Sitting of 4 August 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Beckenham Urban District Council Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill; Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Somerset and District Electric Power Bill [Lords] (Prince of Wales's Consent, as Duke of Cornwall, signified). Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords];. Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
North Western Electricity and Power-Gas Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Salford Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Shropshire and Worcestershire Electric Power Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; An Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Airdie and Coatbridge Tramways Order Confirmation Bill; Lerwick Harbour Improvements Act (1877) Amendment Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Great Central Railway Bill; Gateshead Corporation Bill; South Yorkshire Joint Railways Bill; North Eastern Railway Bill; Sheffield Corporation Bill; Cork Harbour Bill, with Amendments.
Amendment to Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords].
That they have agreed to,
Amendments to Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Train ways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords]; Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [Lords]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords]; West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords]; Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways Bill [Lords]; South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords]; Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL AND LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Flim by, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MOTOR-CARS (SPEED).
  Petition from Perth, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACTS 1867 TO 1898.
  Petition from Eastbourne, for repeal; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894 (VESSELS DETAINED).
  Copy presented, of Return of all ships ordered by the Board of Trade, or its
  1432
  officers, during the period from the 1st July, 1902 to 30th June 1903, to be provisionally detained as unsafe, together with summaries, etc. (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [C. 1233]) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SHIPPING CASUALITIES (1901–2).
  Copy presented, of Abstract of the Returns of shipping casualties which occurred on or near the coasts or in rivers and harbours of the United Kingdom from the 1st July, 1901 to 30th June, 1902, and of the Returns of shipping casualties to British vessels elsewhere than on the coasts of the United Kingdom, and to foreign vessels on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of British possessions abroad, etc., with Charts and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL TABLES, 1902.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered, 30th July; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 312.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Copies presented, of Orders made by the various County and County Borough Councils in England and Wales under Sections 57 and 59 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INLAND REVENUE.
  Copy presented, of Forty-Sixth Report of the Commissioners, for the year ended 31st March, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd August; Mr. Elliot]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 313.]
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Copy presented, of Administration Report on the Railways in India for the year 1902, by A. Brereton, Esquire, Secretary to the Government of India Public Works Department, Railways [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3049 to 3051 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (EXCEPTIONS TO KING'S REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of list of exceptions to the King's Regulations as to pay, non-effective pay, and allowances during the year 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 10.
  Return ordered, "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7.

  Date when Closure moved.

  By whom moved.

  Question before House or Committee when moved.

  Whether in House or Committee.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion and if, a Division, Numbers fir and against.

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 392, of session 1902)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Divisions of the House in session 1903; stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority, Tellers included; also, the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions of public business from private; and also the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.238, session 1902)."—(Mr Caldwell.)

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during session 1903; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this
  1434
  10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during session 1903 (in the same form as, and in continuation of Parliamentary Paper. No. 391, of session 1902)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).
  Return ordered, "respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (closure of debate) during session 1903, under the following heads:—
  House but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.237, of session 1902)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of public Petitions presented and printed in session 1903; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.236, of session 1902)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in session 1903, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days

  1435
  each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also, the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.234, of session 1902)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the number of days on which the House sat in session 1903, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.235, of session 1902)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
  Return ordered, "showing, with reference to session 1903, (1) the number of sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders, Government Business had precedence; (2) the number of evening sittings on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and the number of sittings on Fridays at which private Members had precedence under the Standing Orders; (3) the number of sittings at which Government Business had precedence under a special Order of the House; (4) the number of Saturday sittings; (5) the total number of sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (6) the total number of days on which the House sat; (7) the total number of Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (8) the number of days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 393, of session 1902.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in session 1903, classed according to the following subjects: Railways, tramways, tramroads, subways, canals and navigation, roads and bridges, water, waterworks, gas, gas and water, lighting and improvement, police and sanitary regulations, corporations, &c. (not relating to police and sanitary regulations or to lighting and improvement schemes); ports, piers, harbours, and docks; churches, chapels, and burying grounds; markets and fairs; gaols and other county buildings; inclosure and drainage; estate; divorce; naturalisation; hospitals and miscellaneous."
  "Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in session 1903 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to, have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed."
  "Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in session 1903, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended."
  "And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.233, of session 1902)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (APPLICATION OF FUNDS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return ordered "showing the extent to which, and the manner in which, local authorities in England and Wales have applied funds to the purposes of technical education (including science, art, technical, and manual instruction) during the year 1902–1903, under the following Acts: Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890; Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891; Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889; and Public Libraries and Museums Acts."—(Sir William Anson.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Orphan and Deserted Children.
  MR. HARWOOD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state how many are actually orphans, or deserted by their parents, out of the 34,506 children relieved without their parents.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The information at my disposal does not enable me to give these particulars.

  Able-bodied Men in Metropolitan Work-houses.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the number of able-bodied men now maintained in the metropolitan workhouses; whether his attention has been called to the experiment made by the guardians of St. George's Union for testing such persons on a farm colony at Hadleigh, in Essex; and, if so, can he state the result of such experiment, and say whether he is prepared to recommend it to other boards of guardians in London.
  1438
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In February last I approved an agreement between the guardians of the St. George's Union and the Salvation Army for the reception and maintenance at the Hadleigh Farm Colony of a certain number of men chargeable to the union I required that a full report should be made to me at the end of the first six months as to the working of the experiment, and this report will be due in about a month's time. Hence I cannot at present say whether I should feel able to recommend the adoption of a similar course in other cases. The number of male inmates of workhouses in London who are returned as able-bodied in health is 1,581. I understand, however, that probably not more than one-tenth of this number would be certified by the union medical officers as being fit to be sent to a farm colony like that at Hadleigh.

  Return of Duties on Imports into British Colonies.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state when the Return of Duties on Imports into the British Colonies, ordered by the House, on 21st July, to be printed, will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) This will, I hope, be issued during the present week.

  Petitions of Dockyard Employees.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can hold out hopes that some announcement concerning the petitions of dockyard employees will be made before the Appropriation Bill is introduced.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) It would be convenient if the hon. Member will address this Question to the Admiralty.

  Postal Deliveries at Holyhead.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience experienced by tradesmen occupying lock-up shops, and other residents at Holyhead, owing to the first

  1439
  delivery of letters each day taking place before the shops are open, and in the event of any letter being too bulky to pass through the letter-box, their being returned to the post office to await the next delivery; whether he is aware that the second delivery does not take place until about 3 p.m., and that this delay causes hardship; and if so, whether he will be prepared to relax the regulations to the extent of either allowing the letters of persons well known to the officials to be handed to them over the counter should they call for them at the post office, or of ordering that such letters be delivered with the first parcels delivery; or if not, whether he will arrange for an additional delivery of letters to take place not later than 10 a. m. each day.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) There was a misunderstanding at the Holyhead office. The rule, as altered by me two or three months ago, admits of such letters as the hon. Member refers to being obtained at the post office without charge, provided no delivery by postman is about to take place. In regard to the second part of the Question, the number of letters at Holyhead is not sufficient to justify the establishment of a fourth delivery.

  Baghdad Railway and German Capital.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any official information to the effect that the Baghdad railway line is to be constructed exclusively with German capital.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) We have no official information to this effect, and the matter seems to be still under discussion.

  Surrender to the Chinese Authorities of the Prisoners in the Supao Sedition Case.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that Shen Chien, a Chinese journalist and member of the Chinese reform party, was recently beaten to death at Peking by order of the Empress Dowager, will the British representative at Shanghai be instructed to decline to surrender to the Chinese authorities the prisoners in the Supao sedition case.
  1440
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The demand of the Viceroy of Nanking for the surrender of two of the prisoners has been referred to the foreign representatives at Peking, and is now under consideration. I cannot at present give any information as to the decision that will be taken.

  Reduction of Teachers' Salaries by the New Education Authorities.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the salary of the head master of the Hickman Street Wesleyan School, Gainsborough, has been reduced from £225 (the amount given by the managers previous to the school being taken over by the Lindsey Education Committee) to £200; and, if so, will he say whether, in cases where the salary of teachers is reduced by the education authority, the managers of the school concerned, or the teachers, can appeal to the Board of Education.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board have no official knowledge on this subject. It appears from the records in the office that the teacher has never been in the receipt of a fixed salary of £225. His salary has fluctuated during the last twelve years between £204 and £222. The Board of Education have always discouraged fluctuating salaries. The local authority has, under Section 7 of the Education Act, the control of all expenditure required for the purpose of maintaining and keeping efficient the public elementary schools within its area. The matter of teachers' salaries is not one in which the Board of Education would intervene unless it could be shown that a reduction of salaries amounted to a failure by the local education authority in its duty to maintain and keep efficient a public elementary school.

  South African Garrison—India's Charge—Protest by the Viceroy.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a telegram from the Viceroy of India strongly protesting against the proposal to charge the revenues of India with part of the cost of the increased garrison in South Africa; and will he state what decision has been arrived at.

  1441
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) A telegram has been received from the Government of India on this subject expressing dissent from the suggestion which had been sent out for their consideration, and informing me that a despatch is on its way home.

  Promotion of Second Division Clerks holding Staff Posts.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM-QUIN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury will be prepared to allow the holder of a staff post of the Second Division, on being promoted to the higher division, to carry with him the salary of the staff post, provided that such salary should in no case be higher than that of a clerk who had entered the First Division and had been an equal time in the public service.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The rule is that a staff officer (other than the holder of a temporary staff post) who is promoted to the First Division shall enter that division either at the minimum of the scale of his new post, or, if he prefers, at the salary to which he would have risen if he had remained in the Second Division instead of being appointed to a staff post; provided that in no case shall his commencing salary in the First Division exceed the amount to which he would have risen by length of service if his original appointment had been to that division at the age of twenty-four. The rule was very carefully considered, and I am unable to recommend its alteration in the sense suggested. I do not think that it is unfair to the officers concerned.

  Contracts for the Supply of Jam and Tinned Rations for the Navy.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what contracts have been placed for the supplies of jam and other preserved rations for the Navy, the names of the firms with whom they have been placed, and the quantity to be supplied by each; and whether the tins used are soldered or what are known in the trade as spun tins.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) Both soldered and spun tills are used by
  1442
  the Admiralty contractors. As regards the rest of the Question, I must beg to refer the honourable Member to my reply to a similar Question put by him on the 3rd November last.†

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Imperial Yeomanry.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War is he aware that a number of the men belonging to the 1901 batch of Imperial Yeomanry complained at Aldershot that they received only seven days' furlough money instead of one month, and that the first batches disbanded were paid one month; and, if so, will he state the reason for this difference of treatment.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The first levy of Imperial Yeomanry were paid the ordinary cavalry rate of pay only, and therefore received the gratuity of thirty days' pay. The later levies were paid at the rate of 5s. a day, and were therefore ineligible for the gratuity. Their discharges were postdated seven days in order to give time for the completion of their discharge.
    MR. MANSFIELD: But is it not the fact that some of the 1901 men had the month's furlough, although they received 5s. a day?
    Mr. BRODRICK: No, Sir; the men who had 5s. a day were on an entirely different footing.

    Naval Fortresses.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many of the 131,786 Militia and Volunteers appropriated to the service of naval fortresses at home are raised in, or belong to, localities within Army Corps districts in which naval fortresses are situate. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of Militia and Volunteers raised in, or belonging to, Army Corps districts in which naval
    †See (4) Debates, cxiii., 1382.

    1443
    fortresses are situated; and how many of this total number are appropriated to field and fortress service respectively.
    MR. BRODRICK: It is not considered desirable to publish the detailed information affecting the national defences for which my hon. and gallant friend asks.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that any one can calculate the figures from the War Office Vote?
    MR. BRODRICK: That may be, but I would rather not be the channel for communicating them to the House.

    Imperial Yeomanry at Naval Fortresses.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain the reason for the provision of 2,526 Imperial Yeomanry for service at naval fortresses at home.
    MR. BRODRICK: These Yeomanry are intended in case of war for reconnaissance purposes, and to guard against raids on isolated spots within the rayon of defence of the fortress.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: Then I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put this Vote on the Marine Fund.

    British and Russian Navies.
    MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that Russia has now commenced to build two first-class battleships in the Black Sea since the Admiralty framed their Naval Estimates for the current year, is it their intention, in accordance with the precedent of 1898, to introduce a supplementary shipbuilding programme.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY(Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension. No new fact has come to the notice of the Admiralty which would necessitate such a proceeding as that suggested. The fact that the building of these two ships was contemplated by Russia was known to, and taken into consideration by, the Admiralty when framing the programme
    1444
    submitted by them to Parliament. When the last Return was presented, no reference was made to these ships, because, as I have already explained, it has been the practice to include only such ships as have been actually sanctioned or begun. I can only repeat that should developments take place which have not been anticipated, or taken into account by the Admiralty, Parliament will be informed; but such an event has not yet occurred.
    SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the last six years there have been laid down for England nineteen battleships, while France and Russia together have laid down twenty-two.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That raises a different question.

    Naval Volunteers in the Channel Islands.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any steps have been taken to consider the applicability of the principle of the Naval Forces Act, as regards the enrolment of naval volunteers, to Jersey and Guernsey, in respect of the defence of the Channel Islands in time of war; and, if State legislation is necessary, whether steps will be taken to obtain it from the States of Jersey and the States of Guernsey.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I understand that the principle of the Naval Forces Act is applicable to the Channel Islands, although it is possible that on points of detail State legislation might be found necessary. The question will be fully gone into, but it is proposed to proceed first of all with the organisation of the divisions of naval volunteers in London and on the Clyde, before dealing with other districts.

    Roman Catholic Chaplains on Training Ships.
    MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that on board the training ships "Chichester" and "Arethusa" Roman Catholic boys are not allowed to practise their religion, though in the case of the "Arethusa" there is a

    1445
    Roman Catholic church within 200 yards of the landing place; and whether, seeing that these ships, though supported by voluntary contributions, are a free gift from the Admiralty, and are subsidised by that body by grants for boys passed from them into the Navy, and that boys are required to sign a paper countersigned by parent or guardian agreeing to conform whilst on these ships, the Admiralty will see that the conscientious convictions of children and parents are not interfered with.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Admiralty have no information whatever on this subject. The matter appears to be essentially one for the managers of the training ships, and I would suggest that the proper course for the hon. Member to adopt with regard to any question as to which dissatisfaction exists, is to approach the managers direct.
    MAJOR JAMESON: Cannot the hon. Gentleman himself see his way to making a suggestion to the managers on the subject.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It would be quite outside the province of the Admiralty.
    MAJOR JAMESON: Do the Admiralty take no cognisance whatever of anything done on training ships?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Brussels Sugar Convention—British Terms of Ratification.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the actual terms of the conditions subject to which the British ratification of the Sugar Convention was deposited.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): The information is contained in No. 7 of the Treaty Series of Foreign Office Parliamentary Papers. The conditions, subject to which the British ratification was deposited, were that His Majesty's Government would not consent under any circumstances to be bound to
    1446
    penalise bounty-fed sugar imported into the United Kingdom from any of the self-governing British colonies. Also that they were not prepared to accept any reference of this question to the Permanent Commission to be established under Article VII., and that His Majesty's ratification of the Convention was deposited under the explicit declaration above mentioned.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Was any other ratification subject to such a condition?
    LORD CRANBORNE: I think not, but I would rather not pledge myself.

    Workmen's Compensation Act.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the result of the appeal heard in the King's Bench Division on the 10th July in the case of Owner v. Hooper, a case in which the Inspector of Factories had supported a summons charging the respondent with unlawfully making an illegal payment in respect of a charge levied since the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act by means of a deduction on the wages paid, covering the insurance premiums for liability under the Compensation Act, and making a profit for the manufacturer of over 100 per cent. on the amount paid for insurance; and, if so, will he state whether legislation is necessary to deal with the point, and whether the Government will consider it in connection with any amendment of the Compensation Act.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): Yes, Sir, the question raised in this case is certainly one which must be considered in connection with any amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

    Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the total amount paid for pensions and superannuation allowances, including those charged on the Consolidated Fund, in the last financial year.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT, Durham): The total amount paid for civil pensions and retiring gratuities during 1902–3, including those charged on the Consolidated Fund but exclusive of naval or military retired pay, was £2,542,559. Of this the Admiralty absorbed £325,000, the War Office £191,100, and the Post Office £417,000. He would hand the hon. Member detailed particulars.

    Birchet's Green National School, Berkshire.
    MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the Board has issued an order for the election of foundation managers of the Birchet's Green National School, Berkshire, in which it is stipulated that the two representative managers are to declare themselves members of the Church of England, he will state what is the meaning attached by the Board to the expression member of the Church of England.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir William ANSON, Oxford University): The Board do not inquire what is the precise meaning which a manager who is required by the order to be a member of the Church of England affixes to that expression. They are satisfied with his written assurance that he possesses the qualifications required by the order.

    Extra Police in County Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether anything can be done to relieve the Clare County Council from the payment of the sum of £441 for the cost of extra police up to March last, in view of the peaceable state of the county as evidenced by the charge of the Lord Chief Justice at the late Assizes.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The additional police were withdrawn from Clare on the 1st April. The charge incurred for the extra force to that date
    1448
    is a statutory one, which cannot be remitted.

    Greencastle Orange Demonstration.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a public meeting, held in Greencastle on 29th July, protesting against the action of the police sergeant who cut the roping of an arch which was in the course of erection on 10th July; and, if so, will he state on whose authority this officer entered the premises of Mr. John Letters, and carried away a ladder, and order a sworn inquiry into the case.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The reasons which influenced the police in preventing the erection of a Party arch on or before Sunday the 12th July, were explained in the answer to my hon. friend's previous Question of the 20th July.† The arch was erected, without interference, on Monday, the 13th July, when the Orange procession took place. No opposition was raised to the removal of the ladder, which was returned on the latter date. The action of the police does not, call for the further inquiry suggested.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLINMay I ask whether the meeting referred to in the Question was not held in the Presbyterian schoolroom. Has the attention of the National Board of Education been called to the action of the managers in lending the schoolroom for the purpose, and, if so, what is being done in the matter?
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid the sole question was whether the arch should be erected on Sunday or Monday. The police considered it inadvisable to allow it to be erected on the former day. The holding of the public meeting in the National School has been brought under the notice of the Commissioners of National Education.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the Throne Flute Band which accompanied the Whitehouse Presbyterian
    † See (4) Debates, cxxv., 1138.

    1449
    Church on an excursion 25th July last, on their return when proceeding to Greencastle Station, were stopped by Sergeant Gallagher and the police from the barracks, and why the sergeant ordered them to draw their batons; and whether he will have this officer removed to another district.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The band did not proceed to its destination by the route arranged, but by way of Greencastle village, where danger of collision with a rival party was likely to arise. The police warned the bandsmen that they would not be allowed to play through Greencastle. They persisted, however, and the sergeant thereupon ordered his men to draw their batons. The bandsmen at this point undertook not to play if allowed to pass through the village. They were escorted through the village by the sergeant and his men, and all passed off quietly. The sergeant displayed much tact on the occasion and it is not proposed to remove him.
    In reply to a further Question Mr. Wyndham said the regulations were applied equally to Catholic and Orange bands.

    Belfast Disturbances.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that only two policemen were on duty at the corner of Union Street and Donegal Street on 13th July, when a procession was attacked with the result shat some persons were injured, he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances.
    MR. WYNDHAM: As a matter of fact four policemen were stationed at this point on the occasion referred to, and sixty others were on duty within a radius of 200 yards. The Commissioner of Belfast, in whom the Government has the fullest confidence, was responsible for the allocation of the police, and it is not proposed to make further inquiry into the matter

    Cork Spring Assizes Murder Trial.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary
    1450
    to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a memorial was presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the case of Andrew Moore, who was convicted at the Cork Spring Assizes, 1903, for the murder of the Rev. Mr. Bell and sentenced to be hanged, signed by the doctors who examined the body of the deceased and who gave evidence at the trial, and who stated in the memorial that it was impossible for them to say that the wounds on deceased were ante mortem; and, if so, whether he will lay the case before the Lord Lieutenant with a view to the release of Moore, whose sentence was commuted to penal servitude.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I replied to a Question on this subject on the 29th June.† So far from the doctors having declared that they were unable to say whether the wound was ante mortem or not they, in their evidence, most distinctly and emphatically stated that it was their clear opinion that the wound must have been inflicted during the lifetime of the deceased. The Lord Lieutenant, who has had the case before him, has not seen his way to exercise the Royal prerogative in the manner suggested.

    Evicted Farm in County Mayo.
    DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Francis Sweeney was evicted seven years ago from his farm at Keelogues, County Mayo; that he died twenty-four hours after the eviction; that his daughter has resided in the vicinity of the farm since the eviction; that the farm is to be sold by public auction on 5th August; and, if so, whether he will see that the sale is postponed so that she may have an opportunity of purchasing the farm under the coining Irish Land Act.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Sweeney died, am informed, two months before his family was evicted. I have no power to take action as suggested at the conclusion of the Question.
    † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 806.

    Fiscal Inquiry—The Manchester Meeting.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury has his attention been drawn to the Resolution in connection with the proposed changes in the fiscal policy of this country, passed on Tuesday, 22nd July, at a joint meeting of the Cotton Employers' Association and the United Textile Workers' Association at Manchester; and, if so, will lie state what is the Government's policy in regard to the free import of raw materials and food; and, if not, will the representatives of the associations concerned be invited to give evidence as to the effect which would result from the imposition of duties upon these articles before the inquiry into the fiscal policy.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I have seen the report in question. I am informed, however, that the meeting was not a representative one, and that at a meeting of the association held subsequently some of the proceedings of the earlier meeting were not approved. On that point I have no further information to give to the House. As regards the other portion of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I have already dealt with questions of a similar kind, and I have really nothing to add to what I have already said.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury has the Government concluded any part of their inquiry into the fiscal policy of this country; if so, will he state which part; and whether it is proposed to publish such parts of the inquiry as they are from time to time completed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have nothing to say in answer to this Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked for information as to the course of business.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Sugar Convention Bill will pass through Committee this evening; if, unhappily,
1452
it is not finished, it will be put down for to-morrow.
MR. LOUGH: At what time then will it be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How can I tell? The Second Reading of the Revenue Bill and of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, the Committee stage of the Railways (Electrical Power) Bill, and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill will be put down for Wednesday. On Thursday Irish Supply will be taken, and after 12 o'clock I propose to take some Third Readings. On Friday I hope to take the Committee stage of the Motor-Car Bill. It will be seen from that statement that I see no prospect of taking to-morrow, as I had hoped, the two Departmental Ecclesiastical Bills on the Paper, and it is much to be regretted that there has been opposition to those Bills. According to the best information I can obtain, I do not think it possible to pass them in the present session; and I shall therefore introduce them at an earlier period of next session.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to proceed with the Revenue Bill, which makes some twenty changes and clearly requires elaborate explanation?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should have hoped that Bill, which is entirely a concession by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would meet with universal approval; my right hon. friend has distributed an explanatory memorandum, but if the result of that explanation is to make hon. Gentlemen suspicious and to whet their appetite for discussion, it will be impossible for the Bill to pass. It is not my right hon. friend who will suffer by that.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: When shall we be able to obtain copies of the agreement with the Cunard Steamship Company.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope this evening at 8 o'clock.
MR. LOUGH: And when will the discussion on it take place?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It certainly cannot be taken this week.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take the Third Reading of the Irish Development Grant Bill to-night? It is important to get it passed through this House as soon as possible.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If there is no opposition to it I shall be glad to take it.
MR. WEIR: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say yet.
MR. O'MARA: And the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot yet fix a day.
MR. CRIPPS: Will the two Ecclesiastical Bills be taken up as Government Bills next session?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: What about the Port of London Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see any chance of proceeding with that Bill in the course of the present week.

PISTOLS BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
Special Report from the Select Committee, brought up and read.
Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 314.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 314.]

