Sitting of 19 February 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

PRIVATE BILLS
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN reported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 79, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following list should originate in the House of Lords, viz.:—

1. All Saints, poplar (Rate Abolition).

2. Antrim, Down, Armagh, and Belfast Electric Power.

3. Aston Manor Improvement.

4. Bangor Corporation.

5. Barry Railway.

263

6. Belfast Water.

7. Birmingham Corporation.

8. Birmingham District Tramways.

9. Bournemouth Corporation Tramways.

10. Bournemouth Gas and Water.

11. Bradford Corporation.

12. Brighton Corporation.

13. Bristol Corporation.

14. British Gas Light Company (Norwich).

15. Bury and District Joint Water Board.

16. Cardiff Railway.

17. Carmarthenshire Electric Power.

18. Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity.

19. Chatham and District Light Railways.

20. Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power.

21. Derby Gas.

22. Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways.

23. Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway.

24. Dodley, Stourbridge, and District Tramways.

25. Exeter Corporation.

26. Exeter Railway.

27. Faversham Gas.

28. Frinton-on-Sea Sea Defences.

29. Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways.

30. Harrogate Water.

31. Harrow and Stanmore Gas.

32. Hastings Harbour.

33. Hastings Harbour District Railway.

34. Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment).

35. Hastings Tramways (Extensions).

36. Hexham Gas.

37. Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways.

38. India Rubber, Gutta Percha, and Telegraph Works Company.

39. King's College, London.

40. Knott End Railway (Extension of Time).

41. Lima Railways.

42. Liverpool University.

43. London and North Western Railway.

44. London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway.

45. London County Asylums (Receiving Houses).

46. Macclesfield and District Electric Tramways.

264

47. Manchester Corporation.

48. Manchester Southern Tramways (Cheshire).

49. Manchester Southern Tramways. (Lancashire).

50. Maryport Harbour.

51. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

52. Mid Yorkshir Tramways.

53. Milford Docks.

54. Nantwich Gas.

55. Nantwich Urban District Council.

56. North Cheshire Tramways.

57. North Western Electricity and Power Gas.

58. North's Navigation Collieries.

59. Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways.

60. Old Bridewell Burying Ground.

61. Oldham Corporation.

62. Pelican and British Empire Life Office.

63. Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas.

64. Pontypridd Urban District Council.

65. Poole and District Electric Traction.

66. Port Talbot Railway and Docks.

67. Preston and Horwich Tramways.

68. Queensland Investment and Land Mortgage.

69. Rickmansworth Gas.

70. Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements.

71. St. Philip's Chapel (Regent Street).

72. Salford Corporation.

73. Scunthorpe Urban District Water.

74. Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation.

75. Shepshed Urban District Gas.

76. Shropshire, Worcestershire, and East Denbighshire Electric Power.

77. Somerset and District Electric Power.

78. Southampton Harbour.

79. South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways.

80. South Lancashire Tramways.

81. South Staffordshire Tramways.

82. South Wales Mineral Railway.

83. South Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway.

84. Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal.

85. Sutton Coldfield Corporation.

86. Taff Vale Railway.

87. Torquay Corporation Water.

88. Tynemouth and District Tramways.

89. Wakefield and District Tramways.

90. Wellington (Salop) Gas.

91. West Bromwich Corporation.

92. Western Trust.

93. Willesden Urban District Council.

265

94. Wirral Railway.

95. Wisbech Canal (Abandonment).

96. Worthing Corporation (Tramways).

PETITIONS.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND)
  Petitions for legislation: from Nairn; Glassary; North Knapdale; Drymen; Killearn; Balfron; Dunlop; Earlston; East Kilbride; and Carluke; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY
  Petitions for prohibition: from Melton Constable; and Northampton; to lie upon the Table.
  SITES VALUES OF INSANITARY AREAS
  Petition from Fulham, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890
    Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th December 1902, amending the Barotziland North Western Rhodesia Order in Council, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890
    Copy presented, of Orders in Council of 16th February 1903, entitled "The Siam Order in Council, 1903," and "The Southern Rhodesia Order in Council, 1903" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894
    Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th February 1903, fixing the Establishment of the Corporation of the Trinity House [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894
    Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th February 1903, confirming byelaws made by the Pilotage Board for the Port of Newport (Mon.) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865
    Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th February 1903, defining the Dockyard Port of Portland and making Regulations with respect thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1858
    Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th December 1902, approving a statement of proposed new and revised appointments and alterations of salaries in the establishment of the Secretary of State for India in Council [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    COLONIAL PROBATES ACT, 1892
    Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th February 1903, applying The Colonial Probates Act, 1892, to the Colony of the Transvaal [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    GRENADA
    Copy presented, of Rule applying the Marks System to Escaped and Recaptured Prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    SAINT LUCIA
    Copy presented, of Rule amending Rule No. 224 relating to the Flogging of Prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS)
    Account presented, of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt on account of the fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September 1845 to 5th January 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 17.]
    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND)
    Account ordered, "of the Receipts and Payments of the Accountant General of the Supreme Courts of Judicature in Ireland in respect of the funds of suitors in the said Court, including therein funds to the credit of Lunacy Accounts, in the year to the 30th day of September 1902; together with a Statement of Liabilities and Assets, and particulars of Securities in Court, on the 30th day of September 1902."—(Mr. Hayes Fisher.)
    CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1901-2
    Copy ordered, "of the Account of the Civil Contingenies Fund, 1901–2, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1902; (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—(Mr. Hayes Fisher.)
    NATIONAL GALLERY (REPORT)
    Copy ordered, "of Report of the Director of the National Gallery for the year 1902, with Appendices."—(Mr. Hayes Fisher.)
    ALIEN IMMIGRATION
    Return ordered, "of the number of Aliens that arrived from the Continent at ports in the United Kingdom in each month of the year 1903."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    TRADE AND NAVIGATION
    Accounts ordered, "relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1903."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  QUENSTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Sugar Bounties in the Australian Commonwealth — Position of New South Wales
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secratary of State for the Colonies, can he state, or give Papers stating, the present state of the law in the Australian Commonwealth with reference to rebates on sugar grown within the Commonwealth and to fiscal advantages of any other kinds granted thereby to growers or manufacturers of sugar; and can he explain the communication made by the Premier of New South Wales, protesting against New South Wales having to bear the cost of a rebate on sugar, or will he lay upon the Table Papers explaining that communication.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) The import duty on cane sugar in
    268
    Australia is 6s. per cwt., and on other sugar 10s. per cwt. The Excise duty on sugar grown in Australia is 3s. per cwt., subject in the case of all sugar in the production of which only white labour is employed to a rebate of 2s. per cwt. No information has been received as to the communication alleged to have been made by the Premier of New South Wales as to the payment of this rebate.

    Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and Russia—Date of Expiration
    MR. CROMBIE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what date the commercial treaty between Britain and Russia would, under normal circumstances, expire; whether Russia has definitely agreed to maintain the present treaty notwithstanding the protest which she made regarding the Sugar Bounties Convention; and whether, if the treaty is to be denounced, the Government will undertake to give due notice of this, so that in the meantime trade with Russia may be carried on with confidence.
    (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) In reply to the first and third Questions I have to say that the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Russia of 12th January, 1859, will remain in force "until the expiration of twelve months after either of the High Contracting Powers shall have given notice to the other of its intention to terminate the same." As to the second Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Paper which was distributed yesterday, Commercial, No. 1, 1903.

    Police Rate—Suggested Alteration of Financial Year
    SIR SEYMOURKING: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the surplus under The Police Expenses Act, 1875, has, owing to the rate levied in each year being in excess of the requirements under the Act, risen from a sum of &358,462 on 31st March, 1893, to a sum of &696,488 on 31st March, 1902, and will he say why in these circumstances it is necessary to impose the maximum rate of 5d. on the local authorities; whether he will consider the advisability of reducing the amount of the rate levied from the local authorities

    269
    of the Metropolis, so as to prevent any further surplus being accumulated; and of making the financial year for the police rate run concurrently with the Local Government financial year, viz., from the 1st April to 31st March, and to arrange for the police rate warrants being paid in four quarterly instalments, viz., on the 9th May, 9th August, 9th November, and 9th February in each year instead of as at present.
    (Answered by Mr. Akers Douglas.) The Act quoted in the Question is not now in force, having been repealed in 1893. The expenses of the Metropolitan Police are defrayed out of an annual sum which may not, by the Police Rate Act, 1868, exceed 9d. in the pound on the full annual value of all property rateable for the relief of the poor. The rate of 9d. is now levied, and, allowing for contributions from the Local Taxation Account, the rate drawn from the local authorities amounts to about 5d. I do not think that an investigation of the figures quoted in the Question shows that the rate levied is in excess of the requirements. The sum of &696,488, referred to as a surplus, was a balance which, after the deduction (to which it was subject) of &139,680 due to the Pension Fund Account, was found inadequate (even allowing for all receipts subsequent to the 31st March) to meet the actual charges on the Police Fund up to the 10th August, when the next halfyearly rate warrants were payable. Moreover, the excess of receipts over expenditure for the whole year ended 31st March, 1902, did not exceed &28,960, and there does not therefore appear to be room for a reduction of the rate. As regards the last part of the Question, I do not at present see sufficient ground for taking steps to alter the present procedure in regard to the police rate warrants.

    Indian Civil Servants at the Coronation—Pay During Absence from Duty
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has now received a reply from the Government of India as to the Government servants who took privilege leave in order to join the Indian Volunteer Contingent which came Home for the Coronation; whether they were informed that they would not receive any pay for the extra period of their detention at Home in consequence of the King's illness; and what decision has been arrived at.
    270
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Government of India have informed me that they have decided that the period of detention in excess of the leave taken by Government servants who came to this country with the Indian Volunteer Contingent for the Coronation shall be treated as duty carrying full pay, and that orders have been issued accordingly.

