Sitting of 8 April 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Nantwich Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; read a second time, and committed.
Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill [Lords]; Queensland Investment and Land Mortgage Bill [Lords]; Western Trust Bill [Lords]; read a second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BILLS, ETC.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 39, 129, and 230 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions and Memorials against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, also for depositing at the Private Bill Office all Documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.—(The Deputy Chairman.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the counties of Dublin and Wexford, the urban districts of Blackrock, Dalkey, Killiney and Ballybrack, Kingstown, Pembroke, Rathmines and Rathgar and Wexford, and the town of Keady, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Belfast (Rural), and Londonderry, and the Rathdrum and Wicklow Joint Burial Board District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4).
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Camborne, Heston and Isleworth, Mountain Ash, New Windsor, Southport, Stratford-upon-Avon, Tun-bridge Wells, and Whitley and Monkseaton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the counties of Dublin and Wexford, the urban districts of Blackrock, Dalkey, Killiney and Ballybrack, Kingstown, Pembroke, Rathmines and Rathgar and Wexford, and the town of Keady," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Belfast (Rural) and Londonderry, and the Rathdrum and Wicklow Joint Burial Board District," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Camborne, Heston and Isleworth, Mountain Ash, New Windsor, Southport, Stratford-upon-Avon, Tunbridge Wells, and Whitley and Monkseaton," presented and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]
PETITIONS.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Hastings; Arundel; Swindon; and Maidenhead; to lie upon the Table.
DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Lilliesleaf, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
Petition from Bingley, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
Petitions against: from Grantham; and Kensington; to lie upon the Table.
RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
Petition from Bristol, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
Petitions against establishment: from Hawick; Selkirk; Galashiels; and Kelso; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
Petitions against: from Mile End; Tamworth; Grantham; and Reading; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petitions in favour: from Leicester; Wantage; and Erdington; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS ETC.
  TRADE DISPUTES,
  Return presented, relative there to [ordered 2nd April; Mr. Bell]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented, of annual Report on Cyprus for 1901–2 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented, of twenty-first annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1902. Part I., General Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented, of twenty-first Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1902. Part II., Salmon Fisheries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented, of Return of the Areas, Population, and Valuation of Counties, Burghs, and Parishes in Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL GALLERY, ETC. (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented, of Ninth Annual Report to the Secretary for Scotland by the Commissioners and Trustees of the Board of Manufactures in Scotland, being for the year ending 30th September, 1902 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1876.
Copy presented, of Act of Sederunt anent regulating the places in counties in Scotland at which Commissary business shall be conducted [by Act]; to lie upon the Table
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN).
Copy presented, of Forty-sixth Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools for 1902. Part I. List of schools and detailed Reports [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF YEARLY STATEMENTS).
Copy ordered, "of Statement of the number of Paupers relieved on the 1st day of January, 1903, and similar Statement for the 1st day of July, 1903 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 147, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

SEA FISHERIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, 1902.
Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables and Memorandum relating to the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom in the year 1902, including also a Return showing the quantity of fish carried by railway from each of the principal ports

1349
of England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, in each year from 1897 to 1902, inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 161, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

ROYAL NAVY (RETIRED OFFICERS).
Return ordered, "of the number and rank of Officers of the Royal Navy between the ages of forty and sixty years

Qualified as specialists in torpedo and submarine service.

Rank.

Number.

Total Annual Charge borne on Non-effective Vote.

£

Flag Officers

Captains

Commanders

Lieutenants

Total

(Sir John Colomb.)

PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF YEARLY STATEMENTS).
Return presented, relative thereto [Ordered 8th April; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 108.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Merchandise Marks Act—Ceiling Laths.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that ceiling laths are imported from Sweden as raw material; and whether he will take steps to place these articles, as is done in the case of doors, windows, or mouldings, within the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) There is no record of the importation of ceiling laths from Sweden as raw material, as they are classified under the head of "wood, sawn or split, planed or dressed." Like imported doors, windows, and mouldings, they are subject to detention under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, when bearing objectionable marks.
  who, by reason of compulsory retirement under regulations as to age, were upon the Retired List on the 1st day of April, 1903, and who during their active service qualified as Torpedo Lieutenants and became specialists in submarine mining, and showing the annual aggregate charges borne on the Non-effective Votes for such Officers, in the following form:—

  London Traffic Commission—Delay in Publication of Evidence.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give instructions for the printing of the London Traffic Commission's evidence with greater expedition and secure its being circulated within three days instead of seven or eight as at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) Arrangements have already been made for delivering printed copies of the evidence to the Commission within forty-eight hours after the receipt of the manuscript by the printers.

  The National Debt.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, to state the amount of the National Debt on the 31st March, 1903, showing funded debt, estimated capital value of terminable annuities, unfunded debt, total of other capital liabilities, estimated assets, Exchequer balances, issues on account of interest and management of debt and issues on account of capital, contingent liabilities in respect of Trustee and Post Office Savings Banks and Friendly Societies, and interest on unfunded debt.

  1351
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) Information on these points will be included in the Budget statement, which I do not propose to anticipate.

  Atlantic Shipping Trust Agreement.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, has the agreement between His Majesty's Government and Mr. Pierpont Morgan's shipping trust, known as the International Mercantile Marine Company, which had been settled by both parties on 23rd February last, now been executed; does this agreement contemplate the retention of a British register and the British flag by ships which have been acquired by and are under the dominion of a foreign corporation; and when does he propose to lay the agreement on the Table of this House.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The agreement has not yet been executed. The draft is before the Company for final consideration, and I hope that my expectation as to the document being ready for execution before Easter may be realised. I must refer the hon. Member; to my answer to his previous Question of 23rd March for the reply to the other points raised by his Question.†

  Indian Government and the Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for India, has any reply now been received from the Indian Government to the communication whereby His Majesty's Government submitted to it the Brussels Sugar Convention; and, if so, has the Indian Government adhered to that Convention or refused its adhesion; and will he lay the correspondence upon the Table.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Government of India have not yet come to a decision on the matter. There is no correspondence which at present I can conveniently lay upon the Table.
  †See (4) Debates, exix., 1462.

  Holland, Italy and France and the Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has any reply now been received from the Dutch Government, the Italian Government, and the French Government, to the circular dispatch of 13th January, wherein His Majesty's Government expressed the conditions on which they assumed to ratify the Brussels Sugar Convention; if so, can he state shortly the purport of each reply; and when will the Papers, which were in preparation on 23rd February last, be laid on the Table.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) My hon. friend will find all the information I can give him in Commercial, No. 2, 1903.

  Scotch Education—Payment of Grants by Instalments.
  MR. GEORGE BROWN: To ask the Lord Advocate whether he has received a petition from the School Board of Edinburgh showing that School Boards have practically no income between May and November; and whether he will modify Article 13 of the Code (1903) so that grants on account of schools may be paid in instalments throughout the year.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The petition referred to was received by the Education Department yesterday. The article specified, and the rule as to payment of grants which it embodies, are not new but represent the consistent practice from the institution of Parliamentary grants. The petition will receive consideration, although my Lords cannot admit the accuracy of the statement that practically no income accrues between May and November. I cannot at present say whether any modification of the rule will be possible.

  Treasury Expenditure in Ireland.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that there has been a saving of £440,000 per annum within the last

  1353
  six years upon the Treasury Expenditure in Ireland, he will state in what way the money has been disposed of.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The hon. Member's attention does not appear to have been drawn to my reply to the similar Question on Monday last of the hon. Member for East Clare. †

  Irish Land Bill—Limits under Clause 2.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state approximately the numbers and total acreage of the holdings which will be excluded by the limits of £500 or £1,000 respectively, prescribed in Clause 2 of the Land Bill; and what additions would have to be made to the cash and credit aid given under the Bill for land purchase if the whole of the holdings excluded by the limits of Clause 2 were admitted.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The limit in this Clause does not apply to existing holdings, but only to the sale of parcels of untenanted land; it is not therefore possible to frame any such estimate as is asked for.

  Sugar Bounties in British Guiana.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, have His Majesty's Government considered whether the contribution of the Crown Colony of British Guiana of one-third of the expense of the immigration into that colony of Indian Coolies for work on sugar plantations constitutes a direct or indirect bounty on the manufacture or exportation of sugar, such as His Majesty's Government have undertaken by the Brussels Sugar Convention to prohibit in any of the Crown Colonies; and will the question be submitted to the Permanent Commission at Brussels.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) In reply to the hon. Member's Question I can only refer him to the answer returned to his previous Question of the 5th of March. His Majesty's Government have undertaken that no bounties shall be given in the Crown Colonies, and that undertaking will be carried out,
  † See page 1124.
  1354
  and they do not anticipate that occasion will arise for reference to the Permanent Commission. I may, however, add that in view of the benefits which the Colony as a whole derives financially and otherwise from coolie immigration as being in large measure State-aided colonisation, and in view of the additional expense which is caused by the enforcement of regulations made by the Government in the public interest, the share of the total cost which is borne by the Government is not admitted to be in any sense a bounty.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Employment of Children in Theatres.
    MR. HORNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the number of children employed throughout the country in the evening in theatrical performances, he will consent to such modifications in the Employment of Children Bill as will not debar such children from being so employed.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,): The point appears to be a proper one for the Committee on the Bill to entertain, and my right hon. friend will give it careful consideration.
    MR. HORNER: As so many people are interested in this matter cannot the hon. Gentleman say something more satisfactory?
    MR. COCHRANE: I am afraid I can add nothing to my reply.

