truism, but it is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in the criminal statistics of Scotland. Take the single fact that out of a total of 179,821 persons charged with criminal offences in 1900, no fewer than 114,207, or 63½, percent., were for offences directly connected with drinking."
Again, he said—
"If we turn to the prison statistics, the same truth of the close relation which exists between intemperance and crime is brought out with appalling emphasis. The statements made by a great number of men and women who have come into prison convicted of serious crimes have convinced the Commissioners 'that the majority (probably 66 per cent. at least) of such cases are closely connected with, and have their real explanation in, alcoholism."
If that point was clear in regard to the relation of police regulations to the licensing question, he wanted to know why it was that the ratepayers who had to pay the police rate, and those representatives who had to administer the
1150
police rate, should not be fully and completely charged with this matter of social order which was so intimately connected with the police of the district. He had no doubt whatever that there were representatives of the smaller burghs in this House who would have something to say as to whether this was an increased measure of popular control. Forty-eight of these Royal Burghs had their licensing authority at once rudely swept away by this Bill, and he should be interested to know what the opinion of those fine old burghs, such as that represented by his hon. and learned friend the Member for the Dumfries district, was of this proposal, which was for the first time in their history to deprive them of this vital element of local Government, namely, the regulation of the drink traffic in their midst. Then, again, if it were outside of these little burghs he hoped they would have very little of the county idea as such. The wider they made the area of representation, ipso jure the less actually these representatives felt the real pinch and trouble of the question they had to deal with. In the case of a small and limited district, he for one would be willing to entrust the County Councillors of that district alone withfull and unlimited power for the regulation of licensing, but, in any view, what defence could be offered for taking the representatives of those districts and putting them in a permanent minority upon a matter of local government, so requiring local knowledge, so requiring intimate acquaintance with the subject, and even with the persons that came before them—what defence could be offered for putting these representatives in a perpetual statutory minority? He would go so far as to say this, that if this House denied direct popular control in the sense in which he had argued it, either by complete, or, at least, preponderating popular control, this House was only playing with the drink peril, and was simply making free with the representative principle, by loyalty to which they had the best protection for the community against the perils of the drink traffic.
The next terror in this Bill was with regard to the Courts of Appeal. He owned that he was totally against Courts of Appeal. He did not see

1151
why, if they had a true representative body, they had any right whatever to go to another body with a mixture of non-representative element, and to make an appeal from those who were responsible to those who did not know, and who were not responsible. That was what the Court of Appeal meant. Why was there a provision in the Bill that a majority of the Court of Appeal should be always nominated persons—Justices of the Peace? Why should there be what would be considered practically an insult—that the representatives of the communities on the Court of Appeal should always be placed in the proportion of one against two? Besides, in some cases, this was an entirely reactionary measure, because at present in the Courts of Appeal and the Confirmation Courts the burghs were represented in the proportion of half and half, but under this Bill it was proposed to change that, and to make a worse Court of Appeal than before. Under the name of a practical love for popular control they were to change that half and half proportion, under which the representatives of the people had an equal vote, and to make the proportion one against two.
There were two points to which he wished to direct the attention of the Lord Advocate with respect to the drafting of the Bill. He thought the provision with respect to the hawking of liquor was a most excellent one. There had been great scandals in Scotland, and notably at public works, such as water works, remote from the centres of supply, by the abuse of hawking. But with regard to hawking, might he point out that in the drafting of this Bill it would be possible for a grocer to enter a large number of names in his book, say of the navvies engaged on a particular work, with a certain allowance for each of them, because in this Bill there was no provision for a previous order from the individual customer. In fact, a grocer might enter the entire number of employees in a public work in his book, and in this way, instead of preventing hawking, they would be merely regularising it. He said, with some knowledge of these licensing questions, that great astuteness was sometimes shown by a licence holder in disentangling himself from statutory provisions and in finding a way, if possible, of depriving the Court of the power of giving effect to the intention of the
1152
statute. With regard to clubs he rejoiced very much, and he heartily thanked the Government for the provisions in the Bill. That was a great evil in Scotland, and he was glad that a remedy had been found for it. But there was, notwithstanding the precedent of the English Bill, one point that his right hon. friend the Lord Advocate might look into. There were excellent provisions for clubs being, so to speak, disentitled to carry on business, and for their being struck off the list of registered clubs if they did not carry on their business as real bonâ fide clubs, but there was no provision in the Bill of a similar good kind with regard to the institution of these clubs. They seemed to have a statutory right to come into being, and to have their existence continued as long as, and until they were found contravening the Act of Parliament. It appeared to him that it would be wiser that the Legislature should make some provision before a club came into existence, rather than that a club should run the gauntlet of administrative procedure to put it down. He hoped that point would be made clear in Committee. He was not altogether objecting to the Bill. He thought rather they should try to correct the errors and to fill up the omissions. The Bill was good in its provisions with relation to hawking and clubs. He thought it was bad with regard to the authority it set up. On the whole he would welcome it rather than do nothing. Legislation would not touch the real root of this mischief. It would go a little way. They could not altogether say with regard to any legislative measure on this subject that it would provide a panacea. He thought the root of the mischief lay deeper. He regretted to find that amidst all the recent years of our prosperity as a people this curse had dogged our footsteps. Mr. Sherwell put it thus—
"There is a rise in drunkenness of 550, equal to 72 per cent., and also in breaches of the peace and petry assaults of 990, equal to 78·4 I percent. The latt rare, we understand, caused almost entirely by intemperance. Good trade and high wages among the working classes are no doubt chiefly responsible for the increase in drunkenness and disorder."
Dr. Clouston had said—
"Only a few of us preach teetotalism to all men, or total prohibition, or any other such strong measure. But from our experience in practice, our knowledge of human nature in

1153
its dual relationship of body and mind, and its hereditary weaknesses, doctors are able to speak with authority in regard to the diseases—potential and actual, present and future—which the excessive consumption of drink is causing in our population. A consumptive race might conceivably he absolutely cured in two generations, or even in one, by good conditions. I do not believe that a drink-sodden race could be fully cured in a hundred years."
That was the defence of all this legislation. It was that they desired to take up the cause of this drink-sodden residuum of the population, to give the population itself the power of dealing legislatively, by such preventive measures as it could, with the temptations which were afforded under our present system to such a residuum, to destroy all those temptations, to lift and elevate society, to make better surroundings, and to give force to personal example. All these things must combine, but on the whole this Bill was to be welcomed firstly as a recognition of the gravity of the evil; and secondly, in some of its provisions as a helpful step forward.
MR. SHAW-STEWARTproposed to deal with one or two points raised by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. It was contended by him that his scheme possessed the virtues of flexibility and freedom, but he would like to ask what freedom or flexibility there was in prohibition? If the Amendment were adopted they must inevitably adopt as one of the alternatives the power of localities voting for prohibition in particular districts. That element of prohibition would largely tell against the advantage of the hon. Member's proposal. Prohibition would be a vital disadvantage. It would for instance, compel a certain number of people living in a district where local sale was prohibited to crowd into another district where licensing obtained. That would be a very great evil. Secondly, it would encourage the formation of bogus clubs, which was one of those evils they all desired to put an end to. Thirdly, localities, after adopting prohibition for a certain number of years, might, and probably would, reverse their policy. That had been done in America and Canada, where the pendulum had swung from one extreme to the other. That
1154
would tell against the interests of temperance. A steady and careful reduction of licences throughout the country in cities and in counties would be a far better scheme for promoting a steady improvement in the drinking habits of the people than any proposal which contained the element of prohibition. That was why he and other Members on that side of the House could not possibly vote for the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down thanked the Government for their Bill. He wished to join in those thanks. He thought they were all grateful to the Government for having thus early dealt with temperance reform in Scotland in this Session.
There was one point which they had omitted, and for this he expressed strong regret. They had not attempted to deal with the question of compensation, even after the experience the Government had had in regard to the English Bill, and what had occurred since the passing of that measure. They had seen in England a considerable reduction of licences for no breach of the law. It was said that it was impossible for the Government or anybody else to have foreseen such a state of things, but he maintained that those who had watched public opinion might and ought to have seen that there had been for some time past a steady determination in the country to have a more careful regulation of the liquor traffic, and amongst other methods which public opinion had lately emphasised was the reduction in the number of licences. If that reduction by a local authority occurred in England it was certain to occur in Scotland, especially after the passing of this Bill. By setting up a new authority for dealing with licences, the Government showed that a more careful regard ought to be had to the granting and the control of licences. In the present state of public opinion, what would inevitably result but a desire to reduce the number of public houses by withholding certificates from the worst kind of public houses? The local authorities in Scotland would find themselves in a difficulty. On the one hand they would be averse to withholding certificates from a poor individual, while it was probably the class of house held by people not of great substance which required to be withdrawn. But the local authorities would not like to turn out a

1155
poor man or woman and sacrifice his or her capital. They would have to choose between injustice to the individual and injustice to the general public. The only way in which that difficulty could be met was by a well-considered scheme of compensation. He did not see why a scheme of that sort would be so very difficult to pass this session of Parliament, because the difficulties were not insuperable. Once they established such a scheme, the licensing authorities would not be slow to withhold certificates from the worst kind of houses, which had committed no breach of the law but which did not carry on business in a very satisfactory manner. Therefore, from the point of view of temperance, he urged this matter of compensation. He also urged it from the point of view of justice to the publican—to the trade. After all the publican was not outside the pale of fair play. The trade was carried on under great difficulties. There were so many points of law to attend to and dangers to guard against, that it must be very difficult to conduct licensed premises in a proper and respectable manner at all. Why should they not treat the publican and licence holder as they treated any other trade, namely, on fair and equitable lines? It was true that the licence holder held his certificate from year to year, but when he died the Inland Revenue charged the licence, the property and the goodwill of the business at an enhanced value, which arose from the likelihood of the business being continued. He also urged compensation from the standpoint of public advantage. If they harassed the trade and permitted it to be carried on on a sort of chance principle, depriving a man of his licence without compensation, they would drive out of the trade the best men and would keep in it the very men who conducted their business in the worst way. He thought that after a term of years which could easily be decided upon, during which compensation should be given, the licences should only be from year to year, and if that were so there would not be so much paid in the first instance for goodwill. At any rate, he urged that a scheme of compensation for a settled period of years was the only way of determining the question. The compensation should be provided by the trade, and he believed the bulk of the trade would be satisfied that it should be
1156
so. He thanked the Government for introducing the Bill, and especially for that part which dealt with clubs and the hawking of liquor in vans. That would be a good provision, especially in mining districts, and would do a great deal of good in the country.
MR. WALLACEsaid his hon. friends who criticised the Bill had not the slightest intention of attempting to wreck it or hinder its passing. They wished, on the contrary, to give it their cordial support, but felt that it was not adequate to the necessities of the times, and that a great opportunity had been missed by the Government, seeing that Scottish opinion was ripe for a very much larger measure of reform than that now before them. They accepted with gratitude the Bill as an instalment, and they intended to show that gratitude by asking for more as soon as the Bill was passed. As for the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend, it was moved in order to give them an opportunity of saying—and they wanted to say it plainly—that whilst they supported the Bill and accepted it fully from the Government now, they did not in the slightest degree abandon the position which many of them had taken up in Scotland and in this House with regard to the question of local option. In accepting this Bill, it might be said it was an abandonment of that position. They recognised that the Bill went a certain way to meet their demands, and they took it as they would take anything that they believed was for the good of the people of Scotland; but in doing that, they still held to the view that it was for the people of Scotland to regulate this matter. He did not suppose that some of his hon. friends opposite, who in times past supported motions in favour of local option, were disposed to regard this Bill as an absolute settlement. They, therefore, were simply using this Amendment—and the right hon. Gentleman would thoroughly understand the position—as a method of expressing that view. He thought the Solicitor-General made one mistake. He said that the Motion of his hon. friend was a new Motion; that it was a proposal for local option in a new shape; and that his hon. and learned friend had become a convert

1157
to the principle of compensation. He did not know where the Solicitor-General got that view from. He was quite sure it was not the view of his hon. and learned friend. His hon. and learned friend assented to that. It had never been proposed by the temperance party in Scotland that by accepting local option they were going to couple with it compensation. His hon. and learned friend did refer to what had been so much discussed in Scotland, viz., the question of the time notice. His hon. friend the Member for East Renfrew, introduced the topic of compensation into the discussion of the Bill, although it was not, perhaps, strictly relevant, as there was no reference to compensation in the measure. He could quite easily understand why there was not. He had no doubt there were many who would wish to see such a provision in the Bill; but he believed the Lord Advocate would find that if he were to introduce a clause in the Bill giving compensation for licences taken away at the discretion of the magistrates he would arouse such hostility on both sides of the House as would absolutely wreck his Bill. We are not disposed to accept the principle of compensation. His hon. friend opposite said that they did recognise it, and that the law recognised it, because if a license holder died, his estate was valued, and on the value of the licence probate duty was paid. But the licence was simply valued on the chance of renewal, and that chance existed in the knowledge that it might be exercised the other way, and the licence taken away. He was quite sure they would never consent to any measure which, by introducing compensation, would completely fetter the discretion of the licensing authorities and prevent the taking away of many licences in Scotland.
He rejoiced in many of the provisions of the Bill, but there were one or two to which he strongly objected. He objected to the destruction of the licensing authority in the old and ancient Royal Burghs. That did not affect the burgh he represented; but he regretted that where they had forty or fifty little centres with a licensing authority in each, that that authority should be taken away He also objected to the largo preponderance of the non-responsible justices' power, in connection with licensing courts, which was about to be established. It might be said
1158
that that was an advance on that which they had at present, and that in introducing the elective element at all the Government had gone forward. He recognised that fact, but he often found that to go forward a little way, for they did not go far enough, was often the most dangerous thing in the world, because it prevented them ever getting to the proper goal. The introduction of this representative element would be an excuse for years to come for doing nothing in connection with this matter. They had an opportunity now of dealing with these new licensing authorities; let them introduce a much larger infusion of the elective element, and recognise in that sense the demand for more popular control. With regard to the bonâ-fide traveller, his hon. and learned friend said that that person was the greatest humbug in the world. So he was. The bonâ fide traveller, as they knew him in Scotland, was not a man who drank because he travelled, but who travelled that he might drink. The greatest curse in Scotland was the condition of many of the smaller towns on Sundays—where they had temperance and sobriety in the past. Ever since the introduction of the bicycle, which enabled the countryman to quickly cover his three miles, the streets in some of the country towns were a perfect disgrace to Scotland on Sundays owing to the bonâ-fide traveller. It was not as bad as that in Perth, where only one or two drunken persons were to be seen, and that not often; but in the towns surrounding it anyone must recognise what the bonâ-fide, traveller was doing to demoralise the community among whom he came, and must feel that they must have a large extension of the distance which would qualify for drinking, and that the Bill must deal with this matter in some way. He cordially thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced the Bill, and could assure him that, although they would do their best to amend it, they would take care not to destroy or retard it.
SIR JOHN BATTY TUKEsaid he took that opportunity of expressing his regret that that important provision in the English Act, already alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for the Border