    Cost of the Delhi Durbar
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for India what has been the total cost of the Delhi Durbar; and if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Paper distinguishing the different heads of expenditure making up the amount.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Budget Estimates for the present financial year included &260,000 for the cost of the Delhi Durbar. The revised Estimates for the year will not be received for several weeks; when they are received they will be published.

    Interest Remitted on Loans to Indian Princes
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for India what is the total amount of annual interest remitted on loans to Indian Princes, and by whom will the charge for this interest be borne.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The total amount of interest recently remitted on the occasion of the Delhi Durbar on loans granted to or raised by Native States is eleven lakhs a year for three years. The charge resulting from the measure will be borne by the revenues of India.

    Hyderabad Assigned Districts
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will supplement the Paper Cd. 1321, of 1902, relating to the agreement with the Nizam respecting the assigned districts, by some selection of the State Papers or other documents referred to in paragraphs 4 and 6, and with tables showing the amount paid during each of the last ten years to His Highness the Nizam's
    The Paper referred to is "East India—Agreement respecting Hyderabad Assigned Districts."

    271
    Government, on account of surplus revenue from the assigned districts, and the methods of computation by which the decision concerning the annual payment of twenty-five lakhs of repees has been arrived at.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The first paragraph of the Resident's letter to which the hon. Gentleman presumably refers, explains that the settlement was the outcome of informal and private communications, of which there is no official record. There are thus no Papers to be presented in addition to those included in the recent Return. The annual payments to the Nizam of surplus revenue for the last ten years have been as follows (in tens of rupees):—1900-1901, nil; 1899-1900, Rx. 185,008; 1898-9, Rx. 47,229; 1897-8, nil; 1896-7, Rx. 72,481; 1895-6, Rx. 29,173; 1894-5, Rx. 116,205; 1893-4. Rx.65,000; 1892-3, Rx. 83,014; 1891-2, Rx.130,697. The annual rent of twenty-five lakhs has not been arrived at by any exact calculations, but is intended as a liberal payment to the Nizam, having regard to the present revenue of the assigned districts, and the improvements which will be possible in their administration under the terms of the perpetual lease.

    Indian Princes Deposed for Maladministration—Methods of Procedure
    MR. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will grant a Return showing the Indian Princes and chiefs who have been deposed on the ground of maladministration or misconduct since Lord Canning's Adoption Proclamation of 1858, stating with what procedure, judicial or otherwise, the inquiry preceding their deposition was conducted; and whether his attention has been drawn to the Resolution of the Indian National Congress praying that no Indian prince or chief should be deposed on the ground of maladministration or misconduct until the fact of such maladministration or misconduct should have been established to the satisfaction of a public tribunal which shall command the confidence alike of Government and of the Indian princes and chiefs; and will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    272
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamiltion.) Only six cases have occurred of native Indian chiefs being deposed since 1858. In respect of three of these, viz., Baroda (1875), Manipur (1891), and Jhalawar (1896), Papers have been presented to Parliament. In the other three cases the procedure was as follows: (1) suket (1878); Report of political officer appointed to inquire into a rebellion caused by the Raja's maladministration. (2) Bharatpur (1900); Report of political officer appointed to inquire into a murder committed by the Maharaja, (3) Panna (1902); Report of Special Commission appointed to inquire into charges against the Maharaja of complicity in a murder. I did not observe any reference to the subject in the Resolutions, as reported in the Press, of the last meeting of the Indian National Congress, and I see no reason to take any action in the matter.

    German Locomotives for Indian Railways—Dates of Deliveries
    COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs): To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the date agreed upon between the East India Railway Company and the contractors in Germany for the delivery of the locomotives last ordered, and the dates upon which actual deliveries have taken place.
    ( Answered by Secretary Lord Geroge Hamilton.) The contract was made by the East Indian Railway Company. I am not acquainted with the facts connected either with the details of the contract or its fulfilment by the contractors.

    Payment of Gratuities to Time-expired Men for Services in China
    MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secreatary to the Admiralty whether time-expired men in the Royal Navy who are entitled to gratuity for recent operations in China may rely upon receiving the same without delay, seeing that men now serving received their share three months ago.
    (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster): The payment of the China gratuity to men who have left the naval service has

    273
    been delayed owing to the fact that the details as to the distribution of the Peking prize money, which was superintended by a committee of Indian officers, have not yet reached this country. As the share, if any, received from the latter fund has to be taken into consideration in calculating the amount due in respect of the China gratuity, it is not possible to proceed with the payment of the gratuity pending the arrival of this information, which, however, is expected to be soon available.

    Atlantic Shipping Combination—Delay in Publication of Agreements
    MR. RENWICK: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state when the agreements between the British Government and the North Atlantic Combine, or Mr. Pierpont Morgan, or the International Mercantile Marine Company, and between the British Government and the Cunard Steamship Company, will be placed in the hands of Members of this House; and, if such agreements are not yet completed, will he state the reason of the long continued delay in their completion?
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The agreements are approaching completion, but I cannot say definitely when they will be laid upon the Table. Negotiations as to details affecting important and diverse interests, together with the consideration of somewhat complex points of law, are accountable for the delay which has occurred.

    Boards of Guardians—Lack of Control over Permanent Officials
    MR. MORRELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the position in which boards of guardians are placed through want of control over the officers whose salaries and pensions the ratepayers are called upon to provide; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to the provision of a remedy.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have received a resolution on this subject from
    274
    the Woodstock Board of Guardians. Boards of guardians possess considerable powers of control over their officers, and, except in the case of their principal officers, have the power of dismissal. As regards the principal officers, the consent of the Local Government Board is required to dismissal, but, where there is cause for dissatisfaction, it is competent to the guardians to make representations to the Board.

    Ireland, Warrants for Desertion—Delay in Execution
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that five warrants for the arrest of persons under separate charges of deserting their families preferred against them by the Mountmellick Board of Guardians, and granted upon sworn informations, have been lodged with the police sergeant at Mountmellick since the 30th May, 1902, and that none of those warrants have been executed; and will he explain what is the reason for this action on the part of the constabulary?
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Three such warrants were received by the constabulary since the date mentioned. The expenses incidental to the arrest of persons in such circumstances are a statutory charge against the guardians. The guardians are unwilling to defray the expenses attending the execution of two of the warrants, the families having left the union. In the third case the defendant has absconded and cannot be found.

    Proposed New Rifle for the Army— Advantages
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for War, has any decision been arrived at as to the adoption of the proposed new rifle; is it a consequence of the reduction in length of the barrel by five inches, while the old ammunition is retained, that the proposed new rifle kicks much more than those of the present pattern; has the effect of this increased kick upon accuracy of shooting been taken into account; and will this be further considered before the final adoption and issue of the proposed rifle.

    275
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) A new pattern of rifle, which is a modification of the present rifle, has been approved. The slight increase of recoil is unimportant, and is more than compensated for by the reduction in weight. Prolonged trials as to the accuracy of the rifle and its other features were carried out before the Small Arms Committee recommended its adoption.

    Duke of York's School—Reasons for Removal
    MR. WHITMORE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government have decided to remove the Duke of York's Royal Millitary School from Chelsea; and, if so, what are the grounds on which this decision has been arrived at, where the School will be re-established, and to what uses it is proposed that its site in Chelsea shall in future be devoted.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The question of the removal of the school from Chelsea is under the consideration of the Departments concerned. It may, however, be stated that the existing buildings are inadequate, and the site is unsuitable for any increased accommodation.

    Police at Waltham Abbey Mills—Extra Pay
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will explain why the policemen of duty outside the cordite buildings at Waltham Abbey receive 1s. per day extra pay, seeing that the workmen inside the building do not meet with the same consideration.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The rates of pay of members of the Metropolitan Police are fixed by the Home Office for ordinary police duties, and a special allowance of 1s. a day extra is given for exceptional employment. The rates of pay of workmen in this factory are fixed with regard to the circumstances of their employment, so that to give them a special allowance would be to pay them twice over in respect of the same conditions of work.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

    The Grenadier Guards
    COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if Colonel Kinloch or any officer of the 1st Grenadier Guards has demanded to be tried by court-martial; and, if so, will the court-martial be granted.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): No such application has been received. Nor is it within the right of any officer to demand a court-martial.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be so kind as to say whether he will grant as a favour that which an officer is not allowed to demand as a right—namely, a court-martial?
    MR. BRODRICK: That Will depend on the circumstances.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: In this case?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice had better be given of that Question.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I ask why an officer of the Army has not the same privileges as an officer of the Navy?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the present Question.

    South African Garrison
    MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present strength of British Forces in south Africa; and if he can state the approximate number of British troops contemplated to be kept in that country.
    MR. BRODRICK: The present strength of the Forces in south Africa is about 38,000. The garrison is in course of reduction to about 30,000.

    The War Commission
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the reasons for which the examination of witnesses

    277
    before the Commission to inquire into the conduct of the late war has been conducted throughout with closed doors, and the consequent with-holding of the evidence from the public; and what communications have passed between the Government and the Commission on this subject; and what suggestions or representations were made by the Government, either directly of indirectly, to the Commission with regard to the secret character of this inquiry; and what explanation, if any, has he to give for the departure by the Commission of Inquiry from the examination of witnesses in public.
    MR. BRODRICK: These questions rest entirely with the Commission and do not in any way concern the Secretary of State for War.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I must now ask what suggestions or representations were made by the Government, either directly or indirectly, with regard to the secret character of the inquiry?
    MR. BRODRICK: No representations were made by my Department, nor so far as I am aware, by any Department or Member of the Government.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why has the right hon. Gentleman chanaged his mind with reference—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That question does not arise out of the answer.