  Theddingworth Village School.
  MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that under an arrangement made at a meeting held at the Vicarage, Theddingworth, Leicestershire, in March, 1880, the two schools of the village, one a Church school and the other a Non-conformist school, were then amalgamated on non-sectarian lines, and that under that arrangement the Committee of Management of the school has, for the last twenty-two years, consisted of

  1355
  the vicar and two churchwardens and three Nonconformists, appointed by the trustees of a fund left for the education of the Nonconformist children of Thed-ding worth, the said fund contributing half the cost of the school above the grants and to the maintenance of the buildings; and whether, in view of the attempt now being made under the provisions of the Education Act of 1902, to get the management of the school into the hands of Church of England managers, he will take steps to ensure that the Nonconformists will be represented on the new Management Committee in the same proportions as under the arrangement which has been in existence for twenty-two years.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): No order in this case has been made under Section 11 of the Education Act. It would be extremely difficult to frame an order under that Section which would do justice to all the parties concerned, inasmuch as the school buildings are held under express trusts the provisions of which cannot be ignored. The vicar and trustees have asked for an inquiry, and an inquiry will be held by the Board. It is possible that the difficulties of the case may be met by a scheme under the Charitable Trusts Acts.

  Gloucestershire County Council Education Scheme.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to representations from teachers concerned as to the clause in the scheme of the Gloucestershire County Council which debars school teachers in the employ of the County Council from serving on the Education Committee of the county, which has received the sanction of the Board of Education; and, if so, whether he will reconsider this decision.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The representations in question were referred to the Gloucestershire County Council. The Council fully considered them, and decided that, though they were ready
  1356
  to provide, and did provide, for the presence of teachers on their committee, they considered that the presence of salaried officials on this committee was undesirable. This is clearly a matter which rests in the discretion of the Council, and the scheme was approved on the 18th March. No reconsideration by the Board is now possible.

  Kingstown Town Tenancy.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the position of town tenants, inhabitant householders, and tenement occupiers in Kingstown, South Dublin, and of the fact that the township leases generally will terminate in May; and will he consider the advisability of taking steps to enable town tenants to remain in their holdings until negotiations are concluded, and inhabitant householders and tenement occupiers to continue in possession until housing accommodation is provided.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The leases of a large number of dwellings in Kings town will expire next month. Fears have been expressed that the houses will forthwith be demolished and the tenants evicted. The agents over the property assure me, however, that these fears are groundless.

  Ireland—Boards of Guardians and Tenders for Medical Stores.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the Local Government Board objects to boards of guardians specifying that tenders for only Irish manufactured pharmaceutical preparations will be received.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Some boards of guardians in Ireland, when recently advertising for the annual supplies of medicines for the sick poor, stipulated that only tenders for Irish manufactured pharmaceutical preparations would be received. This action appears to have been suggested by a Dublin firm of manufacturers. Such a proposal, if adopted, would restrict free and open

  1357
  competition by excluding English and Scotch firms from tendering for these goods, and is not one of which the Local Government Board, in the interests of the taxpayers at large, could approve. The hon. Member is doubtless aware that one-half the cost of drugs and medicines is recouped to local authorities out of moneys provided by the State.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he can state the total number of cases in which proceedings have been instituted by civil Bill or otherwise for the recovery of instalments of annuities due under the Purchase Acts, 1885, 1888, 1891, 1896; (2) the total number of cases in which arrears of instalments, due on the 1st November last, have been placed in the hands of solicitors for recovery (3) the average number of years purchase paid for lands sold under the Purchase Acts, 1885, 1888, 1891, 1896, and (4) the total acreage of lands so sold, specifying the amount in each county; (5) the number of cases in which purchasers who have purchased under the said Acts have mortgaged or alienated their holdings, and the proportion which such cases bear to the total number of purchases made.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not in a position to reply to the first inquiry to-day, but the information is being tabulated. The total number of cases in which arrears of instalments due on 1st November last that have been placed in the hands of solicitors for recovery is 1,320 under the Acts of 1885–1888, and 754 under the Acts of 1891–1896. As already stated, it may be taken for granted that the arrears will rapidly be recovered. I recently laid on the Table† a Return containing information in respect to the average rates of purchase since 1885. The last annual Report of the Laud Commission, which has also been presented to Parliament, shows at pages 89 and 116 the acreage of lands sold in each county under
  † Parliamentary Paper, No. 90, of this Session.
  1358
  the Acts mentioned. There is no information obtainable to enable a reply to be given to the concluding inquiry.

THE BAGDAD RAILWAY.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)formally moved, "That this House do now adjourn until Tuesday, April 21."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn until Tuesday, 21st April."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was glad to see the Prime Minister in his place, because he wished to refer to an answer given by his right hon. friend with reference to the German Anatolian or Baghdad railway and the action of the Government with regard to it. It was said by his right hon. friend that the Anatolian project was not a German one; but he thought there he had made a mistake.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no mistake.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought he would be able to show from official consular authority that this was undoubtedly a German railway unless its character had recently changed. It was in its conception a German project, and one which as a commercial undertaking was quite unlikely to give any return for the capital embarked in it. The only way of supporting it would be by a Turkish Government guarantee, founded on an increase of Turkish taxation and of the Turkish customs duties which were largely paid by British merchants. If successful it would destroy the existing British railways in Turkey, and therefore it was inadvisable for the Government to give the scheme any sort of encouragement whatever. He did not now propose to trouble the House with the political aspect of the question, although that was extremely important, as one of the chief objections to the project was that at this very moment we were engaged in

1359
negotiations with Russia in regard to coming to an amicable understanding with respect to our respective interests in those regions. That being so he thought it would be peculiarly unfortunate if, during the recess or at any future time, any encouragement should be given towards this projected German railway through Asia Minor. He was going to deal with the matter solely on commercial grounds, and he had the advantage of a consular report by Vice-Consul Sarell which dealt with that very matter, and which, partly owing to the action of the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division, was published in July, 1901. On page 4 of that Report he found the following:—
"A table is appended showing the relation of British to foreign shipping passing through the Bosphorus. From this it will be seen that whereas in 1893 the United Kingdom accounted for 70 per cent. of the total of steamers clearing in Constantinople, in 1899 only 53 per cent. were under the British flag. Taking the tonnage instead of the number of vessels the figures are 75 and 61 per cent. respectively. The German steamers cleared in 1898, though still only representing an infinitesimal fraction of the total, show nearly twice the percentage shown in 1893."
This showed that British trade with Turkey was already decreasing, while that of Germany was increasing, and he submitted therefore that this was not a moment at which we should do anything to increase our disabilities. The right hon. Gentleman in his answer had said that the proposed railway was not German. Surely he could not have read Vice-Consul Sarell's Report. On page 16 the Vice Consul said—
"After a prolonged struggle between rival groups of financiers the Haidar-Pasha-Ismid line passed into the hands of a group controlled by the Deutsche Bank of Berlin, and it was successively extended through Eskishehr to Angora on the east and Konia on the south, and is now known as the Anatolian railway. A glance at the map will show that it has tapped the district upon which the Smyrna-Aidin line depends for its existence. The position of the Aidin railway will be considered later. From Konia a concession has been promised to the German group for a line through Adana, Marash, Urfa, Mardin, and Mosul to Bagdad, and thence down the valley of the Euphrates to the Persian Gulf. The country has been surveyed and the commercial prospects of the line have also been carefully examined. The conclusion resulting from this investigation is that the line will cost the sum of £20,000,000 to build and that for a long time to come it must be dependent very largely upon Government assistance. The sum required
1360
for the payment of the interest will be £1,000,000 per annum. A great part of the district traversed is very sparsely populated, and much land is consequently quite uncultivated, while the difficulties in the way of travellers, especially natives, in the interior of this country render the prospects of the passenger traffic very poor."
He really thought that that report showed conclusively that the railway was German and that the First Lord of the Treasury was under some misapprehension when he said it was not.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am absolutely accurate.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had, of course, only the Vice-Consul's report to rely upon, and that said the line was in the hands of a German group. But perhaps his right hon. friend would, in his reply, deal with this point, and explain wherein he was wrong in his belief, derived from Mr. Sarell's report, that this railway was essentially German. On another page he read—
"It is in Asia Minor that the greatest development of the railway construction has been witnessed during the last ten years, and the fact that the new lines are in foreign hands, while lines formerly in British hands have passed to those of foreigners is a common cause of regret and complaint on the part of British merchants established in this country."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he supposed that the right hon. Gentleman by his cheer suggested that it would be best for future lines in Asia Minor to be British. Well, what he wanted to secure was that in regard to these projects there should not be any joint Venezuelan action in Asia Minor, and that we should not be hanging on the skirts of German financiers. The railway, whether built by British or by German capital, was destined to ruin the existing British railways in Turkey, for the Vice-Consul told them—
"The Smyrna-Aidin Railway is the only line in Turkey which is in British hands. It was the first railway line built in Turkey, and was one of the numerous plans for the regeneration and development of the country which followed the Crimean War. The district it traverses is most fertile, and up to the granting of the concession for the Konia line, and later for the Bagdad line, its power of extension and development seemed unlimited.