NEW BILLS.
  COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS AND METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  "To enable women to be elected and act as members of County and Borough Councils and Metropolitan Borough Councils," presented by Mr. Channing; supported by Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Ernest Gray, Mr. Lough, Mr. M'Kenna, and Mr. Yerburgh; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 311.]
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  "To amend the Law with respect to Customs Duties in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. Elliot; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]

  MOTOR-CARS BILL. [LORDS.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I wish to point out that the object of the Government has been misunderstood by some of those who have taken part in the controversy in the Press. It has been stated that their object is to give facilities to the users of motor-cars, and I have noticed with great regret an attempt in some quarters—limited in extent I am happy to say—to turn this into a class question, and to suggest that the use of motors is a privilege of the rich, and that the poor are the sufferers by the abuse of them. No doubt in regard to some of these motor-cars the suggestion is correct—they are very expensive, and obviously can only be owned by those who are rich. But I venture to deprecate this kind of description of the use of motor-cars for two reasons. If the simple question is asked "What is a motor-car?" it is not quite so easy to answer as hon. Gentlemen may think. It will be found that there is already a very large increase in the number of motor vehicles used by professional men of the smaller grade in country districts, such as medical men

  1455
  and those who do work for the local authorities. For these, motor-cars are available at, comparatively speaking, low prices, and I am told that the number of these is likely to continue to increase considerably. The other point of view from which I deprecate this kind of description of the use of motor-cars is this. I am assured by those who have to deal with motor-car cases before the magistrates, that the breaking of the law is by no means confined to those who are generally termed gentlefolk, and that in the neighbourhood of many of our large towns the law is far more frequently broken by people who hire motor-cars as a means of getting out into the country for a few hours. There is, therefore, no justification for trying to turn this into a class question, and I would venture respectfully and earnestly to express the hope that, whatever may be the attitude of the House of Commons on this very important question, we shall try and deal with it as practical men, without reference to any outside consideration such as I have referred to. It has been said that our object in promoting this Bill is to help the users of motor-cars. I emphatically deny that. The reason that we have asked Parliament to consider this Bill at so late a period of the session is one which every man who looks into the history of the question must easily recognise for himself. Twelve months ago the passage of such a Bill would have been easy; but latterly, in the last six months, there is no doubt that public feeling has been greatly excited by what I can only describe as the disgraceful abuse of their rights and privileges by many users of motor-cars. It is not only the security of life and limb that has to be dealt with, but also the extraordinary discomfort suffered by people who live on the roads which motors largely frequent. Many houses alongside the public roads have been rendered almost uninhabitable, not only by the dust, which is an intolerable nuisance in the summer months, but by other inconveniences which follow from the improper use of this means of conveyance. It is in order to deal with these difficulties that the Government have thought it their duty to introduce the Bill to Parliament, and I therefore ask the House to approach the question from the point of view that we are all agreed that the abuses of the motor-car must be abated, and that the
  1456
  only difference between us is what is the best method of securing that result.
  No doubt in some parts of the country motor-cars can be driven at considerable speed without risk to any human being except the person who occur pies the car. I have myself travelled in an ordinary horse conveyance many miles along such roads. On Salisbury Plain, for instance, one can see the road, which is not bounded with hedges or ditches, for many miles in from, and there is, I am sorry to say, such a limited traffic that one goes long distances without meeting a human being. On such roads a motor-car might be driven at a considerable speed without risk to anybody except the occupants of the car; but on the vast majority of the roads of this country motor-cars ought not to be driven at anything but a very moderate rate of speed. I will come in one moment to the chief feature of this Bill, around which so much controversy has raged, but I ask the House to believe that we propose this legislation to deal with what we recognise to be very great abuses, and we propose it in the present form because we believe it is the best method of dealing with those abuses. Obviously, it has been my business to consult the best authorities on the subject—those who have to carry the law into effect. The police, for instance, have had more personal experience than anybody else, and I may say at once that a very great majority of the chief constables in the country are of opinion that the proposals of the Bill, without a speed limit, are more likely to secure the effective control of motors than with a speed limit. A little fact is worth a good deal of reasoning, so I will give my own experience. I am not a motorist. The other day I was driving a horse conveyance along the road when a motor-car came suddenly round the corner and nearly drove into my horse, and was quickly away while I was attending to my horse, which, naturally, was very restless. Obviously it would not have been possible for me to say at what speed the car was travelling, and under the law as it stands I should have been powerless to act. It is much easier to establish the fact that a man is driving at a speed dangerous to the public than

  1457
  that he is driving beyond a speed limit. If there is a means of identifying a man who causes danger and inconvenience, that is a very much stronger power, and had this particular car been numbered I could quite easily have taken that number and summoned the owner of the car, who paid no attention either to me or to my difficulties. Had I been on Salisbury Plain at the time I should have been quite safe, for I should have been able to see the car coining a long way off and could have been prepared. The hopeless infractions of the present law show that you cannot prevent a man driving beyond a given speed if he chooses to do so. On ordinary country roads the hedges are too high and the turnings too narrow and sudden to afford the protection one has on Salisbury Plain. It is perfectly well known that in country places children often make the road their playground; and it is not reasonable to expect a mother, who has all her household work to do, to be continually watching her children lest they should toddle out into the road. Can she possibly be everlastingly on the watch?
  We are told that there is very little risk, because motors are under greater control than carriages. No doubt a motor-car can be stopped or turned quicker than any other carriage possibly can be, but that depends on the brake being in perfect working order, and some of the worst accidents that have taken place have been due to the failure of the brake power or of the steering gear. It ought not, therefore, to be argued that risks ought to be run by the general public, because motors can be turned or stopped more easily than other carriages. On a great majority of the roads of this country the cars, if they are to be driven with safety to the public, should only travel at a very moderate rate of speed. What we propose is that reckless or negligent driving, or driving at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public, having regard to the use of the highways and the use which may be expected to be made, of them, shall be an offence under the Bill. It is contended in some quarters that that is only a recapitulation of the present law; but that is not the case. The present regulations prohibit a man from driving at
  1458
  any speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having regard to the traffic on the highway, or in such a way as to endanger the life or limb of any person; but the Bill strengthens that by making it an offence also to drive recklessly, negligently, or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public. I am assured by high authorities that that is a very considerable extension of the present law, and that it exposes the driver of a car to a risk of being summoned, to which he is not subjected at present. The Bill provides also, and this is absolutely new, for the registration of cars and the identification of drivers, and for the licensing of drivers, whether professional or amateur, and it makes it obligatory to stop in case of an accident. The Bill further gives power to local authorities to recommend to the central Department that there shall be a limit of speed in certain districts where it maybe desirable, and provides for the setting up of danger boards by County Councils. The Bill is to be applicable to servants of the Crown. That is the best way to deal with those who are determined to break the law. It is said that by holding up a hand one cannot stop a motor-car. That is perfectly true; but we cannot stop it by enacting that it shall not go more than twelve, twenty or thirty miles an hour. It is said if we allow a driver to go at high speed we shall not be able to identify him. I do not think there need be any difficulty in regard to that portion of the question. We make most elaborate provision in the Bill that the distinguishing mark or number shall be capable of being read by day or night, and shall not be obscured by any cause whatever, whether it be temporary, such as dust, or whether it be deliberate on the part of the driver, by covering it with a rug or anything of that kind. We largely increase the fines, and in addition to that we make it possible to imprison the offender for a second offence. I cannot help thinking that these are better precautions than any you could adopt by enacting that twelve or twenty or thirty miles should be the maximum speed. Everybody knows that the maximum speed becomes the minimum speed. If you enact that they shall not go at more than twenty miles an hour, they go at twenty miles an hour. I have examined this question, having

  1459
  in view the checking of the disgraceful abuses which have been indulged in by many of the owners of these cars. I am convinced if you simply say there shall be a limitation of speed which shall be regarded by the public as security, that is no security. The police will be called upon to detect cases by laying traps which are useless, because they are laid in places which are less dangerous than those that have to be dealt with. I am told that motorists are becoming acquainted with these police traps, that they go very carefully past the danger spot, even now, and that they indulge themselves after they have passed it. We do not propose to say that thirty or fifteen or twelve miles an hour is illegal. Instead of that, we say that every man shall drive his car so that the road, when he is on it, shall be safe for the general public. We facilitate the identification of the offender, we provide extra penalties and imprisonment. I believe that is the surest way for dealing with what is unquestionably a serious abuse. On these grounds I ask the House to read the Bill a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple): We all admit that the right hon. Gentleman has devoted a great amount of care and attention to this very important subject, and if only the Bill had been as excellent as his speech, he would have much less difficulty in getting it through the House than he will have to-day. I notice that he still adheres to two great points. One is the total abolition of the speed limit, and the other is the placing of the County Councils under the heel of the Local Government Board. Therefore I intend to move the Motion for the rejection of the Bill standing in my name. In order to assuage the anxiety of my hon. friends who are anxious for the passage of this Bill, I may say at once that I expect to be badly beaten on the Division. In the first place, I shall have against me the thick-and-thin supporters of the Government, who always vote for a Government Bill whatever it may be, and I believe that if a Bill were brought in to increase the speed limit of his Satanic Majesty, these Gentlemen would record their votes in its favour if the Govern-
  1460
  ment Whips held in favour of it. I shall also have against me, I am told, no less than 123 motorist Members of this House. I do not mean to say for one moment that these hon. Gentlemen would allow their private pleasures to conflict with their public duties, but at the same time, I think perhaps they will be prepared to admit that naturally they are prejudiced in favour of a Bill to promote motoring. Then, I regret to say, I have heard—I do not know whether it is true or not—that I am also to have the Irish Party in favour of the Bill. They tell me that they enjoyed the motor races in Ireland so much that the glories of Punches-town will soon be a thing of the past. [An IRISH MEMBER: No.] I am glad to hear that word of denial, because it must be remembered that Ireland is par excellence the country from which we have always obtained good limiters, and I think it will be a had time for many of us when they send over a young motor cycle instead of a promising "lepper." This is a Bill dealing with an amusement which is indulged in principally by wealthy people. I do not know whether one ought to call it a Sports Bill or not. The word "sport" is difficult to define. But if a certain amount of killing or maiming of living creatures is necessarily incidental to a sport, then I think that motorists are justified in dignifying their amusement by that name. In approaching the consideration of a question of this kind it seems to me that we should clearly define what are the respective rights of the public to use the road, and what are the rights of motorists. I may say that there was a very good article on this matter in last month's Nineteenth Century. To my mind it is perfectly clear that there is a very great and inherent difference between the rights of the two parties, because the public has the use of the road by common law, whereas the motorists have only the right by statute. The public have a birthright to use the road, and you can only have legislation to affect their interest where it is clearly and absolutely proved that such legislation is in the interest of the public. The public have a right to come and say—"These roads are ours, and we have a right to use them, and you must not pass any legislation which conflicts with our interests." There can be no doubt that

  1461
  motorists are attempting to limit the right of the public with regard to the roads, and, as a matter of fact, motorists are in the position—I think it is an accurate definition—of statutory trespassers on the road. They have no inherent rights whatever; they have only such rights as have been conferred on them by statute. They come to this House as beggars asking for privileges to be conferred on them, and I think it is only right to remind them of the old adage that "beggars must not be choosers." No one can doubt that the roads were never made for motor-cars. Those who designed them and laid them out never thought of motor-cars. Most of the country roads, other than the old Roman roads, were originally bridle-paths, and they twist and turn in an absolutely incomprehensible manner. We know that the reason of the twisting and turning is that they had to go down to places where rivers could be forded, or to avoid a clump of trees or for some other similar reason. But does anyone think this would have been the case if it had been foreseen that it was intended to use them as railway lines? Certainly not; and therefore I say that we ought to pause before we give motorists the rights they are asking under this Bill.
  What is the present state of the law with regard to this motor question? I must, I am sorry to say, go back to 1861, but only for One purpose—namely, to quote one clause in the Act passed in that year. That is a clause which gives power to the Home Secretary to prohibit any description of locomotive dangerous or inconvenient to the public. I want the House to notice the word inconvenient, because we hear nothing whatever now of the question of inconveniency to the public, yet by common law the public have not only a right to be protected in life and limb, but also a right to he protected against inconvenience. There is not a single word to that effect in this Bill, and therefore it must he admitted that the pub lie are being asked to surrender a very important public right. I pass over the Acts of 1865 and 1878, and come to the Loco motives and Highways Act of 1896. That, of course, is the Magna Charta of motorists. That is the Act under which they live and move and have their being. It exempted from the provisions of previous Acts all those machines which
  1462
  are called light locomotives, under three tons, and so constructed as to prevent the emission of smoke or visible vapour. The Act also made provision with regard to a speed limit. It provided that the speed should not exceed fourteen miles an hour, and it gave the Local Government Board power to make regulations from time to time with regard to the speed limit and other matters. In pursuance of that power the President of the Board has, made regulations, and he in his wisdom saw lit to limit the speed from fourteen to twelve miles. That is the speed limit at present, and that is how the law stands. We are asked to alter the whole of these provisions at this period of the session. I think the very strongest protest ought to be made against an important Bill of this kind being introduced at this period of the session. It is a Bill of the gravest importance. It affects the safety, welfare and comfort of hundreds of thousands, I might say millions, of His Majesty's subjects, and yet here we are asked to pass the Bill at the fag end of the Parliamentary session, and only to devote two or three days of Parliamentary time to it. What is the object of it? The object is simply and entirely that the speed limit restrictions may be withdrawn, and that motorists may have a good time during the coming year. The Act of 1896 was introduced into this House on 18th June, and it received the Royal Assent on 14th August, and yet the House complained that it was introduced without a sufficient amount of time being allowed for the House to discuss it. We are asked to consider this Bill now, and to put it through Committee in less than ten days of Parliamentary time. I do think we ought to make the very strongest and most emphatic protest in our power with regard to this matter. What is the reason why we are asked to pass this Bill at this period? It is because motorists refuse to obey the law as it stands at present. Those gentlemen laugh at your fines and your legislation. They laugh at a £5 fine. Many of them spend more than £5 on a dinner, and they do not care two straws for penalties of that kind. It is because of their attitude that we are asked to legislate now in the autumn. There is only one point on which we have to congratulate the Government, and that is that they have become absolute converts to the doctrine

  1463
  of passive resistance. What is the difference between passive resistance offered by Nonconformists to the education rate and that offered by a wealthy motorcar owner to the law? But note the distinction the Government makes between the rich motorist and the poor Nonconformist. It is quite true that the motorist is actuated by his own pleasure, whereas the passive resister is actuated by conscience.
  MR. WALTER, LONG: Does the hon. Member propose that we should treat the passive resister in regard to education in the same way as we treat the motorists in regard to locomotion—by sending him to prison.
  MR. SOARES: If the right hon. Gentleman would at once bring in a Bill which would meet the approval of all the passive education resisters, as this Bill has the approval of all the passive motor resisters, then we should be happy to pass it. The Prime Minister has told us that on this question of passive resistance in regard to Nonconformists, their action is against all sound logic, all sound morality, and all sound constitutional principles; but when it comes to passive resistance on behalf of the motorists, he at once proceeds to legislate for them. If we wanted an instance that this is not a Government of the people, for the people, and by the people, but a Government of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich, I do not think we could have a better example than we have in this Bill. Need we wonder, then, that the President of the Local Government Board admits the strong feeling in the country. In a letter dated 24th July, he said that there "is an embittered feeling in the general public against all persons who use motor-cars, which, as a dangerous class feeling, is, perhaps, without parallel in modern times." I cordially agree with him. Why does it exist? Is it because the public want the abolition of the speed limit? Is it because the public are not satisfied with the way in which the rural police have administered the law? The right hon. Gentleman himself gives the answer when he says that "the law has been ineffective, and has been brought into contempt. It has failed to protect the public. It has failed to suppress the abuse of the roads by motorists."
  1464
  What the whole country is crying out for at the present time is that you must make the law effective. You must have severer penalties—even imprisoment in certain cases—and some system of registration and licensing. That is done to a certain extent in the Bill. You have a system of registration and licensing, but the other clauses in the Bill are such that, for my part, I would rather do without the Bill as it stands at present than take it.
  The main points of the Bill are the abolition of the speed limit except in special dangerous places where the speed is to be ten miles an hour; second, the identification of the motorist; third, the licensing of the motorist; and fourth, the increase of the pecuniary penalties, with imprisonment for driving at a dangerous pace; and fifth, the placing of the County Council under the Local Government Board in regard to the management of motor traffic. With regard to the speed limit, I think the President of the Local Government Board is somewhat disingenuous. He writes letters to the papers, and on the 30th July he said that "the existing law encourages the motorist in the idea that he cannot be touched unless it can be legally proved that he is travelling at a greater speed than twelve miles an hour." And the right hon. Gentleman has suggested again in his speech to-day that the present law is incapable of dealing with a man guilty of dangerous driving. But he himself read out to the Committee a regulation which he had made, and which is the same that he has seen fit to incorporate in the Bill. It must be remembered that that regulation has been in the hands of every magistrate's clerk in the country who has to advise his Bench in these matters, arid of every rural policeman; and therefore I say that there is no change effected by this Bill in the existing law whatever in regard to dangerous driving except in one respect, and that is the Clause which says that "the police-constable may apprehend without a warrant the driver of any ear who commits an offence within his view." At first sight that seems very severe and drastic, but I should like to know whether that is going to be of any practical use for the public in the end? Let us suppose that a police constable makes an arrest of one of those wealthy motorists whom he comes to the conclusion

  1465
  was driving at a dangerous rate. He brings the motorist before his Bench, and perhaps the Bench refuse to convict, and make strong remarks saying the case had no business to have been brought before them. Immediately an action would he started against the policeman—with the hacking of the influential motor clubs—for false imprisonment, and the policeman would be threatened with all the terrors of the law. You would then have one poor policeman against all the wealth of the motoring fraternity. I think, under these circumstances, there would be very few police-constables who would see fit to arrest a motorist under the provisions of this clause. As a matter of fact, this clause would only be of use in two cases—when a policeman sees that the man in possession of a motor-car is obviously drunk, or when he has seen an accident. But that is like shutting the stable door when the steed has been stolen.
  Who are the people who are agitating for this abolition of the speed limit. They are only those people who, as a matter of fact, motor for pleasure, and as an exhilarating amusement; and in order that these gentlemen may enjoy their rights, we are asked to turn our country roads into railway lines. It is not demanded for trading purposes—at least, I have not heard of any demand coming from traders for the abolition of the speed limit. We all know that there are motor-omnibuses, and motors used for the conveyance of agricultural produce to market, but the owners of these do not want the abolition of the speed limit. And even if you want light motor-cars to carry perishable agricultural produce to market, you do not want them to go at the rate of more than twelve miles an hour. There is one class of men who do use motorcars very largely, and who might possibly want the abolition of the speed limit: I mean the medicial profession; but I have never seen a single petition from any doctor, or any agitation in the medical world, asking for this abolition of the speed limit. And what is the reason? The doctor knows perfectly well that the public do not like to see these motor-cars driving along the roads at headlong speed. Popularity is as necessary to a doctor as it is to a politician, and therefore a doctor is not likely to use his motorcar in that way. Hence I say that the
  1466
  abolition of the speed-limit is not required in the interests of any trade or profession. What is the position of the general public? If this Bill passes there is nothing in it to prevent a motorcar, if the owner knows the road, and if he thinks it perfectly safe for him, going along the road at any hour of the day or night at the rate of thirty or forty miles an hour. Suppose you are driving along one of these roads in the dark, and you see approaching you two great acetylene lights—which are not at all beautiful—and that as it gets nearer the driver begins to blow the instrument called a horn. Not satisfied with that, suppose the driver has pulled out the sparking plug—I do not know whether that is the correct term or not, at any rate the thing which makes a noise like a Gatling gun—[An HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!]—it does, I have heard it; suppose that horrible machine, with all that terrifying noise, rushes past you at the rate of thirty or forty milesan hour? However quiet your horses may be, if there is a ditch handy you will be sure to be in it. The fact of the matter is, that if this Bill passes as it stands, we shall have to give up the use of the roads entirely to the motor fraternity. No one would dare to allow his wife or children to drive along these roads. As the President of the Local Government Board says, this question of the cottages by the roadside is a very important one; but he did not tell us whether he would consent to schedule every road in the country which had a cottage by the roadside, where children were accustomed to play in the road. Of course, if that were the case, the health of these children would suffer. It might be urged that it is illegal for the children to play on the road-side. That may be so, but at the same time, I contend that the health of these children is of much greater importance to the State than the pleasure of the motorists.
  Then there is the dust nuisance. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of this nuisance, but he does nothing to prevent it. Everybody knows that the faster a motor car travels the greater is the dust raised. This dust nuisance is really very important to women who live in cottages and houses on the road-side. We used to see the most elegant balloon-like garments floating in the wind as we passed

  1467
  by. Now, these cannot be dried out of doors and that will seriously affect the health and the comfort of the people who live in the country. As I have said before in this House, there is a great deal of difference between the danger of horse locomotion and motor locomotion. When you are driving a horse there are two brains at work—that of the horse and that of the man—and very often that of the horse is much the best, in the event of a difficulty. But with a motorcar there is only one brain. We hear a great deal about the development of road-side Inns. I venture to say that a motorist who has been developing these road-side Inns by taking a glass at several of these will be much more dangerous to the public than a man who has been doing the same thing, but is driving in a trap, and who will be taken care of by his steady old horse. Then, we are told that this abolition of the time limit means the establishment of a great industry in the country. Possibly it may; but at the same time I do not want to see a great industry established except under proper regulations. There is another thing we must recollect, and that is, if you do establish a great industry it is only a change of industry. We are told that horses are to become as extinct as the dodo; and what then is to become of the horse breeders, the harness makers, the coach-builders? All these industries are bound to be hit, for there is only a certain amount of money to be spent in locomotion. People who keep motors will not keep carriages, or at any rate will not keep so many of them, and there will only be a change of employment for the working man; instead of building carriages he will be building motor-cars.
  The second point with which this Bill deals, and of which I heartily approve, is the registration of motor-cars. I do think that that is a considerable move in the right direction, but at the same time it would be very difficult indeed to work out. As I understand the Bill, there is to be placed on each motor-car a mark indicating the registered number of the car. I should like to know what kind of mark there is going to be. It would have to be of a very distinctive character indeed, otherwise, when struggling with a restive horse, as the President of the Local Government Board was the other
  1468
  day, it would be impossible for a man to distinguish a mark.
  MR. WALTER LONG: My memory is good enough for that.
  MR. SOARES: I am glad to hear it, but some of us are not so gifted, and we should like to know that these marks are going to be of a very distinctive character. Then I strongly object to the amount charged for the registration fee. It is to be the small sum of 5s. The county is to get that, and in return it has to look after the roads, and manage the police, and put up danger signals and boards, which I may point out must be illuminated at night, or else they will be of no use, and they are to get for all that 5s. I call it the height of meanness. You are going to put all these extra rates upon the farmers, whose rates at present are quite high enough, in order that wealthy men may enjoy themselves.
  The next point I wish to deal with is the licensing of motorists, which we approve of, but I think, at the same time, that there should be some test of skill before these licences are obtained. To a certain extent this is demanded by the Bill, because it provides that no person under the age of sixteen is to have a licence. I think we are justified in saying that the President of the Local Government Board certainly thinks there should be some test of skill with regard to this matter, but the Bill does not say so. A regulation made by the Local Government Board under the Act of 1896 says, "There shall be in charge of the light locomotive when used on any highway a person competent to control and direct its use and movement." But under this Bill anyone over the age of sixteen years may have a licence, and the licence may be granted to a deaf man, to a short-sighted man, and a man who has gout in Ins fingers, so that he cannot use the brake; in fact, any kind of cripple is entitled to apply for a licence, and if they do not mind risking their own lives they are to be at liberty to risk the lives of millions of His Majesty's subjects. There is an increase in the penalties which, I think, is a step in the

  1469
  right direction, and if they are not enough, that is a matter we shall be able to amend in Committee.
  The next point is a very important one, and that is the putting of the County Councils under the Local Government Board in regard to scheduling these roads. I object to that. The County Councils pay for the roads, and surely they ought to have a right to manage the traffic upon them. We are told now that the County Councils may be reactionary with regard to motor-cars. You did not say that the County Councils might be re-actionary when you made them responsible for the education of the country. You think that they are competent to manage the education of your children, but you do not think they are competent to regulate motor-cars on the high roads. I consider this is an insult to the County Councils and I am quite sure it will be bitterly resented by the electorate on the very first opportunity.
  There is only one other point I wish to deal with. You talk of this motor industry also as a solution of the housing problem. I think it is possible that in time to come it may do something in that direction, but I should like to point out one matter. To assist the housing problem, passing through the suburban places, there will have to be a great many of these cars and you have to have special roads for them, and therefore with regard to the housing problem the abolition of a speed limit will do no god whatever. I am quite willing to withdraw my opposition to this Bill if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will give way on these two points; if he will give us a speed limit and give the control to the County Councils. If he will not do that then I shall ask the House to vote against this Bill on the ground that you are depriving the masses, without their consent, of their birthright to use these roads, on the ground that this Bill is in the interest of the motorists and not of the general public, and that Parliament has no right to turn our roads into railway lines in order that wealthy men may enjoy the amusement of motoring.
  MR. LUKE WHITE: In seconding the proposal of the hon. Member who has just sat down
  1470
  I do so because I have given great consideration to the provisions of this Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government, Board has asked the House to consider as practical men. In a very few observations I intend to make I shall endeavour to look at this Bill from a practical point of view. With regard to the Bill and many of its provisions there is no doubt a great improvement to the existing law, but taking the Bill as a whole, and especially the clause taking away the speed limit, I think the effect of it will be to make more dangerous, than they are at the present moment, our public roads. We have had five years' experience of motor-cars amid we are now to consider the question of the terms on which motor-cars can occupy our public highways. The right hon. Gentleman in this Bill asks the House of Commons to do away with the speed limit, and he asks the House to do so on the ground that the law at the present time is ineffective. Why is it ineffective? Because the penalties are not sufficiently high at the present time. If a severe penalty had been placed on the Statute-book in the first instance, to be increased on the second offence, with a term of imprisonment for the third offence, we should, in my opinion, have heard very little of those motorists who indulge in exceeding the speed limit in this country. With regard to the question of the speed limit the right hon. Gentleman said it is going to be clearly laid down in the Bill that if a person drives a motor-car on the public highway negligently or recklessly, or at a speed which is dangerous to the public, the person guilty of such an offence under the Act will have to suffer a very heavy penalty. I quite agree with the terms of the first clause of the Bill, but I say that in its provisions you must maintain both in the rural districts and in the towns a speed limit, and that if you do so you will minimise, to a great extent, the dangers on the highways. The right hon. Gentleman said he also proposed in certain districts to give the County Councils power, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, to make a speed limit not to exceed ten miles an hour. I say that if a speed limit in connection with Clause 1 is necessary for populous places, a

  1471
  speed limit is also necessary in the rural country districts in addition to the provisions of the Bill. I consider as far as populous places are concerned you might, without the speed limit under Clause 1 of this Bill, be able to obtain that safety in our public streets, so far as motorists are concerned, because we have in our streets policemen and people who could make a report of those who were driving recklessly and to the danger of the public, but when you get into the rural districts where policemen are scarce, it is absolutely necessary that you should have a speed limit in order to secure a conviction. I was very sorry to observe the other day that the President of the Local Government Board, in a letter which he directed to be written with regard to this Bill, said that he considered persons driving a motor-car beyond the speed limit laid down by law were only committing a technical offence.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member misunderstood me. I was attempting to draw a distinction between the offence in the Bill of a motor-car exceeding the speed limit and the offence of driving to the danger of the public.
  MR. LUKE WHITE: I should be sorry if I had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and I think it is therefore right that I should quote the letter to which I refer.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that that was part of a considerable correspondence that was going on, and I was endeavouring to show that, with a speed limit of twelve miles an hour, a motorist driving nineteen miles an hour, if there was nobody on the road and there was no danger in any case, was committing, to my mind, a technical offence, when, if driving at the same pace in another county, or driving at a pace to the danger of the public was quite another matter.
  MR. LUKE WHITE: Well, I think when an Act of Parliament says a motorist shall not drive more than twelve miles an hour and the motorist goes nineteen miles an hour he is not guilty of a
  1472
  technical offence, he is guilty of breaking the law. The general public has not made this great disturbance against motorists because they have committed a technical offence. The public complain of the motorists because they defy the rule of the road and endanger the lives and limbs of the people. It is on that account that people are against taking away the speed limit in the rural districts. I represent a very large and extensive rural constituency, and in my constituency, as in many of the counties throughout this country, there are roads which are very narrow. There are many of these roads and lanes which are public highways which have no footpath, and which are used for all kinds of vehicular traffic, horses, carts, waggons, and other conveyances, and also by men, women, and children, and I say it would be detrimental to the interests of the rural districts and to the village life of the country if the House of Commons does away with the speed limit and allows motorists to use these lanes in the manner they are attempting to do at the present time. I have no prejudice whatever against motoring. I believe the great majority of motorists at the present time drive along public highways with judgment and care, and that the House of Commons, if it had only to deal with persons of that description would find that no legislation would be necessary. But we have to deal with the class of persons known in this country as "scorchers." Men who have had a day or two's experience on a motor-car and who cannot go below a certain limit, but who, day by day, are endeavouring to drive cars along the highway and whose only limit of speed is the limit of the machine they are driving.
  Many of the provisions of the Bill will require a great deal of discussion in Committee. I will not go into the general bearing of the question now, but there is one point I should like to refer to, and that is, the provisions contained in Clause 8. I do not think such a provision should be inserted in a Motor-Car Bill, because it gives, in a county, a jurisdiction by the County Council over the highways of the non-county boroughs of such a county, with which they have no concern whatever. In a non-county borough of, say, 20,000 inhabitants, where there is a corporation, and where

  1473
  all the streets and roads are vested in the corporation, which is responsible for their maintenance, you go completely over the heads of the corporation to give to the County Council of the county, and not to the corporation, the power to raise these danger posts, and if that power is to be exercised you are going a long way to bring danger on your rural districts. Assume that a County Council sends its inspector to inspect all dangerous corners, cross-roads and side-roads, and he snakes a list which is adopted by the County Council and the Local Government Board, and after that a motorist going through the county comes to a cross-road or a side-road where there is no sign-post and there is an accident, he will at once say—his defence will be—that there was no danger-post at that particular road, and therefore he had a right to go past that cross-road at any speed he liked; this provision, therefore, will be to the detriment and not to the benefit of the public at all. With regard to the Bill as a whole I shall be satisfied if the House of Commons in Committee would make this measure a practical one in the interests of the public, but only upon one ground, which is, that the President of the Local Government Board gives way on the question of the speed limit in rural districts. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of the rural districts generally, to give way on this point, and, notwithstanding all other safeguards, to allow the rural districts to have the benefit of the speed limit which they have at the present time. Increase the speed limit if it is necessary, and I have no doubt it might be increased to some extent without detriment to the public under certain conditions. I say increase it if you will, but do not pass this Bill into law and allow a motorist to go at any speed he likes, subject to the provision of Clause 1, but put a hunt on his speed and safeguard the public from that danger that must ensue if the speed limit is done away with altogether.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Soares.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CRIPPS: I admit that for my part I entirely agree with what the two last speakers have said as regards the absolute necessity for a speed limit, although it might be increased under this proposed legislation, and I further agree that the treatment of the County Councils under this Bill is not only derogatory to the powers of those bodies, but is really based on an entire misapprehension of the law relating to highways in this country. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, if he were present, that the vast majority of our country roads are district highways, with which the County Councils have nothing whatever to do from beginning to end, and of which they have neither knowledge of the conditions nor the control of them, nor do they repair them, and if you put these roads under the County Councils, subject to the Local Government Board, you would really be upsetting the jurisdiction and powers of the local authorities as regards the highways in various parts of the country. That is a matter which no doubt might be set right in Committee. The speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in my opinion more than justifies the view of those who think the speed limit ought to be retained. No one put more forcibly than he did, and no one recognised more fully, the evils which exist at the present time; but I think that he forgot to make this one remark, that these evils are not the result of legislation but are due to the action of law breakers who disregard legislation, and what we want is not an alteration in the direction of restriction but the power to inflict far higher penalties, that those who break the law may he made amenable to it as regards motor traffic. Now there is another point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board which struck me very much. He said with regard to the vast majority of roads in this country there ought to be a speed limit, and that only in some cases might there be an