    1st Class Army Reserve
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any calculation has been made, and can be laid before Parliament, as to the rate at which the 1st Class Army Reserve is likely to regain the number at which it stood before the recent war.
    MR. BRODRICK: So far as Sections A., B., and C. are concerned, it is expected that the numbers will reach the figure at which they stood in October 1899, at the latest in 1905. As regards Section D., the number depends on voluntary re-engagements, and, therefore, any calculation would be too problematical to be of any real value. The
    278
    adoption of the three years system will cause a rapid increase of the Reserve after 1905.

    Strength of Army Corps
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War the present effective strength of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Army Corps respectively.
    MR. BRODRICK: I hope to be able to make a statement on this subject at an early date, and will then lay a Paper on the Table giving the actual distribution of the troops.
    MR. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give us some fuller information before that discussion takes Place?
    MR. BRODRICK: I will make a statement in reply on that occasion.
    MR. LAMBERT: May I press the right hon. Gentleman? Could he not make a statement before the discussion takes place?
    MR. BRODRICK: I do not know whether I can have a statement prepared before that. I do not know when the debate will come on. There is no concealment in the matter, and I shall give the House the fullest information I can.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to do so as soon as he possibly can before the debate takes place?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have already replied to that question.

    Mr. Brodrick's Visit to Malta
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War under what authority and in what capacity did he hold inspections of troops and receive guards of honour at Malta, and what precedent. if any, is there for the holding of inspections and the receiving of guards of honour by any former Secretary of State for War.
    MR. BRODRICK: As regards the first part of the Question, the inspection alluded to was held by the Governor, who commanded and took the salute. As regards the second part of the Question, the Governor adopted the procedure of 1875 when a Secretary of State for War visited Malta.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: In what capacity did the right hon. Gentleman receive a salute of sixteen guns, and who pays for the gunpowder?
    The question was not answered.

    Conveyance of Ministers in Warships
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty in how many instances during the last three years have ships of war of the Royal Navy been used for the conveyance of Ministers of the Crown, unconnected with the Admiralty, on voyages either for public or private purposes; Whether he will mention the names of the ships thus employed, and of the Ministers of the Crown at whose disposition they were placed. and the voyages thus undertaken, and the purposes of such voyages; and whether, previously to the year 1900, there is any precedent for the utilisation of a vessel of the Royal Navy for such purposes.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): In the year 1900 the Secretary of State for the Colonies was conveyed in H.M.S. "Caesar." and in the present year the same Minister proceeded to Durban in the "Good Hope." In the present year the Secretary of State for War was conveyed from Genoa to Malta in the despatch vessel "Surprise," and from Malta to Gibraltar in the "Canopus," which was proceeding to Gibraltar on her way home. There are precedents for the conveyance in His Majesty's ships of Ministers of the Crown not connected with the Admiralty prior to the year 1900, but a practice which seems in itself reasonable and in the Public interest would appear to be justified without reference to precedent.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will not the hon. Gentleman tell me what was the last precedent? Is he not aware that the precedents for conveying Ministers of the Crown in ships of war have always taken place in war time?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, I think the hon. Member is mistaken. That is not the fact.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will kindly give me a list of the precedents.

    Cost of Operations in South Africa, somaliland, and Venezuela
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost, up to the 31st March next, of the military and naval operations in West Africa, Somaliland, and Venezuela respectively.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): The cost of the expedition to Kano has been met by Northern Nigeria funds. I do not anticipate that any additional charge will fall on the Imperial Exchequer beyond the existing grant-in-aid of &290,000 for 1902-3. The estimated expenditure for Somaliland from October 1st—on which date the War Office took over the military operations—until March 31st is &250,000. The expenditure incurred up to September 30th last was charged to the Somaliland Protectorate Fund. My hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty has already answered that part of the Question which refers to Venezuela.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE SIR CHARLES DILKE inquired if there was any addditional charge for the new 3rd Battalion of the West African Rifles mentioned in the Papers on the Kano expedition.
    MR. RITCHIE: I can only answer the Question on the Paper, but I will inquire. I understand that the expedition will not involve any extra charge on the Imperial Exchequer.

    Taxation of Natives in British South Africa
    *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what are the rates of taxation now paid by natives in the several parts of British South Africa.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The information for which the hon. Member asks cannot be given within the limits of an answer to a Question, but if he will move for a Return there will be no objection to furnishing it.

    Venezuela
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the date of the first intimation to the American Government of the proposed co-operation of Germany with England for exercising pressure on Venezuela.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): No formal intimation was made to the American Government in regard to the co-operation of the two Powers. Each of them, however, at different times informed the American Government that they might be compelled to resort to coercive measures against Venezuela. Before these measures were commenced the United States Government had undertaken that its representative at Caracas would take charge of British and German interests.
    MR. LAMBERT: The noble Lord has not said what was the date the first intimation was given to the American Government.
    LORD CRANBORNE: I have nothing to add to the statement I have read for the hon. Gentleman. No formal representation was made to the American Government with regard to the co-operation of the two Powers.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): Was any informal representation made, and if so, when?
    LORD CRANBORNE: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer he would have found out.
    MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether the original proposals for Anglo-German co-operation regarding Venezuela came from His Majesty's Government or from the German Government.
    LORD CRANBORNE: We were aware as far back as the beginning of the last year from the German Government that they were contemplating the necessity of resorting to measures of coercion against Venezuela. By the middle of July we had come to the conclusion that, failing redress, we might be obliged to resort to force. The first definite proposal for co-operation between the two Powers arose out of a communication by the German Ambassador, to which reference is made in Lord Lansdowne's despatch of July 23rd, No. 109 of the Blue-book.
    MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the approximate cost, either total or per day, of the British naval operations against Venezuela.
    MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: Until the accounts of the ships engaged in these operations have been received and examined it is impossible to say whether any, and, if so, what expenditure has been incurred over and above the normal expense of maintaining the squadron on the North America Station; but it is not anticipated that the additional expense will be large.

    Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs
    MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether His Majesty's Government have in any way modified their views concerning the control of the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs in the future.
    LORD CRANBORNE: The answer is in the negative.

    Papers on Macedonia
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers relating to the state of Macedonia which have been promised will be presented to Parliament; and whether they will contain an indication of the views of His Majesty's Government regarding the present condition of Macedonia, and the policy they propose to follow in the present question regarding the introduction of reforms there.
    LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government hope to be able to present these Papers to Parliament so that they shall be in the hands of Members in a few days. They will contain information bearing upon the points mentioned by the hon. Member.
    MR. BRYCE: Does the noble Lord propose to include in the Papers some of the Consular Reports describing the state of affairs?
    LORD CRANBORNE: Yes, Sir; I think so.

    The Currency Question
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Hythe, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the proposals formulated by the Mexican and Chinese Governments to President Roosevelt respecting the fixing of a ratio between the Maxican dollar and gold; whether His Majesty's Government have made any recommendations to China in connection with endowing that country with a national currency coin, in pursuance of one of the provisions of the recent Anglo-Chinese agreement; and whether he would lay upon the Table any correspondence of an international character bearing on these subjects.
    The following Question also appeared on the Paper on the subject:—
    MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to accede to President Roosevelt's suggestion that an International Con-
    284
    ference should be held to discuss the advisability of arranging the currency difficulties existing between gold standard and silver-using countries, and if possible to fix a stable ratio of Value and exchange.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: I will reply to both Questions together My attention has been drawn to the proposals in question, but His Majesty's Government have not vet received any invitation to take part in a conference on the subject. His Majesty's Government have not so far made any recommendations such as are indicated in the second paragraph of the Question. We have not taken part in any international correspondence on the question.

    The Income Tax
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an inquiry has been instituted, by Departmental Committee or otherwise, into the feasibility of graduation of the Income Tax and of further extension of abatements to small incomes in pursuance of the statements of the right hon. Member for West Bristol on 11th June 1902; and, if so, whether and when the result of such inquiry will be laid before Parliament.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg at the same time to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has taken, or intends to take, any steps to appoint the committee of experts to inquire into the practicability of graduating the Income Tax which his predecessor indicated the probability of his appointing during the debate of 11th June of last year.
    MR. RITCHIE: I will answer the two Questions put to me on this subject together. The Questions deal with two points—one, the feasibility of graduation of the Income Tax, which is the point specially referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for the Elland Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the other, the further extension of abatements to small incomes. The latter is merely an extension of the existing principle of abatement, which is a point deserving consideration, but not,

    285
    I thing, one to be referred to a Committee. No extension which has previously been made has ever been first referred to a Committee. The question of graduation stands in a very different position. It would hardly be possible for the Government to refer it to a Committee without giving ground for the belief that such an enquiry was intended as a prelude to practical changes in out fiscal system such as the hon. Member desires.

    Newgate Prison—Auction of Relics
    MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to the character of the scenes that took place at the recent auction of portions of His Majesty's late prison of Newgate, and to the fact that objects such as the prison bell, the flagstaff, the condemned criminals' seat in chapel, the fetters which hung for many years over the entrance, and other similar objects—some of historic interest —were sold for small sums for purposes of public exhibition; is he aware of the behaviour of persons in the execution shed during the sale; that other persons were seen digging for murderers' teeth and bones in the alley where executed criminals were buried; who was responsible for these arrangements; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): At the time of the auction Newgate prison was in the possession of the authorities of the City of London. The building and fixtures, being no longer required for Government purposes, owing to the re-arrangement of London prisons, had been sold to the City, and handed over on 1st December last; and from that date passed out of my control. I do not think that there are any steps for me to take in the matter; but I may add that, before the prison was transferred, careful arrangements were made for the removal and interment elsewhere of the remains of those buried within its precincts, and I have no reason to believe that these arrangements were not fully and properly carried out.