1361
It has always been a commercial line, and the traffic receipts show the best possible justification for its existence, while it is universally admitted to be the best built and best managed line in Turkey."
"With the new extension of the Anatolian line, which followed the acquisition by the German group of the concession, the Anatolian line at once became the rival of the Smyrna lines, and a railway was the result, in which all the political advantage is on the side of the Anatolian Railway Company, while it has to contend with the commercial advantages of Smyrna as an outlet over either Ismid or Haidar Pasha. In the meantime the prospects of the shareholders in the Aidin Railway give cause for anxiety."
This was a very serious question. But there came the fact that Turkish railways lived largely, not on their earnings, but on Turkish guarantees and subsidies. As to this, the Vice-Consul said—
"The system of Government guarantees has undoubtedly gone a very long way towards neutralising the benefit accruing to the country from the opening up of railway communication. The sums guaranteed are charged on the tithes, and this leads to greater severity in their collection, and makes the railways an indirect burden on the taxpayer. In the course of time this will disappear to a considerable extent, but a very long time must elapse before any of the lines, especially in Asiatic Turkey, justify their existence from a commercial point of view, with the single exception of the Smyrna-Aidin line which has no kilometric guarantee."
The system which obtained in Turkey was that the Government gave a kilometric guarantee, which had to be drawn from the tithes and the taxes when, as was almost always the case, the railway did not earn from its traffic enough to keep itself. The last extract with which he proposed to trouble the House was to be found on page 22 of the Report, where the figures for the kilometric guarantees granted by the Turkish Government were given. In the year 1887, the length of line open was 4,194 kilometres, the receipts were £1,811,543; and the amount paid under the guarantee £315,716. In 1899 the length had increased to 4,496 kilometres, but the receipts had fallen to £1,303,094, and the Government guarantee had had to be enlarged to £815,399. Thus the longer the line the smaller the receipts and the greater the sum obtained from the Turkish Government which had to obtain it from increased taxation. Clearly these railways
1362
were in an altogether uneconomical, unnatural, false and bad position—bad for themselves, and very bad and dangerous for Turkey, and oppressive for the Turkish people, and the Anatolian Railway would, as Mr. Sarell pointed out, be specially subject to the obnoxious conditions which produced that state of affairs. As he understood the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, there had been negotiations between the British Government on the one side, and the German and French Governments on the other.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said there were not.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I had better read the right hon. Gentleman's words.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
MR. GIBSON BOWLES—
"The subject was referred to in two brief conversations, one with the French and one with the German Ambassador in March, 1902."
But since then further communications had taken place.
MR. BALFOUR: They have not taken place.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The answer of the right hon. Gentleman says—
"Communications have been and are still going on with British capitalists on the subject."
He presumed that these negotiations were between foreign Governments and British capitalists.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not at all.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then they were between the British Government and British capitalists.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then the negotiations——
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There never were any negotiations.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then there were brief conversations, yet no negotiations, and "no final arrangements have been arrived at." Later on they were

1363
told by the right hon. Gentleman in his answer that two proposals were now under consideration.
"(1) That British capital and British control are to be on an absolute equality with the capital and control of any other Power, and (2) that in respect to the negotiations which are now going on with the Turkish Government for a new Commercial Treaty … His Majesty's Government should not object to a reasonable increase in the (Turkish Customs) duties."
So it was contemplated that the guarantees were to go on increasing while the revenues of the guaranteed railways were to go on diminishing, and that the Customs duties were in consequence to be added to to find the guaranteed sums. That was a serious prospect. These Customs duties in Turkey were very largely paid by British merchants and consequently any increase in them would fall on British trade. They would thus be levying an increased charge on British goods in order to add to the profits of a German railway, so that British capitalists—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not correct.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman can demolish me presently.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My written answer is in the hands of the hon. Member and he ought not to misinterpret it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman's answer. I am giving my own view of the result of the arrangement. The answer suggested that the Government might be prepared to agree to an increase of the Customs duties, and his object was to show what in his opinion would be the effect on British interests if the scheme adumbrated in the answer were carried out. There was a third suggestion that if the railway should prove to be a success it might be a better route for the mails to India, and that again was a suggestion to deprive English mail carriers of their contracts in order to give them to this railway, which, pending further explanation, he must still regard as German.
1364
The final suggestion made was that His Majesty's Government should assist, not by money, or the promise of money, but by their good offices, in providing a proper terminus at or near Koweyt. He certainly should like some further information on that point. He had never heard so far that it was proposed to run this Anatolian railway so far as Koweyt. Koweyt was especially under our influence, and he had always understood that we got it under our influence in order, among other reasons, to prevent the railway from going there. It was, he believed, either in Turkish territory or in the territory of an independent sheikh or pasha: and he should like to know in what way it was suggested that England should use her friendly offices in order to procure the establishment of a terminus for the railway at or near Koweyt. He ventured to suggest to the Government that it would be both politically and economically a mistake if they were to go out of their way to give any advantage or special countenance to this German railway—if it was a German railway as he still believed it to be—in such a manner as to induce British capitalists to put their money into it. If they left the capitalists alone, he thought they would fight extremely shy of this railway. What he would suggest to His Majesty's Government was that they should leave the British capitalists alone and not extend the light of their countenance to any part of the railway in any of the directions which were suggested to them. He understood that these suggestions were still under consideration, and it was because they were still under consideration that he had ventured to make these few remarks.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he thought his hon. friend was a little ungrateful to the Prime Minister, who had given him so full and explicit an answer to his question—an answer he himself felt to be of a reassuring character. They all knew that Mesopotamia was a blessed word, and he hoped on this occasion it would be a word of peace. They all felt that it was impossible for this country to oppose the introduction of a railway through Mesopotamia. The only wonder

1365
was that the railway was not made forty or fifty years ago instead of being left until now. He confessed that the answer of the Prime Minister to his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn was of a reassuring rather than of an alarming character, and indicated that the Government had in view those considerations which the House would desire they should have in view. His hon. friend had suggested that the line was a German line, and that any agreement with Germany in regard to it would be in the nature of that Venezuelan agreement which they all looked on with so much dislike, and hoped they would never see repeated. At the time of the Consular Report to which his hon. friend had referred, no doubt the railway was an entirely German scheme. But it was a well-known fact that the German syndicate found great difficulties in their way, and that they approached the Ottoman Bank and British capitalists with a view of enlarging their operations and making an international scheme out of what was a German scheme. What they had to see was that the Government made proper conditions for British trade and for British capital, without whose assistance this line would not be made. He agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn in thinking that the suggestion as to an increase of the Turkish Customs was one that ought to be viewed with very strict scrutiny. It was universally the case—not so completely perhaps as in China, but still greatly the case—that an increase of the Turkish Customs might be mainly paid by British trade. There was always some reason to suspect an increase of maritime Customs when arrangements were made with neighbouring powers for a frontier trade which suited them but not us, and undoubtedly the frontier arrangements in the Balkan peninsula had been disastrous to our trade, which was entirely maritime. That was a matter which the Government must therefore most carefully watch. The trump cards we held were, above all, our position in the Persian Gulf. The very fact that, as he understood from the Prime Minister's answer, we had been applied to with a view to Koweyt being given as a terminus for the railway showed that, in spite of what they
1366
had been told, Koweyt continued to be, in the opinion of those who knew, the best terminus for this railway. If that were so, then undoubtedly we held the trump cards in our hands, because Koweyt could not be taken as a terminus without our consent. He hoped that in anything the Government did they would most steadily maintain not only our privileged but our monopoly-position in the Persian Gulf. He heard with great pleasure the words of the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs some time ago as to our absolute insistence on the status quo in the Persian Gulf, which, it appeared to him, was vital to our policy. If we should be tempted into introducing any foreign Power to the coast of the Persian Gulf so that there they might open up, at the head of the railway, a great naval station, we should have forced upon us the necessity of making an additional naval expenditure which it would be intolerable to have to face. It was far better to say at once, as we had said, that we would not tolerate the admission of any foreign Power on the Persian Gulf itself. That being so, while there was reason for watchfulness, he saw no reason for fresh alarm in consequence of the answer given by the Government, which was a very full and, it seemed to him, a fair and on the whole a satisfactory answer.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid the hon. Member for King's Lynn had called attention to a Consular Report, with which he had been good enough to identify his action in that House a few sessions ago. He had long been anxious that, if possible, the Government should make some statement with regard to the negotiations which were believed to be going on with regard to the future development of railway communication in Asia Minor. The speeches to which they had listened showed that it was almost impossible in discussing that question to isolate the commercial from the political aspect, and undoubtedly what interested the public in this question was not so much the rivalry between the companies starting from Smyrna, important as were the commercial aspects of this question. What made the House take a real live interest in it was the feeling that, bound up with the future of this railway, there was probably the future