  1475
  exception, and he instanced the case of Salisbury Plain. Now, nothing can be worse when dealing with an admitted evil than to base your legislation upon exceptional cases, and if it is true that on the country roads you ought to have a speed limit it is no argument to say that there are some roads so isolated and so lonely that a speed limit is unnecessary.
  Now let me say one word as to the impossibility of the enjoyment of our country roads under the present system. It is a system which interests the country more than the town, for in the towns, in the first place, there is a far larger amount of traffic, and that in itself is a great measure of safety, because motorists cannot go at the extreme pace in towns that they can in country districts. But there is a much more important element than that in the town districts. Suppose you have not a speed limit. In the towns you always have police or members of the police force to see that the law is enforced, but you do not have those police in lonely country lanes, and unless you have some hard-and-fast line by which you can bring the motorists to book, you will have great difficulty in dealing with these motorists in the country districts, and so far from, their having the right to go faster over these lonely roads, I say it is exactly in those roads that there is the greatest tendency to accident. It is most important that you should have some speed limit. With regard to the speed limit, let me say that in advocating the speed limit we are not saying that the other conditions of the Bill are not necessary. Everyone admits that it is necessary to license drivers, whatever the conditions may be. It is nothing less than a scandal at the present time that these drivers should be able to get away in the way in which they do without being recognised, and it is absolutely necessary that there should be some way of identifying them—those law breakers, who having conduced to the accidents, very often go away as fast as they can without regard to what has happened.
  Let me say, now that the right hon. Gentleman is present, that I think he has quite misunderstood the law as it stands at the present time. That is a
  1476
  very grave allegation to make against the President of the Local Government Board, but as that was part of his argument I will try and substantiate what I say. According to the law as it stands every driver of a motor car is not only subject to a speed limit by the regulations of the Local Government Board—and I agree here with the views expressed by one of the chief constables in the country that the regulations which now exist are more easily enforceable and better in the interests of the public than those of the proposed Bill—but if is sufficient for my purpose to say, you have the same regulations in both cases. It does not matter whether you are talking about reckless driving, or driving that is neither reasonable not proper. There is not the slightest doubt that, although the penalties are not sufficiently severe, Section 1 of this Bill does not in any respect increase the liability of motor-car drivers, so that you have the speed limit taken away on the one hand, and no increase of regulations against the motor-car drivers on the other. As compared with the Act of 1835, Section 1 of the Bill does nothing more than put the motor-car drivers in the same position as drivers of ordinary vehicles, but under more favourable conditions. Here it is "reckless driving to the danger of the individual." There is no difference in substance. Under Subsection 2, a motor-car driver may be apprehended by a constable, but under the Highways Act any one who sees the offence may apprehend the furious driver without any warrant. So far from this Bill imposing any additional restriction, it is an alleviation of the general law in favour of the motor-car drivers. The limitation of the power of apprehension to constables is a serious matter in the country. It is all very well in the towns, but where in the country will you find police constables to apprehend offenders? Why should a motor-car driver be put in a more favourable position than an ordinary driver? Yet I have heard it mote than once argued that this special provision justifies the removal of the speed limit! Then as regards the latter part of the clause. What happens under the general law to an ordinary driver? Under the Act of 1835, if he does not give his name he is liable to

  1477
  three mouths' imprisonment. I admit there are other things added here, but there is no greater restriction; there is, in fact, an alleviation as compared with the existing law. Some proper form of regulation is necessary in order that the public may enjoy the public highways in the future as they have done in the past. I do not want to go beyond that. If you do you will put upon motor-car drivers and motorists restrictions which no one desires. But we must recollect, as the hon. Member opposite said, it is our birthright to have the common use of these roads, and, speaking as a countryman who lives in a district where the roads are narrow, I say without hesitation that we no longer have as our birthright the common use of these highways. We can no longer go out ourselves without danger; we are afraid to send out our children, and, unless you are as skilled a driver as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, you must drive only steady old horses which, instead of requiring to be looked after, look after you.
  This is an extremely serious question. It is not a matter which can be put off any longer. But if we are to have legislation—and we ought to have it—we must have it once for all on the best possible basis. Unless we do, such a feeling will arise in the country against motorists and motor-cars that either they will not be allowed to use our roads at all, or they will run an imminent risk of being attacked in some of the country districts. The feeling which has already been aroused cannot be exaggerated. I am sorry it is so, because if only the law had been obeyed—and that is the whole question—there would not have been anything like this outcry. Who have not obeyed the law? I do not want to raise any class question, but those who have not obeyed the law are men who think nothing of a £5 or a £10 fine, who put it down as a part of the expense of their amusement, and either insure against it or laugh at the magistrate when the penalty is imposed. It is a great mistake to assume that the speed limit has been a failure. It has been a failure only in respect of the comparatively inadequate penalty. The police have acted admirably. In
  1478
  some of the northern counties—particularly Yorkshire—they have acted not only admirably but effectively. If you gave your magistrates power on the second or third occasion to send these people to prison you would put an end to a most crying evil. There ought to be some limitation, and it will be the greatest mistake imaginable to remove the chief safeguard, we at present have, as regards our country roads. With regard to the powers of the County and District Councils, what are these roads which are being destroyed as far as the common user is concerned? Take the District Council roads. They are roads which have been given and repaired by, and which belong to, the local people, and yet you are to allow the use of these roads to be taken out of the hands of the local people by those who have no interest in the district, who have done nothing to create the roads, and who do not pay a penny towards their repair or maintenance. The only effect of the Bill is, apparently, to impose upon the locality certain expense for the erection of notices and so forth. No reason has been given by the right hon. Gentleman for the removal of the speed limit. All the other regulations in this Bill could, and ought, to co-exist with the speed limit. Depend upon it, if these motorists and motor-cars are not kept in order they will have to leave our roads altogether, because in the long run the people will never submit to the intolerable nuisance which has been created.
  MR. WILLIAM MCARTHUR: I should like to say at once that I am not one of those people who have an antipathy to motor-cars. I am not a motorist myself. A horse is good enough for me, and until I am unable to ride or drive I should prefer a horse to a motorcar. But the question of the motor-car is not altogether a rich man's question. It is quite possible that there may be developments of the industry, both as regards the employment given by the manufacture of these cars and as to the use to which they may be put in the country, which will give the common people a much greater interest in the

  1479
  motor-car than they have at present. I therefore am not prejudiced against the cars. On the other hand, I am certainly strongly opposed to this Bill as it stands, and unless some prospect of modification is held out I shall vote against the Second Reading and oppose its further progress to the best of my ability. Perhaps I speak a little feelingly on the matter, because in order to reach my home in the country I have to drive about a mile and a quarter along the Brighton road, and everybody who has to travel along that road knows what an unmitigated curse and nuisance the motor may become whets it is driven by a person hardly competent to drive, or who is careless of the safety or convenience of other users of the road. Along that road there is a constant stream of motors, and I have been practically compelled to give up the use of the road, and to forbid my children to ride along it. A large part of the difficulty is caused by incompetent drivers. Personally I have no complaint to make about the great bulk of the people who use and drive motor-cars. I have found the bulk of them perfectly ready to stop but I have found some who are simply ruffians, and who ought to receive the severest punishment the law can give. I have seen cars describing a series of S's as they came along the road, so utterly incompetent were the drivers. The point I want to make is this: If a man is to be put on the public road in control of one of these powerful machines there ought to be some guarantee that he knows what he is doing when he gets on the driver's seat. I should not be allowed to drive a four-wheeled cab down the Thames Embankment without my capacity to drive being subjected to some sort of test, and yet under this Bill it is seriously proposed that anyone who applies for a licence should be put in charge of a ton of iron which can be driven at sixty miles an hour, and nothing is to happen unless he commits an offence. This appears to be a most preposterous position, and there is no comparison whatever between the man who drives a motor-car and the man who drives an ordinary horse. There is no comparison whatever as to the amount of danger. I do not think that this Bill ought to be
  1480
  passed unless the right hon. Gentleman is willing to consent to some test of efficiency being applied to the people who apply for these licences. If I am asked what that test ought to be, and what machinery I would suggest for examining these people, I would reply that that is not my business. I am not a person desiring to drive at sixty miles an hour, and, personally, I do not want anybody else to do it. I think it is the business of the Government to provide machinery to insure that the man who is granted a licence must show that he is capable of controlling his motor-car, knows how to drive, and is a skilled person as regards driving. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me in that.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Hear, hear.
  MR. WILLIAM MCARTHUR: Do I understand then that the Government in Committee will be willing to insert words providing that there shall be a test of efficiency for people who apply for licences?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I shall be prepared to make the certificate, which is now only a certificate authorising to drive, one which will be only granted after there has been some test of efficiency applied.
  MR. WILLIAM MCARTHUR: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, and under the circumstances I will not pursue my remarks. If a real test of efficiency is applied, I think it will increase the safety of the public. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the position he has taken up.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: In the speeches which have been made during this debate I notice a great many complaints have been brought forward which I think will be very largely remedied by the Bill now before the House. As an illustration may I be permitted to say, first of all, with reference to the last declaration made by the President of the Local Government Board, that if the public and the House wish the certificate he

  1481
  proposes to grant to be one of efficiency I am quite sure no motorist will object. I will point out, however, that such a certificate is in no degree a real guarantee of safety and will do nothing to cure the evils which I think we are all united in wishing to remedy. The examination which a driver undergoes in France, Germany, and other countries consists of a test of his knowledge of the engine and of his skill in the management of the engine and car combined. But the rash man may be a skilled engineer, and a man may perhaps be the finest driver in Europe and yet be wanting in consideration towards the other users of the road and the public generally. My experience is that in the worst cases of motor scorchers, or "road hogs," the men are nearly always very skilled, and their skill breeds a confidence that is dangerous The speeches of the mover and the seconder of the rejection of this Bill contained many amusing points to one who was listening to the debate from the opposite point, of view. The hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division of Devonshire suggested, amongst other things, that motorists desire to monopolise the roads. That is not so, because they only wish to be included as part of the public who have the right to use the roads. As one of the public, and as one who rides and drives, as well as one who drives a motor-car, I can say that no motorist has ever expressed a wish to monopolise the highways; but nevertheless the tendency in this country is to make our highways more suitable for fast traffic and to increase the facilities for so doing. It may be that in the future the fast traffic will increase out of all proportion to the slow traffic, but it is no argument to say that on this account motorists wish to monopolise the roads. The hon. Member also referred in his speech to a fear that motor-cars would supersede horses and do a great deal of harm to horse breeding. I do not believe the introduction of motor-cars will ever affect the riding of horses; the prophecies that have been made are as likely to be falsified as have been those made when railways were introduced in this country. May I read art extract from a speech which was
  1482
  made from the same Benches in the year 1826—
  Extract from Sir Isaac Coffin's speech in House of Commons, 6th April, 1826, Liverpool and Manchester Railway—
  "How would any person like to have a rail road tinder his parlour window? What was to be done with all those who had advanced money in making and repairing turnpike roads? What will those who may still wish to travel in their own or hired carriages after the fashion of their forefathers do? What was to become of coach-makers and harness-makers, coach masters and coachmen, inn-keepers, horse breeders and horsedealers? Was the House aware of the smoke and noise, the hiss and the whirl which locomotive engines passing at the rate of ten or twelve miles an hour would occasion? Neither the cattle ploughing in the field or grazing in the meadows could behold them without dismay. Iron would be raised in price 100 per cent., or more probably exhausted altogether! It would be the greatest nuisance, the most complete disturbance of quiet and comfort in all parts of the kingdom that the ingenuity of man could invent."
  We have lived to see those gloomy prophecies utterly falsified. In the early days of bicycles the same objections as are now being urged against us were raised against them. I remember that some ten years ago, when it was not considered quite convenable for a Member of Parliament to ride a bicycle, much the same sort of thing was said about bicycles. I remember coming to this House in 1893 riding a bicycle, and being the object of some amusement and derision to the cabdrivers and policemen because I came down in a manner which was considered improper for a Member of Parliament. Opposition to new methods of conveyance and to their development has always come in the same kind of way.
  This Bill as it stands to-day I am confident would not be supported by any motorist Member of this House unless he was conscious that he was looking at the question from a public point of view. If I took a selfish view of this question I should vote against this Bill because it is going to place tremendous penalties in the hands of magistrates, some of whom are intensely prejudiced, and have announced that their object is to suppress motoring. This Bill puts into the hands of these gentlemen penalties which I am sure the hon. Member for the Stretford Division of Manchester will agree are unprecedented as regards any

  1483
  other form of traffic. Hon. Members who oppose this Bill should remember that motorists are being treated with far more severe penalties than anything which has yet been enacted for other users of the highways. There is, for instance, the power to arrest under Section 2 of Clause 1, which the hon. Member referred to. I quite agree that that power exists in the old Act, but it is not weakened by insertion in this Bill, nor is it merely repeated, for there are heavier penalties for infringement and it will draw the attention of magistrates to this power of suppressing reckless driving. There is a clause in this Bill which I think is quite unique. There is an obligation imposed upon motorists, under a penalty of £10 to stop in case an accident occurs. I thoroughly and cordially agree with this particular section, but allow me to point out that under similar circumstances there is no obligation on anybody else to stop on the road after causing an accident. In future a person knocked down by a dogcart or van or a hansom cab is in a far worse position than a person knocked down by a motor-car. [Cries of dissent] Well, can any hon. Member tell me of any Act under which the driver of any other kind of vehicle is obliged to stop in case of accident. I think not. [Cheers.] With regard to the "control" areas I think the ten miles an hour limit will be of great advantage to the public. However, I would point out that very often an ordinary dog-cart goes along the road at twelve miles an hour, and therefore I think ten miles an hour is too slow for practical purposes. Then there is a provision for the deprivation of licences in case of serious misconduct. I think hon. Gentlemen have rather overlooked the great safeguard that this provision will be. I agree in the desirability of this power being inserted, and I think it is a concession to the public which they ought to have. Hon. Gentlemen who oppose the Bill do not seem to appreciate it from the public's point of view.
  The question as to what advantage motorists get under this Bill is one of much debate, and I can only tell hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that, so far as I can judge from the letters I have received, motorists oppose the Bill. I
  1484
  have incurred a good deal of odium from my brother motorists for favouring the Bill. More than a year ago I introduced an identification Bill into this House, and this year I again introduced a Bill dealing with registration and licensing, and, therefore, I cannot be accused of having wantonly opposed the interests of the public. There is another argument which has been used by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, which I do not think is quite correct. They say, "Why should the ratepayer in the rural districts be called upon to keep up main roads and other roads for the sake of motorists?" Well, that is a very specious argument on the face of it. But prior to 1888 there was a grant-in-aid towards main roads amounting to 50 per cent. of their cost. Since County Council government came into operation, grants-in-aid of local taxation superseded the amounts previously granted. The State has therefore rightly considered that a man who travels from London to. York is a person who ought to pay the proportion of the upkeep of the roads, and these grants-in-aid are made on account of the long-distance traveller, and only half the cost is borne by the localities. It has been said several times during the debate that this is a class question. It is not a class question. Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen realise that there are 20,000 motor cycles in this country? I venture to say that by this time next year there will probably be three times as many motor-cycles as motor-cars. And if you could analyse the motor-cars it would he found that not more than one in ten costs more than £500 or £600. There are a large number of cars used by the professional classes of the country who are not at all rich men, and who cannot afford to keep a coachman and horses. They use motor-voitinettes, which cost from £100 to £200. These are rapidly increasing, and they ought not to be lost sight of. It, is assumed that when a gentleman uses cars he must necessarily be a rich man. According to that argument I should be a very rich man indeed; I only wish I was A small motor-car nowadays is within the reach of anyone who can own a brougham and pair of horses, or even a dog-cart. I would only say that so far as regards the motorists' point of view of the Bill, if we consulted solely our

  1485
  personal interests, we should not be over-keen to see Second Reading carried, but we shall support it for the sake of the future. We feel quite as strongly as the gentlemen who differ from us, about the road scorcher. It is because this Bill gives proper safeguards to the public, and is, I think, a fair compromise on a very difficult question, that I shall support the Second Reading.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: The hon. Member who has just spoken as a motorist has, I think, been the first Member of the House who has supported the measure introduced by the President of the Local Government Board. The House is indebted to the hon. Member for having called attention to a few of those questions which were entirely overlooked by some of my hon. friends behind me. It has been assumed by the assailants of this measure that the motorist is an intruder on the highway, that he has no right there, that he has a precarious tenure obtained under certain statutes, that he is regulated by previous measures, and that it is proposed that he should be still further restricted by the measure before the House. Now it would be well, before one forms an opinion as to the measure proposed, to get rid of the notion that an ordinary passenger who uses the highway on foot, or uses it on any form of vehicle, has a higher right to the use of that highway than the motorist. The right and the obligation rest equally upon all who make use of the highway. As I understand the law the highway must be used reasonably. There is no absolute duty, it is a relative duty, it must be used relatively to the rights, convenience and safety of others who are equally entitled to avail themselves of the dedication of the owner of the land who created the highway. Now, if that is so one has to ask one's self the simple question whether it is possible to regulate the use of the highway by those high travelling machines in such a way as to permit of its safe use by other persons who may travel on foot, or by children who may play on the highway, or persons who may be driving a restive pair of horses. Well, of course, it is quite possible for the House to say that the use of the highway by machines
  1486
  capable of traveling at express speed, and which in point of fact do on occasion travel at express speed regardless of consequences, shall be altogether prohibited. If the House is not prepared to take that step, some medium line must be found by which, if possible, the user of the highway for motor-cars may be so regulated as not to interefere with vehicles of other sorts.
  I confess that when I approached this Bill I looked at it very much in the same way as some of my hon. friends behind. I thought it an inefficient and bad Bill. I thought it was a Bill framed in the interest of motorists, and I was rather led to that conclusion by the unfortunate fact that the first section of the Bill creates an offence, and in creating the offence simply defines the existing law. That is perfectly true. As the hon. Member for the Stretford Division pointed out, the first section is a mere definition of the existing law. The motorist uses the highway subject to the obligations of the common law and subject to the obligations created under the statute of 1888, and no motorist can use the highway unless his vehicle be skilfully and carefully guided, unless it is under control, and driven so that no nuisance to the public or to a private person is occasioned by the use to which the vehicle is put. It appears that the strong objection to the Bill is that you are introducing restrictive legislation by merely defining the existing law and re-enacting existing penalties. The answer to that argument is that you could not have a more stringent law than that which exists at the present moment. If you are to allow motorists to use the highway at all you must enact that they shall use the highway carefully, without negligence, without recklessness, without undue speed and with due consideration for the convenience and safety of other persons who have an equal right to its use. If you find the law severe enough as it stands the only question that arises is whether or not you can make its application more efficient than at present, so as to check the nuisance which we all feel. Now, is that possible? The right hon. Gentleman has called attention to various provisions in the Bill which certainly do render possible a very much more strengthened

  1487
  application of these legal provisions. Identification of the offender is made easy, detection is greatly facilitated, and prosecution is rendered easy. The task of the police is made simple and many impediments cast in their way at present are removed. You have constituted a tribunal which has as little sympathy with motorists as possibly it has with the poacher, namely, a bench of county magistrates. You can prosecute the motorist by the instrumentality of the police. If you can submit a case to the decision of a bench of county magistrates it seems to me that you have done a great deal towards rendering the administration of the law efficient. Various hon. Members have said that this is entirely insufficient, because there is no speed limit, and I understand that is the cardinal question on which the fate of the Bill will depend.
  Is it desirable to have a speed limit? The proposal of a speed limit is exceedingly seductive, it simplifies the definition of recklessness, undue speed, and the careless use of the highway. It substitutes for the exceedingly elastic and flexible standard of this section the simple question Aye or No, a decision arrived at by a stop-watch at what rate the particular machine was travelling.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: The proposal is to add a speed limit to the other safeguards already in the Bill.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: At all events I think the motorist is to have very little chance if he exceeds the speed limit. If you once enact a maximum limit, practice shows that it almost always becomes a minimum limit. In other words, if you say that a locomotive shall not travel more than fifteen miles an hour, the impression is created that it may travel at fifteen miles an hour. That is a test which every policeman understands and which he will apply. Surely nothing can be more illogical than to apply a fixed limit of speed to the regulation of the transit of a vehicle over the roadway, where the obligations for care vary infinitely, where the risks are numerous, and where what would be safe in one case would be exceedingly dangerous in another.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see from the way in which diverse opinions with regard to this Bill are distributed about the Benches, that it ought not to be made a Party matter. Of all the Bills ever brought into this House, this one least merits Party treatment. I certainly hope the right hon. Gentleman will not make the absence of a speed limit a Party matter because such insistence will wreck the Bill. I must vote against the Bill unless that matter be left to the Committee. The Bill, without a speed limit—and I speak not of its intention, because I give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for good intention, but of its operation and result—is a Bill to promote danger to life and inconvenience in their daily avocations amongst the vast majority of His Majesty's subjects. I will not talk about class legislation; it is rather a piece of sectional legislation, to permanently sanction to a comparatively small number of wealthy and luxurious people a right which in practice they have illegally seized upon, and which, as it is utterly inconsistent with popular rights, they should be summarily deprived of, and not confirmed in. I regret that the Bill has been introduced into the House of Lords first. That may have been only an error of judgment; but it is certainly unfortunate when we are dealing with a piece of sectional and anti-popular legislation. One would have thought that a Bill injuriously affecting a great majority of the voters in every constituency represented by hon. Members was a matter primarily and mainly for this House to consider and formulate; and that it was neither necessary, nor consistent with the spirit of our legislative procedure, to bring to bear on the general scope, or the detailed provisions, of the Bill the prior support of large majorities in the House of Lords. I cannot in the least understand the arguments of those who profess to wish to secure a safe and proper use of the highway, and in the same breath say that in order to do so you must not have a speed limit. Excessive speed has always been recognised to he a dangerous and inconvenient use of the road and the street. Still less can I understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that because you have a speed limit, therefore you cannot have the other provisions and

  1489
  safeguards in the Bill. When you have a speed limit you have something certain, a mathematical test, to go on. You propose to supply its place by a vague expression as to "reckless driving" or "driving at a speed which is dangerous to the public." One objection constantly raised against a speed limit is that the person who takes the time—the policeman—both makes mistakes and gives false evidence But by removing a speed limit you are placing a far heavier more delicate, and more doubtful responsibility on this officer of the law, whom you call incompetent and unreliable. You are removing a check on him which—although he may make mistakes—gives a certain mechanical certainty. With the speed limit it is the stop-watch against, the motor-car. But by this Bill he has to assume a far different office. He becomes—this person whom you can not trust when he has a mathematical or mechanical guide to aid him—the judge of a phrase, the sole interpreter of a lengthy clause in a Bill. He, acting on his sole unaided judgment, is the arbiter of your destinies. ["No: The Magistrates."] It is absurd to suppose if you cannot trust this officer with the lesser and more fixed responsibility you can trust him with the greater and vaguer one.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Anyone on the road, the hon. Gentleman or myself, could bring the charge.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Of course; if the policeman is not there there is no charge brought.
  MR. WALTER LONG: If a humble individual like myself is driven over by the motor-ear, what is there in the Bill to prevent me bringing a charge against the driver, although I am not a police constable?
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: But what is the ease now? The great majority of the charges are brought by the police. That is exactly what will happen in the future. And my point is that by removing the speed limit you are making those mistakes on the part of the police more possible and more likely; and my answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds is that there is
  1490
  not the slightest reason why you should not have the two safeguards combined; both your first clause with your other provisions for safety in this Bill, and the added certainty of the speed limit. That would meet the sensible objection that a speed limit is not of itself an assurance of safety to non-motorists, and the puerile objection that if there is a speed limit, the motorists, will come to think that is the only legitimate cheek on his actions, and that so long as he keeps within the speed limit, he is keeping within the law. It would be perfectly easy to make it clear in the Bill, both to the motorist and to the magistrate, that the two safeguards—the speed limit and the provisions to secure the safety of passengers within it—were not exclusive of each other. The great advantage would be that it would be submitting a large number—probably the majority—of cases of offence to a matter of mathematically ascertainable fact, and leave the smaller number of such offences to a matter of opinion or interpretation of a clause by the police, constable.
  I should like to make a remark or two on one argument which is used in favour of motor-cars, or rather in favour of their being granted an excessive rate of speed on the highway—because I am not, and no one is, against motor-cars, if they are reasonably and properly used. The argument may be called the industrial argument, that by limiting the speed we are limiting the introduction and growth of a valuable industry in tins country. And there is a sort of suggestion attached, that we are also limiting the use of the motor-ear for industrial purposes, i.e., for use as a means of conveyance for the masses. Let me deal with the latter idea first. If motor-cars come to be used as a means of public conveyance they will never he used at the extreme speed made legal by this Bill. Therefore the excess of speed is the differentia between motor-cars used as a public convenience and motor-ears used as a luxury. The effect of this Bill will be to legalise their use as a luxury, and if you do not place a speed limit in it, it will stand always on the Statute-book as a Bill passed for the benefit of the privileged few. Now, as to limiting a valuable industry, i.e., the manufacture of motor-cars. At present the vast majority of people, both capitalists