1159
Burghs, was omitted from this Bill. It was a matter of great satisfaction to him that when the English Bill was passing through the House there was no opposition to it. England was ripe for such a measure, but Scotland was even more ripe and ready to accept a stronger measure. Knowing that fact, it surprised him extremely to find that there was no mention of the provision to which he referred. He wished he could say that there was no need for such a measure in Scotland. Alas! it was not so. Hon. Members, and especially members of the medical profession, knew of many miserable cases. He assured the House that never a week, certainly never a fortnight, passed without some unhappy man or woman coming to him and complaining of the wife or husband, and begging that he would give them some protection. He would take almost the last case that came before him. A man in a respectable position came to him and said—
"My wife is an habitual drunkard, she gets liquor wherever she can, she goes out and gets it or sends the servants for it, and she is ruining our children physically and morally by her drinking and neglect. She is ruining my prospects, and soon I shall be a poor man Are there no Acts which will give me protection?"
His answer, of course, was that there were none; that the permissive Acts were absolutely futile; and that he must face his miserable position because the State gave him no relief. Much better would that man's position have been if he were able to tell him that there was a certain amount of protection for him; and that on proof before a court that his wife was an habitual drunkard, he could have a separation from her. At present there was no protection at all. These cases were inexpressibly sad, and were worse than cases of lunacy, for which there was a remedy provided by the State. A two or three line clause in the Bill on the same lines as that indicated by the hon. Member for Hawick Burghs would be beneficial, and sufficient for his purpose. He should certainly move a clause to that effect and make every effort to get the House to consent to it.
MR. CROMBIEsaid that while agreeing with the general purport of the eloquent and able speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, he would not be able to support the Amendment
1160
if taken to a division, on account of the words that no measure could be satisfactory which did not embody a particular proposal. The satisfactoriness of a Parliamentary measure was an exceedingly elastic quality, and when considering whether a measure was satisfactory, he should consider many things, as for example, the Government which was in power. Whenever he heard of the present Government introducing a measure of temperance reform he always relegated himself to the category of people who were blessed if they expected little. They had seen in the last few years that it was almost impossible to get the temperance camel through the eye of the Parliamentary needle. He, for his part, was always pleased if he could get a limb or two through. There were two tests which he always applied to such a Bill as this to see if he could support it. One was whether it went a step in the right direction, and the other was whether it drove any wedge between them and further temperance reform. This measure answered both tests. It was a good measure so far as it went, and it would not prevent them going further. While welcoming the measure, the main impression it left upon him was that of disappointment. He thought the Government missed a golden opportunity. The late Archbishop of Canterbury had said that this was not a brave Government, but it would be a brave Government that undertook to finally settle this question in Scotland. He rather sympathised with the Solicitor-General of Scotland, and the shock to his nerves in even contemplating such a possibility. No doubt, he saw a vision of himself in the midst of different classes of temperance reformers, each intoxicated with his own solution of the question. Under such circumstances naturally the Solicitor-General was not loath to soothe his nerves by appealing to the Minority Report of the Royal Commission. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the Minority Report had suggested that before this terrible Armageddon of temperance was to take place five years must elapse. Why must live years elapse? Because five years before this question could be settled they must make an arrangement for a time compensation for licences, and lay down a limit after which they were to be

1161
dealt with by the public. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman embody that in his Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman rather plumed himself on the fact, that while he had not given local control he had given a sort of local control, inasmuch as the licensing authorities would now be more directly elected by the people than before. That was an excellent principle, and he welcomed it, but if that principle was right it must logically go a great deal further. Why should the right hon. Gentleman stop at one-third of the local representation? It would be argued by the Government that they were not anxious to introduce into the elections of County Councils too much of this temperance agitation, but if any fraction of the licensing authority was to be selected by the majority of the County Council, the element of agitation would enter all the same, whether the fraction was big or small. If they admitted that the licensing authority should be elected by the people, they at once cut out the whole foundations of the system of appeal, why should they have an appeal at all? Why in boroughs should they appeal from an authority that was entirely elected by the people to an authority very largely not so elected—an authority composed mainly of outsiders who had no connection with, and possibly no knowledge of, the place. Such an appeal was absolutely ludicrous. If they were going to have an appeal at all they must appeal more directly to the people. The only logical appeal against a licence would be to a referendum of the people. He frankly admitted that such a principle would be very difficult to adopt in practice, and he hoped that when this Bill came into Committee the Government would accept an Amendment to carry their convictions to their logical extent by abolishing the appeal entirely. He should like to have a declaration of what was the policy of the Government with regard to the question of licensed grocers. At present there was a clause which stipulated that licensed grocers should sell only in sealed vessels. That was very good, but the provision went further and said they should not keep drink on their premises except in sealed vessels. This provision seemed to let the hawk loose among the
1162
pigeons. The trade had taken it up most seriously, and they stated if they were not allowed to bottle whiskey or beer on the premises and to blend, there would be an end to their trade altogether. A deputation waited on Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and from the report of what he said he gathered that there was some idea of the Government accepting an Amendment which would allow the licensed grocer to continue this bottling and blending of drink. He was against having any connection between licensing and grocers, but he was willing to be reasonable. He did not want to administer to the grocers a slow poison, but he would rather deal with them in a straightforward and frank manner, and he would be willing to make a deal with the Government and say that the provision should be removed from the Bill providing they would add a clause which, while not at once doing away with all grocers' licences, would prevent the authorities from granting any new grocers' licences. So far as the Bill went it was a good measure, and he should support it and be thankful for small mercies.
SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid there had been a very pleasing harmony about this debate, but the attitude of mingled disappointment and gratitude with which the House had received the measure was not very inspiriting. He had been very much struck with what was said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about the reconstruction of the licensing authorities, and the hon. Member spoke in this connection of a rabble. He was, however, very much surprised to find that the remedy the hon. Member proposed was to go to a rabble indeed, for he said these matters ought to be decided by a popular vote on the widest possible suffrage. He agreed with what the hon. Member said in condemnation of the justices, and he liked the provision dealing with the subject in the Bill because it remedied the defects which he thought the justices had shown up to now. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the astonishing omission from the Bill of any attempt to deal with earlier closing in the large cities. He did not think it was necessary for the Government to hold an opinion in favour of that extension of

1163
powers; but he should say there was an almost unanimous wish in Scotland that those powers should be extended. He contended that the Government were quite wrong in leaving this question undecided. One aspect of the case which was not without importance was a question at this moment undecided—that was to say, it was doubtful whether, under the Act of 1862, large cities had not already the power of earlier closing. It seemed to him that any Government in seriously tackling the licensing problem acted quite wrongly to shirk this question. Another matter he would liked to have seen dealt with was the difficulty of reducing the number of licences. He did not say that even a large reduction would produce the benefit which some people expected from it, but no strong licensing body could be created without the question of the proper number of public-houses in their district coming before them in an urgent form, and in some cases it would be decided that the number ought to be reduced. In view of what had happened in England, it was evident that in the absence of any system under which compensation could be awarded, the licensing authority had not really a free hand in the matter, and that, whatever their powers under the law might be, they would never make full use of them. In avoiding this matter the Government had been peculiarly timid, inasmuch as the principle had already been decided by the Prime Minister, and though he did not agree with all his right hon. friend had said on the matter, some of his statements going dangerously far, he thoroughly agreed that the present position of affairs was intolerable, and that something ought to be done to remedy it. The compensation scheme suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Linlithgow seemed to be one which might wisely be adopted, and one which he believed could easily be carried through the House. While he welcomed the Bill as being drawn on right lines where it touched the matter at all, it was a real disappointment that a Bill, produced under better auspices than any previous licensing measure had ever been, should have been marred by such grave omissions. He earnestly hoped the Government would make up their minds in Committee, not only to consider, but to accept, Amendments largely increasing the
1164
scope of the Bill, and carrying out the reforms to which he had referred.
MR. CHARLES DOUGLASsaid the scheme propounded by the mover of the Amendment suffered under the disadvantage that while it existed partly in the memory and partly in the hope of the hon. Member it had no existence in print, and consequently the House were at a loss in considering it. He agreed that there was a strict limit to the utility of the purely police regulations, of which the Bill was largely composed, because, excellent as they were, they easily and rapidly fell into disuse. In a few years the black list would be of little importance, and the grocers' licence pass-book of small value. The cause of this was the fact that the licensing authority had behind it so little serious motive power, so little sense of responsibility. On that ground he welcomed the introduction of the new principle of placing a popular element on all licensing authorities. There would then be on all what now did not exist on any—a body of opinion selected by popular representatives for the sole purpose of dealing with the function of licensing. It was true the magistrates represented popularly elected bodies, but they were appointed for a number of purposes other than that of licensing. But once that principle was introduced it would be difficult to resist the argument for widely extending it. If the County Councils were allowed to select representatives specially for licensing purposes, might it not be equally reasonable to allow town councils not to depend simply on the magistrates but to select a licensing committee solely for licensing purposes. In the same way, if the popular element was admitted at all, was it not reasonable to suggest that it should be admitted to a much larger extent. It was true that this "hybrid committee" had high authority, and the proposal of it was of great importance, but would it not be simpler and more reasonable to leave the matter altogether to representatives appointed by the County Council, and eliminate the justice of the peace element entirely. The reason the change was being made was that the justices of the peace had done badly, and it was hoped to improve the action of the licensing authority by displacing them in part.

1165
Were the Government not much more likely to effect their purpose by displacing them altogether on the ground of their failure properly to discharge their functions? This composite body was essentially a compromise, but it was difficult to see the ground on which the compromise was made. It could not be that the County Councils were considered less likely than the justices to provide suitable men, because they were to be allowed to select members of the authority, while if the view was that there might be a difference of opinion or policy between the justices and the representatives of the County Councils that was the strongest possible reason for leaving the justices off entirely.
In the Appeal Court there obtained the same vicious principle of allowing the non-elective element to dominate the popular representatives. The retention of this proportion of magistrates might avoid some of the distractions at County Council elections, but it would not prevent the discussion of these matters. Instead of having only one theatre of agitation, viz., amongst the justices, the Government were creating two, because, in addition to the canvassing and political activity at the County Council elections there would still be the canvassing which prevailed at present, but instead of taking place at the election of justices it would occur at the election of the licensing Courts. Instead of concentrating, the Government were actually widening the area in which the conflict between public opinion and the trade could arise. He did not shrink from that contest, but it was desirable that it should be narrowed as much as possible, so that there should be the smallest opportunity for the licensed trade to influence the administration of public affairs. As to the proposal with regard to the Appeal Courts, he did not think the small burghs, whether Royal or others, had furnished the most happy cases of licensing administration. It would be much better to raise the limit than to lower it, and to create only such licensing committees as would be sufficient in themselves, and would not need the complicated supervision of the Appeal Court. In fact, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should make
1166
the licensing area coincide with the police area, with a population of 20,000 as the minimum.
He agreed with those who had expressed their regret at the omission from the Bill of any provisions dealing with the question of the reduction of licences. The reduction of the number of licences, though it might be less necessary in Scotland than in some parts of England, was an essential element in any real measure of reform. It had become more than ever necessary that Parliament should take some action in this matter on account of the recent speech of the Prime Minister. He could not help thinking that a very grave and difficult situation was created by the language which had been used by the Prime Minister upon this subject, the only effect of which would be to harass the magistrates in the discharge of their duty. In the present state of the law a hardship might easily be imposed, but the effect of the language of the Prime Minister would be to deter magistrates from reducing licences without compensation. He thought the Government might have left the magistrates free to exercise their own discretion in the matter. There was one other matter. He thought there was considerable reason to suppose that in the future, and indeed in the near future, a good deal of drinking in the country was likely to be done outside the licensed houses. It had been recognised that a difficulty had been created by the extraordinary abuse of the club system, which he was glad had been dealt with in the present Bill. He hoped the provisions in regard to clubs would be made more effective. There was another theatre of action besides the licensed houses and the clubs—he alluded to the trust public houses which were springing up all over Scotland. By this system they might easily have a most serious danger created. They had not only to consider the large trusts, but there were springing up small trusts, confined to a single village, managed as a village company not under the control of their neighbours, but managing public houses which were returning fixed interest on capital and which devoted the rest of their profits to public purposes. That was all very well, but they had very little security against breaches of the Licensing Laws and bad

1167
management, and there was little security against public scandal in the small public houses. He thought this case presented a state of matters different to that of the ordinary licence holder. They had a licence held in the name of those who either did not own or did not manage the licence itself, and he ventured to suggest that it might be possible to include in the Bill at the Committee Stage some clause by which companies such as those he had described should be allowed to hold licences only which had been approved by the Secretary for Scotland or some other responsible authority. They might in a few years time develop into houses with a hold on the popular sympathy which would be so great that it would be difficult for any licensing authority to displace them. The matter could be easily dealt with, because these houses were few, but if they became numerous, a few years hence Parliament might find it difficult to deal with them. He hoped the Lord Advocate would not think they were dissembling too much their appreciation of this Bill. He joined with his hon. friends in saying that he had no wish to obstruct the Bill, he rather wished to strengthen the hands of the Government in dealing with the question.
MR. CORBETTsaid that any great recognition of public control would raise in an acute form the question of compensation. When he spoke of compensation he did not refer to differences of opinion as to issues involving merely questions of time limit. The speech of the hon. Member for Perth was an indication as to how there was a confusion of opinion upon this point because he alluded to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment as not being in favour of compensation because he only advocated the time limit, while he alluded to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire as an advocate of compensation, although the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment described himself as being in favour of a time limit of exactly the same number of years as advocated by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire. Some hon. Members had spoken as if this were a great opportunity of passing a far-reaching measure of temperance reform. His opinion was that this was a time when they should
1168
be very careful and watch what they were doing. They know that a very influential body of the supporters of the Government had told them that they had made the Government and they could unmake it. They had demanded that the licences, which had hitherto been recognised as merely constituting rights from year to year, should be recognised in the future as freehold, and that a vested interest would be set up amounting to probably hundreds of millions which would interfere with all temperance prospects for the future. There might be many opinions as to the facilities for the supply of drink, but there would be no differences of opinion in Scotland as to the compensation he had alluded to. Therefore, in the suggestions he had to offer he would avoid doing anything which might raise the larger issues.
He agreed with his hon. friend who had addressed the House as to the importance of large towns no longer being exposed to the disability of being excluded from the advantages of ten o'clock closing. He believed that exclusion was never wanted by public opinion in those large towns. When addressing a large meeting of Unionists in his own constituency he asked for a show of hands on this question, and practically all present held up their hands in favour of including all large towns within the scope of that measure, and not a single hand was held up in favour of the continued exclusion of large towns from the operation of ten o'clock closing. There was practically unanimity of opinion on that subject among the whole population of Glasgow, with hardly any opposition except a partial opposition from the trade, and the Government would greatly disappoint the people of the large towns in Scotland if they prevented them enjoying advantages which had done so much good throughout the smaller communities. He was glad that this Bill dealt with clubs. The municipalities of Scotland introduced a measure which would have dealt even more effectively with this question. He believed the Government proposals were the very best that could be found if they were to stop short of giving full discretionary power. This matter would never be