1367
political control of large regions in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and the Persian Gulf. He did not think the Government could have made any fuller statement on this question. They all, of course, realised that it was one of the very greatest importance. He thought the Government had given as full an answer as present circumstances permitted. Let them analyse the effect of that answer. It appeared from the first head, that the Foreign Office were determined that British capital and control were to be on an absolute equality with the capital and control of any other Power. That part of the answer was of great importance, because there had long been a feeling in Turkey, and in Constantinople in particular, that British trade had suffered in those regions; that there had been a certain want of assistance to our trade. In regard to the second head, the question of Turkish Customs was most important to British trade. The old Turkish Customs were more or less favourable to British trade, and, therefore, any alteration was closely watched by the Foreign Office. Under the third and fourth heads of this answer he felt we were touching delicate political ground; we were touching on all those great interests which the mere mention of Koweyt suggested. He did not recollect the noble Lord giving any answer in this House which directly conveyed that any negotiations were going on with Russia with the intention of admitting parity on the part of Russia or any other Power in the Persian Gulf.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not suggest anything of the sort. What he had suggested was that the noble Lord said negotiations were going on with Russia with a view to arriving at an amicable understanding with her with regard to our interests in Persia and elsewhere.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEthought that was an expression which would include the Persian Gulf. Passing for a moment to the question of our relations with Turkey, he might be perhaps pardoned for saying a few words on a matter closely connected with this subject. We could not consider the position of Turkey in Asia without con-
1368
sidering the position of the Turkish Empire generally. If a great conflict should take place in those regions, any arrangements which might be made by British or German Houses with regard to railways in Asia Minor would assume a new character, and might be rendered abortive as soon as they were made. Therefore he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would indicate that the position in Macedonia was receiving the close attention of the Government. In those regions things were travelling rapidly, and the greatest strain would soon be placed on our diplomacy. He did not for a moment doubt that our diplomacy would be adequate to the occasion. But the snows were disappearing in the mountains of Albania and Macedonia, which meant that a time of action was approaching. They read in the papers of to-day that there was a grave political crisis in Servia, that the Constitution had been suspended, and they all remembered that it was a crisis in Servia which ushered in the war of 1878. They saw that in Old Servia, which was still nominally Turkish territory, a state of civil war was in existence, and Old Servia was the most dangerous point in the whole of the Balkan Peninsula. The Albanians, too, had risen in such numbers that the other day they actually attacked the town of Monastir, the centre of Turkish government in those regions and the terminus of a newly constructed railway. Lastly, in the neighbourhood of Salonika itself armed bands were roving about, and the bridges of the railway, one by one, were being blown up. Nobody could fail to see that this spring we should be confronted with a state of affairs closely resembling that which heralded the great crisis which ended in the Russo-Turkish war. He quoted a letter he had received from Lord Goschen, in which he said that although twenty-three years had passed since he was Ambassador at the Porte, nevertheless, as far as he could judge, the state of things was absolutely unaltered; in those days he too had to deal with a trouble in Albania, a trouble in Old Servia, and a trouble in Macedonia. It was then possible, though it required a great deal of imagination, to believe that a final appeal to the Turkish Government

1369
would induce them to put their house in order. Did anybody believe that now? The Turkish Government had proclaimed their intention of applying the same scheme of reforms to Albania as to Macedonia; but the thing was a farce. It would have been just as reasonable if two centuries ago British statesmen had announced their intention of proclaiming the British Constitution in the Highlands of Scotland, and had expected everybody in consequence to be happy. He believed it was beyond the power of the Turkish Government to do such a thing. The key to the satisfactory settlement of these regions must be found in the recognition of the claims of the various nationalities, and not in any paper reforms, and the intervention and supervision of the great Powers of Europe would be required before justice could be done to these long-suffering populations.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR, who was imperfectly heard, said: Perhaps I had better deal with the three speeches already delivered to the House rather than wait until other topics are introduced which might carry away the attention of hon. Gentlemen to different fields of controversy. I see the hon. Member for Carnarvon is charged with thunder and lightning, which I understand he is going to discharge at my devoted head at a later stage; and, if that forecast be correct, the House will perhaps allow me to make a further reply, the subject being, I understand, so absolutely alien to the Balkan Peninsula or the Bagdad railway, [An HON. MEMBER: Brewers.] that I should only confuse the House if I were to try to deal with everything at once. The latter part of the noble Lord's speech referred to a topic which has during the whole of my political life, at all events, been an ever-recurring cause of anxiety to European statesmen. Sometimes the question of the administration of the Balkan Peninsula has been acute, and sometimes it has been sub-acute; but never at any time has the condition of the various Christian populations subject to the Porte in that Peninsula been other than the cause, sometimes of preoccupation, sometimes of grave anxiety, on the part of European statesmen. I do not mean to dwell upon the picture the noble Lord has drawn. The noble Lord has painted in very dark colours the existing
1370
condition of affairs in that part of Europe and, dark though those colours are, I do not think he has exaggerated in any way the state of affairs which prevails in Macedonia. The noble Lord asked whether the attention of the British Foreign Office was directed towards the disturbed districts. The noble Lord of course will know what answer I shall return to that question. I am sure he entertains no doubt that it has been and is necessarily a cause of grave anxiety to us. But, as the House is aware, there is one very wide difference between the condition of things now and the condition of things which prevailed at the period with which the noble Lord has compared the present position of affairs in Macedonia. The new aspect of the situation is that Austria and Russia are working cordially together with the view to do what can be done to improve the position of affairs, and to introduce those elementary principles of sound government which, rather than any well balanced constitutional changes, are what is really required to make the lives of Christians of all denominations, as well as of the Moslems of all nationalities, peaceful and tolerable. Those two Powers are, in their own opinion, and in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, the Powers most primarily and directly interested in the condition of the Balkan Peninsula; and I fear that what cannot be done by their cordial and honest co-operation cannot be done at all. I do not believe there is anything that we can do, but what we can do of course we shall do by exercising all the influence of which we are masters, and all the pressure we can command in the same beneficent direction in which Russia and Austria desire to move. But the task is a difficult one for them, and I confess I entertain but feeble hopes that the other signatories to the Treaty of Berlin, anxious as they are to do their best to put an end to the present intolerable state of affairs, will be able to devise any thoroughly satisfactory medicament for the disease which is afflicting that portion of the Turkish Empire.
Now, Sir, I pass from that question to the topic which was first raised by my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, and with regard to which we have had interesting and important speeches from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and from the noble

1371
Lord the Member for the Cricklade division. The House will see from the very full answer I have placed on the Paper of the House that these questions raised in connection with the Bagdad railway are under the consideration of His Majesty's Government; and it would be impossible for me really to go further, and to make a statement, or, indeed to offer a conjecture as to the decision the Government will arrive at. Evidently, the matter being under consideration, it is not fit for full treatment in this House. Therefore, all I can say on the subject is to correct certain misconceptions into which my hon. friend has fallen. As I understand the matter, the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord are not in disagreement with the general principle which underlies the answer which I have placed on the Paper; but my hon. friend, I think, is in a different position. I think he has made some mistakes of fact, and perhaps I shall reassure him if I correct those mistakes of fact. In the first place, my hon. friend sees two objections. One is that in some way or other the German Government is involved; and the second is that we are, to use his own expression, hanging on to the skirts of German financiers. I can assure my hon. friend that neither of these suspicions has the smallest foundation in fact. There is not now, nor has there over been, any question of negotiating with the German Government, or with another Government quite as much interested in this matter as the German Government—namely, the French Government. My hon. friend, in the whole course of his speech never once, I think, mentioned France. Perhaps he thought himself justified in the omission because there is only a passing reference to France in the answer I have placed on the Paper of the House; but if I only made a passing reference to France, it was because I strictly kept myself to the question to which I was engaged in replying, not because I think the rôle of France ought to be less kept in view than the rôle of Germany. As the House is probably aware, the German group of financiers and the French group are entirely agreed in their plans; and I have no doubt whatever that whatever course English financiers may take, and whatever course the English Government may pursue, sooner or later this great undertaking will be carried out. There is no difficulty
1372
in point of money. Whether the English Government assist or do not assist, it is undoubtedly in the power of the British Government to hamper and impede and inconvenience any project of the kind; but that the project will ultimately be carried out, with or without our having a share in it, there is no question whatever. Therefore the point on which His Majesty's Government will ultimately have to decide, and which the House may safely and wisely take into consideration, is whether it is or is not desirable that, if this railway connecting the base of the Mediterranean with the Persian Gulf is to be constructed, British capital and British interests should be as largely represented in it as the capital and interest of any foreign Power. That is exactly the question which will have to be considered and determined. Of course there are collateral considerations—but that is the main one—and to some of these I will address myself. My hon. friend and the right hon. Baronet very properly alluded to that portion of my answer which deals with the proposed raising of the Turkish Customs. That is an aspect of the question which deserves the most careful attention of the Government; but it is a mistake to suppose that the suggestion that the Turkish Customs should be raised was started in connection with this railway. As the House knows, it has long been under discussion, and it will have to be dealt with in negotiating any new treaty with Turkey; and before any assent which we may be induced to give to the raising of the Customs is given, we should, quite apart from the Bagdad railway, require from the Turkish Government a quid pro quo—such, for instance, as alterations as regards sanitary arrangements and in other matters very important to British trade. The right hon. Baronet said that the burden would be met by British trade.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I did not say wholly met, but largely met. Not so largely as in the case of China.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think our fiscal economy is a little mixed on this question of the alteration of tariffs, because when a tax is put on in this country it is always contended by hon. Members opposite that it is the consumer who pays. I have no doubt that is a