  1491
  and wage-earners, who will suffer by this limitation, are foreigners. Look at the great majority of these hideous machines, which cost from £1,000 to £2,000 apiece, and go fifty miles an hour along our roads, scattering death and destruction and terror and inconvenience amongst the humbler users of the highway. What are the names on them—Panhard, Daimler, Mors, Mercedes, Peugeot. They are all foreigners.
  Mr. SCOTT-MONTAGU: Does the hon. Member know that nearly every one of the makers he has named has branches in England?
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Yes; but the money made by these foreigners goes abroad. I hear they make 200 per cent. profit on every machine. They talk about these being wonderful inventions, and that it is wrong to arrest at its birth such a great discovery. But motor-cars were invented before railways, and have lain in statu quo for seventy or eighty years. There is no department in which the inventive faculty has been so torpid, or mechanical enterprise so miserably slow, as in motor-cars
  [AN HON. MEMBER: That is because of the restrictions placed upon them.]
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Those restrictions were placed on them and maintained for the sake of the public convenience, and no other class of invention in this country has ever had to rely upon conditions which sacrifice the public convenience to the privilege of the few. An hon. Member has quoted the case of the early opposition to railways and tried to draw an analogy between that and the present opposition to motor-cars. As I have already said, I am not opposed to motor-cars. I am only opposed to their improper use. But what is the true analogy between the introduction of railways and the present proposals? When people came to Parliament eighty years ago and asked to be allowed to develop this sort of locomotion at an excessive speed on the public road, what did Parliament do? It said to them: "If you want to use these engines you must build a road for them yourselves"; and it compelled them to build railroads,
  1492
  which took them off the highway. But Parliament did something more. It was so careful of the public interest that it compelled the railway companies to give any private individual the right to run his own engine and carriages along the lines they had built. That was the spirit in which Parliament guarded public interest as compared with the spirit of these proposals which, without a speed limit, will guard only the interests of the privileged few. I will conclude by again begging the right hon. Gentleman not to wreck his Bill by omitting the speed limit.
  MR. NORMAN: There is hardly a statement of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that anyone who has studied, even in an elementary way, the question of motoring could not reply to. The hon. Gentleman said that there was no question involved of injuring industries in this country, as all the cars were manufactured abroad; but there was already a very large industry in the manufacture of motorcars, and motorcycles in this country, and many work men and a large amount of capital were employed in connection with it. The reason why many cars had foreign names, and were manufactured abroad, was because of legislation in this country which had compelled a motor-car to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag, whereas abroad motor-cars had long been given the legitimate use of the roads. Therefore, the argument of the hon. Gentleman on that point fell to the ground. Any stranger listening to this debate would draw the conclusion from the speeches of many hon. Gentlemen that motorists were in the habit of killing men and women and leaving corpses of little children strewn about the village streets. The precise contrary is the case. A motor-car is the safest vehicle using the roads to-day; and I am prepared to substantiate that statement. In the whole of the metropolitan police district, which covers an enormous area, during the year 1902 not one person was killed by a light locomotive of any kind or description. A motor-car journal has very wisely been collecting the statistics of persons killed by horse vehicles; and the number killed or injured during a period of eight or nine

  1493
  months has been about 7,000. There fore, as a matter of fact, not as a matter opinion, there is less damage done to the public by motor-cars than by any other vehicle using the road. I should explain, of course, that that statement must he taken in a proportionate sense, but even proportionately it is true. Anyone would imagine that motorists desired to insure murderous persons against punishment. As a matter of fact, no one was more opposed to what was commonly known as "the road hog" than the motorists, because motorists suffer more from such persons than any other class of the community. [An HON. MEMBER: How?] Well, by inducing speeches like that just delivered by the hon. Gentleman opposite for one thing We admit that there are a certain unmber of men who use motor-cars to-day with the grossest disregard of the rights of others. We admit that, and we deplore it. We hold that there is just one way of all others to stop them, and that is what has been proposed by motorists themselves, namely, identification. As soon as a man knows that his car carries a mark of identification which is able to bring a policeman ringing at his from door within forty-eight hours, that will be effective enough to prevent 90 per cent. of motoring offences. The remaining 10 per cent, can only be suppressed by heavy fines and imprisonment. The severest punishment that can he inflicted on a man driving rapidly round sharp corners or through village streets will have the sympathy of 999 out of every 1,000 motorists. I think it would be to the public advantage if it were generally believed that the fact that a man drives a motor-car does not make him, all at once, a ruffian. After all, motorists are much like other people. I have driven a motor-car a great deal myself, and I have often driven at a fast speed, but I do not think I ever put anybody to any danger or inconvenience except by reason of dust, which motorists admit is a grave discomfort. If hon. Gentlemen would only start with the belief that motorists are as well disposed towards the public as others, and have an equally kindly feeling, it would enable us to discuss this Bill more profitably.
  My hon. friend the Member for the New large Forest made a comparison between the
  1494
  opposition which was offered to railways and bicycles and that which is now being offered to motor-cars. I know of nothing, however about which so much persistent however, about which so much persistent misrepresentation had been published as about the motor-cars. It is a strong thing to say; but there are really people in this country who invent deliberate lies in order to injure motorists. There was the case the other day, quoted by Lord Camperdown in the House Lords, but which he withdrew when he found it was baseless, about a certain young lady whose horse was frightened by a motor-car and who was thrown into a ditch, the motorist driving away. That was investigated by some motorists, and it was found that there was no question of motor-car at all. The young lady herself said that she did not see a motor-car, but that her horse was frightened by a threshing machine. Even The Times printed a letter the other day in which it was stated that a motor-car was seen at Maidenhead covered with mud, and that the ostler told the writer the chauffeur had told him that it had been driven from London at the rate of ninety-two miles an hour, which was of course, perfectly ludicrous. Yet so great is the genuine and honest ignorance on this subject that the greatest paper in the world prints a letter of that kind. The Times also published a statement that the dropping of petrol poisons streams and ponds along the roads' but the best way to disprove that statement is to drop petrol on one's hand, when it will be found to disappear without stain or smell. I hope my hon. friend the member for the Barnstaple division will forgive me for saying that his description of one motor-car passing another at night at a speed of forty miles an hour with its sparking-plug out, possesses a peculiar humour, which can only be appreciated by motorists. The greatest in every speech delivered against the Bill this afternoon, is that the motor-car is the rich man's toy. I do not know what one can do to dispel that delusion. Is a motor-cycle a rich man's toy; or is the little motor-car which costs£125, or £135, or £170 a rich man's toy? These small cars are now being sold in very large numbers; and one firm even at the end of the motoring season is putting

  1495
  1,000 of these cars on the market Are these cars rich men's toys? If so, is a pony and trap a rich man's toy? My point is a car of that kind, allowing for depreciation, can be kept for little more than the cost of an ordinary horse and trap; therefore, unless a horse and trap is a rich man's toy, how can the small motor-car be a rich man's toy?
  Finally, as to the question of the speed limit, motorists wish the speed limit abolished, not because they want to drive at an excessive pace, say seventy or eighty miles an hour, which is all nonsense, but in order that if they are punished they may be punished for a genuine offence they have committed. At the present moment a motorist is punished for going at the rate of twelve-and-a-half miles an hour in circumstances of absolute safety. The police set traps in the early morning in places like the Hog's Back; and no one can realise, except those who have suffered from them, how absurd are many of the offences for which motorists are fined. The motorists' point is that, if they are punished, they should be punished for a real offence. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Stretford Division used an argument with which there is a great deal of sympathy on the other side of the House. He asks, Why should motorists go faster than the present traffic? But why should they not? Surely, if they desire to go faster, and if it can be done with safety, as we contend it can, why should they not be allowed to do so? I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade need have any very great anxiety in connection with the argument that motor-car traffic ought to be stopped because it goes faster than horse and trap traffic. With regard to horses, every motorist knows that horses which are alarmed at motor-cars are becoming very rare. Hon. Members who disagree speak perhaps from knowledge of one or two horses, but a motorist passes thousands of horses. My own experience is that it is becoming very rare for a horse to be alarmed at a motor. In Ireland the other week, when everybody went at any speed they pleased, so intelligent were the people, and so well were the horses handled, that it was very rarely
  1496
  indeed that a horse was frightened and nobody was injured.
  MR. DELANY: I only escaped with my life.
  MR. NORMAN: With regard to children and horses, there would be just as much danger if there were a speed limit of twenty-five miles. I believe that if this Bill passes, the rate of speed from point to point will be less than at present. Under the Bill special areas will be marked out by the local authorities, in which the rate of speed will be reduced to ten miles an hour, under very heavy penalties, and I honestly believe that a motorist will make slower progress under the regulations provided by this Bill than at present. Motorists desire the abolition of the speed limit in order that reckless motorists and professional motorists in the employ of the makers—and they are the greatest offenders—may not imagine that because a certain speed is mentioned that that speed is always permissible. If a limit of twenty-five miles an hour were fixed, a motorist would defend himself on the ground that he was only travelling twenty-four miles. A motorist must be responsible for the safety of the public at whatever pace he goes, and that is the only means by which the public safety can be guaranteed. I think that every motorist will desire to support this Bill. Every advance in invention necessarily brings some disadvantage. No one can deny that there are certain disadvantages connected with motor-cars. There is the question of dust; but every effort is being made to find some means to prevent that inconvenience. No legislation can possibly stop the progress of motor-cars. Legislation may possibly postpone that progress, and give a great advantage to foreign manufacturers; but it cannot stop it. Motoring is going to have an enormous social effect in this country, by placing long distances within the reach of every moderately well to-do member of the community. It is going to enlarge the scope of social life far more than is yet realised. In a few years there will not be a horse-drawn van in the streets of London. That is my

  1497
  firm conviction. I believe that when a motor-cycle which will enable a man to cover fifteen or twenty miles just as easily as he can now cover five miles on an ordinary bicycle is by means of deferred payments within the reach of every well to-do artisan, it must necessarily have a very considerable effect upon the housing problem in large cities. These things are coming, and they cannot be stopped. The motor-car industry is going to be one of the greatest in this country. It may be delayed, but stopped it cannot be; and, therefore, I most earnestly desire that we shall arrive at some common ground of agreement. In conclusion, I would say, as I began, that motorists are at least as well disposed towards their fellow creatures as any other class of the community, and we shall only get a good Bill if hon. Gentleman will only bring themselves to believe so.
  SIR PHILIP MUNTZ: Some years ago this House imposed a common-sense restriction of twelve miles an hour on the speed of ordinary vehicular traffic. I and many other Members of this House believe that that was a wise and necessary regulation, and we fail to see why motors should be allowed to be driven at a greater speed than the ordinary traffic. Motor-cars are much more dangerous. If they collide with other vehicles it means the destruction of the latter, and I really cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman, having at last taken up this matter, should have removed the speed limit. With this exception the Bill is an excellent one; it will require a few minor Amendments in Committee, but otherwise it contains everything we require for the control of the motor traffic. Having carefully watched and seen the danger and inconvenience of that traffic in the Midland counties, I am not prepared to leave it to the motorists to determine at what speed it is safe to travel. If for no other reason than to give motorists an indication of the speed at which they might travel, I think this House ought to impose a reasonable limit, which, in my opinion, should be that at present fixed
  1498
  for ordinary vehicular traffic. If that were included in the Bill, I should be quite prepared to vote for the Second Reading, but unless we have a pledge that such a limit will be inserted I shall vote against the Bill. It would be dangerous—almost wicked—to allow racing-mad motorists to travel at whatever speed they thought to be safe. They have no idea of what is safe but if you fix a definite limit it will act as a guide to them. I understand the principal reason for omitting the speed limit to be that the present restriction has not been effective. Why has it not been effective? Because there was no means of identification. Means of identification ought to have been established long since. If they had been in existence not only the police but every private individual who saw a motor travelling at excessive speed could have taken out a summons against the owner. It should be made impossible for any man who commits an offence to escape. This is no trifling matter. I have received hundreds of letters on the subject from every part of the Kingdom and all sections of the community, urging me to press my objection to the Bill unless a speed limit is introduced. The feeling among agriculturists is so intense that many of them state that unless such a limit is introduced they will not consider the right hon. Gentleman worthy of their support in the future. Many of these letters are couched in language which is neither polite nor Parliamentary; I have some in my pocket which came to hand this morning and might be edifying to the House. [Cries of "Read "].
  Then there is the dust question. It looks a very simple matter, and an hon. Member opposite has said that something is to be done to prevent dust. I am an old user of the roads, and I do not believe in roads on which there will be no dust. The farmers are indignant beyond description. The hon. Member opposite says that nobody has been killed in the Metropolis during the last twelve months. That may be so, but among the agricultural community there have been several cases in which men have been nearly frightened to death, horses have had to be killed, and much valuable

  1499
  property has been destroyed. You cannot be surprised that agriculturists view the matter with great dissatisfaction Farmers do not dare send out wagons except with more attendants than used to be the case, and that is a serious matter in the way of expense. I would urge all my friends who represent agricultural constituencies in this House to vote against the Bill unless a reasonable speed limit is introduced. The value of property is in many cases being absolutely destroyed. I know a beautiful suburban residential district in which not only are rents having to be reduced, but it is being found impossible to let the houses at all, simply because of the motor traffic nuisance, caused by the excessive speed and the dust arising there from. Why should the people be driven out of their gardens, and, instead of enjoying the summer evenings, be compelled to go inside and shut all the doors and windows? I contend that in the interest of all classes of the community it is most important that some restriction of speed should be imposed, the dust nuisance dealt with, and the present danger to life and limb removed.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Hon. Members must have been somewhat astonished at the arguments which have been adduced for and against this Bill. The hon. Member opposite says he has had communications not only from his own constituents, but from all parts of the Kingdom. The reason why those letters have been sent to him is very simple. He is well-known as a horseman, and his name has been familiar in the shires for the last 50 years. I myself have often seen him galloping along the roads more rapidly than any motor-car I ever saw in my life. As to the speed limit, there are times when it is safe to go much above the present limit, and there are other times when it is dangerous to go at even five miles an hour. How, then, any reasonable man can argue in favour of a hard and fast line passes my comprehension. The hon. Member for Westminster brought forward entirely new reasons for imposing a limit. The first was that as the House of Lords had first dealt with this Bill, a speed limit should at once be inserted. Another
  1500
  extraordinary suggestion was that foreigners made these cars, and therefore the speed should be restricted. Why is the hon. Member so very English? I always understood that he himself came from the other side of the water. The hon. Member for Barnstaple objected that the President of the Local Government Board had given too much attention to the Bill, and that the supporters of the Bill were motorists who knew something about the subject, and who ought, therefore, to be disqualified from speaking on the question We were also told that the roads were not made for motors Neither were rabbits made for skinning. Motors have as much right on the roads as the hon. Member himself with his carriage. The hon. Member also told us that this was entirely a rich man's Bill, and he drew a piteous picture of certain garments, covered with dust, fluttering in the midnight air. I venture to say that those garments would flutter away just the same even if there were no motors, except in the Highlands, where they do not wear them. In Ireland we have had an object-lesson with regard to motor-cars. There were over a thousand motor-cars in Dublin, going about unrestricted as to speed, and there was not a single accident of any kind in Dublin itself. If ever there was an object lesson it was in Ireland recently, where for over ten days in Dublin motor-ears ran about the streets, and there was not a single accident of any kind. The hon. Member for St. Austell Division came much nearer the proper way to protect the public when he said that he considered that those who drove motor-cars should have some qualification. I was delighted to see the President of the Local Government Board give way upon that subject, for that is the curse of the whole matter. If you put a novice to drive a motor-car, that is a danger to the public on the high road. I suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that all these arguments which have been used, after all, come round to the one thing, that, if you have a man who understands his business, at all events, the safety of the public is not in great danger, or not in any greater danger than in the case of someone driving horses who knows nothing about them. I press upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of taking steps to see that

  1501
  drivers are fully qualified. I congratulate the hon. Member who is connected with the motor industry upon the speech he has made. I hope the House will pass this Bill, and I trust that those who are led away by prejudice like the hon. Member for Rugby, and who are great horse riders, will not press for a speed limit. I would like to know what the hon. Member would think if a speed limit were introduced in regard to riding with the hounds?
  MR. JOHN STROYANsaid he was strongly of opinion that the speed limit was absolutely necessary. They had heard a great deal from various speakers of the excellent roads on Salisbury Plain and their suitability for motor-car driving. They were told that these roads were level, that one could see a considerable distance ahead, and that it was fairly safe to drive at great speed on such roads. That might be true with regard to Salisbury Plain, but there was another side to the picture, as, for instance, with regard to the roads in his constituency of West Perthshire. That was perhaps one of the most favoured touring and motoring districts in Scotland, but the roads were not eminently suitable for motoring, because although they had excellent surfaces they were often on the side of a hill with a precipice on the other side. In some cases they were only twelve feet wide and in very few cases were they more than twenty feet in width, so that it would be dangerous to drive motor-cars on them at a high rate of speed. He held further that even on moderately good roads it was absolutely dangerous to the public to allow motor-cars to be driven at excessive rates of speed. It was dangerous to the traffic, to the carriages and horses, and to farm teams. In fact, agriculturists found them unmitigated nuisances, and were up in arms against them. It was not consistent with the safety of the public that they should be allowed to go at unlimited speed. They might just as well level up the railway tracks and use them as highways, because in that case there would be the benefit that they would know which portion of the road to avoid. He contended that if the roads throughout the country which were not intended for motoring were to
  1502
  be used for that purpose, they must be used only under such conditions as were consistent with the public safety.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I am quite in agreement with my hon. friend the Member for Barnstaple as to this Bill being an insufficient measure. I believe that the two most urgent points are the provision of adequate means of identification, which should be as perfect as can possibly be made, and the provision of adequate penalties. I feel so strongly that the provision in regard to identification should not be postponed, that I hesitate to do anything which would endanger the proviso in this Bill dealing with that question, passing into law. With regard to penalties, everybody will agree that at present they are quite useless. There was quite recently a case at Aldershot where a sergeant was knocked down and seriously injured by a motor-car, which was apparently being driven with the grossest carelessness, and the maximum penalty was only £10. It is necessary that we should be able to inflict the penalty of imprisonment, because I do not believe a money penalty is of the slightest use. I would almost consent in some cases to the punishment of flogging. The present, speed limit is obviously useless, and I agree with my hon. and learned friend that the maximum speed is very liable to become the minimum. It has been said that a speed limit is necessary as a guide to the motorist. We do not want them to fancy that they can drive up to any limit; they must have the full responsibility upon themselves, and they should not go so fast as to endanger the safety of the public, although that speed may not be more than five or six miles per hour. It is impossible for any witness to tell how fast a motor-car is going, but you can easily form an opinion as to whether it is going too fast for the safety of the public. When I meet a motor-car I want to be able to swear whether it is going too fast for the safety of the public. You have not the slightest idea as to the actual speed at which a motor-car is running, but you can very fairly form an idea as to whether it is going too fast for the

  1503
  safety of the public. I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentlemen will leave it to the House to judge and not make it a Party question. I am quite impartial upon this subject, and if hon. Members do not get the Amendments they desire in Committee they can always vote against the Third Reading. Personally I am so anxious not to lose the two provisions to which I have alluded that I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, and reserve to myself the right to vote against the Third Reading if I do not get the Amendments I desire inserted.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I think that the question of penalties has much to do with the efficiency of this Bill. I agree with the various speakers who have stated that a fine is little or no discouragement to the owner of a motor-car The phrase a "road hog" has been used, and it is one to remember. The "road hog" is the man who drives a motor-car without the least regard for the safety or comfort of others on the road, who will steer quite close to the restive horse or the nervous pedestrian to enjoy time sport. I say that to fine such a man is puerile; he should be sent to prison. Up to the present time there has been no power to send the "road hog" to prison. He is as much blamed by respectable motorists as by pedestrians or horse riders. This Bill is supposed, inside and outside of this House, to convey the power to enable the magistrates to send the "road hog" to prison. I desire the attention of my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board while I inquire whether or not the Bill does give that power. When I turn to Clause 9 I find that a person guilty of an offence under the Act for which no special penalty is provided may he sent to prison, and when I turn to Clause 7 I find that for certain excesses of speed over what is stated as fixed by the local authorities penalties may be inflicted. I submit, as a layman, simply that so far as the Bill goes it does not convey the power to a bench of magistrates to inflict imprisonment as an alternative to a fine. That is one of the superstitions concerning the Bill similar to that
  1504
  exploded by my hon. and learned friend on the question of a policeman having a new power to arrest a person guilty in his sight of furious driving. I desire to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Baronet as to the strong feeling that exists throughout the country regarding this question. I have them honour to represent one of the Divisions of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The County Council of the West Riding have received, from most of the districts under their care, petitions strongly advocating the provision of a speed limit in the Bill. I believe that is a feeling which is shared by every agricultural district in the country. Therefore I appeal as powerfully as I can to my right hon. friend, having regard to the strong feeling which has been expressed on both sides of the House this afternoon in favour of the imposition of a speed limit, to reconsider his view on this matter and to make at the earliest possible moment some announcement on behalf of the Government.
  MR. HELME: As the motor-car has come to stay, it is necessary for this House to be very careful to make such arrangements as will not prevent the free use of this useful vehicle, while at the same time protecting the interests of the public. I rise, Sir, only for the purpose of presenting the opinion of certain of my constituents, who have asked me, as the hon. Member opposite has been asked, to endeavour, as far as may be in my power, to secure from the Government an alteration of this Bill, so that we may have the many advantages which are undoubtedly likely to accrue under it, provided they will consent to the imposition of a speed limit. I would earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter, and relieve the House from the difficulty of having to reject the Bill, for that is the alternative which we should have to face. The experience of most men is that the travelling public, whether by foot or horse carriage, is very seriously interfered with by the reckless driving complained of. On the other hand, motorists have a right to the use of the roads as well as others. Therefore, without going into the general question at all, I would state that I have received a resolution from the Rural

  1505
  District Council of Garstang "strongly protesting against any extension of the present speed limit of motor-cars," and yet approving of proposals met by the general provisions of the Bill. I received a letter this morning from a medical man in the same district, in which he says he has read Mr. Long's apology for the Bill. The speed limit must be the most important part of such a Bill. He says he has had unusual opportunities for ascertaining the opinion of the residents in the district, and he has not spoken to a single man who agrees with Mr. Long in this Bill. The only other matter I wish to put, is in regard to the position of the County Councils. I do claim on behalf of the County Councils that they should be trusted with the determination of the points alluded to, and not be subject to the control in these matters,of the Local Government Board. I appeal to the Government to meet the expressed wish of the House in this matter, and adopt a limit of speed. I believe also there is a strong volume of public opinion outside this House which demands it, and is well worthy of consideration. Therefore I think, if the right hon. Gentleman would at once meet the general expression of opinion and allow this matter to be dealt with in Committee, this discussion might be rapidly brought to a close, and the business of the session not be unduly prolonged.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I think it will be perhaps on the whole convenient that I should state now very briefly the view I have formed. I will deal with the one point on which the debate has centred this afternoon. There has been a general expression of approval of the greater part of the provisions of the Bill, and there has also been a practically unanimous declaration from all quarters in the House that legislation is urgently needed. Most things effected in this House are brought about by compromise. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, speaking from the point of view of those who favour and also those who are opposed to motor-cars, while finding great fault with one particular feature of the Bill, have endeavoured to meet the Government in a manner which I recognise, and to help them in dealing with this extremely difficult question. I
  1506
  attach full importance to the views of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the question. I claim myself to be an impartial examiner into this question, having no predilections one way or the other. If I had any predilections I am afraid they would be thrown into the scale against motors; for, like my hon. friend the Member for Warwickshire, I have been associated with horses all my life. But I think I may honestly claim to be impartial in this matter. I believe firmly that the view of my hon. friend the Member for Warwickshire, which has been emphasised by the hon. Baronet opposite, is the right one—that a limit of speed forms at once an indication which tells the motorist what he can do. Whether or not the limit of speed is to be a very narrow one, it, is obvious that the present speed cannot be maintained. I think common sense would tell us that there must be a speed somewhat in excess of it. I am afraid that the motorist will regard such a speed as that at which he may always go. [Cries of "No."] I am only expressing frankly the views I hold; I believe it will make it more difficult to secure convictions in some cases; but I fully recognise that my view, and the view I express on behalf of the Government, is not shared by the majority of those who have taken part in the debate, and who, I have no doubt, represent the majority of the people interested in this question. One or two suggestions have been made for the consideration of the Government. One is that the general question of the speed limit should be left an open question until we come to Committee, and the other is that some definite speed limit should be declared. I cannot accept the first suggestion, be cause I think it but an indifferent way out of the difficulty, and I cannot ask the Government to absolve themselves of responsibility in this particular case. There is a very grave responsibility to be attached to any alteration of the law which carries with it the risk of severe punishment to individuals. I am prepared, however, to make another suggestion to the House. I have stated what our views are. I will state what are the reasons that led us to form the conclusions at which we arrived.