1169
effectively dealt with until they gave the licensing authority the same discretion with regard to clubs as they gave them with regard to licensed victuallers, premises. They would always be liable to evasion until they entrusted to some body the question whether a club was a nuisance to the neighbourhood or not.
He was glad that this Bill contained provisions to deal with grocers' vans, which had been described as travelling public-houses. He believed those provisions required to be strengthened, and every one of those vans should be able to produce a written signed order from the customer. If that were done a great amount of security would be gained. There was another point upon which he felt very strongly indeed. There was unquestionably a considerable number of people who felt the temptation to strong drink to such an extent that it made life to them a burden. During the fair holidays in Glasgow it was possible to visit homes where the men, days after their holidays, did not venture to cross their threshold for fear of the temptation that awaited them outside. If they could say to all such individuals "We will give you the power of signing a declaration before the justices of the peace that you desire your name to be added to the list of those to whom liquor should not be supplied," it would be a good thing. He believed that would free those individuals from a terrible burden and bondage, and great good would be done to all those depending upon such men. Although he offered those suggestions he could not agree with those who said that the advantages offered by this Bill were of a trivial character. He had had conferences upon this subject with the representatives of all the temperance organisations in Scotland, and they all agreed with him in thinking that this was a Bill which must not be lost. They saw in it very valuable provisions which would advance materially the interests of temperance, and with those interests were bound up the interests and the prosperity of the people.
MR. ASHERsaid he was one of those who thought that nothing should be done at the present
1170
stage of this Bill to prevent the measure going to the Committee. He was supported in that view by the statement of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who had distinctly indicated that in Committee the Government would keep an open mind with regard to these questions which were being discussed, and with regard to which it was quite evident there was a feeling, particularly on this side of the House, in favour of the Bill being materially strengthened.
Some differences of opinion had been expressed as to how far the present opportunity should be taken advantage of to extend local control of the liquor traffic. He should think that both sides of the House would be agreed that, at any rate in the present case, nothing should be done to take away any measure of local control which was now existing. He rose chiefly for the purpose of voicing the views of those who, he thought, had been very unfairly treated by this Bill. He meant the smaller burghs. The smaller burghs were those that comprised a population of under 7,000, and they were to be deprived by this Bill of the jurisdiction which they had exercised for a very long period of time. He protested against the view that in discharging their duty as licensing authority they had in any way fallen short of the standard which had been maintained by the magistrates in the larger burghs. It was quite true that the Licensing Court, consisting of the magistrates of a burgh, might not be an ideal licensing authority, but at least it had this merit: that the Licensing Court consisted of persons who were the representatives of the people, whose tenure of office was for a limited period, and who had periodically to answer to their constituents for the manner in which they had performed their duty as Licensing Court, as well as in regard to their other function as burgh magistrates. What did this Bill propose to do with regard to that? Every burgh of under 7,000 of a population was to be deprived altogether of their licensing bodies, and what was to be substituted for it? There was to be a court consisting to the extent of one-third of magistrates of the burgh, and to the extent of two-thirds of justices of the peace. He thought he was entitled to say that though they had heard a great deal about steps in the right direction, this

1171
proposal could only be characterised as a retrograde step—a step in the opposite direction to that which they all desired. It was displacing a body representative in the sense he had described, and substituting for it a body which to the extent of two-thirds consisted of gentlemen who were representative of nobody but themselves, whose tenure of office was perpetual, and who were the nominees of the Lord-Lieutenant of the county. He confessed, speaking with all respect for the justices of the peace, that he thought it would puzzle the wit of man to devise a, worse licensing authority than the justices of the peace. He had no doubt they discharged their duty conscientiously, but he believed the general impression throughout Scotland was that they were the worst licensing authority that could possibly be created. Were the small burghs not entitled to complain of a proposal which took licensing within the burghs, out of the hands of the elected magistrates of the burgh, and placed it in the hands of a body which to the extent of two-thirds was not elected and non-representative—a body in which, with all respect to the justices of the peace, the public had no confidence as a licensing authority. He hoped that among those questions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill intended to keep his mind open upon, this would be one. He thought in dealing with those small towns the right hon. Gentleman had gone altogether in the wrong direction. Burghs were communities for local administration. They had a distinct civic life, apart altogether from that of the adjacent county, and he could not imagine any matter in regard to which they were, more fully and freely able to regulate themselves than in the matter of licensing. He said he thought it would have been a proposition far more likely to commend itself to the people of Scotland if his right hon. and learned friend, instead of withdrawing this jurisdiction of the magistrates and conferring it upon a body such as he had described, had set to work to reform the Licensing Courts in those burghs. If, instead of leaving authority in the hands of magistrates, who, it was quite true, were not elected direct for licensing purposes, but were elected by the Council,
1172
he had conferred on the Council the power of electing a special Committee of their own number to deal specifically with the matter of licensing, and if he had, when he came to deal with the small burghs, adopted a course like that, he himself felt that it would have commended itself to the people of Scotland generally, and also to the inhabitants of those burghs. It was not unnatural that in dealing with a question like this there should be a feeling of hostility with regard to the Bill. There were between forty and fifty burghs in Scotland, many of them county towns of importance, with 5,000 or 6,000 inhabitants, which were to be so treated. He was in a position to say that there was a unanimous feeling throughout the whole of that section of the community that the proposal in this Bill was a grave injustice, and that if the Bill were to pass without this being rectified it would be received with feelings of hostility on the part of that section of the Scotch community.
He thought that it was most desirable that this Bill should be put into a shape which would make it an effective and useful measure of licensing reform, and he felt perfectly sure that if the Scotch Members were allowed to express their opinions freely and if the right hon. Gentleman would give effect to the feelings of hon. Members on this matter, the Bill might be made a most useful licensing reform with regard to Scotland. He thought the Scotch Members were in a position to assist the Government to make this a useful measure. Many of them were making considerable sacrifices of their opinions on this matter. He had no hesitation in saying for himself that his own opinion went a long way in advance of anything in the Bill in the way of popular control of the liquor traffic, but as practical men they were aware that it was impossible to pass a Bill up to the standard many of them desired. In dealing with the Bill they would give every assistance in their power to make it a useful measure, and they hoped that in return the Government would keep an open mind in regard to the matters to be brought forward in Committee.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he was glad to hear from the opposite side that the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend would not be pressed to a division. It seemed to him that it would put hon. Members in a false position if they had to vote upon it. He would regard whole and direct popular control as absolutely necessary for any deep solution of this great question, but at the same time he was not in the least surprised that it had not been undertaken at the present moment; in fact he thought with his hon. friend behind him that it would be an inauspicious moment to attempt that. They were all aware of the great tempest that had recently been raised in England on this question. The whole question of popular' control, compensation, and interference with licences, had been brought forward in England with an acuteness which had never before been witnessed, and he thought therefore that this would be a very inappropriate moment for the modest and comparatively simple and easy Scotch question to come under consideration, while they did not know what was being done in regard to the greater English question which surrounded them.
Everyone who had spoken in the present debate had been to a very great extent agreed upon the fearful evil drunkenness caused in the country, and they were agreed also on the necessity of legislation to meet it. It was no use to go over the statements made by every responsible person as to the serious increase of drunkenness in the country. Drunkenness increased along with prosperity. It was not misfortune or want that drove people to drink. It was a fact that when prosperity came and wages went up drunkenness and its consequent crime increased in proportion, or in more than proportion. He thought it ought to be acknowledged that the necessity for legislation was recognised by the Members of the Trade, and that they were prepared, to a much greater extent than some of the allusions in the debate might lead people to suppose, in a reasonable and liberal I way to deal with the proposals which were now being made—proposals which were to a great extent equally as valuable to the Trade as they were to the people. These proposals would make their position more clear and certain,
1174
and would give remedies against the action of those black sheep who did the reputation of the whole Trade very much harm. They could not expect to have agreement from the Trade in all the restrictions they wished to put on them, but he thought it should be acknowledged that the Trade were perfectly willing to accept legislation which would greatly improve the position with regard to their affairs. He thought that everyone who accepted this Bill, and at the same time thought it should go much further, ought to make it clear that they in no way gave up those claims to press the matter further which they had maintained in the past. For his part he had at repeated elections always taken the same line, namely, that he approved to the full of direct popular control, provided there was sufficient consideration given for the individuals whose interests were concerned. He had again and again on the hustings supported that view. He believed that popular control was needed over the traffic, whether it came to the actual veto, which in some localities would be most suitable—or whether it meant the limitation of licences or a system of management either by the local authority or a company to whom it delegated its powers. They would not make general social changes at the expense of individuals, and if they were displacing certain individuals for the sake of a change, however important it might be regarded in the general interest, they must consider the interests of those people and compensate them either by time or money provided by the Trade. That was a very general opinion of Members on that side of the House, who would view with consternation any attempted compensation out of rates and taxes. He would not conceive that any man in his senses would propose such a thing in view of the past, which should be a treason to the Government.
If in England a new Act of Parliament had stimulated old bodies into activity, he believed that in many cases a newly constituted body would show greater vigour in dealing with licences than those which had existed hitherto. The general principle of local option should make one anxious that small authorities should have a voice in dealing with licences in their own districts. In regard to the licensing authorities he thought they had

1175
too much of the justice of the peace in their composition. This was not of so much importance in practice as in theory, for when they came to select half-a-dozen justices of the peace they would probably get the same class of individuals as half-a-dozen members of the County Council. But some acknowledgment of the rights of popular control should be made, and it would be most unfortunate and would produce a bad impression in Scotland if they did not give the elective body—the County Council—at least as many voices on the licensing authorities as they did to the nominated body of justices of the peace. He regretted that the Government had not inserted in the Bill a fuller option for great cities with regard to the hours of opening at morning and closing at night. He hoped they would accept Amendments in Committee on this point. The Government had drawn a very safe Bill, and had taken up almost entirely non-controversial points. He thought, considering the state of opinion in Scotland and the gravity with which the mass of the people regarded this question, the Government might with safety have gone a great deal farther. He hoped that when they got into Committee they would find as large a representation of Scotch Members as possible, and that the Government would show themselves willing to accept the opinion of Scotland through those Members.
MR. CATHCART WASON: considered that time would have been saved if the discussion had not been directed to matters upon which the Government had already put down their foot. It was difficult to say where the objections to the Bill began and where they ended. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said he was willing to give favourable consideration to any Amendments urged upon him with the object of improving it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the question of doing away with the rights and privileges of the small burghs of Scotland. No reason had been alleged why those small local authorities should be swept out of existence, and be swallowed up by inclusion in a large number of elected magistrates and County Council representatives. Those burghs had a civic life within themselves, and bitterly resented what they considered
1176
to be a grave injustice. Numbers did not make intelligence, nor did size make strength, and it would be found that the small burghs in the North, comprising only a few thousand inhabitants, were as full of civic life and virtue as the more populous counties. He regarded the subject of grocers' licences as a thorny one, but the Government were not to be altogether commended for the way in which they had dealt with it. Would the right, hon. Gentleman look carefully through Clause 9 and see if it were workable, and whether it could not be amended in important details without injuring any principle in the Bill. What was objected to more than anything else in Clause 9 was that the whole of the law on this subject would be left entirely in the hands of the local authorities. What he thought should be done would be to prevent varying regulations to be made in different parts of the country, and that the operations of the clause should be scheduled and put down on hard and fast lines. It would be intolerable that in one burgh premises should be closed on New Year's Day and not in all the others. He respectfully submitted to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that that day should be scheduled, and that on a variety of other days—more especially election days, such as was the universal rule in the Colonial Empire—public-houses should be closed.
They had been told that things should be allowed to go on exactly as at present with regard to the grocers' clubs. He hoped that would not be so. In many cases throughout Scotland, the grocers were the greatest offenders. There were no doubt many who conducted their business honestly and honourably, but, on the other hand, there were many grocers' shops which were nothing short of drinking dens. He did not wish to attack the honest grocer who was acting according to law and did not encourage drunkenness. Under this section, a grocer would have to keep all his liquors in sealed bottles, vessels, or jars. How inconvenient it would be for any man to sell sixpenny-worth of rum or whisky from a sealed vessel every five minutes. The vessel would have to be unsealed and sealed again. That provision had caused a great deal of irritation in the Trade. He did not think that the Government meant that it should work in that way. As the clause stood, however, it meant that the