1373
thesis which the right hon. Baronet in dealing, not with the Turkish Customs, but with British finance, has himself promulgated on more than one occasion. Therefore, I do not think he ought to describe the burden of the Turkish Customs as falling necessarily on the British importer. In the first place, the Turkish Customs are now low, and I do not suppose they will, in any rearrangement, be described as high. I think our general taxation in our own protectorates is about 10 per cent., and I am not aware that there is any proposal that will cause the Turkish tariff to rise to 11 per cent.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: The point to which I called attention is that in some of these cases more favourable arrangements are made for frontier trade than for maritime trade, and I pointed out that it is with maritime trade that we are so largely concerned.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware that that was the right hon. Baronet's point. Unquestionably that aspect of the case is one which must engage the attention of the Government. It will be the earnest desire of His Majesty's Government to prevent any preferential treatment to the disadvantage of the British producer. There are three points which ought not to be lost sight of by the House when trying to make up their minds upon this problem in its incomplete state. They have to consider whether it is or is not desirable that what will be undoubtedly the shortest route to India should be entirely in the hands of French and German capitalists to the exclusion of British capitalists. Another question is whether they do or do not think it desirable, that if there is to be a trade opening in the Persian Gulf, it should be within the territories of a Sheik whom we have under our special protection, and with whom we have special treaties, or whether it should be in some other part of the Persian Gulf where we have no such preferential advantage. The House must also have in view a third consideration with regard to a railway which goes through a very rich country, and which I am informed is not likely to be of the financially disastrous character which my hon. friend prophesies, but is rather likely
1374
after a certain period of development to add greatly to the riches of Turkey, and indirectly, I suppose, greatly to the riches of any other country which is ready to take advantage of it. Whether the British producer will be able to take advantage of it is not for me to say; but the House will have to consider whether he is more likely to be able to take advantage of it, if English capital is largely interested, than if it is confined to French and German capital. The House will have to calculate whether it is desirable that this railway should be constructed with French and German capital, and whether it will be prudent to leave the passenger traffic in the hands of those two nations, with whom we are on the most friendly terms, but whose interests may not be identical with our own. My hon. friend represents this as an attempt to help out Germany in her policy. The House must consider whether that is so, or whether it may not be represented in quite a different light as an endeavour to prevent a policy of railway construction in Asia Minor from falling entirely into French or German hands. I should ask any hon. Gentleman who is interested in this subject not to forget that aspect of the question. I have always in the general aspect of our policy, in dealing with these parts of the world, looked forward to bringing in more than one nation rather than to actual partition into separate territories. Whether this is a step in the direction of that general policy may be questioned, and is, I frankly admit, open to doubt. But it is on the whole our interest that countries which certainly we cannot absorb should not, on the other hand, be wholly and absolutely absorbed by either one or two other Powers; and I should have thought that this great international highway had better be in the hands of three great countries than in those of two or one; and, if it is to be in European hands, there is much to be said in favour of its being in the hands partly of this country as well as partly in the hands of France and Germany. The question is, however, not without difficulty. My hon. friend puts the difficulties with great force. The Government intend to give the whole subject their most careful consideration, and I am sure the House will

1375
not ask me to say anything more precise or definite at the present time. I have endeavoured to lay before them some aspects of the case which my hon. friend forgot, although I think the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord had them present to their minds. I shall leave the question in the condition in which these few words place it. The decision of the Government must be come to with no undue delay. It is impossible to allow the matter to be hung up, but I will not anticipate a decision which has not been arrived at, and of which it is not possible for me at present to give any forecast to the House.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was glad that the noble Lord this afternoon had saved him from the duty he intended to perform in calling attention to the position of affairs in Macedonia, and it would not be necessary for him to say more than one or two words. The noble Lord said quite truly that a great deal of interest had been aroused with reference to the reports from Macedonia and other places in reference to the position of the Christian populations there. The Prime Minister devoted about two minutes of his speech to the position of the populations in those districts which he admitted were as critical as they possibly could be, and he devoted the rest of his speech to the Bagdad Railway. There was a very widespread feeling in this country which would not allow the position of the Christian population of Macedonia and other districts to be dismissed in that way, and there was a strong feeling that the Government should do something more than the Prime Minister had foreshadowed. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that it would be impossible to paint in too dark colours the position of the Christian population in Macedonia, and while admitting that grave position freely, the Prime Minister practically declared that the Government was not in a position to do anything to ease the situation, or to bring peace to those disturbed districts. He said that Russia and Austria were the powers most interested in this matter, and then he made the most astonishing statement that if Russia and Austria were unable to have their reforms carried out nothing
1376
could be done, and the Christian populations were practically to be left to their fate. That would be taken as a direct encouragement to the Government of Turkey to pursue their old policy of doing practically nothing at all. When the right hon. Gentleman said that this country was not in a position to do anything more, he should remember that the Government of this country was supposed to have enormous weight, power, and influence with the Government of Turkey. And what he wanted to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was what representations His Majesty's Government had made through their Ambassador to the Government of Turkey in reference to the position of affairs in Macedonia and Albania. He had read that the British Ambassador was received cordially by the Sultan, who had promised that order should be restored and that the reforms advocated by Russia and Austria would be carried out. He wished to know if that report was true. Did the Sultan make that statement, and what representations did the British Ambassador make to the Sultan in reference to the situation in Macedonia? He asked the noble Lord to say whether the Government had given their approval to the policy of Russia and Austria in this matter, and he wished to know if no steps would be left untaken to make the Government of Turkey thoroughly understand that this was a matter in which the people of this country were deeply interested and that the position, the lives, and the property of those Christians must be properly safeguarded and protected by the Government of Turkey. He asked a question the other day† with regard to the attack of the Albanians upon Mitrovitza, and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replied that the Government had no information tending to show that the Christian inhabitants of Mitrovitza were in any danger.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): I said special danger. That is, no more danger than anybody else.
† See page 1249.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought it was the business of the Government to know all about this matter. It was a monstrous thing to come to this House like the Prime Minister had done and state that this was a bad state of affairs, but that it was the affair of Austria and Russia, and if those countries could not deal with it, nobody else could. That was a policy which he did not believe would meet with the approval of the country at large. He wished to know whether the statement was true that the British Ambassador had made representations to the Sultan and that he had received satisfactory declarations from the Sultan in regard to this matter.
LORD CRANBORNE: The hon. Member has criticised rather severely an answer which I delivered a few days ago in repect of the troubles in Macedonia, and he says that the Foreign Office ought to know more than they do upon this subject.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Yes, and they ought to send a special envoy there.
LORD CRANBORNE: The question was in regard to the Albanians who attacked Mitrovitza. I think the hon. Gentleman is really under a misapprehension as to the real state of things. It is not only the Christians but the Mohammedans also who are misgoverned. It is not only the Christians who are in danger of murder and outrage, but the Mohammedans as well, and there is no distinction to be made between one class of the population and the other. His Majesty's Government have always made representations to Turkey with a view to the improvement of the Government of all sections of the population. Those representations have been repeated with a wearisome monotony through many years. The hon. Gentleman asks if we got a favourable reply. If favourable replies would do anything Turkey would have been well governed many years ago. The British Ambassador in Turkey always gets a favourable reply, and I believe the intentions of the Turkish Government are to remedy this state of
1378
things. But the disease from which they are suffering is incompetence.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: That is a common disease.
LORD CRANBORNE: I need not dwell upon the state of things there because my hon. friend has already described it to the House, but the hon. Gentleman has asked me what action the Government have taken. We have made frequent representations of late, and the last one was no longer ago than the 31st of March, when, under instructions from the Foreign Office, Sir Nicholas O'Conor impressed upon the Turkish Government the importance of losing no time in sending out European officers to reorganise the gendarmerie. That is the latest representation we have made. In every way we are doing all we can to second the efforts of Austria and Russia with a view to securing the better Government of those provinces. As the hon. Gentleman is aware the British Consuls in Austria and Russia have been instructed to lend what assistance they can by way of suggestions. The Government are considering whether it would be better if British officers could accompany the Turkish troops with a view of giving some guarantee that no excesses are committed.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might I ask the noble Lord whether that very satisfactory arrangement he has referred to has been accepted by the Turkish Government?
LORD CRANBORNE: It is now under the consideration of the British Government. I do not know whether there is any other point on which I can enlighten the hon. Gentleman, but I think hon. Members will acquit the Government of any desire to withhold information.