  1507
  I recognise the general feeling in the House, and that that feeling represents accurately the very strong feeling in the country. I assure the hon. Member for Warwick that it was quite unnecessary for him to reveal the secrets of his inner pockets and to show me all his correspondence. I doubt whether the letters he has received exceed or equal in warmth of expression the correspondence which I have myself received. I fully recognise, as I have said, that the feeling of the country is very strong indeed, and I hope that the debates in Parliament, as well as this legislation, will produce an alteration in the condition of things, because we all acknowledge that the motor-car has come to stay, and if properly employed will be useful for locomotion. I am prepared to make a suggestion to the House. I cannot make a definite proposal on the spur of the moment, because the question is surrounded by very considerable difficulties; but I recognise that there is a general desire that there should be some speed limit, and I am prepared, on behalf of the Government, to consider on the Committee stage whether a speed limit should be introduced, and, if so, what should be the maximum limit to which a motor-car should be allowed to go. But this on the understanding that there is to be added to the Bill, as a separate provision, that the penalties which carry with them imprisonment, must not be made applicable to that provision. There must be a distinction between an offence which consists in exceeding the recognised speed and the speed which adds to it some danger to the public. I point out to the House that there is nothing in the suggestion I have made which need lead hon. Gentlemen to think that this is not a real suggestion. We propose that there shall be two classes of offences—one, an offence committed when any particular speed is exceeded, and we propose that there shall be a graver offence, dealt with in a more serious manner, when that speed is great and the risk of the public. We propose also, under the Bill, without question as to the limit of speed at all, whether you go fast or slow, that if you are using your motor-car to the danger of the public, on a public road,
  1508
  then there shall be an offence punishable by heavier penalties.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the spirit of sweet reasonableness which he has shown in the course of the debate. He has, first of all, given us a valuable concession in reference to the qualification of the drivers. That is a most important concession. With reference to the speed limit, I myself have not much regard for it, and I never had. When the right hon. Gentleman's Department was dealing with road locomotives on a former occasion, I had very grave doubts as to putting on a ten or twelve mile limit, and likewise as to the provision that a flag should go before a road locomotive. I thought that these were restrictions of an obsolete kind and would be merely obstructive. As time passes I am sure we shall all find that this system of a time limit is also obsolete. While that is my personal opinion, I know that there is a very strong feeling in the House and outside about the matter, but I warn the right hon. Gentleman that there will be very great difficulty in fixing the limit. There is always this great danger, that if you fix a fairly high limit it increases rapid locomotion by inducing drivers to drive up to it, and that increases the danger to the public. On the other hand, if you put a limit at too low a rate you check invention, which this House ought never to do. There is another point in connection with a speed limit which I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider before the Committee stage of the Bill. Some hon. friends behind me appealed very strongly that this matter should he left to the local authorities rather than to the central authority in London, and that each County Council should fix its own limit. That would lead to great diversity of regulations in different parts of the country and great confusion in practice, and would require that every County Council should erect at its boundaries a sign-board giving notice of the speed limit allowed in that part of the county. Still, there is a good deal of feeling that members of the County Councils ought to be allowed to regulate the traffic in their own area and on their own roads. There is another argument which the right hon. Gentlemen

  1509
  ought to bear in mind, and that is as regards excessive speed in its bearing on the destruction of the roads. We all know that the greater the speed of motorcars the greater is the dust and the greater is the suction made by the car, which draws out of all the crevices the dust which creates such a nuisance to those living on the roadside. That dust, moreover, leads to a large amount of danger and nuisance to those making use of the roads. Therefore the County Councils would be naturally opposed to a high rate of speed. However strongly we may personally feel on all these questions, we ought to be prepared in Committee to make concessions in order that this Bill may be passed. The feeling is universal in the country with reference to the danger of the rapid and monstrously reckless driving of some people who have been called by not too eulogistic terms in this debate. I rejoice that the right hon. Gentleman has made the penalties in the Bill as severe as he has done. I would have had them even more severe; for I believe that nothing short of imprisonment will stop the excessive speed at which some cars are driven. I do not think that the danger is in any degree so great as the public imagine, but there is a great amount of feeling in the country that demands the passage of this Bill. I hope that the passage of this measure will lessen public apprehension, and end in the safe development of a means of locomotion useful for commerce as well as pleasure.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: As this is a Bill which affects Ireland as well as Great Britain, I am very glad to say that the remarks which I intended to make will be different now, because of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on the fact that he has, at the eleventh hour, by the attitude he has taken, secured the passage of the Bill which is desired by the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Otherwise, after the strong lead of the hon. Member for Westminster, the Bill, in all human probability, would never have become law this session. I have a confident belief—and I think I speak on behalf of the Irish Members—that with the Amendments suggested by the right hon. Gentleman
  1510
  the President of the Local Government Board, this Bill will pass into law to the intense satisfaction of the general public. I only say that I wish to goodness the Government were always as responsive to the expression of public opinion as in this case. I am certain that if a general election had taken place on this question of speed limit, the opponents of that provision would have been hopelessly defeated. An hon. Member below the Gangway said that there had not been very many fatal accidents in the streets of London. But that has been because the people in the streets have been obliged to fly for their lives. I happen to live facing one of the greatest thoroughfares in London, where thousands and thousands pass every hour; and I know what the feeling of the man in the street is. The people scatter and disperse in every direction whenever they see a motor-car coming along as if before a charge of cavalry. The people in the streets ought not to be called upon to fly to the pavements when a motor-car passes. There was one view expressed by an hon. Member, which I hope will never be realised viz., that the day was at hand when horses would completely disappear from our streets, and when every sturdy artisan would be found careering along to his work on a motor-bicycle. I say it reverently, "God forbid we should ever see such a day as that." I am not opposed to the motor industry; I have not the slightest objection to motors; but I do say that of all the forms of motoring the motor-bicycle is the most despicable. Some discussion has arisen in this country lately as to the physique of the people; but I am quite convinced that if the hope of the right hon. Gentleman were realised, and every citizen spent his time on, and got his life shaken out of him by a motor-bicycle, we would soon have the worst physique in the whole world. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman for two reasons. In the first place, because a useful Bill would be passed, and secondly, because he could go home relieved of the necessity of remaining to divide the Committee on the point.
  MR. SOARESsaid that having regard to the fact that they might look upon the right hon. Gentleman's promise in the

  1511
  nature of a pledge that he would fix a reasonable speed limit in Committee he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion. He thought the County Councils ought to have full power of regulating the speed on their own roads.
  MR. MURRAYsaid he should like to have some further information regarding the sweet reasonableness with which the President of the Local Government Board had been credited. He agreed that the speed limit was a vital matter, and his reason for further debating the Bill was that they had hitherto considered it as a whole, and this concession entirely altered the conditions. He thought it bore very hardly on those motorists who were not very rich men. He sympathised with what the right hon. Gentleman had said with regard to motor-bicyclists, as he represented a constituency in which this industry had taken root, and which, in one city alone, gave occupation to 2,500 workingmen. He should be failing in his duty if he did not attempt to protect their interests. This industry had produced last year, without counting motor-cars for the rich, small forms of cars to the number of 8,000. He thought that when they looked at the savage penalties introduced into this Bill, which might affect men of small means, they ought to hesitate in passing it. For extreme cases he did not think the penalties were too severe, but the penalties for working-men, who bought a motor-bicycle by instalments, which would be inflicted by magistrates who considered all motorists to be lunatics, opened a vista of considerable danger to a large section of the population. The users of motor-cars would not be frightened off the roads. They wished to use them without driving off other people. In his opinion they ought not to accept the withdrawal of the Motion without fully considering the effect it would have on the Bill, and he thought they ought to have some expression of opinion from those interested in the motor industry, whether under the new condition of affairs the House should permit the Motion to be withdrawn.
  MR. SEELYsaid he wished to appeal to the President of the Local Government Board and to the House generally to carefully think over the
  1512
  question of these very savage penalties which had been inserted in the Bill. They had that day heard that motors were intended as toys for the rich, but he would point out that motor-bicycles were used by men with weekly salaries of only £2 or £3. Only the other day a man in receipt of a weekly salary of £2 was under the present unreasonable law fined £5. He was riding at a quiet and reasonable speed with another cyclist who was not on a motor-cycle, and was stopped by a policeman, who would listen to nothing as to what the actual speed was, but insisted that they were exceeding the legal limit and summoned him, with the result that he was fined a sum in excess of a fortnight's income. That was the kind of case that caused the motorists to think the present law was unreasonable. It allowed a sentence of three months imprisonment to be passed if in the opinion of the magistrate or policeman, which might or might not be right, the motorist was driving recklessly or negligently, and without regard to the nature, condition, or use of the highway and the amount of traffic that might be expected to be on the said highway. He thought that these penalties were very strong, although they had to a certain extent been accepted by a number of motorists, who were anxious to provide a remedy for the present state of affairs. He had the greatest sympathy with the hon. Member for Cornwall, who had mentioned a fact that had occurred to him. The same thing had happened to himself, when a motorist deliberately turned the car towards him and frightened his horse. But all that would be completely altered by the provision for registration, and in the future if any one behaved improperly they had the means of identifying him and having him punished. That would do away with the ill-feeling which had been caused by improper conduct on the part of certain motorists in the past. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that if he was going to alter the Bill and put in a reasonable speed limit, he should at the same time leave out these savage penalties which were a relic of the mediæval old-fashioned times. Let them act on modern progressive and liberal ideas and inflict moderate penalties and a proper system of identification, rather than inflict savage penalties which were only fit for the old times

  1513
  when a man was hanged for stealing a sheep.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the motor-cars seen on the streets could only be likened to the cars of Juggernaut. The people had a perfect right to the use of the highway, and the House ought to take good care to see that the motor-cars should be as little danger to the wayfarer as possible. The hon. Member who had last addressed the House talked about the savage penalties that might be inflicted under the Bill, and instanced the penalty of three months' imprisonment, but hon. Members would remember that the offenders did not necessarily get that punishment, although the magistrate had the power to inflict it. The hon. Gentleman had also said they were going back to the mediæval times. That was just what they were not doing. In those good old times the gallant knight could gallop down the road throwing down honest citizens and no penalty at all was inflicted. He wanted some sort of punishment to be given that would prevent reckless people from endangering the lives of others on the high road, and therefore he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would not reduce the penalties. What had been done was that the right hon. Gentleman had said—"I am going to put in a speed limit. A rider may exceed that by mistake. If it is a mistake he shall only be fined, but if he injures any person or drives negligently where there is much traffic, and produces ill or havoc to those using the road, then he shall be liable to imprisonment." They heard a good deal of every working-man going about on his motor-car, but they knew that was not the sort of machine on which the working man as a rule would go to his work, for the reason that not only was the initial cost heavy, but there was the additional cost per hour of working whether by electricity or petroleum. He admired the Bill as it stood, and had a sound and great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman. They wanted a law by which persons could be prevented from upsetting others and then driving away without being recognised. The Bill had two great advantages. It insisted on the registration of the machine, and it
  1514
  also insisted on the registration of the driver. Even if the Bill went no further than that it would do good. But he thought that in the interests of the public it would be a mistake not to have a limit of speed. The right hon. Gentleman knew that if there was a strong opposition the Bill could not be passed this session, and he made certain concessions, and I think very fair concessions, and I hope the Bill will pass through a much better one than it was before, in consequence. In all these things it is not a question of politics; you may call them fads or principles or anything you like, but this is exactly one of those Bills on which, unless concessions are made, we should talk to extinction. The House of Lords, which generally passes a Bill in ten minutes, took three days; we probably in proportion would take three weeks. In this matter I am much in the position of the Prime Minister; I have no confirmed convictions. But there is just one point. I see there is to be a limit in towns of twelve miles an hour. [An HON. MEMBER: No, ten.] Well ten. I think that is a deal too fast; I should have put it at six. Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but the roads are made for all mankind and hon. Members know how they are troubled and how their nerves are shaken by this rapid locomotion. I am an old man, but if I walk in London I have to bound and skip about like a boy. I think six miles an hour is enough. But outside towns I think wherever there is an agglomeration of houses, boards should be put up in order to warn motorists and prevent motor-cars going fast through those places. It is not so much that there is much traffic, but there are a number of children who come to play in the road and the thing is dangerous to them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that in making these changes, and with these modifications the Bill will pass without much discussion.
  MR. BUTCHER: I will not detain the House from the Division but for a few minutes, but there are two points I wish to mention regarding the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman, to which I hope attention will be given. Firstly, we are going to have a speed limit. I hope it will be some moderate and reasonable one. I am not sure that the present limit of twelve miles an hour is not high enough, but I hope it will not

  1515
  exceed fifteen to twenty miles at most. (Cries of "Keep it twelve.") Secondly the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that the penalty for the offence of driving beyond the authorised limit will be a different penalty from that prescribed in Clause 1 for going at a reckless speed and dangerous driving. That is right, but I hope that the penalty for exceeding the authorised limit will not be an illusory one, as it is at present. Persons now habitually exceeded the limit, and paid the fine with the utmost satisfaction. They pay the fine of £5, and look upon it as part of the game. Those persons must be stopped, and I, for one, trust that the penalties for exceeding the limits will be adequate pecuniary penalties. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the decision he has arrived at, which has given the utmost satisfaction to the House.
  MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock): It has been suggested by an hon. Member that the motor-car industry will be ruined by the imposition of a speed limit. I venture to say that, having regard to the strong feeling in the West of England against the abolition of the speed limit, the right hon. Gentleman, by the concession he has made, has rendered the greatest possible service to the motor-car industry. If the Bill had been passed without the speed limit there would have been such dissatisfaction that the industry would have suffered considerably. I rise on behalf of my constituents to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he has made. They feel that the Bill, with the exception of the regulation as regards speed, is a very good one indeed, and so strong is their feeling against the abolition of the speed limit that they would rather have no Bill at all if that were taken away. I think the moderation shown by the right hon. Gentleman will produce a better feeling between motorists and the public, and that the public will recognise the right of motorists to use the roads, and that the motorists will also recognise that the people have a right to use them in a proper manner.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I should like to call attention to one matter not touched upon to-night, and get some assurance that it would have the attention of the Government in this Bill.
  1516
  No power is taken under this Bill to prohibit motors from using certain roads altogether. There are many roads so constructed that no motors should be allowed to go upon them under any consideration. In my own constituency there were two accidents involving fourteen people in a week. They were not necessarily due to a high rate of speed or reckless driving, but were as likely as not to be due to the construction of the road, and to the motors coming suddenly round a corner and frightening horses which were coming the other way. I want the right hon. Gentleman to introduce in Committee a provision giving power to the County Councils, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to schedule certain roads, as is done, I understand, in France and Belgium.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (Essex, Rumford): Sir, I have listened to this debate with great interest, and it seems to me that the House of Commons are making a mistake in imagining that the present Bill is not a severe blow to the motor drivers. I consider the penalties in this Bill are so severe as to be almost savage in certain cases. I heard one hon. Member say he would like to imprison a man for exceeding the limit of speed, and the evidence in the case would be that of policemen and others, who had been put up to swear he was driving at an excess speed. I have never been fined, but I say, so far as the Bill is concerned, the question of a speed limit is in no way an objection. I think that a Bill might he brought in in order to deal with people who are ruining the motor-car industry, mid if for that purpose the question of higher penalties were to arise to deal with men, who make themselves objectionable by shewing no consideration whatever to those who have a perfect right to use the high roads, such a Bill would receive the support of everybody. It has been said that if this Bill is not passed now we may have to submit to a very much more stringent Bill in the future. That only shows how we have to knuckle down to the ignorance of this House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the chair.]
  Clause 3.
  MR. DALZIELasked for an explanation of the Bill, and said it was usual for somebody to be present to answer Questions when a Bill of this kind went into Committee.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)said the Member in charge would be there directly.
  MR. WHITLEYasked what was the amount involved in the proposals and how much had been expended.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said the Bill proposed to spend £110,000 on stuctural alterations and extensions, and he asked whether that involved any addition to the number of clerks, and whether it was intended to re-cast the whole office.
  Mr. LOUGHasked why this matter had been dealt with in a separate Bill, instead of the required amount being included in the other Bill with which the House had had to deal.
  MR. WHITLEYpointed out that the Bill involved considerable expenditure, and he presumed it was intended to provide for a prospective increase in the staff of the Patent Office, rendered necessary by the Act of last year. The Committee, however, had had no statement from the President of the Board of Trade as to the necessities of that increase or as to the progress under last year's Act. It was a curious thing for the House of Commons to be asked to vote money for an extension of accommodation before the head of the Department concerned had stated that an increase in the staff was required, and it certainly was not a procedure conducive to economy. He
  1518
  asked for what increase of staff the building was designed, and whether the Board of Trade had decided that an increase was urgently needed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central)said it was impossible to give the particulars asked for off-hand. There was not the slightest doubt that the Patent Office staff would require to be enormously increased as a consequence of the Act of last year. The provision of the Act mainly responsible was that which provided for an examination into whether or not patents had been anticipated. For that duty a large staff of specially trained men was necessary. He could not say how long it would be before the contemplated additions were completed, but they would probably take three years.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that for years they had been complaining of the rapid increase of public expenditure for the ordinary administrative work of the nation, and this Bill was a typical example of how that increase was brought about. Here was a proposal to spend £110,000 on the building of offices, but when information was asked as to why the offices were required and the number of clerks to be put into them, no figures were forthcoming.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he could not give the figures as he did know the question would arise.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: That is an example of the slovenliness with which public business is conducted. It was the duty of the Minister in charge of the Bill to be prepared with all the details by which that Bill could be defended or advocated. Apparently this large expenditure was to be rendered necessary by duties which would gradually develop. In that case why could not the money be asked for and expended gradually as the need arose.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the strictures on the Government were entirely out of place on the present occasion. This Bill did not ask for £110,000 at all; it simply enabled the commissioners to erect the buildings. The

  1519
  money would be provided by Parliament on the ordinary Votes, and the time to ask Questions, to criticise the number of clerks, and so forth, would be when those Votes were brought forward.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid that if the Board of Trade did its duty under the new Act a large number of clerks would have to be employed, and this £110,000 would not be wasted. Very large buildings would be necessary if the Act were to be properly carried out for the benefit of the trade of the country, and he should therefore support the Bill.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid the Bill was simply a measure for compulsorily acquiring land and the money power was provided in the Public Buildings Expenses, Bill which was discussed the other day. With regard to the objection that had been raised he would give a fuller explanation as to the number of clerks required in the Patent Office when the Bill came before the House. The Prime Minister had promised that at any rate one stage of the Bill should be taken before midnight in order that there might be an opportuunity of discussing it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will that be this session?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: We hope so, certainly. It would then be possible to give a fuller explanation than he was able to give at present.
  MR. WHITLEYasked whether the land could not be acquired by purchase under voluntary sale.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,adverting to the provision that the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act should apply, contended that a limit ought to be
  placed on the amount paid for compulsory purchase. When the public was acquiring land of this character for public works, which would be for the benefit of the neighbourhood as a whole, it was unfair that they should have to pay frequently twice the real value of the land. That was practically what this clause meant. In Scotland the price paid was twice, if not three times, the real value. That has been admitted. What was the answer of the Lord Advocate? He said that if they proceeded under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act they might have had to pay more. Consequently the Government are proceeding under an Act, which, according to a member of the Ministry, involves them paying more than in the case of an ordinary bargain. This clause started by saying they must fix the price according to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. There were no end of exceptions and special reservations, but not one of them really affected the merits of the Act itself, and the time had come when there should be special provision to protect the public against paying twice or three times the value for land. He supposed the Government knew what particular site they wanted for this purpose. No doubt they would have an arbitration, and having ascertained, not the real profits, but some conjecture as to the profits, then 10, 20 or 30 per cent. was added in respect of the mere fact that the land was being acquired compulsorily. Why not say that the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act should apply, and that nothing should be given for the mere fact of compulsorily acquiring the land. As a protest he proposed to divide the House against this clause.
  Motion made and Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 187; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 210.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Butcher, John George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bigwood, James

  Campbell, J.H.M. (Dublin Univ.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bond, Edward

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bousfield, William Robert

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

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cawley, Frederick

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

  Bull, William James

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Purvis, Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Randles, John S.

  Chamberlain. Rt Hon J (Birm

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J A (Worc

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Charrington, Spencer

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Renwick, George

  Churchil, Winston Spencer

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Robinson, Brooke

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kemp, Lieut. -Colonel George

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbrgh

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Keswick, William

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

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Sharpe, William Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Lawrence, Sir. Jos. (Monm'th)

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N R

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cranborne, Viscont

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Spear, John Ward

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Dickson. Charles Scott

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Dimsdale. Rt. Han. Sir Jos. C.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Stroyan, John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

  Dyke. Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Elliot. Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Fellowes. Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  M`Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fisher. William Hayes

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Milvain, Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu, Hon J. Scott (Hants.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Flower, Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Forster. Henry William

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wills, Sir Frederick

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

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H (Yorks.)

  Gordon. J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Myers, William Henry

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wylie, Alexander

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Percy, Earl

  Hain. Edward

  Pierpoint, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Halsey. Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G (Mid'x

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jones, Wm. (Carrnarvonshire)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Elibank, Master of

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bell, Richard

  Emmett, Alfred

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Levy, Maurice

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burt, Thomas

  Grant, Corrie

  Lough, Thomas

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Caldwell, James

  Harwood, George

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Cremer, William Randal

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Moss, Samuel

  Crooks, William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Murphy, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Norman, Henry

  Delany, William

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  1522

  1523

  O'Mara, James

  Shackleton, David James

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Perks, Robert William

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R (Northants

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

  Rea, Russell

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Randcliffe

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Toulmin, George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Ure, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wallace, Robert

  Mr. Lloyd-George and

  Runciman, Walter

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mr. Warner.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move that we now report Progress.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  FIFE ELECTRIC POWER BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  Lords reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons' Amendments to the Bill, considered—
  Resolved, That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  WOOD GREEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (BY ORDER).
  Lords Amendments considered—
  Lords Amendment to the Amendment.
  "In page 26, line 31."
  Agreed to.
  Lords Amendment—
  "In page 26, line 31, after the word 'make,' to insert the words 'Nothing in this section shall apply to milk in the possession of any railway company until its arrival at the station of destination.'"
  The next Amendment read a second time.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid he moved to disagree to the Lords' Amendment moved to this Bill, and he did it purely and simply because of his position as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was sent. He objected to the Amendment
  1524
  because, in the first place, it altered the form of a clause which had now been settled for some time and had become a precedent, and in the second place, because of the time and manner in which this alteration had been suggested, and in the third place he objected to it on point of substance, because he thought it was not desirable. As the Bill came before the Police and Sanitary Committee it contained a clause in a form now settled for many years past, and which, as it stood, authorised the medical officer of health, with a view to the purity of the milk supply, to take samples of milk for examination. The milk might also be examined outside the district of the authority if an order of the magistrate had been previously obtained. The Lords' Amendment proposed to limit that clause by the proviso that nothing in the section should apply to milk in the possession of any railway company until its arrival at the station of destination. The form of the original clause was settled four or five years ago after a great amount of cogitation, consultation, and association with the Local Government Board and the County Councils' Association, representing the producers of milk, and the clause in its present form had been granted time after time in Bills brought before the Police and Sanitary Committee during the past four or five sessions. He submitted that the precedent established for the last four years ought not now to be upset. This point, so far as he knew, had never been raised before. Sixteen Bills had been brought before the Police and Sanitary Committee this session, and on fourteen of those Bills which contained this clause railways appeared by counsel, yet in not one of those cases was the point raised by this Amendment, namely, that the railway company found any hardship in the clause in the form in which it was passed for so long, then raised. If there

  1525
  had been any hardship in it the point would have been raised long ago. The suggestion of the railway company in this instance was that they might be damaged if it was in the power of an inspector of the medical officer of health to take samples in transitu. He thought it might be safely assumed that the inspectors would act with moderation and good sense and would not hang up the traffic on a railway line while they took samples of milk from the trucks. He submitted that this Amendment ought not to be allowed unless they had some evidence that the clause had failed in its original form. This section was usually introduced into such Bills, and the limitation of a clause thus sanctioned by precedent had not been considered or discussed by the Lords, but had been introduced by consent of the local authority because their Bill would otherwise have been opposed by a railway company.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he hoped the House would not disagree with the Lords' Amendment in this case. The real facts were that the Wood Green Urban District Council had obtained powers to sample milk in vanson railways, and the Great Northern Railway having had its attention called to the fact approached Lord Ribblesdale, and subsequently Lord Morley, and pointed out that they would be glad to give any assistance to the inspectors who were desirous of finding out whether milk had been adulterated, but while they were willing to give every facility to examine the milk on their platforms and in their stations they thought that in the interest of the public it would not be desirable to allow inspectors to stop milk expresses at Finsbury Park and other stations and thus cause delay, which was not in the interests of the public. The railway company would be glad to give every facility for the examination of milk, not only on its arrival at its station of destination, but also on the platform of the station of its departure, but they did not see why trains should be stopped at Wood Green
  1526
  or other stations while the inspector went into the milk van and took samples of milk. He thought also to advance the argument that because a clause was settled four years ago that that was a reason for appealing to the House of Commons for its being continued could not hold water. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that London had the worst reputation of any city in the kingdom for adulterated milk. In some districts the adulteration was as high as 35 and 40 per cent. He therefore supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Horsham. This power to examine milk in transit dealt a most effective blow at adulteration. It was given in many Bills, and had not been objected to by the railway companies.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith)hoped the hon. Member for Peckham would not press his objection to the Motion. On the merits, however, he agreed with the hon. Baronet, because he could not imagine anything more objectionable and absurd than the examination of the milk on board the milk train with an express behind it. But this provision had been inserted in sixteen Bills in this session and in a great number in past sessions. Public attention having been called to the matter, he thought it was obvious that in any Bill of this character railway companies would take good care to bring their case before the Police and Sanitary Committee, and he had no doubt that due weight would be given to all the arguments brought forward on behalf of the railway companies. He thought it was undesirable to alter the model clause in this case, and for that reason he urged that it should be allowed to remain in the state in which it left this House.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for

  1527
  disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill.
  Committee nominated of—The Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Heywood Johnstone, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Luke White, and Sir Frederick Banbury. Three to form a quorum.
  To withdraw immediately.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Standing Order 135, relating to Private Business, read and amended, in lines 1 and 2, by inserting, after the words "in any street," the words "or load,"
  At end, by adding the words "and it shall be competent to the Referees on Private Bills to admit the Petitioners, being the owners, lessees, or occupiers of any house, shop, or warehouse having its access materially dependent on such street or road, and making the aforesaid allegation, to be heard against the Bill, if they think fit."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  GLASGOW CORPORATION (POLICE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  LANARKSHIRE TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time; to be considered to-morrow.
  WOOD GREEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (BY ORDER).
  Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to. To be communicated to the Lords.

  SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
  (Considered in the Committee.)
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  MR. LEVYmoved to leave out Sub-section (1). He objected to the Sub-section because it allowed a foreign permanent Commission, formed principally of trade rivals, to dictate to this country whether it should admit or prohibit sugar from certain countries, even perhaps from our own colonies. The Colonial Secretary said it was only a Commission of Inquiry, but he thought it was more than an Inquiry.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was not confining himself to the Amendment. It appeared to him that the only question the Amendment really raised was whether the Convention should be carried out by means of prohibition or by the imposition of a surtax or countervailing duty.
  MR. LEVYsaid the question appeared to him to be one of considerable importance. If they prohibited sugar in any large quantity it must necessarily increase the price and create a burden for the great majority of the people of this country. At the present time they had no reason adduced, except to help the West Indies, why they should prohibit sugar coming into this country. He thought he was therefore justified in moving the rejection of the Sub-section.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 14, leave out Sub-section(1)."—(Mr. Levy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'is' in line 15, stand part of the clause."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question I have to put is that the words of the Subsection down to line 15 stand part of the clause.
  MR. LOUGH: Can you not put the Amendment so as to protect my Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: All the Amendments down to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee in line 15, are out of order,

  1529
  because they are all contrary to the Convention. They suggest all sorts of conditions and stipulations which cannot be made.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether they were to understand that they could not discuss the different clauses of the Bill because they carried out the stipulations of the Convention.
  THE CHAIRMAN: You may not suggest any alterations in the Convention. The Government have accepted the Convention, and this Bill is limited to the purpose of carrying out the Convention. It is not for the purpose of carrying out other proposals not contained in it.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked whether his Amendment, to insert at the beginning of line 14 the words "Subject to the obligations of existing treaties," was out of order. It seemed to him that all existing treaties were equally obligatory on the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in the Bill to carry that into effect. This Bill is for the purpose of giving effect to a particular Convention. We cannot consider the provisions of other conventions or treaties.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)asked if it was not open to the House in accepting the Convention to accept it on terms.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This Bill does not propose to do that. It is limited to one narrow purpose—namely, to give effect to a particular Convention. Therefore the Committee cannot go outside that.
  MR. LOUGHcalled attention to Article XII of the Convention, which laid it down that the fulfilment of the provisions was subject to the formalities established by the constitutional laws of each of the contracting States.
  THE CHAIRMANdid riot think that left it open to the House of Commons to accept the Convention or not, because the Bill had received its Second Reading.
  MR ROBSONasked whether it was not in the competence of
  1530
  the Committee to say that any measure which the House assented to in order to confirm the act of the executive might be so far limited as not to interfere with existing treaties. Surely the House was entitled under this Bill to raise the question as to how far it affected the most-favoured-nation clause, and how it should be amended so as not to interfere with treaty engagements.
  THE CHAIRMAN: All these considerations seem to me to be outside the scope of the Bill, though not beyond the scope of the House. The House can do anything, of course. But the question is as between prohibition and the imposition of countervailing duties. This clause proposed total prohibition.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that this was one of the most important points raised in the Bill. The Government had adopted the plan of prohibition, which no doubt would be sufficient, but he denied that it was judicious for the House to adopt such a drastic method of treatment. The Colonial Secretary had said that this Brussels Commission was to be a Commission of Inquiry. It was to be nothing of the kind; it was to be a permanent Commission, an autocratic body whose decision left no option for the Government. Thus the Committee was placed in a very difficult position by the difference between the statement of the Colonial Secretary and the terms of the Bill. It was not safe to prohibit importations from those countries against which a prohibition order might be issued because they sent us a small quantity of sugar in a particular year. Such a method of prohibition raised a large principle for consideration. If America, Argentina, or Chili sent only a small quantity of sugar we would prohibit it, and it would not inconvenience our merchants. But that would be a dangerous policy for this House to adopt. These countries might send us a great deal next year. There were four countries which had all been condemned by this permanent Committee. The first was Argentina, which, in 1900, sent out 217,000 cwts., and in 1902 806,000 cwts. In two years the imports from Argentina had quadrupled. Therefore, if we had prohibited on the figures of 1900 we should have placed the trade of this country in a very serious difficulty. It wa not safe for the Government to assume