1177
grocer had to keep the liquor in sealed vessels, and be put to the inconvenience of unsealing and sealing them every few minutes. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not regard that as any frivolous objection; and the right hon. Gentleman would find that many of the criticisms of the Bill would disappear if he consented to some modification of the clause.
With reference to Clause 17, they knew perfectly well that a great deal of drunkenness was caused in Scotland by the selling of liquor from vans. In his opinion, not only should the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just spoken, that no liquor should be sold from a van except on a signed order be adopted, but he would propose that no liquor should be sold from a van except in a sealed vessel. At present vans went about the country, especially in the summer, selling beer and other strong drinks in open measures, without any possible control whatever.
Then as to drunkenness, and the increase of the penalties for drunkenness, it was an unfortunate thing for a man to get drunk; but he did not think that they were improving the position by increasing the fines and penalties. The man who got drunk was probably punished severely enough as it was; and the burden of the fine would fall on his family. It would be different if they could get at the man who made another drunk; but he did not think it was any good simply increasing the penalties for drunkenness.
There was another great blot in the Bill. Take the case of a man coming into a town and requiring a little refreshment. He was not able to obtain in a public house the refreshment he was entitled to get; and there was no provision in the Bill to compel a public house to supply a cup of tea, coffee, cocoa, or Bovril, or other reasonable refreshment. If there were such a provision, it would remove many of the evils of drunkenness. Most people did not want to get drunk, but because they were not able to get the particular kind of refreshment they required they took strong drink. With reference to the prohibition as to selling drink to people on the black list, he did not think that provision went quite far enough. It should be provided that a man might apply himself, or that his wife or other relative might apply, for an order prohibiting
1178
him from being supplied with drink. He knew in his own experience of a man applying to a magistrate for an order to prevent him being served with drink. Many people were unable to fight against the temptation. He knew a case where a respectable man got into a railway carriage and refused to pay his fare. He was promptly locked up; and being asked afterwards why he did not pay, he said that he had not tasted drink for six months, and as he was in town with money in his pocket he required the wholesome restraint of a gaol before he could trust himself. That showed what a poor man struggling with the demon of drink would do to prevent himself becoming a slave to drink. If the Government would consider the Amendments he had suggested, he had no doubt that the measure would achieve great and lasting good in Scotland, which he was sure was the wish of every Member of the House.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid the discussion on the Bill was exceedingly interesting, especially to hon. Members who, like himself, had taken an active part in local administration in Scotland. For his part he desired to thank the Government for what he believed was an honest effort to settle, in a simple and effective way, some of the difficult problems connected with the question of licensing reform. He was glad that the Government had not introduced into the measure some of the provisions which they might have introduced, but which would greatly imperil the prospects of the measure becoming law during the present session. He wished especially to refer to the proposal in the Bill to constitute a new licensing authority in Scotland. With reference to the proposal to take away from the smaller burghs in Scotland power to deal with licensing questions in their own area he would point out that there were two sides to the question. Even the Minority Report of the Royal Commission was in favour of taking away from these extremely small burghs the power to deal with licensing questions. What was proposed by the Bill was to merge these small burghs into the counties; and he should like to remind the House that what the smaller burghs

1179
would lose in regard to powers within their own area they would gain by having a voice in determining the number of licences to be granted in the districts surrounding their own boundaries. Therefore, if licences were improperly accumulating on their borders, they would have a voice in limiting them. There was a great deal to be said in favour of what was, he believed, the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission, certainly the Minority Report, viz., doing away with the power's of the licensing authorities in these small burghs. Several hon. Members argued very strongly against the constitution of the new licensing authorities, and said that the proportion of one-third from the County Council and two-thirds from justices of the peace, was improper and undesirable, and ought to be reversed. He hoped, however, that the Government would adhere to that proposal. He believed it was a wise proposal, and that if the proportion of members from the County Council were increased, it would probably have the effect of injuring local administration in Scotland. They wanted as representatives of the County Councils of Scotland good, sound business men, who were elected because they were intelligent and willing to give their time to serve the best interests of the localities, viz., the administration of questions connected with roads and public health. At present an admirable class was elected to discharge those duties, but if they threw upon the County Councils the entire charge of administrating the licensing laws the effect would undoubtedly be that at every election there would be a fight as between the temperance party and the party which supported the publicans, and in place of having their local county representative appointed because he was a good administrator and likely to look well after questions of local economy, they would have him elected because he was either in favour with the local teetotalers or the local publicans. That would be a most unfortunate introduction into the public life of the counties of Scotland. It would be said that something of the kind existed in the burghs, but he would ask any person who compared local administration in burghs and in counties whether they would not find far greater economy in the county than in the burgh. He believed they would, and therefore it was a pity to make an alteration.
1180
He was not particularly called upon to defend any branch of the Trade in Scotland, but speaking from his own personal experience he believed that in the main those who carried on the grocery trade in Scotland did not deserve the words which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland applied to them. He believed they were carrying on a difficult trade in a very useful way, and that the sub-section of the Bill which would compel grocers not only to carry on their trade by selling only in sealed vessels but also would not allow them to bottle on the premises, would inflict upon them an unnecessary and undeserved hardship. He thought they might perfectly well carry on their trade with such a restriction.
The question of the desirability of dealing with compensation in the Bill had been brought forward. It was a very difficult subject. He was in favour undoubtedly of a time limit, or of compensation to come from some Trade source being ultimately applied to a solution of this question. But what would be the position of this Bill if this proposal were to be dealt with in it? It would not only be fought as a Scottish question, but as an English question as well. It would be impossible to avoid that. No question had more excited public interest in the last few months than the action which had been taken at the Brewster Sessions by English magistrates. The decisions come to, in no way the consequence of the legislation of last year, had arisen, he believed, from the fact that the discussion of that legislation had impressed people with the knowledge that public opinion in regard to the question of licensing had undergone a great change, and that public feeling was much more in favour of general restriction than it ever was before. That would inevitably lead in its effects throughout England, whatever proposals were brought forward in connection with the Scotch Bill, to the whole principle being fought out on lines applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom, and not on Scottish lines. Therefore, whilst he was glad that the question had been brought forward, he hoped it would not be pressed in Committee, but that they would be allowed to deal with the Bill on the limited lines on which it had been brought in. He was quite sure if that were done there would be no substantial

1181
difficulty in passing the Bill this session and thus adding a valuable measure to the Statute Book.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have had a characteristic debate upon this Scotch Bill, a debate which I think is creditable to the Scotch Members of the House of Commons. It has been discussed without any shadow of party spirit, without any excitement, with nothing to arrest the attention of the gallery, and in a way that is not likely to contribute anything for the gentlemen of the Press—I mean for their observations and their news of the morning. It has been from beginning to end a business-like, practical, and common-sense discussion, with only one object on the part of those who have taken a share in it—viz., to make it the best Bill we can for the country which we represent. I think the hon. Member for Linlithgow did well to put down this Amendment—not with a view to opposing the Bill, but as a necessary protest, as it were, on the part of those—they are not confined to one side of the House—who wish to see temperance legislation carried much further, a protest in favour of a more advanced measure, and a warning of what the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite might call a caveat, that we did not accept this as in any way bringing Scotch legislation on this subject up to the level to which we should like to see it brought. On that ground I am a little suspicious of the pretext put forward that this Bill is intended to embody the main provisions of the English Bill of last session. For Heaven's sake, do not let us got in the way of thinking that England is to have the good things, and that in due time, when opportunity offers, Scotland is to receive anything that is left Scotland has always been ahead on this subject, as it has been on most subjects, and I hope she will long continue to occupy that position.
The Solicitor - General spoke of the Bill being received with a large measure of favour, but that must not be misunderstood. If you met a hungry man in the street and offered him a crust of bread he would receive it with a large measure of favour, but he would much rather a substantial and ample dinner; audit is that substantial and ample dinner that we wish to receive,
1182
and we are sorry it is only this crust of bread that we get. I have only one main criticism to offer upon this Bill, and only one, which I consider of the first rank in importance, and that is that it is an infringement—or at any rate it fails to carry out completely the principle of popular government. I am in favour, as are many other Members, of direct popular control in this matter, but there is another condition quite as essential as directness and popularity, and that is that the control should be local control. You may have popular control in one sense by men who are imported from a distance. For instance, if there was a question of the number of licences in Great George Street, Westminster, and the people of the locality were a good deal exercised about having too many public houses among them, it would be very small consolation to know that it had been referred to a County Councillor who happened to be elected by the voters in Islington or Brixton, or some other part of the Metropolis. What you want in this case as in all others is personal knowledge of the facts, the wants, the nuisances, and the desires of the locality, and you cannot get that by the importation of any number either of justices of the peace, or of County Councillors from other parts of the county. It is in that respect that I think this Bill fails. There is, in fact, in the Government somehow—and it extends to the two learned Gentlemen opposite—an ingrained, and ineradicable tendency and desire to take this most circuitous and roundabout way to secure what they call popular control when there is a direct, straight and easy avenue to the same result ready to their hands.
Very much has been said, and more will be said when we get into Committee, of the proposal to take away the licensing power of the smaller burghs. My objection to the Bill is that it takes that power away from men who know all the circumstances, and who, though they may use their powers badly, do it with full knowledge of the circumstances, and who are directly answerable to their electors for the action they take. The Solicitor-General implied that the magistrates in a Scotch burgh are not directly elected. But they are members of the Town Council, who are elected by their colleagues to fill the place of magistrates. I do not know that you

1183
could have anything bringing more plainly into a position of direct responsibility to the community whose interests they serve. But the proposal is that these smaller burghs should lose their powers, and then there is the further proposal of placing on the Appeal Court a preponderance of nominated members of justices of the peace. I agree with what has been said about the absurdity of that Appeal Court, especially in the larger counties. But why should we have an Appeal Court at all? It is almost incumbent upon us, when dealing with this matter, to settle the elementary proposition — Is an Appeal Court necessary? In what other department of civic authority do you have an over-riding authority above those who are directly charged with the business? The magistrates and Town Council in a great city have to deal with questions of all kinds, and of enormous importance, but they are not subject to appeal to any other authority in respect of their dealings in those great matters. Why should this one question of licensing be selected for appeal? Then, assuming we are to have this Appeal Court, the Court is to consist of representatives of the burghs and districts, and of certain other justices of the peace in a proportion which will outnumber the direct representatives of the locality. My objection is not only to the fact of the justices of the peace being nominated, and not elected persons, but to the fact of their being distant persons, and the vice of distant residence and distant knowledge may just as well apply to County Councillors as to justices of the peace or any other persons.
Take the proposal of the Government, as I understand it, with regard to a county of which I have some acquaintance—the county of Stirling. In that county there are three burghs: Stirling, which comes just under the 20,000 line, and is to have two of its magistrates on the Court of Appeal; Grangemouth, which is to have one representative; and Kilsyth, which also is to have one representative. The county will thus have four representatives on the Appeal Court, and accordingly there will be eight justices of the peace added to neutralise the four. But it much more than neutralises them on the test of locality, because the men who represent Kilsyth and Grangemouth know nothing
1184
whatever of the desires of the people of Stirling, so that in that case it will not be four against eight but two against ten. The element of locality is the dominating element of the whole thing, because the question of whether licences are to be granted or withheld is one of the convenience, wishes, and interests of the people of the locality, and it is only men who have a close knowledge of the locality that are fit judges in the matter.
These are the principal objections I take to the provisions of the Bill. I have said that I hardly see what sufficient reason there is for the maintenance of the Court of Appeal at all. But I admit that we cannot expect much assistance from the Government in that matter, because the Prime Minister pins his faith to the Court of Appeal, and has already, in cases which are actually pending, invoked and invited the Court of Appeal to upset what he is pleased to consider the erroneous decisions of the court of first instance, a remarkable performance, which I think is almost unequalled in a public functionary of his importance and standing. But while I have now great hope that they will do away with the Court of Appeal altogether, I hope they will keep an open mind and give the fullest consideration to suggestions for altering its constitution. I was glad to hear he Solicitor-General use an expression tending in that direction—that he had no strong opinion on the subject himself, and that when we got into Committee he knew the Government would listen to representations on the matter. I trust that we shall find that to be so, and that the Government will leave it an open question in the sense of not exerting their authority for the purpose of thwarting what may appear to be the opinion and desire of Scottish Members.
I do not wish to touch on the great and thorny question of compensation. I think it would have been better not to have introduced it at all, because there are peculiar reasons at present, as we all know, for avoiding that Sirbonian bog. If we once plunged into it I do not know how much it would add to the duration of our debates, or to what extent it would endanger the passage of the Bill. I hope the measure will pass, and that the two learned

1185
Gentlemen opposite will not too rigidly adhere to their own proposals, but give their assistance to those Members who wish to amend the Bill. Proceeding in that spirit, I hope the Bill will be made one, which, to a greater degree than now, will be for the good of, and advantage to, the Scottish people.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I do not think that at any time when I have been in charge of a measure before this House I have found myself with so little to do in the Second Reading debate as on this occasion. Everything that I ought to do has been done for me by speakers on either side of the House. I do not mean that there has been a chorus of approval of all that is in the Bill, but that when anybody has made a specific proposal as shown in the varied Amendments on the Paper somebody has immediately got up on the same side of the House and condemned the proposal. As long as Members dealt in generalities they were safe, but the moment they put down definite Amendments the difficulty appeared. The Amendment we are technically discussing invites us to go into, I will not say the Sirbonian bog but the quagmire of local option. Local option by itself is bad enough, but the hon. and learned Member explained that he was not content with local option as ordinarily understood; he wanted a sort of hydra-headed local option, including such other topics as the municipal management of public houses. I need scarcely say that if I had responded to that appeal there would have to be introduced into the Bill a set of the most complicated clauses that have ever faced a draftsman. I am quite content to rest on the solemn declaration of one of the speakers on the learned Member's own side of the House, that to accede to the Amendment would undoubtedly wreck the Bill. In the same way with the Amendment dealing with the subject of compensation, we have just had a warning from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who agrees that we were well advised to leave that subject alone. I am not going to discuss the subject of compensation further than to say that I must not be held necessarily to agree with any of the views which
1186
have been promulgated in the course of this debate, but I entirely associate myself with the remark of my hon. friend the Member for Renfrewshire that compensation can never be dealt with as a purely Scottish question. Whatever may be our views as to compensation, there is no place for them in this Bill. Having said that, I think we may congratulate ourselves that all are agreed that at any rate we are doing something for the cause of temperance and good government by the provisions of this Bill. No doubt, as the hon. Member for Kincardineshire said, in considering what is satisfactory you must always consider those to whom you are giving anything, and he added that in looking at this Bill he was constrained to exclaim, "Blessed are those who expect little." The right, hon. Gentleman opposite also said that a hungry man would be glad of a crust, but he would like a full meal better. I hope that both those Gentlemen have sufficiently good memories to go back to the time of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member, and to remember their temperance proposals I think the hon. Gentleman will then add to his proverbs, "How un blest are those who expect too much." and the right hon. Gentleman will believe that the hungry man would sooner have a crust than a Barmecide's feast.
Passing from these general topics, the hon. Member for the Universities was particularly anxious that we should deal with the matter of habitual drunkenness in relation to the question of husband and wife. I can only say that our minds are quite open on that matter, and if my hon. friend will give us his assistance, recognising, as I am sure he dies, that there are certain technical difficulties which prevent the adoption en bloc of the provisions of the English Bill, I am sure we shall give the matter our most careful attention. There has been a great deal of criticism of the licensing authority; in particular much has been said about taking away the licensing from the small burghs. The right hon. Gentleman said he was afraid that the Government in general, and my hon. and learned friend and myself in particular, had adopted a curiously circuitous method. I think the right