THE REDUCTION OF LICENCES.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not propose to continue the discussion on the question of Macedonia, although he was glad to hear that through their envoy they were supplying a prescription for curing the disease which had been referred to. Perhaps that prescription would also be

1379
applied at home in some of the Government Departments at the same time. He wished to call attention to the speech recently delivered by the Prime Minister to the licensed victuallers as to the action of the magistrates. He was not going to discuss some questions which were raised in the course of that speech, because it would be clearly out of order to do so. Certain suggestions were made as to an alteration in the law, but that would also be out of order. He wished to refer to the purely administrative suggestions made by the Prime Minister, and he thought that would be in order. His comment upon that was, that he thought this was the first time that a gentleman of the Prime Minister's great position had passed severe condemnation upon the action of the judicial bench, whilst its decisions were sub judice. It must be recollected with regard to the majority of the decisions scoffed at, that they were subject to appeal at the Quarter Sessions, and therefore the Prime Minister was condemning them with regard to decisions which were under consideration by a Court of Appeal. The right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with only condemning the magistrates, but he appealed to the Court, which is to consider their decisions, to reverse them. He ventured to say there was no case on record where anyone in the position of Prime Minister had ever appealed to a Court, before it came to consider the cases, to arrive at certain decisions. It was a new and very dangerous precedent, and he very much regretted that the Prime Minister should have set it. It was true that the magistrates had been pretty active in their administration of the licensing laws, but either they were within or without the law. If they were acting outside the law, the Prime Minister knew perfectly well that there were two or three Courts to which licensed victuallers could appeal. They could appeal to the Quarter Sessions, and if the Quarter Sessions were similarly permeated with this rancorous feeling against them, there was an appeal to the Divisional Court, then the Court of Appeal, and finally the House of Lords. It must be assumed that they were acting within the law, and what did that mean? The Prime Minister, in answer to an ex parte application made to
1380
him by the parties personally aggrieved by the decisions in the lowest Court, actually expressed an opinion without knowing the law, without knowing the facts, without knowing anything at all about the circumstances, and knowing there was an appeal upon questions of law, expressed an opinion adverse to the decisions and appealed to the Court of Appeal to reverse them. That he would repeat was a perfectly unprecedented action, and one which the Prime Minister would realise was a gross indiscretion on his part, at any rate. If licensed victuallers were exceedingly poor, and could not take their action beyond the lower Court, there might be something to be said for the Prime Minister coming down and intervening to protect these poor miserable creatures, who had not the cash to brief a lawyer to go to the Court of Appeal, but any one who knew anything about it, knew that licensed victuallers had enough cash to brief lawyers in any action; in fact it was well known amongst lawyers that they preferred a brief from a licensed victualler to one from a teetotaler, because it was a much fatter one. The Prime Minister, he contended, ought to have left the law to take its ordinary course. The Prime Minister talked as if last year were the first time the magistrates had ever refused to grant renewals. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Here is a new departure."
MR. GALLOWAY: So it was.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was perfectly true that in some districts it was anew departure, but that was because the law was not put in operation in those districts. In Liverpool itself, in the course of twelve years—he did not think anybody would denounce the bench of magistrates in that city as Radical or teetotal, it was strongly Conservative, there might be some teetotalers, but they were in a considerable minority; at any rate the chairman was a strong Conservative—in the course of twelve years, from 1890 down to last year, they reduced the licences by 339. Where was the new departure there? Throughout the kingdom, the reduction in the course of nineteen years was 1,063. That

1381
was a considerable reduction, and proved that it was proceeding at a much more rapid rate in some places than in others. The reason was that where the reduction had been considerable public houses were much thicker. They were in the proportion of one to 150, or 200, or 300, of the population, and it was necessary that the reduction should proceed at a more rapid rate than in other districts. It simply showed that the magistrates in other districts, for one reason or another, had become alive to their powers, and began to exercise them, as they did from time to time. Magistrates discovered points in the law they were never aware of before, and we were constantly finding as to licensing, public health, or education that there was a sudden renewal of activity on the part of the bench of magistrates. In the case of the administration of the licensing law in particular districts, when they found the Prime Minister saying that it was a new departure, it showed that he did not grasp, not the local circumstances, but the general conditions of licensing administration throughout the country Even at the Courts last year most of the reductions were due not to judicial decisions by the magistrates, but to voluntary surrenders on the part of brewers themselves. Did the Prime Minister include these voluntary surrenders in his general condemnation?
He should like to put another point to the Prime Minister. It was a serious interference with the administration of law. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite might laugh, but this would constitute a precedent. The hon. Member for South West Manchester was exceedingly scornful at the notion that there should be any interference with the licensing laws. There would be difficulties in regard to the administration of other laws. Was the Prime Minister going to lay it down as a general principle that when the law pressed hard on individuals, it was not to be administered until there was an amendment of it which he considered would bring it up to his notion of justice? If that was really the principle on which the law was administered, let them have it all round. Don't let them have it only for licensed victuallers, let them have it for Nonconformists as well. If that was the general understanding, he
1382
had not a word more to say. Was it the principle the Prime Minister was laying down on behalf of the executive Government? The right hon. Gentleman said—
"I do not say that the magistrates are wrong in their interpretation of the law. What I say is that they have administered the law in such a way that it has borne hardly on a considerable number of individuals."
Then he talked vaguely about compensation. That was all right, but amend your law. But was that the principle? He was only asking for advice. Perhaps the Prime Minister would counsel him as he had counselled the magistrates. There was another law which he thought bore very harshly on considerable numbers of the community. He and his friends thought it ought to be amended. Was it the Prime Minister's advice that if the administration of the law was harsh, if carried out, therefore it was right that they should suspend the administration of that law until they got it reformed and redressed by Parliament? [MINISTERIAL cheers.] He was very glad to get assent from hon. Members opposite. It would be of the greatest possible value to them when they came to consider other questions. What he wanted to say was that he put the rights of conscience as high as the rights of property, and therefore the advice of the Prime Minister he thought would be applicable all round and to that extent it was exceedingly important. The right hon. Gentleman was once responsible for the Government of Ireland, and he remembered perfectly well how he treated speeches of that character, attacking the resident magistrates upon the action of the law in that country. Contempt of Court! There was no rusty machine in the whole arsenal of Dublin Castle that he did not bring into operation against those who ventured to criticise the action of the removable magistrates—not magistrates like those in this country with some sort of independence, but magistrates who were simply officials of the Government. But the right hon. Gentleman could not tolerate criticism upon the action of the law. Now, was it to be one law for the Prime Minister and another for Irish Members? Was it to be one law for Ireland and another for licensed victuallers in this country? The whole basis of administration was that there should be perfect equality, and that Irishmen should be treated exactly like Scotchmen or

1383
Englishmen. If that was so, the Prime Minister ought really to be eating bread and skilly at the present moment; and he ought to be serving his three months. Really that was the way in which he treated Irish Members, who perhaps in a more unreserved fashion attacked the administration of the law in Ireland and attacked it not whilst judicial decisions were sub judice, but after they were done with and when people saw that it was a question of putting their friends in prison for two, three, or four months with hard labour, so that every loyal man would necessarily feel considerably sore with the action of the magistrates on a great political issue. In this case, the action of the Prime Minister was purely for electioneering purposes. He did not suppose that the Prime Minister for a moment would deny that. At Rye the publicans said—"You are treating us very badly with your licensing act."
MR. GALLOWAY: You say that.
MR. LLOYD GEORGEsaid that was what the Rye publicans stated—"YTou are treating us very unfairly." At any rate, the publicans at Rye very considerably supported the Liberal candidate. He took that from the hon. Member for South West Manchester who knew more about publicans than he did himself. Then there was a deputation to the Prime Minister, and there was no doubt it was pointed out what would really happen to the Government. The Prime Minister said—"You have been treated scandalously by these magistrates, and I hope that the Quarter Sessions will reverse their extravagant decisions." That might be the case, but was it right to make an appeal to a Court of that kind without evidence—to make a general appeal to political passion and prejudice to decide on purely political considerations matters which were matters of evidence? What happened afterwards? The speech of the Prime Minister had given the word and it went round to Chertsey, "You are to vote for the Conservative candidate there." It was pure electioneering, and the administration of the law in the Courts of Justice in this country was to be reduced to pure electioneering. And this was from the
1384
party of law and order in this country. Sometimes the labour representatives were exceedingly sore about the decisions given in the High Courts. He was not going to criticise them one way or another. Supposing that a labour representative, where a case was on the way to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords, were to make a speech in which he denounced the inferior Court, and were to appeal to the higher Court to reverse the decision in the interest of public policy, the hon. Member knew what would happen. The labour representative—and very properly—would be imprisoned for contempt of court. Was there really one law for the labour man and another for the Prime Minister, because that was what it came to? Here were the magistrates, under very difficult conditions, administering a very important public duty. He had himself very often felt that the magistrates were leaning too much to one side or the other, but at any rate he had never heard public criticism of the action of the magistrates while a case was on the way to Quarter Sessions. They had a very important duty to perform, and had to have regard for the requirements of the neighbourhood. Lord Halsbury himself said that they should simply exercise their discretion with regard to what was necessary for the neighbourhood. If they thought that 200 licensed houses were too many, and that they contributed to drunkenness and disorder in the district it was their duty to reduce the number of licences if in their opinion that would contribute to the improvement of the neighbourhood. They had no right to check that duty or to consider the interests of anyone; the public interest should be first. Whether afterwards the Government should provide some compensation was a different matter. It was not, however, a matter which the magistrates were entitled to consider for a moment. Their business was to administer the law as a judicial bench. At any rate, it was not a question of compensation, it was purely a question as to whether the magistrates should be told that they ought not to perform their duties, although meantime convictions for