  1531
  that they could prohibit importations from those countries against which a prohibition order might he issued because they sent us a small quantity of sugar in a particular year. Such a method of prohibition raised a large principle for consideration. A very small quantity of imports was enough to regulate the price, and if we shut off these importations then the country which sent us the largest supply would raise its price accordingly. The whole policy of prohibition was a most dangerous one to adopt.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that to prevent the import of sugar into this country would be to raise the price of that commodity, and put our manufacturers in a worse position than now, compared with those of France and Germany. After that injury had been inflicted on the British manufacturers and consumer, the question was how you could alleviate the injury. The British Government having made up their minds to penalise the bounties, that penalisation ought to be in their own hands, and beyond the control of foreign countries, which were our rivals in commercial affairs. It was unfortunate, however, that this country should be in the hands entirely of a Commission on which we had only one vote, and our competitors and rivals had ten votes. The Colonial Secretary said the other night that every one of these foreign countries had only one vote. That was true, but after all, the interests of all the other Powers went one way, and our interests went another way, because they were producers and we were consumers; they were sellers and we were buyers. Tins Commission once created—and apparently they were not allowed to discuss, in Committee, whether it should be created or not—it was a most serious question whether we should allow it to dictate to us in regard to the countries whose sugar we should penalise or prohibit. At the present time, six countries, including Great Britain, had ratified the Convention. All the other countries—a considerable number of them, perhaps the majority, being sugar producing countries—were outside the Convention. Of the five other countries which had ratified the Convention only the sugar systems of Belgium and Germany had yet been passed by the Commission as satisfactory, and that only by a
  1532
  small majority. He understood that the British representative was in the minority. Therefore, at the present time, there were only two countries the importation of whose sugar we might not have to prohibit. And we might have to-morrow to prohibit imports of sugar from Austria-Hungary if the Commission reported against the system of the Dual Monarchy. The Colonial Secretary had said that if Austria-Hungary broke away, a new Convention would have to be held. That was not so, for Article X. said that in the event of one of the States denouncing the Convention and withdrawing from it, the other States should retain their right of also withdrawing. There was no question therein regard to a new Convention. His point was that we were putting ourselves in a most dangerous position. We would be called upon to prohibit sugar from other States at the beck and call of our-foreign competitors, and we would not have the option of imposing countervailing duties. Therefore we should lose our sugar on the one hand, and our revenue on the other. He must say that the whole of this Convention was founded upon the most extraordinary piece of politico-economic folly which had come under his observation for many years. Under this new fiscal policy we were going to give up to our competitors £8,000,000 a year, and to put ourselves in a worse position with regard to Germany and other countries than we were ever in before; and all this in the name of free trade! He was sorry that the Government should have endeavoured to carry it through, and he believed that if this, matter had not been turned into a Party question by the Government, they should never have been able to pass the Convention through the House of Commons.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF. TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOLR, Leeds, Central)said that the hon. Member seemed to have taken this opportunity to make a Second Reading speech, through which, however, he did not intend to follow him. There was only one question before the Committee, and that was whether the Government were to be empowered to carry out the Convention; and yet, after a quarter of an hour occupied by the hon. Member, he was as much in the dark as ever as to the policy which the hon. Member wished the Government to adopt.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the point of his argument was that the Government ought to keep the matter in their own hands, and not place the country in the position of being dictated to by foreign Powers.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that that remark of the hon. Gentleman amply justified the criticism he had made. The statement of the hon. Member would go absolutely against the principle of the Convention. He did not know whether the hon. Member for Poplar meant to move an Amendment to that effect, but if he did, he would he ruled out of order, because he would remind the hon. Gentleman that that was not the question before the Committee. The only question before the Committee was whether power should be given to the Government to prohibit the importation of sugar from certain countries, and to impose countervailing duties. The hon. Member for West Islington took exception to the statement made by the Colonial Secretary the other night to the effect that the Government were not bound to prohibit. The Government were not bound to prohibit for two reasons. First of all, the special powers taken under the clause now being discussed would not necessarily be exercised. A distinction had to be drawn between the contracting Powers and the non-contracting Powers. If hon. Members would look at Article VII, they would see that the duty of the Commission was limited to finding and investigation. Did not that amply justify the description of the Colonial Secretary that this was a Court of Inquiry? It was only in regard to the non-contracting States that the findings of the Commission were binding on the parties to the Convention. If the permanent Commission found that any one of the contracting States did not bring its legislation into harmony with the Convention, or gave a bounty, they would have to report their decision to that effect; and in that case it would not carry an obligation either to countervail or prohibit sugar coming from a contracting State. What would occur under these circumstances, he presumed, would be the summoning of a new Conference. The case was clear enough in regard to the non-contracting States.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman meant that
  1534
  Clause I did not apply to the contracting States at all.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that there was no obligation on this country to prohibit sugar coming from a contracting State, although that State might be giving a bounty on the manufacture and export of sugar. In the case of non-contracting States, the Commission had not merely to report whether such States gave a bounty, but, if they gave a bounty, it had got to report what the amount of the bounty was, and then, under Article 4, the contracting States would be bound either to propose countervailing duties or to prohibit. But, so far as regarded contracting States, there was no such obligation. He did not know whether the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would prefer that power should be given to the Government to impose countervailing duties rather than to prohibit sugar from bounty-giving States. That, at any rate, was not the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, who, in November last, speaking for the Opposition, said
  "Of course, nobody would have preferred countervailing duties to prohibition."
  The Government believed that, in almost every case, prohibition was a policy preferable to the imposition of countervailing duties. At the same time, they recognised that there might be circumstances in which a countervailing duty would be preferable to prohibition, and they provided for that, and, although they did not take power in the Bill to impose such duties, they did, at the end of Sub-section 1, distinctly contemplate the possibility of such duties having to be imposed.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid it was clear from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government had not thought out the problem which was most likely of all to arise—namely, that one of the contracting Powers should withdraw from the Convention that had been come to. He wished to endorse what the hon. Member for Poplar said as to the majorities on these international Commissions. Those majorities were invariably hostile to British trade, and anxious, by

  1535
  acting together, to clip the wings of British trade in every part of the world. Let the Committee consider what was at stake in this proposal. They had it admitted by the Government that they at once penalised Russia and Argentina among other Powers. Every one knew that a large amount of sugar came from Russia, although it came in under other names, and the figures showed what the sugar trade with Argentina was. From a trading point of view, Argentina was more a colony than our own colonies. It was a country that lived entirely on British capital, and traded entirely with this country, and yet they were proposing here to exclude a large branch of our trade with Argentina.
  MR. ROBSONsaid that in reference to the alternatives of prohibition and countervailing duties, the latter had this mitigating circumstance, that they would probably not exceed the amount of the bounty, and would accordingly leave some margin open to competition in case the Powers interested in the Convention raised the price of sugar to some dangerously high figure. On the other hand, if the policy were adopted of absolute prohibition, there was scarcely any figure to which the price might not be raised. It had been urged that the amount of sugar imported from the States which were not parties to this Convention was small. The United States had been given as an instance. The United States, however, had sent considerable quantities of sugar whenever the price had been unusually high in this country, and in similar circumstances they would again become substantial competitors. When prices rose this country would stand in need of the United States as a safeguard against an excessive rise. They ought to keep the United States in reserve for that purpose. Moreover, absolute prohibition of United States sugar would be a breach of the most-favoured-nation clause, unless it extended to every other country. The United States had, indeed, contended that they were at liberty to give concessions to other States, for particular considerations, which this country was not to share, but they had disputed that position, and the United States had hitherto yielded in part to that conten-
  1536
  tion. But if this country resorted to prohibition what excuse could it make?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURasked what excuse the hon. Gentleman thought the United States would offer, if they brought against this country the charge that it was violating the most-favoured-nation clause, when it was pointed out that the United States themselves levied countervailing duties?
  MR. ROBSONsaid that if the United States levied countervailing duties that did not prevent them also giving bounties. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that because the United States levied a countervailing duty it could never give a bounty and could never come under the operation of this clause, he did not know the way in which bounties were given. The direct plan of giving a bounty in the form of a positive gift of money to exporters was not the most insidious and frequent form. He predicted that they should find themselves coining into conflict with the United States. No one desired to see this result produced, though, as retaliation was apparently to become the favourite principle in the peaceful pursuit of commerce, the Government might possibly regard the prospect of commercial conflict with America without misgiving. If the country was to have a choice of evils, he thought that a countervailing duty, though a bad alternative, would be preferable to prohibition. Let them choose the lesser of the two evils at any rate.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he had listened in vain for arguments by the President of the Board of Trade to show why prohibition was better than countervailing duties. In the debate on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman said prohibition was better, because it would be a rather strong thing to impose countervailing duties by Order in Council. But if that power were reserved to the Government, why not indulge in it. He could not understand why the Government should have preferred the policy of prohibition to the policy of countervailing duties. It seemed to him that whichever way one looked at it, the one they looked at

  1537
  seemed to be the worst and he supposed that the Government in its difficulty took the policy which would give the least trouble. His hon. friend had suggested a reason for countervailing duties—viz., that they could get some revenue from them, whilst prohibition would yield no revenue at all and at the same time would diminish their sources of supply. Really the further one went into this matter the darker it became, and when he heard of the difficulties raised with regard to the different countries and the unsatisfying replies received from them on the questions put to them, he thought they were legislating in the dark. They did not know what effect it would have upon other countries—upon Chili for instance. Even the Commission did not know what the effect would be. What were they going to do with regard to Chili or the Philippine Islands, which were becoming great sugar producers? It seemed that they were taking the very steps which it was least reasonable to take. They were going to exclude the sugar of the one country, Argentina, of all sugar-producing countries that was in closest commercial connection with ourselves, where the largest part of the trade was done in British vessels, and from which, therefore, we had the greatest likelihood of obtaining large cargoes of sugar. And yet at the very same moment we were beginning to threaten foreign Powers with, and asking this country to enter upon, a general war of retaliation against them. We were submitting ourselves to an international Commission that was likely to give every decision against us.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he under stood the President of the Board of Trade to tell them that as far as the non-contracting Powers were concerned, we were bound to prohibit or to impose countervailing duties at the dictation of this European body, while in regard to the contracting Powers, if they, by giving bounties, broke the Convention, it would he necessary to summon another Conference before taking action. That was a very serious position for this country to be in. What did it mean? The price of sugar was very largely regulated by outside bodies, and as a result of the action of the Government our rivals
  1538
  would have the whole thing in their hands. The fact was that in regard to this Convention this country had just walked into a trap, and had not the satisfaction even of a nibble at the cheese. The whole thing had been given away. Never was a sillier bargain entered into by a business country. With regard to the choice between prohibition and countervailing duties he was reminded of the Irishman who, when asked by a tourist which was the better of two hotels, said it did not matter which his honour went, to for he would be sure to wish that he had gone to the other. We had entered into a great conspiracy to rob ourselves, and to hand all the swag over to others. We were prohibiting cheap sugar for the benefit of the very conspirators who had led us into the trap. Prohibition was an insult. We were very tender of our own susceptibilities; no country was more susceptible than we were, and the Colonial Secretary made use, for electioneering, purposes, of the slightest use of words against us made by Germany. He repeated that prohibition was an insult; for the goods against which it was, directed were put on the level of diseased cattle and obscene literature. And whom were we insulting? Our one ally, Japan. German had dominated the situation. We were quarrelling with neutral markets in the interests of the one country from which the Government declared that they would not "take it lying down." Why, they were taking it crawling from Germany. As to the price of sugar, that, of course, largely depended on the state of the market in the country of production. Our imports from Argentina were rapidly increasing, and it would not matter how high the prices went up in Europe so long as we had that source to fall back upon. The whole position was ridiculous, and he was surprised that the Government should submit to it.
  MR. MOULTONsaid he wished to point out the absurdity of the House of Commons solemnly arranging how His Majesty may do acts amounting almost to acts of war against our best friends simply because they wanted to make sugar cheap in England. He was unable to look upon it seriously. The thing was too ridiculous to last. It was quite fair to treat it with comparative

  1539
  cheerfulness, because it was so ludicrous. According to the Convention, as soon as the Commission decided that any country was giving bounties, directly or indirectly; for production or export, then we were to prohibit the entrance of sugar from that country. But the definition of a bounty in the Convention covered very minute matters. For instance, we were remitting the duty on molasses used for feeding cattle. That was an indirect bounty, and it might happen that if another country were to follow our example in regard to molasses we might find ourselves called upon to prohibit the importation of sugar from that country. Again, supposing one of the contracting Powers put a premium on the manufacture of chocolate, the absolute prohibition of the whole of the sugar coming from that country would immediately follow. England was the only country which had either taken it thus seriously or was stupid enough to fall into such a pit. The other nations put forward countervailing duties. They could put a countervailing duty upon molasses used for cattle food without a serious disturbance of the trade of the world. But were the Government forgetting that the rules of the Convention were so minute that it had solemnly adopted the almost hostile punishment of complete prohibition for all infractions of the Convention. Countervailing duties were inquisitional and contemptible, but they were Letter than the clumsy legislation which made the final punishment of prohibition follow the smallest infraction. He trusted that Members on both sides, seeing what a serious thing they were committing themselves to, seeing that they were going to say to the United States and Argentina "we will prohibit totally the importation of goods which you make and may want to sell in our markets," would at all events say to the Government "Give us a Bill which more or less carries out the policy of the Convention as it is understood by sensible people, and do not commit us to this blundering absurdity of complete prohibition for an infraction of such rules as the Convention has established."
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side
  1540
  appeared to proceed on the supposition that the remedy provided under this clause was prohibition, although two distinct alternatives were provided. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] It was true the settlement of this matter might arise at a time when it would be difficult to obtain the assent of Parliament to the alternative of countervailing duties, and he did not understand why the Government did not take power to lay their hands at once on either alternative. The only reason which the President of the Board of Trade had urged against it appeared to have been based on the authority of the right hon Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, but in his opinion that was not sufficient. A very slight alteration of the clause would enable the Government to have the alternative of countervailing duties to prohibition. In theory, however, it was in the clause. Was it too late to consider that suggestion?
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid that when one considered the serious character of any proposal involving total prohibition without regard to the amount of the bounty or to the value of the imports, one could understand the fortitude of the hon and learned Member for Hackney giving way. Under this sub-section, although the bounty might be trivial in amount, the penalty was the total prohibition of the import. This applied not only to sugar but to all sweetened products—biscuits, condensed milk, preserves, chocolate, and, in fact, every commodity constituting an article of food into which sugar entered. As the hon. and learned Member had pointed out, this was a grossly illogical clause, and the common-sense view of the situation was to fight a trifling bounty by means of a countervailing duty, and not by means of this savage and extreme penalty, by which we should simply punish ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman by his argument had completely condemned the framework of the clause, for he had shown that it was not only illogical in substance, but that as to one portion it was absolutely meaningless He had stated that under this clause the Government had no power to prohibit the imports from any signatory

  1541
  at all, however gross its violation of the terms of the Convention might be. If that was the case, why had not the clause been so framed? As the clause was now drafted, the prohibition extended to all foreign States; there was no discrimination between signatory and non-signatory Powers. He appealed to his hon. and learned friends on the other side to say a word against the last sentence of this provision. The right hon. Gentleman, who was not a lawyer, and whose knowledge of constitutional doctrine was not derived from a direct source, had stated that by this last clause in the section he was reserving power to the Government at some future time to propose to Parliament, instead of this policy of prohibition, a policy of countervailing duties. Who had ever heard of a statutory reservation of power to propose legislation? It was open to the Government to propose any legislation; there was no limit to the power of Parliament to enact a law on any subject, to accomplish any object, and in any form; therefore this provision was absolutely meaningless and unconstitutional. The matter ought to be dealt with on some logical basis. The policy of the Government was either countervailing duties or prohibition, or else it was reservation of power to adopt an alternative policy. Why did they not enact definitely the policy they intended to pursue? He submitted that to frame a clause in this way was to reduce an Act of Parliament to a political speech, and to substitute for the clear language of a statute the vague and meaningless phraseology of a Government Department which had not made up its mind as to the policy it would adopt. With regard to the most-favoured-nation clause, it seemed quite possible that the language of treaties would have to be construed in reference to the fiscal system in existence at the time the treaty was signed, that the most-favoured-nation clause ought to be construed without reference to bounty-fed exports, and that the Government were entitled to discriminate against a nation which fed its exports by means of bounties. That might be held. But what he wished to point out was that the meaning of the most-favoured-nation clause
  1542
  was immaterial, because if countervailing duties infringed it, prohibition must a fortiori infringe it, and that therefore if the United States were entitled to complain against countervailing duties they would have an infinitely stronger ground of complaint against prohibition. He should vote for the Amendment in order that the clause in its present illogical form might be struck out. If the right hon. Gentleman asked to strike out the clause in order to insert prohibition, he would be disposed to work for the clause, but in its present form it was impossible to say whether it meant countervailing duties or prohibition, or, in fact, whether it meant anything at all.
  MR. SHACKLETONdesired to correct a statement made on the Second Reading to the effect that the policy of this Bill was supported by the working people of the country. On that occasion a circular was quoted giving fifty separate societies which had passed resolutions in favour of the abolition of the bounty system.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the point to which the hon. Member was referring was hardly relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. SHACKLETONsaid he desired to show that the statement that the working people of the country were in favour of this clause was altogether erroneous.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that that did not seem to be relevant to the argument, viz., that it was more desirable to impose countervailing duties than to enforce prohibition. If the hon. Member could add anything on that point the Committee would be glad to hear him, but to correct statements made on the Second Reading would not be relevant.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)pointed out that the Amendment was to omit the clause.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that that was not so. The Amendment was to omit Sub-section (1), which dealt with a particular point.
  MR. SHACKLETONthought he could bring in his point on the question as between countervailing duties and prohibition. If the people were in favour of the Bill as drawn they would be in favour of prohibition, but he contended that they were not in favour of the Bill. The circular which had been quoted, although it was dated 1903, was really sent out in 1888, or fifteen years ago, and it was now put forward as an expression of the opinion of the working people in regard to this particular Bill. It was a most absurd contention, and certainly not a fair way of stating a case as between countervailing duties and prohibition. He was against the Bill entirely, but, the principle having been accepted, he, as one who believed in accepting the lesser of two evils preferred to vote for countervailing duties. Such a policy would not lessen the supply; it would bring in a certain amount of revenue, and the price of sugar would not be increased to so large an extent as by prohibition.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that as there was no disposition on the part of the Government to reply to the many forcible arguments which had been put forward, he would throw a fly in the shape of a few figures. There seemed to be a general impression on the part of supporters of the Government that the countries outside the Convention were small producers of sugar. But what were the facts? At present we had access to the markets of the world, representing 10,250,000 tons of sugar annually. After 1st September we should be confined to countries producing only 5,000,000 tons, and the Committee would realise what that meant. The Government were actually proposing to exclude our merchants, buyers, and consumers—aye, and our ships—from the privilege of trading with the greater part of the sugar producers of the world. That was a most serious step to take, and one which could not fail to be hurtful to our interests. When one considered that we received no benefit from the Convention, and that this country had, in fact, been made the victim of the confidence trick by continental Powers, he thought the least
  1544
  the Committee had a right to expect was that the Government would at any rate state what their case really was and what they expected to get out of this policy.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid the question ought to be considered very carefully, because by this prohibition they were going to allow certain combinations on the Continent to fix the price of sugar and raise it to any degree they liked. If they had countervailing duties instead of prohibition that would not be possible, because when people combined they were able to raise their prices to what extent they liked only when there was no outside competition. By this Convention the Government were going to prohibit outside competition with these people, who were likely, if they had not already done so, to join themselves together in a huge cartel. They could not do that if certain other countries were able to deliver sugar into this country even against countervailing duties. Therefore he thought that it was entirely wrong that they should not be allowed to impose countervailing duties instead of total prohibition. It seemed to him that the Government were taking every precaution they possibly could to raise the price of sugar, but whether the consumers would be grateful to them for it he did not know. He could not understand how any Member could vote for this proposal.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid there were one or two points in connection with this subsection which it was now proposed to delete which had not been sufficiently touched upon, such, for instance, as the meaning of the term, "direct or indirect bounties." Under the head of indirect bounties they might surely include preferential railway rates in other countries, and the remission of rates and taxation. In many countries, particularly in new countries, in order to encourage a particular industry the local authorities allowed certain remissions of rates for a considerable period. Under the terms of this clause, it seemed to him that such remissions of rates, although local in their application, would be regarded as indirect bounties.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member would not be entitled to go into the meaning of the phrase on this Amendment.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORpointed out that the words were contained in the portion that it was proposed to delete.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that that was so, but the question was not raised by the Amendment.
  MR. LOUGHasked how the words "direct or indirect" were to be defined, as they were not defined in the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid they were taken from the Convention.
  MR. LOUGHasked whether in that case the Convention ought not to be embodied in the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not argue again the point he argued two hours previously; the hon. Member must accept the ruling he then gave.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid that on the point as between countervailing duties imposed by Parliament, and prohibition imposed by Order in Council, it seemed to him to be a very good reason for preferring countervailing duties that they were under the control of Parliament rather than of Orders in Council. It seemed to him that that was a reason why the House of Commons should support countervailing duties rather than prohibition. It was also a great advantage that while we were thrusting back the benefit into the pockets of foreign finance ministers we should also be putting some duty into the pocket of our own Chancellor of the Exchequer, if we adopted countervailing duties. It was not a question of whether or not they approved of bounties. The question was as to the best way under this Bill of dealing with bounties. He was one of those who strongly objected to countervailing duties, because they were continually varying. The bounty in the country against which we were countervailing might be altered. On the other hand, it was a very great advantage to be able to put some money into the
  1546
  pocket of our own Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, as had been very powerfully urged, we should be reserving to ourselves a very much larger area of the world's competition, because it was not a light question that the price of sugar should remain not artificially cheap, but that it should possibly be made artificially dear. It was not the intention of the Government that there should be an artificial dearness, but under this Bill that was quite possible. This Permanent Commission consisted of ten or eleven Powers in which they had only one Vote, but one of the competing countries—Austria-Hungary—had two Votes. The Commission represented countries whose customer we were, and if he wanted to restore natural competition in a business, he would not have as a Permanent Commission, a Commission consisting of the people who sold goods to him. The Commission consisted of Powers who had no doubt seen with envy and dissatisfaction that England had created a world-wide trade on the strength of cheap sugar. The point he wished to impress upon the House was, that in their desire to make sugar dearer, to Conform to natural conditions, the Government were making the mistake of producing the opposite state of things, and putting it into the power of our rivals to make sugar artificially dear instead of artificially cheap. It was because he preferred artificial cheapness to artificial dearness that he supported the Amendment.
  MR. GUESTsaid he was one of those who had the profoundest dislike to the policy of the Sugar Convention, because it seemed to him to raise the cost of living in this country without any adequate advantage. But with others on the Ministerial side, having made their protest, as they did, in voting against the Second Reading, they felt that, as the House had given its sanction to the policy, they ought to support the Government in giving effect to it. He desired to ask the President of the Board of Trade to explain to those who were not so well up in the details, why it was that he preferred the policy of prohibition to the policy of countervailing duties. Take for instance, the

  1547
  case of America. Why was it better in regard to America to adopt prohibition rather than countervailing duties? The introduction of American sugar, it was said, was simply a matter of price, and if the price of sugar rose, it was indubitable that American sugar would find its way into the English market. There was another instance, and that was the case of Argentina. They did a great deal of business and general trade with the people of Argentina, and he was sure his right hon. friend would appreciate the importance of freights. It might in some circumstances pay the producers of sugar to pay the countervailing duty, and bring the sugar over rather than send an empty ship over without freight. There were many things which they could do if they were willing to pay the compensation or fine which their action involved. He understood that the avowed object of this Sugar Convention was to increase the area of sugar-producing countries from which this country might ultimately draw its sugar supplies. The effect of this prohibition would be to prevent this country getting sugar from half the sugar-producing areas of the world. Again, more than half the sugar was produced under conditions which would lay it open to absolute prohibition, and consequently this proposal seemed, on the face of it, a somewhat contradictory state of things. He appealed to his right hon. friend to explain why he had been unable to accept the advice offered by the hon. and learned Member sitting below him, that he should take power under this Bill to have either prohibition or countervailing duties.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the argument in favour of prohibition was its extreme simplicity. If, indeed, there were any reasonable probability that a very large portion of the available supplies of sugar was likely to be entirely cut off from this country by prohibition, in such case undoubtedly countervailing duties would be preferable. But he saw no probability of that whatever. When he did see any such probability he should be perfectly ready to consider whether countervailing duties should not be applied, but he thought it would be better That Parliament should be consulted before taking such a step.
  MR. UREsaid the explanation which had just been given them was quite inconsistent with the views put forward by the Government in November last. He had read carefully the speeches made upon that occasion, and he found a great many arguments offered in favour of countervailing duties, but none in favour of absolute prohibition. If there was an explanation, he supposed the English language was capable of conveying it. Hon. Members had been left to conjecture a good deal as to the reason for this proposal. He would offer one reason which, to his mind, was conclusive. He had been examining Clause 4 of the Convention, and he thought the real answer would be found there. That clause laid down a rule for calculating the countervailing duties, and the Committee would find that it was not too strong language to say that it was absolutely idiotic. The real reason why the Government had adopted prohibition was that they had found that in Clause 4 they had been hoaxed by the high contracting parties. Those high contracting parties were allowed to retain their surtax, and that, in the opinion of all who had really considered the question, knocked the bottom out of the whole scheme. Notice how countervailing duties were to be calculated in order to meet the sur-tax. A sur-tax was the difference between the excess of the Customs. Was the countervailing duty to be equivalent to the bounty? Nothing of the kind. They had to deduct six francs, and half of the remainder in order to calculate the countervailing duty, so that this proposal was futile and absurd. If the sur-tax was twenty francs they had to deduct six and that left fourteen. By halving this they got to seven, and therefore they had a countervailing duty of seven francs to meet a sur-tax of twenty francs. The thing was preposterous and the Government had been hoaxed. If that was not the real reason he should like to have a frank statement upon this point from the right hon. Gentleman, so that they might know exactly where they were.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL GEORGE KEMPsaid he was one of those who had opposed the Second Reading of this Bill, but

  1549
  as the House had given its opinion in favour of the principles of the measure, he should not offer any further opposition. He was, however, still in the dark with regard to this question of countervailing duties and prohibition. He wished to know whether it would not be possible in this Bill to have the option either of countervailing duties or prohibition. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it might be necessary to have countervailing duties, but if he admitted that possibility why did he not make provision for it in this Bill?
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid that reference had been made to the effect which prohibition was likely to have, not on the producers alone but upon those who undertook the carrying of sugar. Prohibition was not a matter of simplicity, for it might land them into commercial difficulties which he was perfectly sure the President of the Board of Trade had not foreseen. Take the case of a vessel that went out to the River Plate with a cargo of coals. That vessel might have chartering engagements to
  carry sugar to the United Kingdom A prohibition order might be issued, and when that vessel arrived in the Thames the captain might be informed that prohibition had been issued against Argentine sugar, and he might be requested to go down to the Nore lightship and throw his cargo overboard. Could anything be more preposterous than that? The only other alternative was to ask that captain to cruise round Europe in the hope of finding a market for the sugar, which of course meant absolute ruin. The Parliamentary Secretary was of the opinion that longer voyages for sugar cargoes would be a great advantage to the shipping trade of Great Britain, but by this subsection they diminished the chances of these longer voyages. As a matter of fact, wherever one looked at this question from the point of view of the carrying trade, total prohibition was absolutely impossible.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes. 86. (Division List No.211.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hamiltom, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Hobert T.