1187
hon. Gentleman has forgotten that the idea of confining the licensing authority to a population of 7,000 and not under is not the creation of the "circuitous mind" of my hon. and learned friend and myself, but the unanimous recommendation of both the Majority and the Minority Reports. Surely that is justification enough for the appearance in the Government Bill of the proposition as it stands. There again I am not, of course, saying what the decision of the Government will be. But obviously that is a question in which we shall invite a free and frank discussion. I should like to say this. The right hon. Gentleman went on to explain how he thought that it was not so much a question of the actual existence of justices of the peace, but that being a non-local man would affect the authority. Throughout the many criticisms made upon the local authority, I have noticed an extraordinary absence of any consideration for the judicial element which ought to exist in a licensing tribunal. Hon. Member after hon. Member—and I include the right hon. Gentleman in this category—have really approached the subject as if the proper conduct of a licensing authority was to have, so to speak, a local authority constituted according to the predominance of persons in a locality of one view or the other, and that in this way the wishes of the locality should be given effect to. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no."] I am glad to hear murmurs of dissent, and if that is not the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I apologise for having misunderstood him, and I accept his assent to my proposition, which is that there must be a certain element of judicial consideration as to the granting of licences or not. I contend that you are not entitled to go so much according to your own view of what is the proper policy and what are the wishes of the community, but more according to the needs of your neighbours. If that is so, surely the right hon. Gentleman knows enough of the conduct of small communities to know that occasionally upon matters of judicial consideration they need setting right. The right hon. Gentleman did not shrink from what I should call the extreme position of saying that there ought not to be a Court of Appeal at all. I would remind the House alter all how very little the Court
1188
of Appeal has got to do. If a new licence is refused by the licensing body under the present law, and we do not alter it under this Bill, there is no possibility of making an appeal, and in that way imposing upon that body a licence which they do not want to grant. It is only when you come to the question of the renewal of an existing licence, when you are taking away, I will not use the term "vested interest"—but when you are taking away something from a man which he has already got that he feels aggrieved, and in that case I think he is entitled to come to an Appeal Court. It seems to me that that is just the sort of case where, although local knowledge is good, when you come to the Court of Appeal local knowledge is not everything; but you must have that judicial consideration which you are much more likely to get if you are not absolutely under local control. The right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that their judgment might be right or wrong, and that at any rate they know the spot. The right hon. Gentleman's view is to let them do as they like.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, if they have the whole of the people of the locality at their back.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Yes, but it may be that they are backed up with injustice by the people of the locality. Passing to the question of grocers' licences, there again we shall certainly have an open mind in Committee about both the points on which criticism has been passed. As far as the vans provision is concerned, it seems to me that we all have the same object in view, and I would ask hon. Members who criticise the phraseology of the clause as it stands to consider its practical construction, and then they will see how very difficult the point is to meet. So far as that and the other clause which has created so much interest in regard to grocers' licences is concerned, I repeat what I said when I introduced the Bill, namely, that we had no intention of hampering the Trade or making it impossible for that Trade to be carried on in a proper way, as I am certain it is being carried on in a great majority of cases what we wish to do is to prevent abuses, and so long as the phraseology that we adopt prevents

1189
the very obvious abuses which take place, we certainly shall not hamper that trade with any further restrictions. There has been a great deal of comment as to the position of early closing in large cities. That, again, is a point which we shall be perfectly willing and ready to discuss upstairs. I am not, of course, to be taken as giving at this moment the decision of the Government upon any of these matters. We shall certainly wait until we can hear what is said upon both sides. I excuse myself from not even discussing those larger topics of local option and compensation, because in this Bill a discussion of these topics can only be purely academic, and I reserve for the Government the same freedom to accept or reject Amendments as hon. Members have to propose them. I welcome the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am very glad that it has been received with unanimity upon both sides of the House.
SIR JOHN LENGsaid he desired to thank the Government for introducing this Bill. He was, in his own person, an example of the inefficiency, not to say the impotency, of private Members attempting to deal with questions connected with the liquor traffic. Soon after he entered the House he introduced the Grocers' Licences Abolition (Scotland) Bill and for eight successive years he carefully balloted for that Bill. In the ninth year he thought he had secured the attention of Parliament, for he got the ninth place in the ballot, and he was hoping that they would have a discussion upon a measure in which many of his constituents had expressed great interest. As not uncommonly happened in these circumstances, the Government of the day found it desirable to annex that day, and they deprived him of the chance for which he had waited so long. He had always had the consciousness that it would be difficult for him to secure consideration of his measure. He was glad, however, that in the Bill before the House the question of Grocers' Licences was dealt with. He was only sorry that they were not dealt with in a stronger manner. He would remind the House that fifteen years ago a Royal Commission sat upon this question and examined a large number of
1190
witnesses, and they put forward a number of very valuable recommendations. He regretted that the framers of this Bill, while they had adopted two or three of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, had not adopted some dozen others, the whole of which seemed to him to be exceedingly practical, reasonable, and good for the purposes of this Bill and desirable in the interests both of the grocers and of the Trade. He hoped that under the powers and regulations which were proposed it would be possible to schedule if not the whole, the greater number of those recommendations as coming within the purview of the magistrate, authorising them to pass by-laws and resolutions to carry them out. This question of grocers' licences was regarded in Scotland as a most important question because, unfortunately, Scotland had been, for a number of years past, a country where drunkenness had been spreading amongst the female part of the population. Some little time ago he made special inquiries into this subject and obtained from Edinburgh and Glasgow, as well as from his own city, figures which he thought would surprise the House, and which he felt sure the House would deplore. In his own constituency of Dundee the number brought up charged with drunkenness in the year 1900 was 1,014 males, as against 815 females; and the charges of breaches of the peace numbered 1,123 males, whilst the number of females charged with the same offence was within two of 700. In Edinburgh and Glasgow the figures were even more lamentable. In Edinburgh the number charged with drunkenness was 2,194 males, and 1,418 females; and the breaches of the peace numbered 1,397 males and 1,672 females. In Glasgow against 7,000 males charged with drunkenness there were 5,000 females, whilst the figures for breaches of the peace were 5,800 males and 2,800 females. All the evidence of the increase of drinking habits amongst the women in Scotland showed that the evil was largely due to the fact that not a few of the licensed grocers' shops did not sell in sealed bottles and were little better than dram shops. A great amount of evidence was brought before the Royal Commission to show that that was the case. Women went

1191
into shops and they could not only get drink there, but they could take drink to their houses, and in this insidious manner they acquired drinking habits which did much to destroy the family life and happiness of many homes in Scotland.
He hoped that among other improvements which would be made in the Bill the requirements of the English Act would be extended to Scotland, and that the sale in scaled bottles would be insisted upon. He had always contended that the trades in what were called wet groceries and dry groceries should be entirely separate. Were they to be divided? He would say that the Government, whatever they did, should not give less to Scotland than they had given to England. This remark applied to the separation clause in cases of drunkenness of husbands or wives. He was glad to hoar the Lord Advocate say that he had an open mind on that subject. As to the hours of closing, he hoped they would be able, not only to introduce the ten o'clock Clause for the cities which were at present excluded, but that there would be further powers with regard to the limiting of the hours in the beginning of the day as well as at the end of it. He poped also that not merely on New Year's pay, but on a certain number of holidays, hower for general closing would be given. He suggested that it should be in the power of the magistrates to do this, at least six days in the year. There was no reason whatever why extended hours should be given on Saturdays. As a rule, wages were not now paid on Saturday. It was only in a few exceptional cases that they were now paid on Saturday night as before. All the great employers paid their workers on Friday, and there was no reason why the mistress of a house should not do her shopping on Friday night or Saturday morning. With regard to the bonâ-fide traveller he thought his real name should be malâ-fide traveller. The bonâ-fide traveller had been described as nothing but an impostor. He know a case where there was a ferry, only two miles broad, which was used on Sunday to carry drinkers from a large town to a small village, where they almost indulged in riot. He thought there should be something in the law to prevent clubs being planted capriciously in neighbourhoods where they were not desired. A single club
1192
would destroy the peace and happiness of a whole tenement. The Government were to be congratulated upon having indicated that they had an open mind on those points, and he trusted that when the Bill had passed through Committee, that would not only be a good Bill but a considerably better Bill than it was at present.
MR. HUNTER CRAIGsaid he concurred in the opinion expressed by several hon. Members that this was not a Bill which deserved the name of temperance reform, or one which would lessen drunkenness to any extent. Speaking for those who were largely connected with temperance reforms in Scotland, he must express their disappointment, as well as his own, at the meagreness and inadequacy of this measure. It had always been said with reference to temperance reformers that they would either have a whole measure or none, but he thought the course of the debate this afternoon must contradict that view, and show that it was one which was fallacious, because those who desired to see the country improved in sobriety were thankful for any measure of reform, no matter how small, provided it was not retrograde. The present measure did not meet the case. They wanted temperance reform of a drastic nature to remedy the deplorable condition of the country caused by the liquor traffic which was described in the majority Report of the Royal Commission as a gigantic evil, and no sacrifice would be too great to free the country from this national degradation; the signatories to this Report included eight members of the liquor trade. When they considered that no loss than £500,000 was spent every day in the United Kingdom on intoxicating liquors, that of this sum £333,000 was spent by the working classes, and that the condition of the people was so grave, it would, he thought, be admitted that it was high time they had a measure consistent with the extent of the incalculable mischief which drink was causing in the country. During the recruiting of soldiers in Manchester for the late war no less than 8,000 out of 11,000 young men who volunteered to serve were rejected as physically unfit to carry a rifle and endure the hardship

1193
of discipline. When they thought of the normous cost to the nation for the maintenance of judicial courts, prisons, penitentiaries, workhouses, hospitals, lunatic asylums, and inebriate homes, it was high time that they should stop this waste of money. The Revenue received £41,000,000 a year from the liquor traffic, but they were simply putting the money into a bag with holes when the consequent cost to the nation caused by the liquor traffic was considered. It would be far better if the money were thrown into the Thames than that it should be spent in intoxicating liquors, producing such disastrous results. He was sorry the Lord Advocate had not introduced the principle of local option into the Bill. Twenty years ago a Resolution was passed in this House by a large majority approving of the principle of local option, and calling for an enactment to give it effect in Scotland. He was sorry to say they had not received that reform. He sincerely hoped that when the Bill went upstairs the Lord Advocate would consent to the ten o'clock restriction being applied to the exempted cities. The Secretary for Scotland received at Edinburgh last week a large deputation including the civil heads of the exempted burghs urging him to give these burghs power to close at 10 p.m. Statements were then made that the worst class of drinking took place between ten and eleven. The Provost of Govan, which burgh is part of my constituency, stated that the greatest amount of drunkenness existed between the hours of ten and eleven o'clock in the burgh. He told the Secretary for Scotland that some 4,500 apprehensions took place during the year, resulting in 3,000 to 4,000 convictions, and that out of this large number there were only 850 sober persons. That happened in a burgh containing 88,000 inhabitants. He was glad to say that they had the principle of local veto established in a district within the burgh of Govan. It contained 6,000 inhabitants and there was not a public-house in that district, with the result that there was practically no crime, one policeman being able to keep the peace, whereas for the same population in the liquor selling districts eight policemen would be the proportion necessary. The hardship of the present law makes it necessary for
1194
the community to oppose, at considerable trouble and expense, applications for licences every six months at the Justices' meetings.
It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [6th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out all the words from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'no measure dealing with licensing reform in Scotland will be satisfactory which fails to include provisions securing direct popular control of the liquor traffic.'"—(Mr. Ure.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIGresumed his speech. In his opinion the measure simply touched on the fringe of the subject. The remedy was to be found in dealing with causes instead of results, in order to check intoxication and the profligate expenditure of money. With drink shops more numerous than bread shops, studded all over the country, what results could be expected than intoxication? He regretted to see the large increase of drunkenness among women, in some cases the increase extended to 100 per cent. It was lamentable to see in one part of his constituency the number of young women who were falling into drink. It has become a habit with some of them to club together in order to buy a bottle of whiskey and have a carouse among themselves. These conditions of life were deteriorating the physical, mental, and moral life and qualities of our race. Lord Chief Justice Coleridge had said that if England could be made sober three-fourths of our gaols might be closed, and Col. McHardy, the

  1195
  chairman of the Scottish Prisons Commissioners, had said that what was wanted in Scotland was a cure for excessive drinking, and if Scotland could be rid of its drunkenness it would be the first country on the face of the globe. Why should they not have local veto for Scotland, seeing that Scotland was ripe for it? Why should this terrible condition of affairs exist, demoralising our people and incapacitating them in the fight for life? Lord Milner, in introducing a licensing ordinance for the Transvaal, has given local option, and there a majority of votes can prohibit the sale of liquor in their locality. That was a simple solution of the whole affair. It was a question for the people, and ought to be left to the people. A publican was given his licence for one year on the ground that it was for the public good and because the people required it. Surely, then, it was only right for the people to say whether they did or did not want intoxicating liquor shops. Although by the expenditure of large sums of money on licensed premises their value was increased, they knew how the value of other property often deteriorated where licences were granted. As an instance, among many, an adjoining property fell in value £1,600 because of a licence granted, thereby deteriorating the locality. He had heard the sympathetic remarks of the Lord Advocate with those who felt that the Bill did not go far enough, and he was anxious to see it carried through because it went to promote temperance reform in certain directions. He was delighted to believe that the Lord Advocate would relieve the exempted cities from the ten o'clock rule. When this subject was referred to by the deputation at Edinburgh, the Secretary for Scotland expressed himself as being in favour of an hour being allowed off in the morning instead of at night, but he hoped that the Committee would see its way not only to give an hour off at night but also one in the morning. Then with reference to the proportion of two-thirds justices of the peace to one-third county councillors, he sincerely hoped that the portion of popular control would be so increased that the numbers would be reversed. In some parts of the Bill reference was made to the licensing authority, and in others to the
  1196
  licensing court, but he was glad to learn from Lord Balfour of Burleigh that he did not attach any importance to that change, which was very much a matter of words. Then with reference to the hawking of liquor. He knew for a fact that liquor vans were sent out, and even if the liquor had not been ordered the vanman was supplied with a pass-book containing the names of customers, with a quantity of liquor attached to each name, even although none had been ordered. He hoped the Lord Advocate would consider the proposal that no liquor should be supplied without a signed and dated order. Would it, he wondered, be possible to make the sale of the goodwill of a public house illegal? If that could be done it would certainly prevent disappointment on the part of those who paid large sums of money should they be deprived of their licences. As the Bill was to be referred to a Committee upstairs he would not move the Amendment standing in his name.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWthought there had been so many speeches made on the Bill that little remained to be said. As representing a largo Scottish burgh which had taken a great interest in the measure he wished to say that the feeling of his constituents in favour of the Bill was as unanimous as it had been expressed in the House. He had received a large number of letters, and alterations had been suggested in the Bill, but in no case had disapproval been expressed of the Bill as a whole, and that was a very remarkable circumstance in the case of a licensing Bill. Many of the letters were from licensed grocers, and he was glad to have the assurance of the Lord Advocate that upon this subject the Government had an open mind and would listen to all arguments that might be put before the Committee. He felt that if the Bill were to pass in its present forma serious loss would be inflicted upon a number of respectable tradesmen without any corresponding gain. The only objection that had been raised to the Bill was that it did not go far enough. It certainly did not deal with various matters of a highly controversial character, and to his mind that was a strong thing in its favour. The great merit of the Bill was that it embodied a number