1385
drunkenness and disorder were to continue, in order to help the Government in a few by-elections.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has raised something in the nature of a direct personal attack on myself, and that must be my excuse for trespassing again, and for asking the House to permit me to intervene once more in the debate this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman complained that I made a speech the other day to a deputation which came to me on the subject of the recent alteration of the policy pursued by a large number of licensing magistrates. The hon. Gentleman thinks that I have committed a grave dereliction of duty in breaking silence. He thinks I ought not to have said anything at all. I presume he thinks I ought not to have received the deputation.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I said that while the cases were sub judice no comments at all ought to be made.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is to say I ought to have maintained silence. Why, I could hardly speak without commenting. If I were to speak and to comment, I am sure the hon. Gentleman, ardent as he is in the case of the magistrates in this matter, would hardly suggest that I should express opinions which do not happen to be my own. The hon. Gentleman further said that this gross act of impropriety, as he has been pleased to describe it, could have no other motive than an electioneering motive. I do not think much is gained by attributing motives; and I do not know that hon. Gentlemen opposite have any special qualifications, either by natural or acquired insight, for knowing better than I do myself what were the motives which actuated me. I can tell them that the opinions I expressed to that deputation have always been my opinions; and I have never for one moment hesitated to give public expression to them. It is perfectly true that there was a certain novelty on the occasion on which I expressed them, because the magistrates had never before taken the particular course which they have seen fit to take
1386
lately—at any rate never to the same extent.
I have always maintained, if you take away licences on a great scale from persons who have never offended against the law, and whose conduct is perfectly orderly, that it should be accompanied by compensation. That has been a publicly announced part of the creed and belief of the great majority of those with whom I habitually act in politics. It is open to any one to say that when a Minister gives expression to opinions which are common to him and his Party, he is electioneering. I suppose, in the same way, the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was making an electioneering speech. I understand that the views he expresses are those which commend themselves to the political organisation of which he is an ornament; but I do not accuse him of corrupt motives in what he has done. I do not think he is actuated by personal malevolence. I attribute no motive at all. Let him treat me with the same consideration; and let us argue this question as it ought to be argued, without the attribution, on one side or the other, of interested motives. What is the whole point and substance of the hon. Gentleman's charge? It is this—that I have interfered with a Court of law in the exercise of its legal functions; and that my conduct ought to be compared in its impropriety with the impropriety of one who in public, after a civil case has been decided by a Court of first instance on strictly legal grounds, denounces that Court, and says that it ought to have been actuated by a policy very different to that which did animate it—it may be not only doing some injury to the Court of first instance, but prejudicing the decision to which the Court of Appeal might come. That is to what my conduct has been likened. The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. There is no such parallel between the course I have pursued and the course of the imaginary critic of judicial proceedings which he has supposed. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman said that these magistrates do not sit as a Court. That has been laid down. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!]
MR. CALDWELL: The reason for that interruption is

1387
that in the Scottish Licensing Bill you now call it a Licensing Court.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether it was the hon. Gentleman who made that loud and inarticulate interruption just now. I will not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman on the point, least of all on a point of law; nor should I have ventured on this ticklish ground had I not felt I had the authority of the House of Lords itself behind me, which I place, though in doubt, even in front of the hon. Gentleman himself. I observe that they laid down that licensing justices do not sit as a Court.
MR. CALDWELL: Hear, hear. I agree.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman and the House of Lords are at one, then I am on absolutely secure ground. I proceed then with a perfectly happy and equable mind to point out to the House that this really disposes of the whole contention of the hon. Gentleman. His whole point was that I was interfering with a Court. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lanark, the House of Lords, and I are agreed that they do not sit as a Court. In that case, where is the contention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Burghs? He has found an enemy in his own house. Not only do the magistrates not sit as a Court, but I venture to ask the common sense of the House whether they can, in the exercise of their duties at Brewster Sessions, be said to be doing other than acting in an administrative capacity. They are acting administratively, and they may act administratively wisely or unwisely. A judge in a court of law is acting according to the law, or he is not acting according to the law, and he is judged according as he is carrying out the law laid down by Parliament or not. When you are dealing with persons who, though magistrates, are not sitting as a Court, and when you are criticising them in respect of their administrative action, you have to consider the wisdom or unwisdom of their action. There is, therefore, no parallel whatever between the criticism which I, with all respect, ventured to
1388
pass upon this new policy of the magistrates, and the sort of criticism which the hon. Gentleman says was passed by Irish Members, for instance, upon the judicial action of this or that Irish judge. Am I, because it so happens I am in office, to be the only person in the country who is to be required to keep silence on this subject? The hon. Gentleman never would have hesitated to make a speech in favour of the new policy of the magistrates. He would probably say: "Here at last are people carrying out their duties. Here are magistrates who for 300 years have not known what their powers were; whose predecessors have been asleep in regard to this question. They have at last woke up, and they now know what they can and ought to do." The hon. Gentleman would not have thought that an improper interference with justice, but it is just as improper an interference with a court of justice, if the words are applicable at all, as anything I said was in a different sense and from the opposite side.
I think the hon. Gentleman has been extremely unreasonable in this matter. I think, and have always thought, that any large interference with these licences ought to be accompanied by compensation. I have thought so not merely—I had almost said not principally—but certainly not merely on account of the injury done to the publican himself. I hold in the strongest way that you cannot expect any trade to be properly conducted if you so arrange your proceedings that no man of substance or character will embark in that trade. That I believe to be sound temperance doctrine; and the more it is looked at, not in the light of this or that shibboleth, but in the light of the practical question we have all got to consider as Members of this House, the more I am convinced that you will come to the opinion at which I have arrived; namely, that any change of policy such as that which has been referred to, and which, among other of its consequences, has made it impossible for any publican to insure his licence in an assurance office in order to provide against this summary and unexpected action of the justices, is really not merely not to the interests of

1389
the class whom you tax on the property you take away from them; whom you tax for public purposes and local purposes; whom you require to spend large sums in improving houses from which you can take away licences without compensation six months afterwards; but that a policy of that sort cannot be a sound policy. If you choose to say that no spirits shall be drunk in this country at all, you may try and carry it out; but as long as you have a trade, it is your first duty to see that the members of that trade shall be men of character and respectability and substance; and for that reason I greatly deplore the policy which the magistrates have thought fit to pursue; and I have not the smallest pricking or remorse of conscience for anything I have said in the matter.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has ingeniously contrived to mix up two questions which have really little connection with each other. My hon. friend who brought forward this question distinctly said that he did not wish, and would not take any steps, to bring before the House the question of compensation or no compensation, or the rights or grievances or misfortunes of publicans. Let us deal with that on the proper occasion. We shall be quite willing to do so. If the right hon. Gentleman, meeting this deputation, had told them that he thought that the present condition of affairs was very unfortunate, that the magistrates were hampered in their action by the absence of any provision to meet the hardship put upon individuals, if he had said that the Government, when they had time from other things would attempt to legislate upon the subject, no one would have said a word about it. We might have differed from him entirely; or we might have agreed with him; but that is not the point. The point is this, that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of making any promises or merely expressing his personal opinion, or the opinion of the Government, proceeded to condemn the action of public officials acting in a judicial manner, which action was still subject to appeal; and that he, knowing
1390
nothing whatever, making no pretence to know anything, about the circumstances of the case, said that these public officials were wrong, that they had come to a wrong conclusion, and taken wrong action, and that he hoped their decision would be reversed. The right hon. Gentleman raises a little point whether it is a Court, or whether it is not a Court. He himself in his Scottish Licensing Bill of this year calls it a Court. It has always been known, I believe, as a licensing authority. That would not satisfy the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and the other Scottish advisers of the right hon. Gentleman. They must needs call this authority a Court. We have nothing to do with that although it is rather an awkward fact for the right hon. Gentleman to get over. But supposing it is not technically a Court, according to the ordinary language used with regard to a Court, here is Lord Halsbury's opinion:—
"An extensive power is confided to justices in their capacity as justices, to be exercised judicially."
The right hon. Gentleman constituted himself a sort of Court of Appeal. Did he exercise his power judicially? He did not know a single word of the evidence taken before these Courts. He did not know the rights and the wrongs of the case in any particular; and yet to please this deputation he said the justices were wrong and that he hoped their decision would be reversed. That is the offence we think the right hon. Gentleman has committed. Then he says "Any of you might have done the same thing"; he says my hon. friend might have spoken strongly either in defence of or in opposition to the action of the magistrates. Yes, but unfortunately the man in the street, like my hon. friend, is not quite the same thing as the Chief Executive Officer of the Government of this country—the head of the Government of which the Lord Chancellor is a Member, who is over the justices of the kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman when he gets among these friends of his and wishes to cultivate their favour, cannot divest himself of the responsibility attaching to him as Prime Minister of this country—chiefly responsible above all men for the maintenance of law and order. Certain duties are given to the magistrates. They are to exercise them judicially. What does that mean? They are to hear