  Bailey, James (Walworth.)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson. Charles Scott

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Johnstone, Heywood

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Keswick, William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

  Bigwood, James

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick. N.S.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Bull, William James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Butcher, John George

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lowe, Francis William

  Campbell, J.H.M. (Dablin Univ

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Foster. Philip S. (Warwick, S.W

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

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

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn J.A (Worc

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Chapman, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Morgan, D.J.(Walthamstow)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Mount, William Arthur

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Murray, Col William (Bath)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Myers, William Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Webb, Col. William George

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Percy, Earl

  Smith,James Parker(Lanarks.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Smith, Hon. W. E. D. (Strand

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Purvis. Robert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wylie, Alexander

  Randles, John S.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

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

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Renwick, George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Ed. M.

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Rigg, Richard

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bell, Richard

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Runciman, Walter

  Brigg, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Kemp, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kirbride, Denis

  Shackleton, David James

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Chanuing, Francis Allston

  Lloyd-George, David

  Spencer, Rt.Hn. CR (Northants

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Crooks, William

  Landon, W.

  Tomkinson, James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Toulmin, George

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moss, Samuel

  Ure, Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Murphy, John

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Elibank, Master of

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  O'Brien, P.J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Partington, Oswald

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Price, Robert John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harwood. George

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONmoved to insert after "bounty" the words "as defined in the Convention, the provisions of which are set forth in the Schedule to this Act." He said the object of the Amendment was to elicit from the Government an explanation of what they meant by direct or indirect bounty. He objected to the system of legislation by reference, which was becoming very injurious in connection with Acts of Parliament. They had already had from the right hon. Gentleman a different explanation of the Convention from that which appeared on the face of the Bill. This Amendment would enable the
  1552
  Committee to obtain information from the Government as to what they thought were direct and what were indirect bounties, for at present the Bill did not make the meaning clear. He understood that the importation of molasses was on no condition to be prohibited under this Act. That was to say, any amount of bounty-fed molasses might be brought into this country without involving a contravention of the treaty to which the Government had put their hand. That was obviously a total breach of the intention of the Convention, and it might be taken for granted that the Commission would condemn this particular

  1553
  Act. What were the Government going to do then? Were they going to climb down to the Commission? If they carried out the Act as the House of Commons passed it, they would be breaking the Convention, and if they did not carry out the Convention the Commission would condemn them. Then according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Convention would come practically to an end, and there would be another Conference. That was a point of material importance. There was another point which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee to. The condition of the West Indies had been the only reason assigned why we should pay 8s. more for our sugar, but the opponents of this measure thought it was rather a one-sided bargain. Of course he could not discuss that at the present moment, but he was entitled to ask how the Government reconciled the vote of £200,000 to the West Indies with the condition to which they had agreed, that they would neither encourage nor provoke the production of West Indian sugar, either directly or indirectly. That money was as direct a bounty for the production of sugar as could possibly be conceived. What answer would our representative give to the Foreign Permanent Commission in regard to that matter if they said that this allowance must be withdrawn? If the money should be withdrawn on account of the action of the Commission, the West Indies would be no further from ruin than before. What was meant by the expression "excess of yield"? He could understand a case in which it might be said that some of our sugar-producing colonies were giving a bounty in that direction. The real fact of the matter was that all these questions of bounties were of the most complicated nature.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member insisted on going back on the Second Reading. He must really ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he apologised if he had wandered in any way; but the point to which he had referred did require explanation.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 15, after the word 'bounty,' to insert the words "as defined in the Convention, the provisions of which are set forth in the schedule to this Act.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that, as the hon. Gentleman remarked, this was a drafting Amendment, but he considered it entirely unnecessary to attach the provisions of the Convention to the Bill as a schedule. The hon. Member had asked a number of questions, but he would point out to the hon. Member that what had to be considered was not whether a bounty was given, let him say, to the West Indies, but whether the permanent Commission found that a bounty was given. If the Commission found that a bounty was given, of course we should have to take that finding into consideration. A question had been asked as to the effect of Article I of the Convention, which included, among the advantages which constituted a bounty the profits derived from excess yield. It was a common form of bounty to exempt the amount of yield of sugar beyond a certain proportion from internal dirty, but as there was no internal duty in the West Indies the question would riot arise in relation to West Indian sugar. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would be compelled to bring to an end the assistance which we had given to the West Indies during the last few years. That assistance would come to an end by itself; it was only given as a temporary expedient until the Convention came into operation.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a large amount had been spent, or was in the course of being spent, on central factories in the West Indies.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would wait to see whether the permanent Commission would include capital expenditure on these central factories as among the cases to be treated as bounty. When it did arise, the Government would take the matter into consideration. [OPPOSITION cries of Oh, oh.] They need not be at all terrified. Neither glucose nor molasses came within the operation of the Convention.
  MR. MOULTONsaid that there was a special exemption of glucose from the operation of the Act, and there was also an express exemption of molasses from the first clause which applied to sugar, which showed that sugar without that exemption would have included molasses. He thought that they need not go to foreign countries in order to discover what were bounties on excessive yields. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the Finance Act of 1901, he would there find that the lower duty allowed on molasses amounted to a violation or infraction of the Convention. That was no orginal discovery of his, because as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, it was pointed out at the Conference that the provisions of the Customs Act imposing a duty on sugar did give a bounty on excessive yield. The whole object of the Convention was that this country should be the milch cow for foreign nations. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the Courts of law would translate the words of the Act by reference to the Convention unless it was specifically set forth in the Act? When called upon to interpret the words of an Act, they had no right to send out and buy a copy of the Convention on which it was founded. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the Courts were going to interpret the words of this law by the terms used in a French Convention the right hon. Gentleman was, he imagined, very much mistaken. Now, did the right hon. Gentleman mean the word "sugar" to have the same meaning as it had in the Convention? If so, then it included chocolates, biscuits, and condensed milk.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That does not arise on this clause.
  MR. MOULTONsuggested that the question was raised as to whether it was necessary that the Convention should
  1556
  be made part of the Act for the purpose of fixing the meaning of the words used. There were words used through out the Act which in the Convention had a special meaning, and if "sugar" was to be translated as it was in the Convention, then "sugar" ought to be put in a definition clause, or the Convention made part of the Act. The fact was the Act would be interpreted according to the meaning of the English language, and the Courts would not follow the example of the Government, and allow the meanings of English words to be defined by a foreign Convention.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the President of the Board of Trade had spoken of this as a mere drafting Amendment. If that were his view, surely he might facilitate the progress of the Bill by asking the Law Officers of the Crown whether or not it was necessary. He might further ask them if the Bill would not be more perfect if the Convention were incorporated in it. Hon. Members on the Opposition benches were opposed to the principle of the Bill, but it having been adopted by the House, they were not disposed to make any obstinate resistance to it. All they asked was that the Convention on which the Bill turned, from beginning to end, ought to be attached to the Bill.
  LORD HUGH CECILfailed to understand why his right hon. friend opposed the Amendment. If it made no difference he might very well accept it, but he was a little sceptical of the suggestion that the Government merely opposed it because it was unnecessary. He could not help thinking that there must be some objection to this Amendment which the Government had not disclosed. He wished to call attention to a statement he had heard with some surprise—one to the effect that in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the word "bounty" did not include capital

  1557
  expenditure on sugar factories. If that were the case he doubted whether it would not he found possible to drive a coach and horses through the whole Convention. If it were true that the West Indian grant was not in the nature of a bounty, it would destroy the Convention altogether.
  MR. BRYCEhoped the Government would recognise the great convenience of including the words of the Convention in the schedule of the Bill for the interpretation of a Court of law. At least Article I. should be included, and perhaps Article VII. In the island of Jamaica there were certain conveniences of storage allowed. Would that come under the definition of indirect bounty, and would facilities of conveyance by railway on a Crown colony, when the railway was under State administration, be an indirect bounty? Another point was, suppose we did something in this country or in one of our Crown colonies which was alleged before the Permanent Commission to be in the nature of a bounty. If that body decided that it was an indirect bounty, would we not be bound in good faith to withdraw the legislation in order to keep within the spirit of the Convention? And if we thought the Permanent Commission had come to a wrong decision and taken an unfair advantage of us, would it be a reason why we should withdraw altogether from the Convention. They knew that Austria-Hungary was already in a state of revolt. We certainly ought to know before we pass this Bill what is covered by the words "direct" and "indirect" bounties. He would like to have some further elucidation of the meaning which the Board of Trade and
  1558
  the Government attached to this. Were they proceeding on the assumption that the Convention was imported into the Act to guide their conduct? If they were the Court of law would say that they know nothing about the Convention. That position ought to be anticipated, and it could be by the acceptance of the Amendment. Let the Government either embody the Convention in the Bill or put in their own definitions. The matter ought not to be left in its present uncertain state.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Government had declared that a bounty in the nature of capital expenditure was not a bounty if that expenditure were incurred before a given date.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is only my opinion. It will be for the Permanent Commission to decide the point. It is not a question on which we or any other nation can take any action until the Permanent Commission has given its opinion on it.
  MR. BRYCE: We have to guide our own action, and we have the interests of our Crown colonies to look after. We must know what we are going to do.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the difference of opinion likely to arise between the President of the Board of Trade and the Permanent Commission was very like the difference of opinion between a Parliamentary candidate and an election Judge as to the date at which expenditure became illegal. Some candidates were under the impression that money which was illegally expended

  1559
  after a certain date was legal expenditure before that date. It seemed to him that the answer of the Government to the question "When is a bounty not a bounty?" was, When it was not found out by the Commission. It was a most unsatisfactory position. He could not accept the suggestion that this was a mere drafting Amendment. It was an Amendment of substance, for they alleged that there was a difference in terms and tone between the Bill and the Convention which the Bill purported to, but did not in fact, incorporate. He doubted if any hon. Member could remember a Bill so completely based on an international Convention which had not the Convention incorporated in it. He could quote several cases to the contrary.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid the question was one of great practical gravity, as under this clause the Government might issue a prohibitory order preventing the importation of sugar or products of sugar from certain specified States.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURmade an observation which was inaudible in the Press gallery.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid it was true the Commission were to make a report on the subject, but was it to be understood that that report was to be regarded as conclusive as to whether or not bounties had been placed on sugar, and that the Government were to retain no discretion whatever in the interpretation of the word "bounty."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that as regarded non-contracting States that was so.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid if that were so, it was no use arguing the meaning of "bounty," because it would mean whatever this foreign Commission, on which this country was in a permanent minority, might decide. Neither the Courts of law, nor even the Government itself, was to have any voice in the matter. The whole of the administrative, executive, and legal machinery of the country was to perform the ministerial office of giving effect to the dictates of a foreign tribunal. If that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman, a very simple answer to the Amendment was to say that under the Bill we were to have no voice in the matter, but were to carry out the behests of the Commission, no matter how inequitable we might think their decisions to be.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the real reason for the opposition of the Government to this Amendment had been made clear, not by the speech, but by the interruptions of the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment was opposed because it claimed for this country some sort of discretion in the interpretation of the Convention. We had that discretion in relation to every treaty into which we entered, but in this case it was proposed that we should surrender our private judgment, and to that, as a Protestant, he objected. Was a subsidy to West Indian shipping a "bonus on exportation?" We were at present paying about £40,000 in such subsidies, and that might easily be interpreted as a bonus on exportation. But the interpretation was not left with us at all. We were actually handing over the management of our colonial affairs to a foreign Commissioner at Brussels. He did not say that such

  1561
  an arrangement would be much worse, and certainly not more dangerous to the peace of the world, than the present colonial management, but at any rate the Committtee should clearly understand what they were doing. The Colonial Office was being removed from Downing Street to the Continent, from Birmingham to Brussels! That surely went to the root of the whole Empire, and it could not be contended that it was not a point of substance. To say that we were not to reserve any discretion to ourselves, that the matter was to be left entirely to this foreign tribunal, was to make an entirely new departure. These Amendments, although they might not be accepted by the Government, had this advantage: they were making clear, step by step, the nature of the bargain into which we were entering, and with each Amendment it became increasingly evident that we were handing over the control of our commerce to a body whose interest it was to destroy it.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid that unless some clear definition of "direct or indirect" bounties was incorporated in the Bill, there would before long be two definitions in the field, viz., the English definition as given in the English law Courts, and the definition as given by the Commission in Brussels. What would be the peculiar position of the trader who desired to import sugar into this country? In dealing with an American State, or possibly with one of our Crown colonies, he would not know whether to make any engagements or not. Under one subsection sugar in transit was specially exempted from the penalties, but sugar in transit was only a very small part of a trader's commitments; he would probably have commitments carrying him six or
  1562
  twelve months, or even two years ahead. Not feeling sure of his position, he might ask some eminent counsel whether he would be safe in making engagements with Jamaica or the Argentina, and the reply would be, "We do not know; we can tell you what the English interpretation is, but we do not know what the Brussels interpretation will be." It was a question whether the subsidy given to the Jamaica Line, not for the carriage of mails, but for the exportation of Jamaican goods, would not render those goods liable to be penalised. They knew nothing whatever as to the meaning of the words. Here they had a Minister of the Crown asking them to pass words, about which he could give them no definite explanation. He thought they ought to wait until the meaning of those words had been determined. He thought it was very unfair to the House of Commons to ask them to enact words which the responsible Minister could not define, and which the House was not allowed to know the meaning of.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid it was of the very utmost importance that they should have a proper definition of these bounties before they proceeded further with the Bill. Many suggestions had been made, but he would make another, which he thought ought to meet with the acceptance of the Government. He would suggest that they should take their definition from Birmingham. A few weeks ago the Colonial Secretary gave his definition in one of those interesting letters to a working-man, with which he had enlivened the papers so much recently. His definition of a bounty was something produced in the absence of factory inspection, and under lower

  1563
  labour conditions than those in England. Supposing the Brussels Conference took that view, and said that the absence of factory inspection and the lower labour conditions constituted a bounty in the production of sugar. How would the West Indies stand that? What about the coolie labour which would be in direct competition with the sugar from Germany? The Government was not treating the Committee fairly in merely pushing this matter on to the Permanent Commission. When they were asked to assent to the passage of Bills they were supposed to be convinced that they were in the interests of the people of this country, and he thought they would be neglecting their duty if they allowed a Bill to pass which placed such powers in the hands of a foreign Commission where they had only a single representative.
  MR. UREsaid he was not so sure that the sugar referred to in the two documents meant the same thing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. It will not be in order to discuss that question now. There is an Amendment which will come up later on upon which the hon. Member's observations will be in order.
  MR. UREsaid that was an illustration which showed the necessity of embodying the Convention in the Bill, because without it they would be landed in endless difficulties.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to this particular subject.
  MR. WILLIAM MCARTHURsuggested that the simplest course would be to adjourn the discussion in order that the Ministers in charge, might get to know what answer to give to the House of Commons.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid this Permanent Commission might take the view that no Englishman would accept, and which an English Judge might think was not a bounty. Were they going to allow English merchants to be treated in a way which was unfair to this country? Was an English Court of law to be no protection, no matter how unfair foreign jurisdiction might be? What remedy had they got in ease the Permanent Commission made some decree which everybody in this country thought unfair? Were they going to acquiesce in that?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not confining himself to this Amendment, and he is taking a very wide view of the subject before the Committee.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERcontended that the Convention ought to be printed as schedule to this Bill. If it was not printed they came to the difficulty that a Court of law had no power to protect a British subject, even though the Permanent Commission might have done something contrary to this very treaty, which ought to have been in the Bill.
  MR. LOUGHsuggested that they should now be allowed to take the Division on the understanding that they would not proceed further with the Bill.
  MR. LEVYsaid it appeared to him that one of the reasons why the President of the Board of Trade objected to the words of the Convention being added to the Bill was that we were at the present moment at variance with the majority of the parties to the Convention, with regard to the action of our colonies. We were claiming to deal with our
  colonies as we liked, and the other signatories declared that we had no right to do so.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 118. (Division List No. 212.)

  AYES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Runciman, Walter

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Samuel, Herbt, L. (Cleveland)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kilbride, Denis

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Tomkinson, James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthor, William (Cornwall

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Ure, Alexander

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Moss, Samuel

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gurdon Sir W. Brampton

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Mr. Lough and Mr. Levy.

  Harwood. George

  Rigg, Richard

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Robson, William Snowdon

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lonsdale, john Brownlee

  Balcarres, Lord

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W

  Milvain, Thomas

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Campbell, J.H.M. (Dublin Univ

  Godsor, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

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

  Gore, Hon GRC Ormsby-(Salop

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Chamberlain. Rt Hon J (Birm

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Mount, William Arthur

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Worc.

  Guest. Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Chapman, Edward

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G.(Midx

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Percy, Earl

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Keswick, William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N.R

  Purvis, Robert

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Randles, John S.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Webb, Col. William George

  Renwick, George

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanark)

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Sir Alexander Acland

  Spear, John Ward

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Bill read the third time and passed.

  Committee report Progress, to sit again this day.

  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  (Considered in Committee.)
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, (Cumberland, Penrith), in the Chair.
  Clause 4.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he hoped that this clause would be struck out of the Bill unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give some explanation of it. He wanted to know if it was the custom for one public Department to plunder another.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr RITCHIE, Croydon)said that the Bill had been under the consideration of the Exchequer, and this clause referred merely to the adjustment of accounts.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1901–2.
  Committee to consider the savings and deficiencies upon Navy and Army grants for 1901–2, and the temporary sanction obtained from the Treasury by the Navy and Army Departments to the expenditure not provided for in the grants for that year, upon Thursday.
  Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented on the 24th and 23rd days of February last, respectively be referred to the Committee.—(Mr. Elliot.)

  MOTOR-CARS [EXCISE DUTY].
  Committee to consider of authorising the imposition of an Excise Duty on persons employed as drivers of motorcars in pursuance of any Act of the present session to amend the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896 (King's. recommendation signified) this day.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes after One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Crystal Palace District Gas Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the promoters did not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Mary-port Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
Kingston upon-Hull Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Dover Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Croydon and District Electric Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Rothesay Corporation Order Confirmation Bill; Scottish Episcopal Clergy Widows' and Orphans' Fund Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  SMALL HOLDINGS ACT, 1892.
  Return showing, from the commencement of the Small Holdings Act (1st October, 1892) to the 31st December, 1902—(a) the extent of land acquired by local authorities under the Act, with the date of such acquisitions, and the parish or parishes in which the land is situate; (b) the sum for which the land was purchased, or the term and rent for which it was hired; (c) the amount spent on the adaptation of land for
  1402
  small holdings; (d) the number and total acreage of small holdings sold, with the amount of purchase money; (e) the number and total acreage of small holdings let, with the yearly rent and terms of letting; and (f) the number and total amount of advances made under Part II. of the Act; Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Earl Waldegrave, for the Earl of Onslow.)

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  No. 3049. France (Nice).
  No. 3050. Brazil.
  No. 3051. Egypt (Port Said and Suez).

  SHIPPING CASUALTIES.
  Shipping casualties which occurred on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of the United Kingdom, from 1st July, 1901, to 30th June, 1902; and shipping casualties which occurred to British vessels elsewhere than on the coasts of the United Kingdom, and to foreign vessels on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of British possessions abroad, reported during the same period; with charts and appendices.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Return of all British ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its officers, during the period from 1st July, 1902, to 30th June, 1903, to be provisionally detained as unsafe by reason of the defective condition of their hulls, equipments, or machinery, or by reason of overloading or improper loading, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 459 of the Act, giving the names of the owners of those ships which have been dismantled, broken up, or converted into hulks, etc; also of all foreign ships ordered to be provisionally detained during the same period as unsafe by reason of overloading or improper loading, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 462 of the same Act; together with summaries showing respectively the total number of ships ordered to be detained as unsafe, from 1st July, 1902, to 30th June, 1903, and since the 1st October, 1876, distinguishing between those cases in which the ships were found safe or unsafe (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1233]).
  Forty-sixth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Inland Revenue, for the year ended 31st March, 1903.

  INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Administration Report on the railways in India for 1902.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Part I. Orders under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following County and County Borough Councils:
  Carmarthen. For constituting portions of the parishes of Llandybie and Bettws the parish of Ammanford Urban and the Ammanford Urban District.
  Carmarthen. For constituting a portion of the parish of Pembrey, the parish of Burry Port Urban, and the Burry Port Urban District.
  Essex. For uniting to the parish of Witham and the Witham Urban District an area formerly known as "Faul-kbourne Parish (detached No. 1)."
  Ipswich (County Borough). For uniting the parishes of St. Mary-at-the-Tower, St. Margaret, St. Helen, St. Clement, St. Mary-at-the-Quay, St. Stephen, St. Lawrence, St. Peter, St. Mary Stoke, St. Nicholas, St. Mary-at-Elms, St. Matthew, Warren House, Shire Hall Yard, Westerfield-in-Ipswich, Rushmore, and Whitton-cum-Thurlston to form the parish of Ipswich.
  Lancaster. For constituting the township of Bispham-with-Norbreck the Bispham-with-Norbeck Urban District.
  Northampton. For defining the boundary between the parishes of Fotheringhay and Warmington in the Oundle Union.
  Southampton. For uniting the parishes of St. Mary's Extra and Sholing to form the parish of Itchen.
  Salop. For transferring portions of the parishes of Hadley, Wellington
  1404
  (Rural), and Wrockwardine, in the Wellington (Salop) Rural District, to the parish of Wellington Urban and the Wellington (Salop) Urban District.
  Part II. Orders under Section 59 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following County Councils:
  Essex. For amending the County of Essex (East Ham) Confirmation Order, 1900.
  Kent. For amending the County of Kent (Bexley and East Wickham) Confirmation Order, 1902.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SMALL HOLDINGS ACT, 1892.
  Return respecting; laid before the House (pursuant to order of this day), and to be printed. [No. 192.]
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. [No. 186.]
  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law with respect to the sale of agricultural fertilisers and feeding stuffs: Was presented by the Viscount Templetown; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next. [No. 187.]

  ADDENBROOKE'S HOSPITAL BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, the scheme to be confirmed by this Bill has been prepared by the Charity Commissioners, at the request of the General Court of Governors of Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, after a public inquiry held in the Guildhall. The object is to establish a responsible executive elected by the Governors, and charged with the administration of the Hospital. The committee to be elected is to be representative of the Governors resident in the borough, the University,

  1405
  and the surrounding counties, respectively. The scheme defines the mode of election, the powers, and the duties of the committee. The scheme provided by the Act of 1766, under which the Hospital is now administered, gives the management to the Governors at large, and there is no authority for the appointment of an executive committee. The institution has now about 650 Governors, and it has outgrown the limits within which the existing mode of government is efficient. This is a Bill that is agreed to by all parties, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a, (Viscount Cross).
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next

  LICENSING ACTS (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  On the Order being read for the House going into Committee on this Bill,
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)said: My Lords, in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, I will take the opportunity of answering a Question which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown) put to me on the Second Reading, in regard to the possibility of allowing burghs between the limits of 4,000 and 7,000 population to be represented upon the Appeal Courts. I have again very carefully considered this matter, which was discussed at great length, and, I think, very carefully threshed out in another place. I am entirely unable to agree to the proposal that these burghs should be directly represented upon the Appeal Courts. The reason for making the concession in the case of Royal and Parliamentary burghs between the limits of 4,000 and 7,000, and allowing them to maintain their licensing authority is this, that they have already, so to speak, a sort of vested interest in that authority, and it seemed hard to deprive an urban community of between
  1406
  4,000 and 7,000 of a privilege which they greatly valued. As the Bill was first introduced the limit was 7,000, but, after full discussion, we agreed in another place to lower the limit to 4,000 in the case of the Royal burghs which already enjoyed licensing powers. At the present time they have no representation and no power at all in the Appeal Court, so that the Bill takes nothing from them There is nothing of the nature of a vested interest even in the most narrow sense of the term, and to make the change proposed would enormously complicate the machinery of the Bill, and would, I think, destroy to a large extent the symmetry of the Appeal Court as at present constituted. I have had an interview to-day with the representatives of the Convention of Royal Burghs and I am willing to make a concession at a subsequent stage. If noble Lords will look at Section 5, Sub-section 1, a proviso will be found at the end which prevents representatives of these Royal burghs from voting both for the constitution of the county licensing Court and of the Appeal Court. As they have licensing Courts of their own it is obviously right that they should be debarred from exercising any authority in regard to the county licensing Court; but at a subsequent stage I will put down an Amendment which will allow the County Council representatives to take part in the selection of the Appeal Court. By that arrangement I hope it will not be improbable that at times their representatives will be actually sent to the Appeal Court, so that these burghs will have under that Amendment a fair chance of being represented by someone who is actually sent by the constituent body to the County Council.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for having considered the matter. Probably the suggestion he has just thrown out is as far as he can go. As I stated on the Second Reading, I do not myself propose so move in the matter; but it seemed ttrange that a body which was an independent licensing authority should have no representation, direct or indirect, upon the Appeal Court. If the matter had been inquired into from the very

  1407
  beginning I should have advised my noble friend not to give the concession contained in the Bill with regard to these small licensing bodies. I do not myself see the very great difference between a Royal burgh with a population of 4,000 and a police burgh; and, as the noble Lord knows, the police burghs have complained most bitterly, and have pointed out that they in turn ought to be licensing authorities. With that I do not at all agree, and I should not have disagreed with my noble friend if he had struck the others out also; but as they are licensing authorities I am glad he is going to give them some indirect representation on the Appeal Court.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1.
  THE EARL of ABERDEENexplained that the object of his first Amendment was to substitute the word "Authorities" for "Courts" in Clause 1, which enacted that—
  "For the purpose of granting certificates under this Act, there shall annually be held throughout Scotland, in lieu of the general half-yearly meetings held under the existing Acts, two general half-yearly meetings of the licensing Courts to be constituted as hereinafter provided."
  His Amendment might appear, at first sight, to be a merely verbal Amendment, but it was more than that. He thought that possibly the expression "Court" substituted for the well-recognised and well-understood designation "licensing authority" might lead to misapprehension. A Court in the strict sense of the word could only receive evidence in the legal acceptation of the term, but the practice—and he thought it was a very poor practice—in deciding upon licences was for those who constituted the body to be influenced, not only by the actual evidence placed before them, but by their own personal knowledge of the district and its requirements. Misgiving had been expressed that in some way the new term "Court" might indirectly hamper the full discretion of those who had to adjudicate upon these matters.
  Amendment moved:—
  In page 1, line 10, to leave out the word 'Courts' and to insert the word 'authorities.'"—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I sincerely hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. I do not agree with him that "authority" is the more generally accepted term. It may be that at the present time "authority" is, strictly speaking, the legal term, but the word "Court" is used invariably in describing the proceedings in newspaper reports and, certainly, in all volumes of judicial statistics, and in all other documents dealing with the proceedings of these bodies. I think there is a certain advantage in giving dignity to the proceedings of these bodies. Though I quite agree that they are not bound by the law of evidence in the same strict way that purely judicial Courts are, I do think there is some advantage in giving them the legal title, which they have practically always borne. It would snake a considerable change in the Bill if I were to accept this Amendment. I really do not think there is much substance in the objection, and I hope it will not be pressed.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid he was glad to hear the statement of the noble Lord that there was no idea of in any way restricting the freedom of the licensing justices. After what the noble Lord bad said, he did not feel disposed to press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENmoved an Amendment to place all burghs with a population of 4.000 on the same footing. Clause 2 provided that—
  "For each burgh, being a county of a city, and for each Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh containing a population of or exceeding seven thousand, and for each burgh containing a population under seven thousand but of or exceeding four thousand the magistrates of which have power to grant certificates under