    London Traffic—Street Accidents
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the question of remedial measures for the prevention of street accidents will be brought within the scope of the inquiry of the Royal Commission on London Traffic, having regard to the fact that deaths from vehicular accidents in the streets of the Metropolis have increased by 26 per cent. during the last ten years, whilst personal injuries from accidents of this description have increased from nearly 6,000 to upwards of 9,000 during the same period.
    *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The terms of reference to the Royal Commission on London Traffic include the question of better provision for the organisation and regulation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. I cannot, of course, say what the Commissioners may hold to be within the scope of their inquiry, but it seems not unreasonable to suppose that it may involve the consideration of measures for the prevention of street accidents.

    Wireless Telegraphy
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether facilities will be given to the public, through the General Post Office, for the transmission of messages by wireless telegraphy to the Continent of America and elsewhere.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The effect of recent progress in the development of wireless telegraphy upon both the commercial and strategic interests of this country is now receiving the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government. I am also in communication with the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company upon the subject of their relations with the Post Office. I am not at present in a position to make any final statement upon the subject, but I have no doubt that it will be possible to secure for the public of this country the use of this method of communication when it is sufficiently developed for commercial purposes.

    Agricultural Parcels Post
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he has arrived at any decision respecting an agricultural

    287
    parcel post; it not will he consider the advisability of appointing a Committee representing the various interests concerned, with a view of evolving a work able scheme.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: After carefully considering this subject I have come to the conclusion that, if any reduction were made in the rates of postage on parcels, it would not be right to restrict the reduction to parcels of agricultural produce; and at the present time I do not feel able to recommend a general reduction of parcel postage.
    MR. LAMBERT: What as to appointing a Committee?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that that at present is desirable, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make any representations to me on the subject I will gladly hear him.

    Fraudulent Bankruptcy
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the losses sustained by traders through the action of fraudulent bankrupts, will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation such as will allow of persons guilty of fraudulent bankruptcy being more severely punished that is now practicable under the present conditions of the law?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The subject has been under my consideration, but I am unable to promise to introduce legislation. I shall be happy to examine carefully the proposals of a Bill introduced by the hon. Member.

    Housing Problem in Ireland
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is his intention to introduce into Parliament this session a Bill for the better housing of Irish artisans, rural tradesmen, fishermen, and agricultural labourers; has his attention been drawn to the present condition of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts and to their limited application; and does he propose to extend their influence and to simplify their procedure.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The question of further legislation in under consideration. At the present moment, however, I cannot make a more definite statement in the matter.
    MR. SHEEHAN: Had the right hon. Gentleman's private secretary—the member of North Antrim—any authority for stating, in the course of the South Antrim election, that legislation was actually to be introduced?

    Labourers' Cottages in Cork
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the scheme for providing additional half acres to the labourers' cottages in the Cork Rural District has been sanctioned by the Local Government Board; will he state the cause of delay in sanctioning this scheme after all prescribed forms had been complied with; what is the nature of the arrangement come to between the Local Government Board and the District Council; and in what manner have the grounds of disagreement been removed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: On the 9th December I stated that the delay was occasioned by the existence of irregular tenancies. This objection has since been removed in several cases. The District Council has also undertaken to obviate grounds for similar delay in future. The Provisional Order is now about to be issued.

    Irish Local Government Board—Interference with Elected Representatives.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the cases of interference by the Local Government Board in Ireland with elected representatives; whether he will take this matter into consideration, and provide a remedy by amending the Local Government Act.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has been good enough to send me a newspaper report, from which it appears that his Question arises out of the recent action of the Board in con-

    289
    nection with one of the nurses at Rathdown Union Workhouse. I am making inquiry into the facts, and would ask the hon. Member to repeat the Question tomorrow.

    Irish Judicial Rents
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Commission can state the percentage of reductions in the case of judicial rents fixed in 1886, 1887, 1888, and 1889 respectively; and what has been the percentage of reduction in the case of judicial rents fixed in 1886 and 1887 that have been brought into court for second-term judicial rents.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The figures in answer to the first inquiry are 24.1, 31.3, 28.8, and 24.7 respectively. The official returns do not give information in the precise from desired in the second part of the Question. They show for each year ended 31st March the percentages of reduction in second-term rents on rents fixed for a first statutory term. But they do not distinguish between rents fixed in different years, as tenants rarely apply to have second-term rents fixed immediately on the expiry of the first term. The reductions in second-term on first term rents for the years ended March 1900, 1901 and 1902 were 23.7, 22.4 and 21 percent. respectively.

    Dillon Estate Mortgages
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board can state what was the total amount of the mortgages and the yearly charge for same on the Dillon estate in Roscommon and Mayo prior to the purchase by that Board; and what were the number of years' purchase of his net income, over and above his incumbrances, that the Board paid to Lord Dillon.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member will find the details of this purchase on page 17 of the Ninth Report of the Congested Districts Board for the year ending 31st March, 1900. Different methods of calculation give different numbers of years purchase, and various
    290
    interpretations are placed on the term net income. The salient facts are that &290,000 was paid for an estate with a gross nominal rental of &20,370, a mortgage of &40,000 at 4 per cent., annual outgoings for county cess, poor rate, drainage charge, etc., of &2,488, a charge of &997, which expired shortly after the date of purchase, and with arrears of &27,000, excluding the hanging gale.

    Irish Lights
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the president of the Board of Trade whether he will confer with Trinity House and communicate with the Irish Lights Board suggesting to them the necessity of placing a light and fog signal at Three Castles Head or Mizen Head, or somewhere on the southern shore of Bantry Bay, and also instruct the Board to place a light and fog signal at the west end of Rathlin, and likewise to place a fog signal at Inishtrahull; and whether he is aware of the demand for those lights and signals.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The placing of a light and fog signal at Three Castles Head or Mizen Head is under the consideration of the lighthouse authorities; it is probable that the improvement in the Fastnet Light and the communication which is about to be established between that lighthouse and the shore may have an important bearing upon the decision. The Commissioners of Irish Lights are prepared to place a light and fog signal at Rathlin Island, but the financial questions attending the heavy cost of the works have not yet been settled. It has been determined to establish a fog signal at Inishtrahull. I must point out that the Board of Trade have no power to "instruct" the lighthouse authorities to undertake specific works as suggested by the hon. Member in his Question.

    The committee of Defence
    MR. ARTHUR LEE (Hants,): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Army and Navy Estimates for the coming financial year have been submitted to, and reviewed concurrently by, the new Committee of Defence; and, if not, whether they will be so reviewed before being laid before this House.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon. friend I have to say that the Estimates of the year could not have been revised by the Defence Committee, because the Committee was not fully organised on its new basis early in the autumn, when the broad outlines of the Estimates had to be determined. I will go further and say that in my judgment it would not be a proper use to put the Committee of Defence to, to make them go over the details of the Estimates. No doubt the work of that Committee will have a most important effect on the view which the Government take both as regards the absolute expenditure on the Army and the Navy, and the relative expenditure upon the two services; but I do not think it would be desirable that they should have cast upon them the task which properly belongs to the Minister in charge of the Department and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR LEE: May I ask whether the relative amounts to be spent in the current year on the Navy and Amry will be considered by the committee without going into details?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have explained to my hon. friend that the Estimates for the year have to be decided in their broad lines not later than the preceding autumn, and when they were decided for the coming year the Committee of Defence had not been reorganised.
    MR. BECKETT(York, N.R., Whitby): May I ask whether the Committee will regard the scheme on which the Estimates are framed with an open mind?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Committee would be perfectly useless if it did not approach every question with an open mind.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (KING'S SPEECH, MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
    Ordered, That the proceedings on the Address in answer to His Majesty's speech shall, until concluded, have
    292
    precedence of all other Orders of the Day and of Notices of Motion at all sittings for which they are set down.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

    KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS)
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [17th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Gretton.)
    Question again proposed.
    *MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): I rise to continue the statement I began last night, When I briefly pointed out in some detail the extent of this unemployed problem, and sought to show that one method of remedying the evil was to increase the area of land under cultivation. This question of the cultivation of land has excited considerable interest among all sections of the community. The drift of the population from the land into our cities is a matter which cannot be ignored, and experience has taught us that it has brought most serious consequences to the community at large. I will trouble the House with a few figures in order to show the extent to which this evil is proceeding. According to the census of 1871, the proportion of population engaged in agriculture was 434 per 10,000 persons. In 1881 that figure had diminished to 343; ten years later it had shrunk still further to 275, and it is expected by all competent authorities that when the figures of the last census are published a further decrease will be shown in the proportion of men working on the land. I think there will be unanimity of opinion as to the importance of having the largest possible proportion of workers engaged in agriculture, because, despite all our display of wealth and the accumulation of property in various directions, it must be that the chief wealth of the nation