  1197
  of reforms of which all approved, whilst it was approved both by the temperance party and by those engaged in the liquor trade. He sympathised with the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire in the view he took of compensation. That was a subject with which the Government had to deal as soon as possible, but it was not one to be embodied in the present measure. Having regard to the Irish Land Bill and the London Education Bill there was no chance of a licensing measure dealing with compensation and other controversial matters being passed into law this session, but he earnestly hoped that this Bill with its reforms would be placed on the Statute Book.
  THE MASTER OF ELIBANKasked the Lord Advocate to consider the provision dealing with Royal Burghs and thought that he might be permitted to say a word or two for his native town of Peebles. The House was doubtless familiar with the old saying, "Peebles for pleasure," but he imagined that this Bill would not convey any great pleasure to the magistrates of that town. Both Selkirk and Peebles, capitals of their respective counties, would have their privileges taken away, whereas a small burgh in Fife, with a population of 7,000 and a valuation of only a little more than one half of that of Selkirk or of Peebles, would become a licensing authority. Peebles, on the other hand, would be governed by the county, which could not be said to have the same close knowledge of the needs and desires of the locality. He proposed to place an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this subject, and he trusted that in due course it would receive favourable attention from the Lord Advocate. In the meantime he welcomed the Bill as a states man like effort to grapple with the drink problem in Scotland.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he would not have intervened in the debate but for the fact that the Bill was to be sent upstairs to a Committee, and unless one could follow it there he would not even be able to follow the fortunes of Peebles. The question of popular control had occupied the attention of many of them in years gone by and they all knew that there
  1198
  could never be a satisfactory system of control of the liquor traffic without that element, The only reason to be urge in favour of the postponement was that the great increase in value of the licensed trade during the last ten or fifteen years had proved to be a natural incentive for the Trade to safeguard its own interests and had rendered it likely for small popularly elected authorities to be laid open to the influence of the Trade. Beyond that he knew of no reason why even small areas should not control their liquor traffic. In Scandinavia they had a system which worked admirably, and under similar conditions he saw no reason why one on similar lines should not work well in Scotland. There was a great deal of force in the argument that the licensing authority should be formed from a Committee of the Town Councils or the County Councils. He saw no reason for the necessity of retaining the element of justices of the peace, and although he would not attempt to deny that a good licensing body could be formed out of the justices of a county, he recognised that it was the number of that class which reduced the control of the granting of licences to a farce. There was a great majority of opinion in that House in favour of popular election of those entrusted with the control of the liquor traffic, and therefore he naturally preferred Committees of the County Councils or Town Councils to the nominated authorities who would form the major part of the licensing authority under this Bill. Dealing with the reduction of licences he thought the institution of the time limit was by far the most pressing part of the whole licensing question before the House.
  Since the Licensing Bill was introduced they had had the remarkable speech of the Prime Minister in answer to the brewers' deputation, and the far more remarkable speech of the Lord Chancellor in another place in dealing with the actions of the justices in England. Admonitions had been addressed to the highest authorities, and the benches of justices in England had been practically directed not to pursue the policy of the reduction of licences. The justices of England had not hitherto been regarded as a peculiarly revolutionary body, and yet it had been thought necessary for the Lord Chancellor to admonish them for defending the public interests, and for

  1199
  the Government to defend the publican. The whole arguments of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor were directed towards showing the hardships the owners of licences would suffer if any licence were lost to them under this scheme of general reduction, and yet, in spite of those arguments, they had a Bill for Scotland with no provision for the reduction of licences, and no provision for a time limit, which only, under the arguments of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, would render that reduction possible. Were there to be no further reductions of licences in Scotland? That appeared to be the only logical alternative. Was the licence, therefore, to become the equivalent to private property? That, at any rate, had never been recognised in Scotland, Therefore the question of having a time limit was necessary if the element of any money compensation was to be brought forward. He failed to see how they could deal with the question of money compensation until they had fixed the time limit. In Lord Peel's Report the limit was made five years. He did not consider that sufficient, and would rather support the suggestion of seven years. He did not know that he should hold up his hands in horror if, as in Mr. Bruce's Bill, it was ten years. They had waited thirty-three years—a generation—since the introduction of Mr. Bruce's Bill in 1871, and he did not think it was possible for another generation to pass away without some more effective means being found to reduce order out of the chaos of the licensing system. The matter of compensation was preeminently a matter for compromise and arrangement. He believed this was a favourable opportunity for making that arrangement. Public opinion was ready for it; the power of the justices was absolute.
  With regard to the constitution of the Appeal Courts under the Bill, he wished to point out that they were strong authorities and must have considerable areas. He felt the greatest sympathy for many of the small Royal Burghs, and there was no county so full of them as that in which he resided. He could not, however, but recognise the fact that they were to have a strong authority, and they must be composed of representatives of considerable populations.
  1200
  He did not hesitate to say that he was in favour of even a higher line than that fixed by the Bill, and thought a limit of a 20,000 population would not be too high if they provided for strong authorities by forming committees of town and county councillors. He thought that the number should be rather less than that nominated by the Bill. If they had these strong authorities in large areas and with the security of the time limit, so that there would be no cause of complaint on the part of the Trade against any rapid change of policy on the part of the new authorities, then the Appeal Courts would be abolished. He saw no reason for Appeal Courts. They would certainly simplify the operation of the Bill and remove the most cumbrous part of it if they were to take out the provisions relating to the Appeal Courts. So far as the time allowance, the reduction of licences, and the rendering of the licensing authorities stronger through abolishing the Appeal Courts were concerned, they might all follow the same road, whatever might be their views as to the ultimate arrangement of the licensing authority. For his own part, it was to the elimination of private property in the liquor traffic that they had to look if they were to have a thoroughly sound system of licensing in Scotland. He was encouraged in that view by the provision of the Transvaal law, in which Lord Milner had provided that a locality desiring to control the liquor traffic through a trust company would do so by a petition to the Government. No doubt all of them had made concessions of their opinions in giving their support to the Bill as it stood. He should be very sorry to see the Bill lost, and therefore he should be unable to support such an Amendment as that moved by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. If they were ready to make concessions, it was not because they considered that the Bill was the best, and because they did not lay stress on such points as he had ventured to commend to the attention of the House, but because of their earnest desire to free themselves from the shackles of chaos of their present licensing system, and to make some effective effort to deal with the degradation that it involved upon local and Imperial interests, and

  1201
  the degradation it involved upon the great mass of their people.
  MR. DALZIELexpressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman, in the favourable opportunity which he now had of dealing with this troublesome licensing question, had not ventured to settle the matter on a permanent basis. In the course of the speech of the Solicitor-General he was amazed to hear the declaration that he did not claim that the Bill would settle the question in Scotland. It was safe to say that in no period of the history of this country had the Government a better opportunity for settling the question satisfactorily to the Scotch people. The appalling figures read out by the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Govan showed that the social evil was one which it would be dangerous to the national life of Scotland to leave untouched for any long period. The Government, admitting the evil, and with all the support of their followers and that of the Opposition, had an opportunity of doing anything that was reasonable to solve the question, and yet they said this was a harmless little Bill. From beginning to end there was no real living clause in the Bill. It would not be final; it merely dealt with machinery. So far as it gave control to the people it would be popular, but, unfortunately, the tendency of the Bill was to limit the authority they now had. Was the proposal to take the control of licences out of the hands of Royal Burghs with under 7,000 inhabitants a step in the direction of local control? When Town Councils were elected, the qualifications of the committee of magistrates were often canvassed as to how far they would be prepared to grant or refuse new licences. In many cases that was the dominating feature of the election. The proposal now made would not make that election more democratic. It could not be contended that the magistrates had not discharged their duties with satisfaction to the community. In the small burghs the magistrates represented the highest quality of the citizens. There was no real reason advanced for the change, and the result would be that the power of dealing with licences would be handed over to a body of men, the majority of whom knew nothing of the
  1202
  local requirements. He protested against the provisions on this matter in the Bill, and hoped that the Committee would be able to convince the right hon. Gentleman that there was good ground for removing such provisions. If the Government would take the opinion of Scotland with regard to the Bill he should be perfectly content. The Bill did not go as far as they wished; it merely danced round the question of providing machinery. The test of the measure would be the extent to which the Government recognised the feeling of Scotland. If they did that the Bill would pass in such a condition as would afford some chance of settling the temperance question in Scotland.
  MR. BAIRDsaid that although the evil condition of the question was one of long growth, and although it was true that desperate diseases required desperate remedies, in dealing with this particular disease they should act slowly. He sympathised with the hon. Member for Midlothian in regard to the small Royal Burghs, but they must remember that they were not dealing with ancient monuments. The reason why there had been so little debate and so much discussion was because they were all agreed, both inside and outside of the House. One hon. Member had spoken rather hardly of grocers. In his view some of them were amongst the best people in Edinburgh.
  MR. UREasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY moved that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  SIR ROBERT REID SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs) moved as an Amendment—that the Bill be referred to a Committee consisting of all the members representing Scottish constituencies, together with

  1203
  fifteen other members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and that the proceedings of such Committee shall for the purpose of this Bill have the same effect as the proceedings of a Standing Committee on Law or Trade, and shall be conducted under the same procedure and rules. He complained that the Lord Advocate had made the Motion in a very summary fashion, without putting forward any reasons for it. He deprecated the proposal, and would endeavour to show that the course he (Sir Robert Reid) suggested, was much more desirable in the interests of the House. It would certainly show more respect to the Scotch Members who desired to follow the Bill through all its stages. Early in 1894 a proposal was made by the late Government that there should be a Standing Committee consisting of Scotch Members and fifteen other Members, to which all purely Scotch business should be referred. That was discussed and passed, and certain Bills were with great advantage referred to that Committee. Formidable arguments were addressed by the present Prime Minister against that proposal, and it was described as containing the seed of the dissolution of the British Empire, and the breaking up of the United Kingdom. He rather thought that a calmer spirit prevailed now. He had always been, and would remain, a firm and constant supporter of the principle of devolution of business, without which, he felt satisfied, firstly, that the business of the country would not be wisely transacted; secondly, that the interests represented in that House would not be adequately represented; and thirdly, that the feeling of the people who sent them there would not be properly enforced.
  His Motion, however, did not deal with those points; it related only to this particular Bill, and it was justified on purely and simply business grounds. The character and complexion of the Bill was that it dealt with a subject vital to the welfare of Scotchmen. The figures quoted in the debate showed that the evil was a frightful one. No one could contest that, and nothing could be more eloquent to prove it than the tone of the debate and the extreme earnestness with which hon. Members on both sides had spoken. No
  1204
  man in the House took a more serious view of the Bill than he did. It dealt with the health, and the permanence of the mental, moral, and physical condition of the people of Scotland. He thought everybody would agree that knowledge and familiarity with the evils themselves, and with the sense and judgment of the people as regarded the way in which those evils ought to be remedied, was almost confined to Scotch Members. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] He did not wish to set up that Scotch Members were better than any other hon. Members, but they knew this subject most fully. He did not think that hon. Gentlemen from England and Wales would contend that they were better, or as well, acquainted with the peculiar manner in which these evils pressed upon Scotland, nor with the deep feeling the people had for a remedy. Scotch Members knew the peculiar way in which these evils struck their country. It would not be disputed that the feeling of Scotch constituencies would be better and more faithfully and accurately represented by Scotch Members than by English or Irish Members. Every hon. Member for Scotland had had this subject thoroughly threshed out at the last election, and no hon. Member came to this House from a Scotch constituency without knowing the feeling of his constituents from every point of view upon this subject, or without having given his own opinion upon it. The Standing Committee on Trade contained only ten Scotch Members out of seventy-two. He was aware that there might be fifteen more added by the Committee of Selection. As a matter of fact, there would be some nominations from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Did they suppose that Scotland would get half that representation? [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] Suppose Scotland got the whole of that representation, that would mean twenty-five out of seventy-two. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to say if they thought that was right. There was not a Scotch Member in the House who did not take the deepest interest in this Bill, and who did not want to take part in the discussions, in order to satisfy himself and his constituency in reference to it.