  1409
  the existing Acts, there shall be a separate licensing Court, consisting of the magistrates of such burgh for the time being."
  He moved to delete the words "containing a population of or exceeding seven thousand, but of or exceeding four thousand." Police burghs were just as much entitled to consideration in these matters as Royal burghs. The object of his Amendment was to place all burghs with a population over 4,000 on the same footing in the matter of licensing. In Clause 2 there was at present a distinction. He did not think there could be any danger in his Amendment, because it was subject to the proviso that only burghs, wherein the magistrates had already power to grant licences under existing Acts, should have the power proposed by the Amendment. In fact, it was simply a further recognition of the powers they already possessed. Burghs with populations of over 4,000, even though not Royal burghs, should be on the same footing. He thought this would certainly meet a feeling which existed in Scotland. He was the more disposed to advocate this change because it partook of the spirit, at least, of local option, because in most cases the magistrates referred to would be elected by the people of the district, and in that way the latter would have a voice in this matter.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word 'burgh' to the word 'the' in line 15."— (The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment which the noble Earl has placed on the Paper would go a great deal further than he suggests, because it would not limit the licensing authorities or Courts to police burghs above 4,000 in population. It would give a Court to every Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh, and that, of course, is an Amendment which could not be accepted at this stage; and I am afraid I could not meet the noble Lord even if he proposed to limit it to police burghs above 4,000. The only reason in the case of Royal burghs for cutting down the limit to 4,000 was that they had exercised that authority for a considerable number of years, and it would
  1410
  be hard to take it away from them. If the Amendment were agreed to it would cause more discontent than if the Bill were left in its present form.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to,
  Clause 5.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid his Amendment to this clause was of a purely drafting character, its object being to get rid of the word "retiral." The word might have appeared in other Acts of Parliament, but he hoped it had not; but, if it had, that was no reason why they should perpetuate so objectionable a word. He had seen the word used in Scottish newspapers occasionally, but he hoped the House would not elevate it to the dignity of being placed in an Act of Parliament. He suggested the substitution of the word "retirement "
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, lines 12 and 23, to leave out the word 'retiral' and to insert the word 'retirement.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThere is no doubt that the word "retiral" does appear in several Scottish Acts. I believe it to be good Scotch for retirement, in spite of what the noble Earl says; but "retirement," perhaps, tells its own tale to the average reader of an Act of Parliament better than the word "retiral," and if the noble Earl presses his Amendment I have no objection to accepting it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I certainly do press it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I propose to insert an Amendment in this clause for the purpose of allowing the urban community known as Anstruther Easter and Anstruther Wester, along with Kilrenny and Pittenweem to retain their licensing authority. The three burghs first mentioned are absolutely contiguous. They form one urban community. Their interests are the same, the population is of the same character, and there is no division between them by a county district. There is a short distance between them and Pittenweem, but there, again, the population is of an entirely similar character. I think it would be a wise concession to the feeling of this community to allow them to retain their licensing Court.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 28, after Sub-section (1.) (c.) to insert as a new sub-section the words: (d.) 'The Royal burghs of Kilrenny, Pittenweem, Anstruther Easter and Anstruther Wester shall be deemed to form one Royal burgh, and the magistrates of the said burghs shall be deemed to be the magistrates of the burgh so formed, and the meetings of the licensing Court for such burgh shall, except as otherwise appointed by the Court, be held in the Royal burgh of Anstruther Easter, and the town clerk of the Royal burgh of Anstruther Easter shall be clerk to the licensing Court; and'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This is really little more than a formal Amendment. Its object is to enable cases to be dealt with at the October Court as well as at the April Court.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 26, to leave out the words 'next ensuing' and to insert the words 'or half-year next ensuring as the case may be.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This is an Amendment asked for by the officers of Inland Revenue, and it is obviously a proper one.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 14, line 23, to leave out the words 'to any party' and to insert the words 'to any officer of Inland Revenue without payment, and to any other person.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 18 to 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I propose at the beginning of this clause to insert a new sub-section. At present a good deal of abuse has occurred owing to the power to transfer at any period of the year simply by a certificate of two justices. It is now proposed that transfers, except in the event of death and bankruptcy and other contingencies, shall only take place at the half-yearly Court. As the Bill at present stands, it may be thought that they can only take place annually. The effect of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that such transfers may take place in October as well as in April.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 20, line 17, at beginning of clause, to insert as a new sub-section the words (1) 'A licensing Court may at any October half-yearly meeting grant to a new tenant or occupant a transfer of any certificate then subsisting for any house or premises as aforesaid.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 33 to 40 agreed to
  Clause 41.
  LORD KINNAIRDproposed to add a sub-section to Clause 41, with a view to giving the licensing authorities power to make by-laws for regulating or preventing the employment of barmaids. The Glasgow magistrates some time ago made a condition in granting certain licences that young women should not be employed. Subsequently some licence-holders thought the magistrates had exceeded their powers, and eventually it was decided that the publicans were right, and that the magistrates had gone beyond the powers vested in them. He thought that the licensing authority should have the power of suggesting to licence-holders that it might not be desirable that women should be employed by them. The system has been tried largely in the United States, and, so far as their case was analogous to ours, there had not been any objection raised to it by those interested in the employment of women. There was not a sufficient number employed in licensed premises to make the proposal a hardship, because there were very many other occupations for young women to which the objection did not hold.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 24, line 31, after the word 'necessary' to insert as a new paragraph the words: (g.) 'For regulating or preventing the employment of barmaids.'"—(Load Kinnaird.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not know that I should differ from the noble Earl that in certain circumstances and in certain environment the employment of young women on licensed premises may be undesirable, but having regard to the habits and customs which exist among us, to legislate in the manner suggested would be an unwarrantable interference with persons who manage a legitimate business in a legitimate way.
  It is perfectly true that the magistrates of Glasgow endeavoured to make a regulation on the subject under the existing law, but, as a matter of fact, it was found to be illegal for them to do so. Before the Court of Appeal gave their decision on the point the magistrates of Glasgow in their effort to regulate this matter had landed themselves in an
  1414
  utterly impossible and illogical position There are many restaurants in Glasgow where there can be no possible objection to women being employed. In some of these customers help themselves and pay at the door, and the establishments are of a perfectly respectable character, and eminently suited for the employment of women. There is hardly a restaurant, I should think, in which women are not employed as waitresses. I believe the Glasgow magistrates found themselves in this position ultimately, that they, managed to regulate the employment of women so far as to prevent their employment behind the bars, where they were really kept to themselves, but they did not manage to do it in those very places where the girls went about among the customers. When one considers the difficulties of the situation and the illogical position, there is nothing to be said for this proposal. As the proposal stands, it would not do. There was a Question asked in another place whether a widow could be a barmaid, and I should like the noble Lord to address his mind to that question. The noble Lord said it was undesirable for young women to be so employed. At what age would he regard such employment as proper? There are all sorts of questions of this kind, and I think the unfortunate Secretary of State for Scotland, who would have to sanction by-laws for the purpose under this Amendment, would find himself in an undesirable situation. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, on the grounds I have stated.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill if he would explain Sub-section (C.), of Clause 41, which provided that a licensing Court might make by-laws—
  "For requiring all wines and spirits kept by a grocer within licensed premises to be sold in corked or stoppered bottles, vessels, jars, or casks, but the by-law shall not apply to licensed premises where no groceries are kept or sold, and where a bona fide wholesale business in excisable liquors is carried on."
  The first half of the sub-section he understood perfectly, and, so far as he was able to judge, it seemed all right;

  1415
  but what was the meaning of the provision that the by-law should not apply to licensed premises where no groceries were kept or sold? He presumed that these premises were premises separated from the other by partitions, or in some other way, where liquors only were sold. This question of grocers selling liquors was a very debatable one. If grocery was not their business, and if the sale of excisable liquors was, it was very desirable that they should be under the same regulations as ordinary publicans. They had always been told that the object of giving grocers these licences was to enable them to sell liquor in corked or stoppered bottles, or in certain other measures only, and that it was for that purpose the grocers' licences were chiefly valuable. He would like an explanation from the noble Lord of this sub-section.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can easily give the explanation for which the noble Earl asks. In the first place, nothing under this by-law would apply to publicans; it would be confined entirely to those who worked under grocers' licences. A good deal of complaint has been made, and I think justly made, in the Majority and Minority Reports of the Licensing Commission and in the Report of the Grocers' Licences Commission, of abuses in connection with the working of these certificates. When grocers were given certificates to deal in excisable liquors, it was never intended that they should sell what is called loose spirits in an open jug; but the custom of doing so has grown up, and it was found not capable of being stopped under the existing law. This Bill will stop it. The reason for the exemption is this, that there are two classes of places which work under grocers' licences, but which are in no sense grocers' shops. Those wholesale places in which blending is carried on, often by the same person who may have the grocers shop, but in premises separated from those in which he carries on his grocery business, are worked under grocers' licences, and very often wine merchants work to a large extent under one form of grocers' licence. I think that if there is no business of the nature of a grocer carried on in the same premises as the blending of spirits or the sale of spirits, there seems no reason for
  1416
  putting the holder of that certificate under the same restrictions under the by-law.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he quite understood the noble Lord's point with regard to blending. But the grocer, under this sub-section, would be able, in the separate premises, to sell liquor in small quantities, which was the thing the noble Lord said a moment before was so objectionable. He must say he thought publicans had good reason to complain with regard to grocers' licences, and he thought an arrangement of the sort proposed in the clause would enable grocers to trench even more than at present on the trade of the licensed victuallers.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think not. Wherever a grocer's business is carried on corked or stoppered bottles will be required. There can be no open sale of wines and spirits. We have not, however, included beer, because we thought it only right that a jug of beer might be fetched from grocers' shops.
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clauses 42 to 47 agreed to.
  Clause 48.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHThis is an Amendment which has been suggested by the Inland Revenue, and the provision more properly applies to the Excise Act than to this Act. The same provision is in the Inland Revenue Acts, and there is no reason for repeating it here.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 28, line 24, to leave out from the words 'in calculating' to the word 'disregarded' in line 25.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 49 to 54 agreed to.
  Clause 55.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause is inserted to allow a dealer in spirituous liquors to give out small quantities on a medical certificate, or on a certificate by the procurator fiscal, if wanted for any medical purpose. The clause as it stands would only deal with hours on ordinary It days that public-houses are closed. It is proposed by the Amendment to allow the same process to be gone through on Sundays, public holidays, and other days when public-houses are closed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 30, line 32, to leave out the words 'at any prohibited hour of any day' and to insert the words 'at any time when such giving out and supply would be otherwise illegal.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment makes sure that the licensing Court knows what is going on under this clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 30, line 39, at end of clause to insert the words 'the procurator fiscal shall transmit a list of such orders received by him, showing the names and descriptions of all persons signing the same during the current half-year, to the clerk of the licensing Court seven days before the day fixed for each half-yearly meeting of Kiel Court.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question., Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 56 to 70 agreed to.
  Clause 71.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause provides that—
  "Where a person is convicted of any offence mentioned in the First Schedule to the Inebriates Act, 1898, the Court may, either in addition to or in substitution for any other penalty, order the offender to find caution for good behaviour for any period not exceeding six months, and under a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds."
  The object of my Amendment is to add, at the end of this section, the words contained in the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 38, line 28, at end, to insert the words 'and in default of such caution being found to be imprisoned for a period not exceeding thirty days.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 72 agreed to.
  Clause 73.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid it would be in the recollection of the House that when the Motor-Cars Bill was before their Lordships he moved an Amendment which would have had the effect of making other vehicles subject to the same provisions as applied to motorcars under that Bill. On that occasion the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, took objection on the ground that as the Bill was limited to motor-cars, it would not be well to extend it to other vehicles on the highway. He (Earl Russell) recognised the force of that objection, and did not press his Amendment. But their Lordships would be very much surprised to find that in Clause 73 of this Bill, which was for the object of consolidating and amending Licensing Acts, there was an Amendment of the marriage and divorce law of Scotland. He submitted that this was a very inconvenient mode of procedure, and that it would be far better that this clause should be brought up, if if it was a desirable clause, in the proper way, when attention could be directed to it. He submitted that it was a very inconvenient course to choose a Bill of this character to amend the marriage and divorce laws of Scotland. He noticed that the clause was a new one added after the Bill had been introduced, and he hoped that the noble Lord would be able to see his way to withdraw it and let it be brought up as a separate Bill on its merits.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 73."—(Earl Russell.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI see no reason for omitting this clause. As a matter of fact, it was not in the Bill

  1419
  as introduced; but so strong a feeling was developed in favour of Scotland following the precedent of England that the Lord Advocate in another place agreed to accept the clause. It was inserted, I think, unanimously by the Standing Committee, and passed, I believe, without objection in the other House. It is following the precedent of the English Act of last year, and I think the noble Earl will see that it is sufficiently germane to the subject with which we are dealing to make habitual drunkenness a cause for judicial separation. I am informed that it is considered equal to cruelty in actions dealing with judicial separation and divorce in Scotland. I can hold out no hope of giving way on the point.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 73 agreed to.
  Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to.
  Clause 76.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 77 to 91 agreed to.
  Clause 92.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This is the last Amendment upon which I shall have to trouble the House with any observations, and it is one of some substance, and, I venture to think, of some importance. In the Standing Committee in the House of Commons a Motion was carried to close all refreshment rooms at railway stations at the same hours as public-houses and grocers' shops, and against that the Government representatives voted, but they were beaten by the narrow majority of one, the numbers being 17 to 16. The decision of the Standing Committee was reversed on Report stage in the other House. It was an open Division, Government tellers not being employed, and by a considerable majority the exemption was inserted. The railway interest, for what that is worth, was divided upon the matter, and I have come to the conclusion not to
  1420
  ask this House to reverse the decision then come to as a whole. I think that probably there is a certain convenience to those who are really travelling by rail that they should get refreshments earlier and later than the ordinary opening hours of public-houses. But then there is the question of Sundays. Rightly or wrongly there is Sunday closing all over Scotland for all public-houses, with the exception of hotels. It has been so for close on fifty years, and, whatever may be noble Lords' opinions of it as affecting England, there is no body of opinion in Scotland, at present, at any rate, in favour of reversing that state of matters. I am sure it will be obvious to your Lordships that if the licensed premises on every railway station are to be open on Sundays, there will be a very serious risk of breaches of the law and of scenes of disturbance occurring. I suppose anyone who bought a railway ticket for a penny to go to the next station would be entitled to be served in the railway refreshment bar. If, as we propose, all clubs are to be dealt with under this Bill, and all public-houses will be closed, our rail, way stations, especially in large towns, would not be particularly orderly on Sunday afternoons. I venture to think that the right thing to do is to close these places on Sundays. I am quite sure that to do so will be in conformity with public opinion in Scotland. I am informed that within five miles of the centre of Glasgow there are no less than fifty-three railway stations at which intoxicating liquors could be sold on Sundays if this proposal were not made. It would to a large extent nullify the good which I hope to get from this Bill if the Amendment is not accepted, and I trust, therefore, that there will be no opposition to it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 49, line 3, after the word 'to' to insert the words 'days or'; and in line 4, after the word 'time' to insert the words 'on any day other than Sunday'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNwas glad that the noble Lord proposed to move this Amendment. He thought it would be a great improvement upon the

  1421
  Bill as it stood, and that it would meet with general approval in Scotland. It had appeared in the evidence taken before the Licensing Commission that a very favourite way of getting drink on Sundays was to take a penny ticket at a railway station and either to travel to the station to which the ticket conveyed the holder and there obtain drink, or remain in perpetual waiting in the refreshment room at the first station for the train by which it was never intended to travel.
  On question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule amended and agreed to.
  Third to eighth Schedule agreed to.
  Ninth Schedule amended and agreed to.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported with Amendments to the House: Standing Committee negatived.
  The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed for Thursday next.

  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (the Marquess of LONDONDERRY): I have two Amendments to the first schedule standing in my name, and it may be as well that I should say a few words in explanation of the reason why they have been put down. Paragraph 9, of the first schedule was inserted in the House of Commons on the Motion of Mr. Haldane. The provision, however, in its present
  1422
  form is not quite complete, in as much as, it does not deal with the case where the number of the governing body of an institution is limited. In such a case it will probably be convenient that the members of the governing body appointed by the local education authority should be additional members. The Amendments will make this possible.
  Amendments moved—
  "In the first schedule, paragraph 9, page 4, line 16, to leave out the words 'qualifications required by' and to insert the words 'provisions of'; and in line 17, after the word 'institution' to insert the words 'imposing any limit on the number of the members of the governing body or requiring any qualification for those members'; and to leave out the word 'to' and insert the words 'as respects.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Sub-section 11 provides that the managers of all public elementary schools shall not be appointed for a longer period than three years, at the end of which period they shall be eligible for reappointment. The object of my Amendment is to limit the operation of the subsection to managers of public elementary schools provided by the local education authority. The provision should not apply to voluntary schools, whose managers should be left to be appointed under the Trust Deed or under Orders made under Section 11 of the Act of last year. The effect of the Amendment is to make the necessary limitation. I trust that this will meet an Amendment moved at an earlier stage by the Bishop of Hereford. The grammar of the paragraph as it originally stood was not very satisfactory, and consequently exception was taken to it by the right reverend Prelate. That matter is altered by the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the first schedule, page 4, line 20, to leave out the words 'The managers of all public elementary schools,' and to insert the words 'A manager of a public elementary school provided by the local education authority'; and in line 21 to leave out from the word 'years' to the end of the paragraph, and to insert the words 'but may be re-appointed.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  LORD TWEED MOUTHsaid it seemed to him that the Amendment would strike

  1423
  out all limit as to the period of appointment of managers of non-provided schools. The sub-section would read—
  "A manager of a public elementary school provided by the local education authority shall not be appointed for a longer period than three years, but may be re-appointed."
  The result of that would be that, so far as provided schools were concerned, all the managers would have to be appointed every three years, whereas in the case of non-provided schools there would be no limit whatever, whether the managers were foundation managers or managers appointed by local authorities. He did not think that could be the intention of the noble Marquess. In certain cases, where the manager was appointed ex officio, it might be well for him not to come under the three years limit; but surely the other managers whether chosen by the local education authority or the owners of the school, ought to be appointed for three years, it being perfectly open for the people who appointed them to re-appoint them at the end of their term.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYfailed to see where the injustice came in.
  EARL SPENCERhoped the noble Marquess would not press his Amendment, which would have a very serious effect. Under it they would have in non-provided schools managers appointed for all time, and no change would be possible. He thought it desirable that there should be a change, and he trusted that the President of the Board of Education would not insist upon his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNhoped the noble Marquess would take the matter into consideration. What object could anyone have in wishing that a manager should be appointed for an unlimited time? He did not think that was in the interests either of non-provided school managers or of provided school managers. Surely there was nothing at all harsh in providing that every manager should be elected once in three years. It was a simple rule and a good one.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): I understand there is no limit to the length of time for which voluntary school managers may be appointed in the country generally, and there seems to be no reason why a different rule should apply to London from that which applies to the rest of the country.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he had understood that the noble Marquess's intention was to accept an Amendment which he had moved in order to make the schedule read grammatically, but in framing the Amendment now before the House a new condition had been introduced. He could not but feel that even the ungrammatical language would be preferable to the new clause. What the sub-section was intended to provide was, he imagined, this, that the managers of all public elementary schools should be appointed for a period not exceeding three years. That was the original intention, but it was illogically expressed.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYconfessed to having a great deal of sympathy with the arguments adduced as to the undesirability of permanent appointments of managers being made, either in provided or non-provided schools. But his difficulty arose from what was stated by the noble Duke with great force, that it was inconvenient to make a different arrangement in London from that which was applicable to the country, and he hoped rather that the Board of Education would use its authority to discountenance schemes which did not provide for a triennial election of all managers except those sitting ex officio.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that owing to the rapid transaction of business the other evening, he was precluded from moving an Amendment which stood in his name, and he now desired to bring it forward. It was a very modest Amendment, and its object was to give the local education authority power, by its by-laws dealing with school attendance, to require all

  1425
  children who left school before reaching the seventh standard, or such other standard as might be fixed by the bylaws, to attend continuation classes until they reached this standard, or, failing this, attained the age of sixteen years. The Amendment was of an urgent character, for it dealt with one of the greatest defects in our system of elementary education, and would check, to a large extent, the moral and intellectual waste that was now going on. As long ago as 1891 it was enacted in Germany that through the ordinance of a district council, or any wider communal body, attendance at a continuation school might be made obligatory for all male workers under the age of eighteen. Their Lordships would see how much more drastic this was than the proposal in his Amendment. The State law of Saxony, passed in 1873, enacted that all boys leaving the elementary schools should be required to attend a continuation school for three years, unless their further instruction was otherwise provided for by some approved means. As to the good results of these provisions there could be no question.
  The Director of the Leipzic Continuation School had stated—
  "Naturally boys of fourteen cannot be trusted by their own unaided intelligence to see the advantage or necessity of attending school. Therefore it is a good thing to have the rule. The great majority of the boys, if left alone, would never open a book or write a composition, or work a single sum after leaving school."
  But the most striking part of this teacher's testimony was as to the moral results of this system of continuation schools. He would like to see the principle of this Amendment applied to the whole country. A large number of persons interested in education, and many of the leading employers, were very anxious that attendance at this kind of continuation class should be made obligatory.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the first schedule, page, 4, after paragraph 11, to insert the following new paragraphs—
  '(a) The local education authority may, by its by-laws dealing with school attendance, require all children who leave school before reaching the seventh standard, or such other standard as may be fixed by the by-laws, to attend continuation classes until they reach
  1426
  this standard or, failing this, attain the age of sixteen years; and the minimum number of attendances required in each year shall be ninety of one hour each, it being provided that duly registered attendance at a Sunday school or Bible class shall, if the parents so desire, be reckoned for not more than thirty of the ninety attendances required.
  '(b) Parents and employers contravening such by-law shall be liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings for each offence.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he was entirely in favour of the principle underlying the Amendment; but he believed that his right rev. brother would retard rather than promote the attainment of his object by putting this proposal in the schedule of a Bill dealing only with London education. He hoped that on a suitable opportunity legislation would be proposed giving effect to some proposal of this character and applying the principle to the country as a whole.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid the right rev. Prelate had struck the weakest point in our system of elementary education. It was essential that some such provision as this should be adopted if they were to have anything like true education for the children in elementary schools. When he was a parish clergyman he frequently found that in the course of two or three years lads who had left school at the ordinary period absolutely lost the power of reading intelligently.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The object of this Amendment is to enable the local education authority to make attendance at continuation schools compulsory beyond the age at which attendance at school is now compulsory. Such a provision is a wide-reaching and very important extension of the present law as to compulsory education. It was proposed last year as an Amendment to the general Act, and was resisted on the ground that any extension of the limits of compulsory education should be the subject of separate legislation, and should not be dealt with in a Bill which was dealing primarily with education machinery. These arguments are much stronger against the insertion of such a clause in the present Bill than they were against the insertion of the clause in last year's Act. There is no

  1427
  special reason from this point of view to differentiate London from the rest of the country, and such a provision should certainly not be made in a Bill which deals only with London. As a matter of fact, it is clearly not within the title of the Bill, which is only a Bill to extend last year's Act to London. I am bound, therefore, to ask the right rev. Prelate not to press his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he sympathised with the object which the right rev. Prelate had in view, but he agreed that it was not a subject that could be dealt with in this Bill.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3a to-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 189.)

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.],
  Read 3a(according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  POST OFFICE MAINS.
  LORD KINNAIRDasked his Majesty's Government whether in view of the danger and inconvenience to the public, stated to have been occasioned by the laying of Post Office mains under the public streets, without due regard to existing pipes and mains, the Postmaster-General would, before commencing work in any street, cause notice to be served upon the owners of existing pipes and mains of the intention of the Post Office to lay mains therein, and would conform with such reasonable requirements as might from time to time be made by the owners of such pipes and mains for the purpose of protecting them from injury; and whether the Postmaster-General would accept responsibility for the damage he might cause, in the same manner as companies having Parliamentary powers to open up thoroughfares.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I have been asked by my right hon. colleague, the Postmaster-General, to reply to this Question. It is perfectly true that electric light companies have to give notice to various bodies before they open the streets, and I think it only
  1428
  right that private corporations of that kind should be under somewhat stricter obligations than the Postmaster-General. At the same time, the Postmaster-General is under pretty definite statutory restrictions. If I understood the noble Lord rightly, there is some special case of damage which has been brought to his notice. No specific instance is given in the Question, and, therefore, I am not prepared with any answer to the case brought forward; but in a private letter asking me to answer this Question the Postmaster-General distinctly requests me to add that if the noble Lord, or others acting with him, have any specific case of damage and will bring it under the notice of my right hon. colleague he will give it his immediate attention. With regard to the remainder of the Question, I have to say that the procedure incumbent upon the Postmaster-General when he wants to lay underground telegraphs is regulated by a statute. There are three distinct requirements. In the first place, he is obliged to get the consent of the local authority, and he has to come to an agreement with them as to the method of carrying out the work. He has further, when it is resolved to open a public road or street, to give notice, so that the local authorities may have an opportunity of supervising the work. Then he has to give notice to any water or gas company of any alteration which is intended in their pipes. The Post Office engineers are instructed by printed regulations to comply with all the reasonable requirements made by other owners of pipes and mains. This, however, is not a statutory obligation; it is an instruction voluntarily given by the Postmaster-General. I suggest to the noble Lord and to the House that it is not desirable that further obligations or restrictions, such as are suggested in the noble Lord's Question, should be placed upon the Post Office in carrying out works which are for the public service. The fact is, many of the bodies who have pipes and mains under the public roads have no statutory right to be there at all. Of course, no one desires to do any damage to them wilfully, but in law many of them are there simply as trespassers. They are obviously in a very different position from owners, who have

  1429
  a statutory right to have their property under the public streets. There is only one other question to which I think I need refer, and that is the position in respect to damage. I would refer the noble Lord to Sections 7 and 42 of the Telegraph Act, 1863, which regulates the matter; but he will perhaps, excuse me from entering into any discussion upon it just now for this reason—that there is a case under these sections against the Postmaster-General shortly to come into Court, and I think it would obviously be unsatisfactory for the Government to discuss the matter in either House of Parliament at the moment. I have to repeat the promise given, that if any specific case of hardship is brought to the notice of the Postmaster-General full consideration will be given to it.
  LORD KINNAIRD: I beg to thank the noble Lord for his answer, which is very satisfactory.

  A WEDNESDAY SITTING.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House, I regret to say I shall have to ask the House to sit at the usual hour tomorrow, in order to receive the Patent Office Extension Bill. That measure will involve the acquisition, by compulsory powers, of sites, and under the Standing Orders it is necessary to give a week's notice within which petitions can be presented against it. I understand that it is intended also to take the Report stage of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, and the Third Reading of the London Education Bill will also be put down. Of course if there is any objection with regard to the latter on the score of shortness of notice that Bill will not be proceeded with tomorrow. But I might say that the time of the House for the remainder of the session will be fully occupied, and perhaps it would he better to take the Bill tomorrow than at a late hour on Thursday or Friday night
  THE EARL OF CREWE,in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, said he was not aware of the extent to which the discussion on the Education Bill would go, but he was obliged to the noble Duke for stating that if necessary the Bill should be put down for a later day.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed and to be read 2a on Friday next.—(The Earl of Selbourne. (No. 190.)

  POOR LAW (DISSOLUTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow.—(The Lord Kenyon.) (No. 191.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock till tomorrow, half-past Four o'clock.