    293
    consists in the products of the soil. No matter what the trade of a nation may be, that nation cannot be spoken of as prosperous and wealthy unless that law is observed. May I point out that in this respect Great Britain occupies the lowest position of any European country? In 1891 the proportion of persons engaged in agriculture in Great Britain was 10.4. In France, in the same year it was 44.8; in Germany in 1895 it was 39.3; in Belgium in 1890 it was 35.0; in Denmark also in the same year it was 32.1, while in the United States it was 37.2. Thus the proportion in England is lower than in any other country. It may be said that this is because land cultivation in England is not so profitable as it is in other countries. I do not dispute that statement, but I do dispute the assumption upon which it is founded that the land of England cannot be made so profitable as that of other countries.
    We do not require to depend on theories in dealing with this matter because experiments have been made in different parts of England—in the North, the Midlands, and the South, with a view of ascertaining what can be done with the land under systems of culture different to those now in vogue. I am not going to-day to enter into technicalities as to the methods employed by experimentalists and theorists. I will confine myself to the practical point. Where the land has been available, and has been let to the small cultivator on reasonable terms, the result in every case has been success. Farmers paying from &3 to &4 per acre for land, and paying their labourers a weekly wage of from 11s. to 14s., are continually grumbling at the hardness of the times. Whether there is much behind that grumble I am not in a position to say, but still the complaint is continually made that they find it difficult to make the land pay. But when we turn to the small cultivators who are charged double and treble the rent, we find that they are able to make a comfortable living out of a suitable piece of land. Under the Corporation of Brighton, one labourer rents half an acre of land. His total expenditure for one year, including rent, was &11 2s. 6d., while his gross receipts for the sales of produce were &63 14s., leaving him a profit or wage,
    294
    if you choose to so call it, of &52 11s. 8d. In the case of a farmer holding under a private owner, there is no inducement to increase the products of the soil in that way, because if he did so, by the inexorable operation of the law of rent, every fraction of the increased value would find its way into his landlord's pocket. But still this experiment proves that in that part of England land can be made to pay an actual annual profit of something like a hundred guineas per acre, so that it is absurd to put forward the suggestion that the land of this country is not cultivated because it will not pay. Why, even working men with their small allotments of an eighth of an acre—allotments which they cultivate in their spare hours—thus increase their incomes 2s. or 3s. weekly.
    I say that the land of England is going out of cultivation because the burden of landlordism is greater than it can carry, and all incentive to effort is thereby taken away from the farmer, who knows that the result of his labours will pass into the pockets of the landowner. In France, where different conditions prevail, the land near the great cities is converted into huge market gardens and is carrying 2,500 workers to the square mile—people who are profitably employed in producing fresh vegetables for the inhabitants of the big cities—in England the land is allowed to go to waste, while people, young and old, are growing from eating wilted vegetables and canned fruits. I seek to aim at encouraging the development of a system of land cultivation, by which the 16,000,000 acres of our native land, which are now lying idle and profitless, may be turned to good account, while the unemployed labouring community is absorbed.
    In this matter I am not seeking to cast reflections on the local authorities. It has been a pleasure to us to read of the sympathetic replies made by the authorities to the demands and claims of the unemployed. They have in many cases stretched the powers entrusted to them by Parliament in their endeavour to find work. But after all, this is a very unprofitable way of seeking to deal with this evil. Public works undertaken by corporations under such cases are apt to prove very costly because the meu engaged on them are not trained for the special work they are called upon to per

    295
    form. I would seek to enlarge the powers of these local authorities, and I would impose upon them the obligation, to be enforced by statute, to provide work in every town and parish in England for every worker who is unable to find employment in the ordinary way. It may be said that this is an Utopian idea, but I submit that it is merely the development of legislation which has already been passed by this House. We compel sanitary authorities to carry out certain regulations in the interest of the health of the community; we compel the authorities, too, to make provision for the education of the children, and on many other lines we apply compulsion in the interests of the well-being of the people. All I am seeking is that this principle should be developed sufficiently far to recognise that the able and willing man out of work is as much an object requiring State protection as is the health and well-being of the community. How is it to be done? By conferring on these local authorities power to acquire land for cultivation and to establish industries, because after all the two things go hand in hand.
    It is a mistake to seek to deal with the unemployed problem though the unemployed themselves. The point is to enable each individual to find the employment for which he is best fitted. To begin to build up the reform of the land system by putting the unemployed in our towns on the land would be to foredoom the scheme to almost certain failure. But there are in the towns thousands, and tens of thousands, of men who have drifted in from the agricultural districts and who would be only too delighted to go back again. When a man once gets submerged in the ebbs and currents of city life the avenues leading back to the healthy and peaceful life of the country are to all intents and purposes closed to him. What I seek is to empower the local authorities not merely to acquire the land and to organise industries—but to cultivate the land and to establish workshops where men and women who desire to live a life apart from the strife and bustle of our competitive system may be free to retire and work for their living under a corporation. The objections to this proposal will no doubt be many, but I venture to say that the day is not far distant when, not merely for humanitarian reasons but
    296
    for reasons of State, men worthy of the name of statesmen will be compelled to face this question, and to find a way by which the land of England may be made again to grow the food required for the sustenance of the people.
    I know it is sometimes asserted that if the State would but forego what is called its Free Trade policy and return to Protection that would make it possible for the land of England again to be brought under cultivation. But I may remind the House that in those countries where Protection obtains, the unemployed question is just as clamant and rampant as it is at home. In Germany, where there is Protection, the unemployed problem is at this moment more acute than it is here; across the Atlantic in America, despite her prosperity and expanding trade, the Labour Department admits that there are 2,000,000 of tramps—the product of want of employment. Our Colonial legislatures have had to carry special Acts to deal with this particular evil, and there, though there are hundreds and thousands of square miles waiting to be cultivated, the unemployed problem is as clamant as it is at home. Therefore, Protection would be no remedy for lack of employment, neither can over-population be said to be the cause of it.
    Surely this House of Commons exists to make new departures, if necessary, in the interests of the well-being of the community. I hope that no hon. Member or supporter of the Government will advance the argument of this proposal being a new and dangerous innovation or a new departure. If we can have an advisory board to assist with the organisation of the Army, it is no great violation of that same principle to establish a Labour Department for the organisation of the industries of the nation. Surely the tax upon corn is a departure from the principles which have guided this country for at least half a century. If the House of Commons can make a departure of that kind, can it be very wrong to make a similar departure in the case of people who are out-of-work? It may be said that an experiment of this kind would involve cost. I admit that it cannot be done without involving an expenditure of money, and a certain amount of risk, but there is ample precedent to justify

    297
    us in pressing forward this demand. We are spending &5,600,000 upon the building of a railway through Uganda, ostensibly in the interests of the natives of that country. The sum of &60,000 a year has gone to subsidise steamship lines to enable them to hold their own against the competition of the American Shipping Combination. If money can be used for these purposes, surely it can be used to protect the manhood of the nation. The well-being of the community cannot long be guaranteed if something is not done. The curse of the poor is their poverty. The presence of the degrading, demoralising, poverty with which we are so familiar in the midst of so much wealth, breaks down the moral stimulus and the mental fibre of those who are accursed by it. I say—and I say it advisedly — that I regret that these people should be quiet and long-suffering, because if they insisted more upon the duty of the State towards them more would be done, and the longer they continue to be quiet the longer will they be compelled to suffer.
    I want to quote one authority which hon. Gentlemen opposite will be inclined to treat with considerable respect. In the Year 1895 the question of the unemployed was rampant, and even worse than it is now. At that time hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House were in office, and those sitting opposite were then in Opposition, and were doubtless anxious to take office. The Marquess of Salisbury, speaking at Bradford on the 23rd of May in that year, said—
    "You know how the difficulty of the unemployed is rising. In the south there are vast masses of men who have no evil will, against whom no harm can be stated, who have only this one wish, this one demand — that the labour which they are prepared to give should be accepted, and bare sustenance given them in place of it; and to whom it has been found necessary, from sheer want of employment to give them, to return a disappointing answer.
    "Just look at the state of things that is exhibited in the London markets at this moment. Money is so plentiful that you can hardly get money for it. It is overflowing in all the coffers of the capitalists and all the banks. On the other side there are the sullen ranks of the half-starved labourers, who, if that money could be employed, could be invested, would be enjoying an unrestricted industry and a happy home."
    As was the case them so is it now. Money is again plentiful, labour is again
    298
    clamouring for an opportunity to exert its power in exchange for a bare subsistence. Land is lying idle and going to waste for lack of labourers to cultivate it. The solution of the unemployed problem consists in bringing the idle land, the idle capital, and the idle labourers together. When these three elements exist and are going to waste surely it should not be beyond the power of British statesmanship to bring these three elements together in profitable union, and thereby provide honourable work for all honest men.
    That is the extent of the demand which I make. Local authorities and the Government should be invested with full powers to acquire land, to have it put into cultivation, to establish industries, and to generally organise the workless and the idle land of England, so as to bring about the time when poverty, with all its concomitant attendants of vice, crime, and misery, shall only remain as a black dream of a bitter past. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
    MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea), in seconding the Motion, said: My hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil has told the short and simple annals of the workless worker, and with facts and figures and suggestions he has asked the House of Commons to direct its attention to some means by which the sad processions of the unemployed in all our cities can be removed, and by which men would be prevented from the degrading taint of pauperism by having, as a substitute, work found for them on the land. I know that my hon. friend will receive, probably from each side of the House, criticism for some of the suggestions and remedies which he has advanced. The House of Commons exists for suggestions. It exists for criticism, and from both suggestions and criticism legislation sometimes happily comes. This I can say, that my hon. friend may congratulate himself on the fact, that there have been very few suggestions advanced in recent years so full of work, if the Government wishes work, as those which he has advanced. It is not necessary for us to subscribe to all his suggestions, or to one or two of his theories, but we sympathise with the main theme of his speech and the main current of his intentions, because he has expressed what