  1205
  His hon. friend had spoken about the small burghs, but he would remind his hon. friend that he at present represented a fraction of a great city which did not exist at the time when some of the small burghs he alluded to returned Members of Parliament. Let at least the small burghs subsist, and be able to exercise the functions they had always enjoyed. On the Standing Committee on Trade they would see hon. Members representing Glasgow, Leeds, and Birmingham sitting together with the representatives of some of the counties of England who knew nothing of Scotland, or of Scottish corporate life and traditions. In 1894, when this point was raised upon the general question of a regular Standing Committee, a great deal was made of the difficulty that the majority of the House would not find its reflex on the Committee. He was sorry to see that a deplorable change had occurred in the balance of the representation. He wished to point out that the presence of the Scotch Members on this Committee would prevent the possibility of the Government losing their much cherished majority. But there was another practical convenience. Supposing they had only twenty-five Scotch Members out of seventy-two. The result would be that the proceedings on report would be protracted. The whole question would have to be reopened by the thirty-seven hon. Members from Scotland who would be compulsorily absent from the Committee, and they were bound to be heard in the House. It was true that they would not be able to speak more than once. He could understand the Government wishing to escape the presence of Scotch Members if they thought for a moment that their presence was likely to retard the passage of the Bill. He did not think any of them were for obstructing Scottish measures, and still less were they likely to do it in regard to a Bill which they all sincerely desired in many features to be added to the Statute Book.
  He could not understand what was the object of the right hon. Gentleman in sending this Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade. He moved his resolution as a business proposal for the
  1206
  purpose of dealing with this particular measure in the most satisfactory way to the people of Scotland and to the Government themselves. He wished to make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who represented Scotland, for there was nothing dangerous in his proposal, which was purely a mere business one. Hon. Members opposite who represented Scotland would suffer just as much as hon. Members on the opposite side by being excluded from this Committee, and they knew their constituents would be dissatisfied. What reason was there why they should not endeavour to get the Government to give reasonable facilities for discussing this Bill in the same spirit and manner which had been exhibited fully in the course of this debate. If this were done he believed they would be able to contribute, something towards making this measure a substantial reform of a most serious danger to which Scotland was at the present moment exposed. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'the Standing Committee on Trade, etc,' and add the words 'a Committee consisting of all the Members representing Scottish constituencies, together with fifteen other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection."—(Sir. Robert Reid.)
  Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. A GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has put this proposition as being something different from what was done in the year 1894, and he is very anxious to assure us that he does not wish to repeat that experiment. The hon. and learned Member in putting forward this Motion has taken particular care to assure us that he himself was always in favour of devolution from this House in every way possible. In this matter my memory is not quite so short, and when I hear these protestations I cannot help remembering how very little support we got from hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the Private Legislation Bill which we passed through this House not long ago.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There was no opposition from this side at all.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I know the right hon. Gentleman has very curious views about what is opposition, but perhaps I may say that there was very little help.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The opposition came from the right hon. Gentleman's own friends.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten another chapter of the history of this subject. He forgets that the same proposition he has made for the establishment of a general Scotch standing Committee referring a single Bill to Scotch Members was made in the year 1897 by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire in respect of a Public Health Bill.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he was aware of that question, but the application in that case was not to apply the procedure or effect of a Grand Committee to a Committee that was then selected. It was stated by Mr. Speaker Peel that the proposal was to refer it to a Select Committee, which would involve a further Committee Stage in this House, and upon that the right hon. Gentleman expended a great deal of humour and satire. I make my proposal in such a form that it will have the same effect as the proceedings of a Grand Committee.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The proposition of the hon. and learned Member is precisely the same. Let me come now to the merits of the matter. Why is this measure to be treated differently from any other Bill? Why does the hon. and learned Member say that this is a Bill in which only Scotch Members are interested? I hope they are interested in every other Scotch Bill that is brought before the House, and yet the hon. Member does not go the length of proposing that every other Bill should be referred to a Committee of this kind. The hon. and learned Member forgets the whole principle upon which Standing Committees are formed, and he forgets the very reason why the House parted with the control it otherwise had over a Bill. If we refer a Bill to a Select Committee the House gets back the control because it has to come back through a Committee Stage of the whole House. The only reason that the House consented to give
  1208
  up its control, by saying that a Bill from a Standing Committee or a Grand Committee, should not come back to the Committee Stage, was because those Standing Committees were to be made microcosms of the House. There is not the slightest warrant in the practical experience of the last nine years for any such proposition as this which has now been made. The Public Health Bill was a great deal more technical than this Bill, for we had to deal with the most intricate questions of rating, which I venture to say many Scotch Members are not thoroughly conversant with. There are no such questions dealt with in this measure, and unquestionably any Scotch Member can give his own view. I think on a question of general principle you are more likely to get a sound judgment from a mixed Committee than you are from people whose tails can be particularly twisted. The experience of the last nine years is distinctly against the hon. and learned Member, and his present proposition is entirely subversive of the methods by which this House conducts its business; and it would form a most inconvenient precedent, because I do not know how it can possibly apply to England or to Ireland. By proposing that this Bill shall go to the Standing Committee on Trade, I am suggesting that it should go to the same Committee which disposed of the English Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: The English Members had a representation of about sixty out of seventy-two.] I thought this was a question of exclusiveness, but it now appears to be a sort of "who dares to meddle with me? The precedent now sought to be set up would make business in this House unworkable. It might happen that the Scotch Members on the side of the Government would be in a minority. An hon. Member opposite cheers that statement, but he forgets that if they had applied the position to England hon. Members opposite could not have got a single measure passed in Committee during the whole of the years they were in office, and I am sure that would not have suited them. As a Scotsman I object to being labelled as a sort of by-product of civilisation which cannot be mixed either with Englishmen or Irishmen, and the proposal put before the House is one which would be entirely subversive of the methods by which the affairs of this House must be conducted if we are to proceed

  1209
  according to our rules, and according to the rules under which Standing Committees are formed.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he thought Scotch Members must have listened with astonishment to some of the arguments put forward by the learned Lord Advocate, particularly when he said that to refer this Bill for consideration to a Committee consisting mainly of Scotch Members would render the business of this House unworkable. Could anything be more preposterous than an argument like that. Various statements had been made by the Lord Advocate, who had accepted the favourable comments made upon his Bill, and stated that he would preserve an open mind upon the various arguments which had been adduced; and although he would not go so far as to accept public opinion upon some points, led them to believe that he kept an open mind for Scottish opinion upon these subjects. The Lord Advocate knew perfectly well that if this Bill was to be anything like a suitable measure, which would be accepted for any length of time as even a partial solution of the questions involved, it must be passed through this House fairly, and with the expressed approval of the Scotch Members in this House. That was the object they had in view—namely, that he should get the fullest expression of opinion that was possible for him to get from the various sections of Scottish opinion in this House. It was to be regretted that the Government would not accept the very moderate proposition put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries. How was the Grand Committee on Trade constituted? It consisted of sixty-eight Members, of whom fifty-eight were English and Irish, who, it was within the common knowledge of the House, took practically no interest whatever in the details of a Scotch Bill. Very few English Members had troubled to listen to their debate that evening; indeed only one had sat throughout it, and he was a somewhat new Member of the House, and the interest in the case of new Members was prone to last a very short time indeed. The Lord Advocate had asked if it were suggested that Englishmen
  1210
  and Irishmen were so stupid that they did not understand the language in which these Scotch Bills were debated. Without going so far as to say that, he must repeat that they had difficulty in understanding conditions which obtained in Scottish districts. The details of this Bill should be discussed by a Committee in which Scottish opinion should have a reasonable chance of prevailing, and not by a Committee the vast majority of the members of which did not care about the subject at all. Suppose fifteen extra Scottish Members were placed on the Committee. They would then have a Scottish element equal to one-fourth of the total membership, and one which constituted only one third of the Scottish representation in the House of Commons. Thus two out of every three Scottish Members would be precluded from taking a substantial part in the debates on the details of that measure. That, he asserted, amounted to depriving the Scottish Members of their constitutional right to express their opinion as part of the governing body which had to determine the details of the Bill.
  He would like to point out the importance, in view of the need for shortening the business of the House of the present session, of accepting the proposal of his hon. and learned friend. The debate which had taken place that afternoon had disclosed the fact that the chief points of difference between hon. Members were on matters of detail, and they wanted not merely the opinion of the House as a whole upon important amendments but they also desired to arrive at the opinions of Scotch Members themselves. For instance there was the proposal to take away from Loyal Burghs the power they at present possessed of exercising their magisterial duties as a licensing authority. Were the representatives of these Royal Burghs going to be content with anything less than a decision on that subject from the whole body of Scottish Members? But they could not get a decision of that character from the Grand Committee on Trade and consequently the whole question would have to be redebated by the House itself. Other and equally important points were the constitution of the Court of Appeal and the veto to be given to

  1211
  the Lord Advocate in regard to the making of licensing by-laws. There were details as to which the average Englishman and Irishman cared nothing and consequently if they were to arrive at a decision which would be satisfactory to the Scottish people they must have the votes on them of the whole body of Scottish representatives in that House. That could not be accomplished under the proposal of the Lord Advocate, but it could be secured by accepting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries.
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAWreminded the hon. Member that a Bill of an almost exactly similar character was sent to the Grand Committee on Trade last year, and on that occasion no objection was raised by English Members to Scottish Members taking a full part in the discussions. He regarded the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs as an innovation of the most serious character. The underlying principle of the Grand Committees was that they should be constituted on the basis of a microcosm of the whole House, an in his opinion it was extremely undesirable to establish a system of nationalities in regard to these Committees. It such a proposal as was now before the House were admitted in reference to this Bill it would be made on other occasions in regard to other measures, and the result would be that, they would create a great difficulty in connection with the whole subject of Grand Committees. The English Licensing Bill of 1902 was referred to the Grand Committee on Trade, and in his opinion that precedent should be followed in the case of the Scotch Bill. He was perfectly certain it would receive fair treatment at the hands of such a Committee, and he did not think the discussions need be carried on in such a way as to lead to protracted debates.
  MR. EUGENE WASONreminded the hon. Baronet opposite, who had referred to the precedent of last year, that, though there were some Scotch Members on the Grand Committee when the English Licensing Bill was sent up to it last session, there was a predominant majority of English
  1212
  opinion upon it. He could not see any objection to the acceptance of the Amendment. The present Bill was a purely Scotch Bill, and he was at a loss to understand why any English Member, or any Scotchman representing an English constituency, should wish to interfere with it. The only way in which they could get the Bill made satisfactory and acceptable to the Scotch people was to have it threshed out by such a Committee as was suggested by his hon. and learned friend; and he therefore heartily supported his Motion.
  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLagreed with hon. Members opposite as to the want of interest and knowledge with which English Members treated Scottish questions. Only two or three minutes previously an hon. Member near him asked if that was an important Bill. But however much interest they might take in Scottish affairs, he held that hon. Members from Scotland had some reason to dislike the idea of being excluded from the Committee Stage on this Bill. They did not have a great deal of exclusively Scottish legislation brought before the House; and in view of the fact that the Lord Advocate had that afternoon admitted that the Government were prepared to very considerably alter and even remodel the Bill on the Committee Stage, he would be sorry to see any Scottish Member precluded from taking an active part in the debates if he so desired. But he could not see his way to voting for the Amendment. If the Leader of the House said it was impossible for him to accept it, then he would bow to his ruling on this subject; but it seemed to him the Motion might be accepted with the proviso that the addition of other than Scottish Members should be such as to bring the proportion of parties up to that which existed in the House, and that it should not be considered that the Government of the day were pledged by precedent to send Bills of this kind to the Grand Committee Speaking as a representative of a Scottish constituency, and remembering how little of the time of Parliament had been devoted to Scottish affairs during the last two years, he held that this Bill, if not sent to a Scottish Committee, should be considered in Committee of the whole House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANhoped that the speech of the hon. Member would bring some balm to the spirit of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. What an exemplary Member his hon. friend was! Having explained his own opinions with great force, and at considerable length—
  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELL: I only spoke two or three minutes.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the hon. Member, having explained his own opinion, put himself most courageously and publicly in the pocket of the Prime Minister, and said he was prepared, notwithstanding his personal views, to bow to the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister might say O si sic omnia, because there had been on some occasions so little of that spirit in the part of the House which the hon. Gentleman adorned. The proposal in the Motion was a most temperate one, designed for business purposes only, and with no underlying scheme to subvert the established order or gain a party advantage. It was a mere question of ascertaining by a great experiment whether this was a good way of conducting Scottish business. The Grand Committee was spoken of as if it were a part of the ancient constitution of the country, whereas many present Members of the House could remember when the system was first set up. The whole procedure and arrangement of Grand Committees were not yet out of the experimental stage, and it would surely be a good thing, if only as an experiment, to make a trial of this mode of dealing with a Scottish Bill, which excited no party spirit and was essentially a measure in regard to which it was desirable to enlist the knowledge and interest of all Scottish Members. The supporter of the Motion desired that the details of the Bill should be settled by men who knew Scotland, and not by men from Piccadilly and the Strand. It was not only that this Bill was a Scottish Bill, but the system to which it was sought to be applied in Scotland differed materially from the English system; and there was sufficient likeness, and at the same time sufficient
  1214
  difference, to cause considerable confusion in the English mind. For instance much had been said about magistrates and what they did in burghs. English Members would naturally think that they were the same as were known in England as borough magistrates, and would not have the slightest idea that they were bailies—a different sort of animal altogether. They were purely elective functionaries, resting on the will of the people, appointed by the people, and removable by the people. He was amazed to hear the Lord Advocate taunt his hon. and learned friend on the question of devolution, and ask where was his love of devolution at the time of the Private Business Bill. Why, it was the present Opposition who almost forced that Bill on the Government. He himself, before the Lord Advocate was a Member of the House, persuaded Mr. W. H. Smith practically to adopt the system of proceeding by Provisional Orders, and it was only because, when it became known that the tide was setting in that direction, the railway directors and that class of the community exerted their influence, the scheme was abandoned for the time. That was the very proposal the Government finally adopted, so that the Opposition always regarded it as their child, and assisted it in every possible way, the objections and hostile amendments coming from behind the right hon. Gentleman. The Scotch Members had no intention of thwarting the Bill; but they felt that in a matter of this kind very closely affecting the life of the people of Scotland, they might very well, without creating any precedent, make this experiment. He believed the result would be a very much better Bill than would be obtained with a wretched twenty five Scotch Members on the Committee in the face of forty-three strangers and outlanders, who knew nothing about the existing law or the circumstances of the country for which they were legislating.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester E.)said he was rather shocked by the epithet he right hon. Gentleman had applied

  1215
  to a traction of his countrymen. After all, a wretched twenty-five Scotch Members—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is the number that is wretched.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid twenty-five was more than one-third of the whole representation of Scotland, and he was not aware that the English representation on any Committee amounted to a third of the English representation in the House. If it was contended that there must be a majority of Scotch Members on a Committee that dealt with Scotch Bills, the parallel argument was irresistible; but he had never heard it argued that there must be a Welsh majority for a Welsh Bill, or an English majority for an English Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: You can put all the Welsh Members in a Committee of that sort. You cannot put more than there are. As to English Members, they are always in a majority on every Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that Grand Committees must either be formed as they were now or turned into national bodies in which the nationality concerned had a majority. He would not argue which system was right, as he had done that at length on previous occasions, but he would urge the House not to make an experiment in the case of a Bill which was not a party Bill and only applied to Scotland, because it would be sought in the future to apply the precedent to Bills which were party Bills and applied to other parts of the kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman had fallen into a fallacy in supposing that, because this was a non-party Bill, therefore the present was a suitable occasion for altering the rules of the House, and turning the Grand Committees into national assemblies. The reverse was the case. If the general principle could not be adopted for all Bills, controversial and uncontroversial, let them not try it in a case in which it was likely to work well, but a case in which he also thought a Committee from which all Scotch Members were excluded, would work equally well. This was a Bill for the consideration of which a general knowledge of the system under which
  1216
  they all lived was better than knowledge of the difference between English and Scotch law, and he had no doubt that a purely Welsh or Irish Committee would deal very well with it. By his own admission the right hon. Gentleman proposed to start a new experiment. Let them not start it in a case where it would test nothing. How would the experiment help the House to form a judgment as to whether they ought to make a fundamental alteration in the system which had prevailed ever since Grand Committees were established? The right hon. Gentleman observed quite truly that the Grand Committee system was still on its trial, and that it was not a part of the original constitution of those realms; and no Gentleman need consider himself an iconoclast or revolutionary if he thought the system might be modified. But to start an experiment in modification in a Bill which would give no valuable results was surely a very poor and unsatisfactory way of dealing with a constitutional problem. It was true that the feeling of the various nationalities in the House was now less intense than it had been at other times; but could anybody guarantee that this was going to last? The experiment proposed was an experiment with the constitution of the House, and this House had lasted and would last through many revolutions of feeling. It would be a perfectly insane policy to start in connection with a Bill which aroused no party feeling and no particular national sentiment, a system which had to stand the strain, or what might be the overwhelming strain, of both strong party feeling and strong national sentiment. From one observation the right hon. Gentleman made, he appeared to regret that the settlement of any Scotch matter should be left to persons who hailed from Piccadilly and the Strand. Did the right hon. Gentleman and himself hail from Piccadilly and the Strand, or from the Highlands or Lowlands of Scotland? They had both a great deal to say to a great many questions—English, Scotch, Irish, and Welsh. Were they incapable of dealing with these questions? He was unwilling to admit this disability on his own part.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is a question of constituency more