1391
evidence, to inquire into the circumstances of the locality, and to make sure of all the facts of the case before they come to a decision. In all cases their decision has been subject to appeal, but by your legislation of last year you have actually facilitated that appeal. You have given them power in regard to costs by a clause in the Act of last year, and that, of course, facilitates appeals, and brings the procedure more into line with the ordinary judicial forms and procedure to which we are accustomed. But the right hon. Gentleman calmly comes forward to this deputation, and pronounces ex cathedra that the justices were wrong and that he hopes their decision will be reversed.
He says we must not inquire into his motives. Well, no, we do not attribute any motives, but it was, I suppose, a strange and undesigned coincidence. It just happened that this deputation came forward at a time when there was a great ferment among the Members of what calls itself the Trade with regard to this matter and other matters, and the whole question of compensation, and there were a good many by elections going on, and the right hon. Gentleman made this speech. It is a case of those inexplicable circumstances, coincident in time, which we often meet with in private life. We have talked or thought of a man who had been out of our mind for years, and we go out in the street and the first person we meet is that man. But that is an undesigned coincidence, and we must accordingly relegate this incident also to that category. It was altogether an accidental and haphazard circumstance that this deputation went to the right hon. Gentleman just at this moment. If the right hon. Gentleman had covered the deputation with his sympathy and with promises, we should have had nothing to say against him. It would have been ordinary business, perfectly intelligible business. Instead of that he goes out of his way to use this strange language in regard to public judicial officers exercising their duties to the best of their conscience and ability, and in that I agree with my hon. friend that he took a course which was unworthy of the position he occupies.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated that the licensing magistrates had to exercise their functions judicially, but what had really taken place in many cases was that an arrangement had been arrived at beforehand between the justices and the brewers under which it had been agreed that if the brewers took out a certain number nothing further would be said.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid it was not those brewers who complained.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that had nothing to do with the matter. A judge might arrive at a wrong decision and satisfy one of the parties, and it was open to anyone to say whether he thought that decision had been arrived at in a proper manner. He was present at the deputation and heard what his right hon. friend said, and he certainly thought that what his right hon. friend referred to chiefly was the extraordinary way in which these decisions had been arrived at. They had not been arrived at on the merits of the cases.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid it was true that the magistrates did not decide cases interparty, but that they exercised judicial functions as administrators between the public on the one hand and the licensed victuallers on the other was not open to argument. The Prime Minister was, therefore, not entitled to bully or threaten or endeavour to terrify them. The right hon. Gentleman was the head of a Government of which the Lord Chancellor was a subordinate member. The Courts of Quarter Sessions which would review the decisions of the licensing magistrates were composed of I justices removable by the Lord Chancellor; therefore when the Prime Minister made the statement that the magistrates in Quarter Sessions would act in a certain way, it was impossible to suggest that that was merely the expression of a political opinion. It was a definite opinion on a distinct act of; administration performed by men subject indirectly to the influence of the Prime

1393
Minister. It might be that many magistrates had gone rather far in refusing the renewal of licences. But whether they were right or wrong, the matter had to come before the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the latter ought to be in a position to address themselves to it with unbiassed, unprejudiced, and independent minds. He contended that the action of the Prime Minister prevented the exercise of that independent judgment by the Court of Quarter Sessions. He was not sure that the right hon. Gentleman's statement would cause the Courts of Quarter Sessions to act as he wished, for there was nothing persons occupied judicially were more disposed to resent than any attempt to bully them as to the decisions they should give. It was to a great extent the fault of the Government that this difficulty had arisen. Everybody must recognise that there was a considerable amount of hardship in the present condition of things, and some change in the law was necessary. The necessity of reducing the licences in the public interest was apparent. Whether it should be done with or without compensation was a matter for the Government. The magistratees had stayed their hand for years, but the Government had not moved. Years ago, in Sharp v. Wakefield, the right of magistrates was established. They might have thought it reasonable that the Legislature should have the opportunity of making some provision with respect to the injustice that might arise from the wholesale refusal of licences, but the Government, though they had been in powor for several years, had done nothing. Were the magistrates permanently to neglect their duty because the Government did not take any steps? To visit upon the magistrates the condemnation due to the Government for leaving the question unsettled was unreasonable, and would tend to affect very injuriously the interests of justice—the interests of the publicans as well as the interests of the country at large—in the consideration of the cases that would come before the Quarter Sessions this week.
SIR FORTESCUE PLANNERYsaid he could not allow the debate to terminate without a protest against the very strong language used by the right hon. Gentleman the
1394
Leader of the Opposition. There was not a man on the Conservative side of the House who did not believe that the speech of his light hon. friend was entirety justified. The allegation of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Burghs was that while the case was sub judice his right hon. friend expressed an opinion upon it. When any person in public made a statement about a case which was sub judice, he was undoubtedly doing Something which might prejudice the judicial decision in that case, but if that person made a statement as to the principle underlying a large number of cases, without referring to any particular case, he submitted that that could not prejudice the decision arrived at in any particular case. In the speech referred to, what the Prime Minister said was that the magistrates had initiated a new policy, which he hoped would be overturned, but as the right hon. Gentleman did not name any particular case which was sub judice, he did not transgress either the usual custom in such cases, or public taste, or interfere with the administration of justice. This question had aroused immense public interest, and it could not be too emphatically stated that under the new Licensing Act the magistrates had neither less nor more power than before. If magistrates were influenced in the direction of destroying licences and vested interests which they themselves had assisted to create, it was right that not only a Member of the House, but even an official in the highest public position, should pronounce his opinion on a great public question without reference to any particular case.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORdid not propose to enter into the question of the propriety or impropriety of the observations of the Leader of the House but if it was open to the right hon. Gentleman to express his opinion on the actions of the magistrates, it was equally open to any Member of the House to do so. As to the Liverpool magistrates, they had considerable justification for the action they had taken in reducing the number of licences. There had been considerable demolitions of property of an insanitary character, but under the local Acts the public houses could not be touched. The municipality

1395
were powerless to deal with the question, and it had come before the magistrates for the exercise of their judicial discretion. He did not say that their policy was above criticism, but he could not allow anything like a sweeping condemnation of their action to pass without comment.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not attacked them.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of any such attack, but reference had been made to the Liverpool magistrates, and he thought it right to put the case clearly before the House. The demolition of property in Liverpool had brought about a condition of things——
MR. SPEAKER: I cannot see how the hon. Member will be in order in discussing the action of the magistrates of Liverpool in reference to the exercise of powers under a certain Act of Parliament. The magistrates are not under the control of the Government in any way. Such a question cannot be discussed on a Motion for Adjournment. Moreover, the hon. Member cannot discuss the question without anticipating the debate on a Bill which is before the House.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid the magistrates had simply acted in their judicial capacity, and he was merely illustrating the difficulties with which they had to contend in the exercise of their discretion, owing to the rightful action of the municipality in clearing insanitary areas. In considering the question the House should remember that not merely in Liverpool but elsewhere, the magistrates had been brought face to face with serious social conditions which had prompted them to take the course they had adopted, without the least desire to act unjustly in regard to any rights of property. The old maxim, "Summum jus, summa injuria," might very well be applied in this case, and he hoped the example of Liverpool would be no inducement to licensing justices to act in any other than a judicial capacity with due respect to the rights of property. In all that the Liverpool justices had done they had been actuated by the desire to meet pressing social conditions of a character of which only those who lived in large and over-crowded municipalities had any cognisance.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned at three minutes before Five o'clock till Tuesday, 21st April.