    299
    all of us feel, that the time has arrived when the House of Commons, especially after a long and costly war, should withdraw its energies and attention from the circumference of the Empire to the Empire's heart, and see the condition of our Outlanders at home; I venture to say, poor though they be, weak though they are, demoralised though some of them may be, to me they are more pathetic figures than the patriots slobbering over their soup in Johannesburg hotels, or prancing down the main streets of Pretoria, earning but little themselves, but luxuriating in the happy possession of other people's money.
    It is not an accident that after a war the unemployed question should come up, for it invariably follows, you cannot have the wicked, wanton waste that war involves without its reaction and its consequent suffering at home. I know no more pathetic sight than the procession of these unemployed men, some of them Army Reserve men who have had to pawn their medals in order to get a meal for their wives and children. No suggestions of altering our fiscal policy, or adopting here and there some minor remedy, will ever remove or partially palliate this evil. The House of Commons has got to recognise that if we are the greatest assembly of legislators in the world, with England in this condition it is our duty to do something to alter this state of things as soon as possible.
    What has my hon. friend put forward? He put forward the other day the reclamation of land on the sea coast. The reclamation of the sea coast is very good, but reclamation of Governments is much better. I subscribe to all he said as to the advisability of reclaiming derelict land in Lincolnshire or Essex, or on the estuary of the Wash. I subscribe to what he said in regard to the reafforestation of this country, which could be done, not as a matter of cost to the taxpayer, but a mere matter of book-keeping, which other countries initiated and successfully adopted.
    But before this reclamation and reaf-forestation takes place — and they are rather remote for the unemployed in our streets at the present time—we have to devise some means by which land, which is now derelict, shall be brought into cultivation as soon as possible. It is sad when one goes through this beautiful country of ours—in many
    300
    respects a much better country to look at than the countries to which too many Englishmen are fond of going— to see what has resulted from the neglect of the land question. It has almost ruined Ireland, and personally I am prepared to vote for almost anything that will restore to the Irish labourer that instalment of economic justice which my friend the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil wants for the English who are out-of-work. It has also depopulated Scotland, it is depleting rural Wales, and it is making England a warren or a playground where it is not a game preserve. This cannot go on much longer, and we have to devise means by which we can turn the current back from the town to the country and so prevent what we see in the towns — overcrowding either of the overworked or of men who have no work at all.
    This is a condition of things that does not reflect credit on our sentiment, our intelligence, or our capacity, and I ask hon. Members all round me whether they are not willing to vote millions to deal with a bog in the Soudan or to fill up an embankment on the Zambesi. There is not a river in Egypt they will not dam at any cost. I have the advantage of having been an engineer, and I give that phrase its correct interpretation. There is not in Egypt an irrigation scheme that will not find advocates for the expenditure of Government money upon it. When I take up the papers every morning I read of loans suggested to rescue derelict millionaires in South Africa. It is &35,000,000 today, and it is &65,000,000 tomorrow. When I see all these sums coming out of poor John Bull's pocket I am inclined to button up my pocket and say charity ought to begin at home. The time has arrived when much of the money that is spent in Africa, north, east, south and west, might be profitably employed nearer our own doors.
    The excuse for spending all this money has been that we have got a large and growing population, and that we want new markets. What folly! Your best market for shoemakers is on the bootless feet of the children of Manchester; your largest market for tailors is on the hungry forms that are going half clothed through

    301
    Glasgow, Birmingham, Bootle, and other towns. If you want a market for food stuffs, in this ragged regiment of unemployed you have work for the miller and the baker. I hope that no Member will get up and try to evade the real issue of the Resolution by caviling about the number. What does it matter if there are 100,000 or 500,000 men out of work? If there 10,000 honourable working men out-of-work that is the measure of our duty to them. If figures are to be used, I do want to quote from the President of the Local Government Board's own report on the subject of pauperism, which is the best test of unemployment. I find in the December report, containing the statistics for the fourth quarter of 1902, that the number of paupers was greater than it has been at any previous period since 1871. There is no poetry or romance about Poor Law statistics, and I say that these figures prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that poverty is with us, that the unemployed exist, and that remedies have to be found. What, in round figures, is the number of the army for whom my hon. friend has been the eloquent champion today? Roughly, it is more by 100,000 than the total number of men that were engaged for three years in the South African war. Like Mercutio's wound—
    "'t is not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door, but 't is enough."
    I venture to say that we could not spend our high income-tax on anything better than the devising of means by which these poor fellows could secure work. Now the question is how is that to be done? I am far too fair a man, and my hon. friend is far too fair a man, to throw the responsibility of this problem of the unemployed wholly on the President of the Local Government Board. But for the moment he is in office. His is the responsibility. Statistics and criticisms are submitted to him, and, primarily, his duty as President of the Local Government Board is to grapple with this problem in one way or another. He will probably say that he does not deal with this to the extent that is popularly believed. Well, that is not altogether so, because I found information on attending a conference of local authorities in London
    302
    the other day, the practicality of which agreeably surprised me on this subject. I found that there was a disposition on the part of Boards of Guardians, and even the Charity Organisation Society delegates, to do something practical if it were possible for them to do so. When the Charity Organisation Society is in favour of helping the unemployed, then things have reached a pretty pass—for I have always regarded that organisation as one that looks upon charity as the eighth deadly sin. The Boards of Guardians and the County Councils would like to do something, but they have the suspicion that if they move out of the beaten track of the stiff routine of the unsympathetic Poor Law, they will either be surcharged, or disallowed, or objected to. Now it is the business of the President of the Local Government Board—I trust he will not give an unsympathetic reply—to do his best to see that, if the local authorities are willing to act up to the best of their power and ability, no obstacle is thrown in the road. It will do a great deal of good if the President of the Local Government Board will let these local authorities know that if they are willing to do something they will not be kept back by a centralised Department, which at times goes further, I think, than it should in restraining the local authorities.
    I want to point out the danger of allowing things to drift. To the credit of the British people, speaking broadly, they do not as a rule go to prison, and they dread the work house more than anything. It is creditable also that they should liken the co-ordinate action of the central Poor Law authority and the local bodies to the spasmodic charity money which is subscribed in response to what may be called the street-begging efforts of these poor fellows. It does a great deal of harm. The fact is that the money is wasted and cruel damage is inflicted. The result is that the impostor, the loafer, the charlatan, and the mere demagogue profits and exploits this particular situation. The way to differentiate the loafer from the honest worker is by one test alone, and that is the test of work. If private enterprise cannot give him that test, then that test ought to be applied by some one.

    303
    A worse feature than the inactivity of local Boards of Guardians and Town Councils, and the indifference of the Central Department is the very dangerous thing that is growing up in the large towns and cities, namely, the ambitious and advertising person who exploits the unemployed movement — soup kitchens here, and coals and blankets there, frequently to the detriment of abler men with smaller purses. The result is what I saw the other day in the East End of London. I saw children at a soup kitchen, the mother at a mission room, and the father in the unemployed procession, cadging in the streets of London. How can you expect anything but a race of paupers from this? The mother ought to be at home, the children ought to be at school, the man ought to be taken out of the unemployed procession, and, if physically fit, he ought to be provided with work in some way or another. If he refused to work I would give him a job "climbing up the golden stairs" in Pentonville Prison. Why can something not be done? The trades unions, these much vilified bodies, are doing much. I suppose the trades unions will have spent this year nearly &500,000 on unemployed benefit to over 1,500,000 of members. These organisations have no right, I think, to assume unduly the responsibilities of the ratepayers and taxpayers. This ought to be taken into account when these organisations are being attacked.
    The friendly societies are almost unable to bear the great strain put upon them, and if drastic and permanent remedies cannot be submitted to us, there is no reason why the Boards of Guardians, the local authorities, and the Local Government Board should not at this moment, while considering the larger questions, do something for the immediate relief of these people. There are works of a sanitary and improving character that the local authorities ought either to be compelled or asked to do. For instance, I know no street so badly paved a Victoria Street, Westminster, between here and Victoria Station. I would suggest to the President of the Local Government Board, now that the indoor and outdoor paupers
    304
    are more in number than they have been for forty-two years, that he should re-issue the circular which was issued in 1892 calling upon the local authorities to at once commence sanitary works and local improvements. By this means hundreds and thousands of men in town and country could get immediate employment, and the great advantage of this action would be that all the districts simultaneously and universally would contribute their quota to the common stock in providing a remedy for the unemployed. If one district goes ahead of another the result may be that the willing horse will be unduly burdened. I believe that as the proportion of paupers in London, and in the country generally, is greater than in 1892 this circular should be re-issued. Incidentally I may say that if my hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil had addressed his mind to that circular he would have found in it some of the most striking arguments in confirmation of the views he has put forward. For instance, it advocates that money might be spent on employing men in spade husbandry on sewage farms. I could not help thinking, when I looked at the faces of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that what is but a choleric word in the mouth of a Local Government Board, is rank blasphemy in the mouth of the municipal authorities. But why confine the spade husbandry to sewage farms when other kinds of farm labour might be offered?
    The circular goes on to mention the laying out of open spaces, recreation grounds, disused burial grounds — here would be a fine opportunity of burying the last of the Jingoes—the cleaning and paving of unpaved streets, sewage works and works of water supply. Now, if that circular had been re-issued, as it should have been, last November, I believe that a great number of men in these processions would have had decent work. I want to make another suggestion, which I hope will be carried out by the Local Government Board—at any rate they should be encouraged to do so. I do not, for the life of me, see why we should have these unemployed if the spending departments paid attention to the labour market when large contracts are being given out. Except in war time, or in times of national