  1217
  than of birth, of Scottish Members and not of Scotsmen.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that in that case he was disqualified from dealing with Scotch questions because he represented an English constituency, and the right hon. Gentleman was disqualified from dealing with English questions because he represented a Scotch constituency. That was a serious admission for the right hon. Gentleman to have made, and, if he might speak as his sincere friend and admirer, not one he ought to have made. They were all representatives of individual constituencies, but representatives, not of nationalities, but of those constituencies in a House in which all nationalities were represented. He absolutely refused to accept the view that hon. Gentlemen representing Scotch constituencies could not give an opinion worth having on English, Irish, or Welsh questions. If there had been no Scotch question arising but that of Scotch trout for two years, ought the right hon. Gentleman to have felt himself precluded from discussing anything but Scotch trout for these two years? He regarded the Leader of the Opposition as occupying a great constitutional position wholly irrespective of the fact that he was a Scotchman or represented a Scotch constituency. Let them avoid driving to excess these international divisions. It was most important to have personal and technical knowledge on the subjects which went before the Grand Committees; but there was ample room and verge enough for that technical and personal knowledge on these Grand Committees; and the essence of their system was that it brought to bear on their deliberations not merely personal and technical knowledge, but long experience in the general conduct of public affairs and in dealing with principles which, whether the details were provincial or national, belonged in their particular essence to the general polity of the country. Let them give the fullest representation to Scottish opinion on the Committee, and see that, the Committee had the fullest benefit of Scottish local knowledge; but let them not start a policy which, however innocuous it might prove on the present occasion, could not fail to be a precedent in times to come—possibly
  1218
  stormy times—which would land the House in serious difficulties and serious embarrassments.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the Prime Minister was quite inaccurate in suggesting that this was a new experiment. The proposal was tried some years ago and worked very well In 1894, he believed, a Committee consisting of the whole of the Scottish Members with fifteen other Members added by the Committee of Selection had referred to it the Local Government Bill and the Fatal Accidents Bill, and the success of the experiment justified its proposal now, when it was desired to enable Scottish opinion to dominate the settlement of a purely Scottish Bill. The right hon. Gentleman asked how other countries were to be dealt with. As to that, so far as the Committee on Trade was concerned, the Scottish Members were ten out of sixty-eight, so that English opinion was absolutely predominant. It was an entirely false argument to say that the proposal should not be accepted in the present case because this Bill was of a non-contentious character. Party measures were not sent to the Standing Committees at all. The only Bills so dealt with were those the principle of which was accepted in the House. He maintained that if ever there was a measure which ought to be sent to a Committee such as was proposed it was the Bill before the House. It was a measure which Scottish Members anxiously desired to improve; and regarding which Scottish Members had received more communications than they had in connection with any other measure during the last eight or ten years. How were they to bring forward suggested Amendments unless the Bill were sent to a Committee? They could not properly amend the Bill at the fag end of the Session, when the Government wanted every minute of the time. The plain truth was that the English Members would be quite content to leave the Bill to the consideration of the Scottish Members. During the afternoon only two English Members were in the House, one a very young Member, the other the Deputy-Speaker, and he was not quite sure that the Deputy-Speaker would have been present were it not for his official position. The Bill affected Scotland only;

  1219
  and the Lord Advocate would admit that in its consideration Scottish opinion would be of very great use. If the Bill were handed over to the Committee which was proposed, there would still be fifteen Members representing other parties in the House. This was not an Imperial question. It was not an English, or an
  Irish, or a Welsh question. It was entirely a Scottish question; and in its consideration Scottish opinion ought to predominate.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 58.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flower, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bate

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Godson, Sir August's Frederick

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

  Peel, Hn. Wm. B. Wellesley

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gretton, John

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hull, Edward Marshall

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson

  Bill, Charles

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Bond, Edward

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon J. (Birm

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stroyan, John

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

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

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lowe, Francis William

  Welby, Lt-Col A. O. K. (Taunton

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Davenport, William Bromley

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Durning, Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Sir

  Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Alexander, Acland-Hood.

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Runciman, Walter

  Brigg, John

  Hayne, Rt.. Hon Charles Seale-

  Russell, T. W.

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leng, Sir John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Lough, Thomas

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Crombie, John William

  Lundon, W.

  Ure, Alexander

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wallace, Robert

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dunn, Sir William

  Rigg, Richard

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorqan)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Herbert, Gladstone and

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Rose, Charles Day

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The House having decided against the proposal we made, I shall advise my friends to vote against the Motion to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade. I prefer a Committee of the whole House as, judging by our experience to-day, we will have a large
  number of Scottish Members and very few English Members. That is a state of things in which the Bill can be best discussed.
  Original Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 59.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flower, Ernest

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Damfriesshire

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Arnold-Forster Hugh O.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Percy, Earl

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

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gretton, John

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Bill, Charles

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Bond, Edward

  Heath, James (Staff S., N. W.)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon J. (Birm

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stroyan, John

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk, N. S.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lowe, Francis William

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Hood and Air. Anstruther.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  Malcolm, Ian

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lundon, W.

  Brigg, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Caldwell, James

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Rigg, Richard

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crombie, John William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Leng, Sir John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Levy, Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lough, Thomas

  Russell, T. W.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Ure, Alexander

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Wallace, Robert

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wason John Cathcart (Orkney

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  and Mr. William M'Arthur

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. M. (Northants

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

LICENSING ACTS CONSOLIDATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said he thought hon. Members were aware what it was. The Memorandum prefixed to the Bill told everything about it that was necessary to be known. There had been a united demand from everybody interested in the subject for a Bill to consolidate all the various statutes on the subject of licensing. There was absolutely no change made in the law at all. He had no doubt the House would pass the Second Reading of the Bill. It would, of course, be sent to the Standing Committee on Trade with the other Bill, and in the course of time he would move an instruction which would allow the two Bills to be welded into one measure. If that course commended itself to hon. Members the two Bills would come back to the House to be finally passed into law as one Bill.
SIR ROBERT REIDagreed with the proposal to read the Bill a second time. The Lord Advocate had divulged a fact which they should have liked to know during the previous discussion—namely, that it was intended to send this Bill with the Bill which preceded it to the Standing Committee on Trade, and that an Instruction would be moved to put them into one Bill. It came to this—that the whole of the licensing laws of Scotland were to be considered by a Committee which was open to the objections stated in the discussion of the previous Bill.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the hon. and learned Member opposite misunderstood him. He only took the House into his confidence when he stated that he would move an Instruction. There was no proposal in the Consolidation Bill for the Committee to consider at all. It would be absolutely impossible for the
1224
Committee to deal with it if they were going to open up the whole of the licensing law embraced in the Consolidation Bill. He did not propose that anything in the Consolidation Bill, except pointing out of errors in drafting, should be gone into by the Committee. When the Committee was finished with the Bill he thought it would be convenient, as was done in the case of factory legislation, that the one Bill should be grafted on the other. In that matter he should be entirely in the hands of the Committee.
SIR ROBERT REIDremarked that he had not a word to say against the proposal to unite the two Bills, but he wished to point out that they were going to send the Consolidated Bill to a Committee which was open to the same objections as were stated in the case of the last proposal. The consideration of the Consolidation Bill required a great deal of technical knowledge and familiarity with the subject of licensing to do the work properly. He thought the Lord Advocate would not dispute the proposition that the consolidation of the Scotch licensing laws was rather a serious, heavy, and difficult operation, and it was quite a mistake to suppose that the passing of the Bill was necessarily a matter of form. He did not charge the Lord Advocate with having withheld information from the House, but he thought it was a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell them when they were discussing the last Bill that the Consolidation Bill was to be sent to a Committee from which two-thirds of the Scotch Members were excluded.
MR. BUCHANANsaid the proposal of the Lord Advocate appeared to be open to an objection besides that stated by his hon. and learned friend. It was proposed to send the Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade, and the Lord Advocate had stated that he was going to move an Instruction that this Bill and the previous Bill should be amalgamated. In that case, when the Bill came back to the House to be considered on Report, it would not be a Consolidation Bill pure and simple, and

1225
the House would have the right to go into every detail of it. Surely that was an awkward way of proceeding in regard to a Consolidation Bill. He thought it would be better that that action should be delayed in regard to the Consolidation Bill until the other Bill had passed through the Report Stage. If it was desirable to do so the Lord Advocate could then move that the two Bills be amalgamated. It was unusual to send a Consolidation Bill, which was a purely legal Bill, to the Grand Committee on Trade instead of the Grand Committee on Law.
THE LORD ADVOCATE*THE LORD ADVOCATE moved that the Bill be referred to the Grand Committee on Trade. He was not pledging the House to any course of procedure, but the hon. Member was quite wrong in supposing that what was proposed could not be done. If the hon. Members could not see their way to doing it in that manner, the only thing would be to pass the Bills separately.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he had no desire to interpose any objection to the progress of this Bill, but he would point out to the House the difficulty they were in. The Bill before the House was one to consolidate the existing Acts of Parliament, and what was proposed was to superinduce on it the Bill which they discussed this afternoon. They would then have in the Consolidation Act, a fresh Act which had not yet come into existence. It was quite clear from its composition that the Grand Committee on Trade would not be representative of Scotch opinion, and therefore when the Bill came from the Grand Committee, it would have to run the gauntlet of this House, and probably be to some extent transmuted. If the Lord Advocate, or any member of the Government, would hold out any prospect that the Consolidation Bill would be held back until the earlier Bill had been passed, he could see some light in the situation, but at present he thought the process would be complicated for the Grand Committee, and certainly most embarrassing for all the Members of the House.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the Committee must take the
1226
Consolidation Bill as a matter of course on the authority of the Home Office. That was perhaps the best course that could be adopted.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that in considering the first Bill it would be convenient for hon. Members to have the Consolidation Bill near their hands. He asked the Lord Advocate whether there would be any guarantee that the Consolidation Bill truly represented the law it amalgamated, or whether they would be obliged to take that on the authority of the Scotch Office and the right hon. Gentleman himself.
MR. CALDWELLsaid the Lord Advocate had omitted to notice the great distinction between this Bill and the Factory Bill. In the case of the Factory Bill there was a considerable amount of agreement, but in the case of the Consolidation Bill there was considerable prejudice against the Bill going to the Grand Committee. When it came back to the House, hon. Members would be entitled to propose Amendments to any part of it. If the Government were going to fight with the Scotch Members, he did not see what they would gain by sending the Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade. He would be in the House on the Report Stage to move any Amendment he liked. He for one would not put himself about in order to be on the Grand Committee on Trade, but he could promise that when the Bill came back to the House he would give it the ordinary consideration he gave to all Bills.
SIR R. REIDsaid that personally he did not see any objection to sending the Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade. The other proposition was to move an Instruction that there should be an amalgamation of the Bills. He suggested that the Lord Advocate should postpone that to a later stage.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I would not propose to move it, in, any case, until the first Bill is through Committee.
Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MAJOR SEELY (Ise of Wight)reminded the House that in the Committee stage a definite agreement was come to between the Financial Secretary to the War Office and the House as to what were to be put in the recruiting regulations in the future with regard to the age of recruits at the time of enlistment, in accordance with the Resolution of the House. That Resolution quite revolutionised the position of the Regular Army with reference to recruiting. The Secretary of State for War stated that the regulations would be issued as soon as possible, but he had given no indication of what the regulations would be. In view of the revolutionary change, he asked if they were to be put off from day to day as to what the regulations would be and as to the date when they would be issued. He appealed to the Secretary of State for War, in order to prevent misunderstanding, to state what the regulations were to be and when he proposed to issue them.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)thought the hon. Member, who had not been long a Member of the House, was hardly justified in assuming that, after a Resolution had been passed by the House, within two or three days the Minister was bound to lay the regulations, in accordance with the Resolution on the Table. The House was always willing to give credit to the Minister in charge that he would honourably fulfil any pledges he might have given, and the hon. Member's insistence hardly showed that confidence which was usually shown to a Minister in such circumstances. He was not prepared to state the date when the Resolution would be put into the exact form the hon. and gallant Member desired. But he must tell the hon. and gallant Member that he was quite in error in supposing that the proposals were revolutionary. There was nothing revolutionary about them at all. The words to carry out the Resolution of the House would be put
1228
in the new regulations which would, he presumed, be issued in the ordinary course. They were generally issued at the beginning of a month, but he thought it might be possible in this case to accelerate the issue of them by a few days if great importance was attached to the matter.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not suppose the Secretary of State for War would apply to him the remark that he was a new Member of the House. He maintained that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight had done the proper thing in pressing for an answer on this subject. His experience of the House was that they must go on pegging away when they desired to have a matter attended to.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid it was only a week or ten days ago that attention was called to a Resolution passed ten years ago in regard to the wages of workmen in the Arsenal, which confessedly the War Office had paid no attention to.
MAJOR JAMESONsuggested to the Secretary of State for War that he would find in the Royal Irish Constabulary a body of men who would make a fine division for the Army. Some hon. Members seemed to imagine that Army reforms could be carried out in five minutes. He knew as an old soldier that they could not. He sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman in the difficult task he had set before him.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "Showing the number of tenants evicted in Ireland within the past twenty-five years who have not been re-instated in their holdings, as follows: number under £10 yearly rent; number over £10 and under £20; number over £20 and under £50; number over £50 and under £100; number over £100 and under £200; number over £200."—(Mr. Cullinan.)
Adjourned at thirteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.