    305
    emergency, when men work night and day, and all normal conditions are set aside, I do not see why contracts for ships, engines and guns, and the like, on which millions of pounds are spent, should be given out at a time when the private labour market is working overtime and is so busy. It ought to be possible for Government work to be adapted to the exigencies of depressed labour in private yards, and instead of working overtime in the summer, Government work should be provided in winter. The present system is not as it used to be. In the large cities the municipal authorities are adapting their work to the exigencies of private work, and the fact is that that helps private work enormously. I will give a concrete illustration. There are 500 board schools in London. Is there any reason why they should be painted between April and June, when every part of the West End is clamouring for painters? There is not. The schools might just as well be painted in the months from October to February. And this illustration applies to fire-stations, and a hundred and one other municipal institutions.
    I now come to a point to which I ask the attention of the President of the Local Government Board. What do the Poor Law Boards who are responsible in the matter do? When a man does not work, if he is a drunkard or a lazy person, he can, as a last resource, fall back on State funds. But destitution is the only test; and he has to comply with some standard. He is given work, if he is an able-bodied man. What kind of work? Oakum picking in a cell, or stone breaking under demoralising conditions in a yard. Disfranchisement accompanies that work, whether the man is an honest workman or a wastrel. He has frequently to break up his home, his wife is separated from him and placed in another branch of the same institution. I would rather have the man breaking stones on the public road with his wife and family at home than in the workhouse, with perhaps the old father in the infirmary, and probably costing far more than would be given to the man. The fact is that the unemployed ought to be kept in one of three capacities—either as a pauper, a criminal, or a workman. As a pauper he is costly, as a cirminal he is enormaously costly, and I prefer to keep him at work, on the land or elsewhere, and so prevent him becoming
    306
    a pauper, and save him from the demoralisation which lack of work produces.
    My next point refers to the War Office. We have got 100,000 militiamen in this country; and, on the whole, I think that the militiamen are perhaps as good a section of our national forces as any other, if not the best. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!] At least that is my view. We have used them in the recent war, and they have always stood by the country when we have been in a tight place. But what does the War Office do? When builders and scaffolders and painters are fully engaged, and when trade generally is busy between the months of April and June—when all the men ought to be on the buildings doing work for which they are qualified, the Militia are called out. What is that for? Is it to suit the exigencies of Society, of which our Army is supposed to be an and sometimes the perquisite? These men ought to be at their work earning wages for themselves and profits for their employers. They ought to be called out at that time of the year when most of them are out of work, and when their services would be paid for and they could do good to everybody. The Volunteers and Naval Reserve should be dealt with in precisely the same way. If that were done the militiamen would like it. Of course, some of the officers may not. We spend &30,000,000 a year on our Army, of which the Militia is an important part. The Army exists for the interests of the country, and the officers should exist for the interests of the country. The officers should remember that the Army, including the officers, is for the nation, and the Militia should be called out between October and February.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Would the hon. Member advocate the calling out of the Militia and putting them under canvas in the depth of winter?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: That is not necessary, because if you visit Salisbury Plain, where I have been lately, you will find the tin huts there are absolutely empty, and bricklayers, builders, scaffolders and the like would not hesitate to go down at the present moment, providing that you sent with them more adaptable officers than they sometimes get.
    My next point is co-operation between

    307
    the Poor Law authorities and the Town Councils. May I put it to the President of the Local Government Board, that supposing a town of 50,000 inhabitants is confronted with a number of men out of work, on the basis of the Poor Law expenditure of last year the Poor Law authority would have to spend from &5,000 to &10,000 on out-door relief. Is it not better that the Chairman of the Board should say to the Town Council: "Cannot you devise some means of providing work for these men in repairing the roads, sweeping the streets and sweetening up the place," and that &5,000 should be spent on that in the winter months, instead of waiting till these men became paupers when the same amount of money would be spent on unproductive labour? I believe that such co-operation should be encouraged, and that the Local Government Board should bring pressure to bear on the local authorities in that direction.
    My last point is roughly this: I believe that the recent unemployed processions, bad though some of them were, and composed almost entirely of unemployables, mixed up with a few wastrels, have brought home to this big city the fact that the unemployed problem requires to be dealt with. What is better, it has brought home to some hon. Members that as long as we can afford to spend so much money on war, and waste so much money on drink, we ought not to allow these men to sink deeper and deeper in the social abyss for lack of health, and, if need be, for lack of money. I support my hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil in his drastic remedies. I would prevent men from coming to the city, but when they are in the city they should be provided for. But whether in the country or the city, whether in work or out of work, the wicked waste that ensues from this gigantic expenditure of 160,000,000 of money on drink, is enough to make all of us shudder at the misery which it involves. The unemployed themselves have got to be weaned, when in work, from this deadly habit; and above all we must remember the fact that there are thousands of men who, even if they do not drink or smoke, have wages so low that when want of employment comes along they have nothing but starvation in front of them, or the Poor Law Office. We have got to recognise that cheap, low-paid labour is dear labour for the
    308
    manufacturers, the workmen, and the community. We have got to find a more excellent way than the present, whereby from 20 to 30 per cent. of the workmen in this city, even when in work, are below the poverty line. We must give wages that will be spent on better houses and fruitful commodities. Wages must receive such a dead lift that every man should have a margin to tide him over when stranded for lack of employment. These are a few of the remedies which I bring forward, in addition to those mentioned by the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment. I believe, from the practical experience of one of the administrators of one of the biggest affairs in Municipal Government, that much good might be done by adopting these remedies, and no harm done. I ask the President of the Local Government Board, now that we are no longer engaged in Imperial struggles, to remember that these unemployed men, these ragged regiments of the workless army, are our fellow citizens. Above all, let us realise that the worst thing we can do to any man is to keep him idle, and the next worst is to send him to a workshouse. If we keep him idle he drifts to the workhouse, and then to the gaol, alternated by the for did lodging houses that crowd our large cities and which some of the unemployed should be employed in pulling down. There have been scores of suggestions from different points of view. My hon. friend deserves thanks and credit for having brought this subject before the House; and now there is an object lesson of 500,000 workless men before us, I trust the President of the Local Government Board will take the initiative that is desired, will co-operate with the local authorities where practicable, and, above all, will tell the local authorities that either in the purchase of land or in any other remedial measures the Local Government Board will not restrain them but give them the experience, inspiration and advice it is the duty of his Department to extend.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'But we desire humbly to express our regret that Your Majesty's Advisers have not seen fit to recommend the inclusion therein of such measure or measures as would have empowered the Government and local administrative

    309
    authorities to acquire land for cultivation, and to set up undertakings whereby men and women unable to find employment in the ordinary labour market might be profitably set to work.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    The UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr JESSE COLLINGS,)said that perhaps he might be allowed to occupy the attention of the House for a short time, as this was a question in which he had always been deeply interested. He listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and although he by no means accepted his figures—no doubt sincerely given—yet there was no doubt that there was a large and increasing number of unemployed in this country. The cause was not far to seek. For years past there had been a steady migration from the country to the towns and industrial districts, which some years ago had reached the limit of their power of absorption and were now dangerously overcrowded. In the meantime it is quite true, as had been stated, that the land to a large extent remained uncultivated. Hence arose the great social problem which they tried to meet by housing and other palliatives of one kind or another. But they were only palliatives. If they were to provide for 1,000 persons today in London, within a few months the tide would flow into the city and make things just as bad as they were before. As to the hon. Member's remedies, he would pass over Socialism, on which the hon. Member laid great stress, as the remedy. Socialism meant putting the manufacture and distribution of everything into the hands of the community; if it were adopted, it would destroy the mainspring of progress by sinking all individual effort. He admitted, however, that the doctrine of Socialism was largely on the increase in this country. There were people who were always ready to listen to anything with a promising sound; and in the history of progress suffering and discontent were always found to be the motive power of almost every reform. England was the very ground for such a doctrine.
    310
    The hon. Member was altogether in error in what he said with regard to Socialism in Germany and France. Outside the large towns in these countries it had made no single step. And why? Because it was met by millions of men who had got something; but in England they had a proletariat to which there was no semblance in any other country in the world. That was what made the question so important. The hon. Member's next remedy was the reclamation of land. He had seen great schemes of reclamation which had been both economically and socially successful, but they could not be carried, out by the casual labourer. There was no use in putting a jeweller or a worker in the production of luxurious articles on work of that sort. What was wanted in this case was to give work to the workshops. Those schemes had been invariably carried out by private enterprise.
    As to public works he would not dwell upon that remedy, as it was only a palliative, and not what they wanted. The third suggestion of the hon. Member was that the local authorities should acquire land for cultivation. Here the hon. Member was on firm, sound, and economic principles, and he himself entirely agreed with him. He would, however, recall to the House that the hon. Member, and also the hon. Member for Battersea, who repeated the demand, were asking the Government to do what had already been done, and done very effectively. It was now twenty years ago, since he had the honour of introducing what was called a Small Holdings Bill. He was bound to say that from 1880 to 1886—he did not mention the period to raise any feeling, because it was not a Party question in the general sense — he could get no attention whatever paid to the measure. It was quite true that its necessity and importance were not recognised then as they were today. But in 1889-90, the Government of the day passed a Small Holdings Act giving the local authorities full and effective powers to do the very thing which hon. Members now desired, and its administration was placed in the hands of the County Councils. You can bring a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink; and, with the exception of two or three,

    311
    the County Councils of the country ignored that measure almost completely. Should not, then, the arguments of the hon. Members be addressed to the local authorities? There were, however, exceptions. In Worcestershire, the Chairman of the County Council saw the importance of the Act, both from an economic and a social point of view; and, the Council agreeing with him, it was put into operation some years ago. The first venture was the purchase of a farm of about 300 acres. Two farmers in succession who had held the farm had failed, and when a farmer failed it was always the fault of the land; he never dreaming that, quite possibly, he might be wanting in ability, industry or capital. That farm was cut up into small holdings, and what was the result? Years ago misery, destitution and starvation existed in that district, and many people were on outdoor relief. Today there was not a man or a woman on the rates, and there was a thriving, prosperous, contented, and happy colony.
    This session he hoped to introduce a Bill to remedy some of those defects. What he desired to point out was that these people were not employed but employers of labour. On one of these small holdings, say of fifteen acres, there was more manure put on to the land in one year than was ever put on the whole estate of 300 acres by the farmer, and there was more labour employed. From accounts kept by one of these men, who farmed twenty-nine acres, he was able to inform the House that in the year 1891 that man paid more than &250 for labour, not reckoning the labour of himself and family, but hard cash down, to employees, and he received from the produce of that small holding &600. This man, a few years ago, was a poor labourer who came to Brimingham to offer his services, which nobody wanted, he now came into Birmingham to the same people and offered his produce which everybody wanted. Today these people kept their ponies and carts and took produce of almost every description to the towns. This man made &600 in a year; he did not put that money into a stocking, but laid it out in spades, shovels, clothing and all requirements, thereby affording employment in the workshops instead of competing with the labour there. It
    312
    might be asked: "If this was repeated would all do the same?" He had no hesitation in answering yes, because the home markets were the best markets in the world, and, setting aside such articles as corn and meat, and confining themselves to the smaller articles of food, for the production of which, in his opinion, this country was perhaps better suited than any other country in Europe, he found that the trade in them was &56,000,000.
    He was sometimes amused, when he heard Members of this House and members of Chambers of Commerce lament over the fact that a bridge had come from America, or that a few tons of girders had come from Belgium amounting in all perhaps to &200,000; but not a word was said about this &60,000,000 spent on imports of food which this country could and ought to produce as well as it could produce girders. There were many Members of the House honourably engaged as citizens in local government as members of County Councils, and the main object of his speech to-day was to ask them to do as Worcestershire and some other counties had done. Do their best to put this Act into operation. It lay to their hands, was effective, and they wanted no further legislation except in a few minor details, which he hoped to prevail on the House to accept. It was said there was no demand. Of course there was not. Peasant proprietary in this country had been described as a lost art. But the supply would create a demand, and there were scores, hundreds, thousands in our big towns who would only be too glad at the present time to go back to the land. There was no demand, so far as he knew, in 1870 among the uneducated for education. But the country at large thought for the public good it was necessary, and, demand or no demand, we gave it.
    The other objection was that we set up men in business in one class of trade. His answer to that was that there was no other business like that of the land; there was nothing to compare with it. It was the source, origin, and maintenance of every other trade going. As the hon. mover had said, trade of every kind depended on the purchasing power of the land, and though we might be interested in the purchasing power of the land in

    313
    foreign countries, we must be equally interested in the increase of the purchasing power of Worcestershire, Dorset, and other parts of England. If they got &1 more out of the land today than they did yesterday, that was &1 more to be spent in the workshops. Therefore, for the good of the country, economically as well as socially, members of our County Councils ought at once to take up this beneficial Act. The landowners were as deeply interested in this question as anybody. Why was land going begging at &20 and &30 an acre when poor and inferior land in Belgium and in Scotland was realising &80, &90, &100, and even &120 an acre and difficult to get at that? This was surely a subject for thought among the landowners from that point of view. Then the farmer was crying out for labour and good years, but the old days when the agricultural labourer began life almost from his cradle, and continued working to his grave as a mere wage-earner, with no hope before him, had, he thanked God, gone. They had been given what was called education in the rural schools, and, at any rate, enough had been given to make the agricultural labourers profoundly dissatisfied with their lot, and he rejoiced at it. They went away to better themselves, and they would continue to do so unless, in addition to their wage-earning, they were given the opportunity to acquire an occupation of their own with some prospect attached to it, and this was denied them in the country. When there was a traditional state of things which had been handed down for so long, it was difficult to alter it, but the farmer would have to accommodate himself to different relations with his labourers than had subsisted hitherto. He would have to look upon his labourer, not as a dependent upon him, but as a neighbour.
    He had been in Germany, France, Belgium, and other places, and he could assure the farmers of this country that the great source of labour and help to the farmers of those countries was the small proprietors. In Germany, with its 18,000,000 acres of cultivated land, the great mass of it was in holdings of less than fifty acres, and the farmers there could not get on without these small holders. The sooner the farmer adapted himself to that state of things the better. If he could not so adapt himself, a new race would have to spring up from the class
    314
    of which he had spoken. The large farmer could not produce the &56,000,000 worth of small articles of food to which reference had been made; he could not if he would, and he would not if he could; it meant hard work, early rising, and small gains. What was required was not new legislation, but that existing Acts should be put in force. The Government could go no further except to make the few small amendments he had suggested. Let the system be adopted by degrees. There was ample room on the land for at least 1,000,000 families, to the profit and honour of the country, and their own good. Everybody was concerned in this matter. By trade and commerce a nation might get rich and prosperous, but there was no guarantee of permanency. There could not be found in history a nation whose fighting and resisting power remained, except it were based on a numerous and contented rural population.
    *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the remedy of small holdings was not calculated directly and immediately to meet the existing need. The business of the small holder required so much skill and technical knowledge, that to take men from the towns and place them on the land, and expect them to make an independent livelihood, would be as absurd as to set a briefless barrister, or an unoccupied journalist, to the work of an engineer of doctor. It was undoubtedly the case, however, that small holdings might indirectly be of service in helping to solve the question by keeping the labourers on farms from migrating to the towns, and he hoped that the Bill the right hon Gentleman was to introduce would so amend the Small Holdings Act as to place the power of acquiring small holdings in the hands of the Parish rather than of the County Councils, and also introduce the "blessed principle of compulsion." In fourteen years only about 1,000 acres had been obtained under the Small Holdings Act, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. In discussing this question, it was not necessary to prove the existence of serious and exceptional distress. Whether the number of unemployed was 250,000, or 500,000 or 750,000 did not

    315
    affect the necessity for finding a solution of the problem. Taking the country as a whole, he did not believe there was more distress at the present time than was usual at this period of the year, although in particular districts and industries the distress was certainly much greater. Every winter a large number, and in times of depression a vast number, were out of work. Nor was it of importance whether the recent processions in London consisted mainly of wastrels or of deserving unemployed. Such processions could always be organised if the trouble were taken. Even though all the men belonged to the category of the unemployable, the fact remained that there were always a vast number of others who were out of work through no fault of their own. Obvious causes were at work which must inevitably throw men out of employment. Not only was it the duty of the House, for the sake of the men themselves, to take such steps as were practicable to afford some relief to these individuals, but it was expedient from a national point of view so to do. These men through worklessness were often driven to recklessness and drink; their characters in the long run sadly deteriorated, with the result that a return to the ranks of high-class labour was almost impossible. The suggestions he desired to make were four in number.
    An attempt must be made to discriminate between deserving and undeserving persons, and that could only be done by the test of labour. Charity should not be adopted as a remedy, but the remedy should be work for wages. The work given should not be of a permanent character, for this would keep labour away from the ordinary routes of industry, and in that case the remedy would fail of its object; the wages offered would have to be lower, consequently, than the wages paid in the ordinary labour market. The question of the practicability of planting vacant land with trees had been brought before the Board of Agriculture, and a Committee had reported that there were large areas of waste land in Britain which were eminently suited for the planting of trees. This country imported &20,000,000 worth of timber every year, the whole of which might be grown upon
    316
    our soil. The Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture had reported that there were 21,000,000 acres of land in this country out of cultivation upon a large part of which afforestation could be undertaken. In the year 1887, a Select Committee reported in the same sense. In almost every other country it is admitted that the control of the forests is one of the natural functions of the State, and the development of forests one of the most convenient means of increasing the national wealth. England had the largest area of land which was not put to profitable use, and the smallest area of forest land of any country in western Europe. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley remarked that such schemes as had been suggested ought to be carried out by private enterprise, but in his opinion this question of afforestation was a matter which ought to be undertaken by the State and not by private enterprise. Private enterprise could not wait until forests yielded a return.
    The suggestion he would throw out in dealing with this question of the unemployed was that a small permanent Commission should be appointed to investigate what districts of the country were suited for afforestation; and after that, if the scheme was found to be practicable, to obtain land and employ men sent by Boards of Guardians for the special work of planting and maintaining such forests. Dr. Schlich, the greatest living expert upon this subject, had stated that if 6,000,000 acres were planted in England not only would it give employment to vast numbers of working men in planting trees, but after the trees were grown this quantity of land would given continuous employment to 100,000 labourers. If part of this work could be reserved for the unemployed in bad times it would be most useful. It was not suggested that such work would be suited to all classes of the unemployed, but there was a very large class to whom this work would be practicable if the Government would consider the suggestion which had been pressed upon them from many quarters of the country. Even if this scheme entailed some cost it would be money well spent if it relieved the degradation that came from unemployment.
    The relief works which were hurriedly

    317
    undertaken were frequently costly, and if undertaken in one district only, attracted men to that particular spot. The majority of the Royal Commission on Labour recommended that public authorities might, in prosperous times, prepare land for works which were needed but which were not urgent, and hold them in readiness for times of depression. He should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell them whether he was prepared to press this upon local authorities. This practice was general in India, where the Government had always ready large schemes for giving employment, which were not urgent works but which were put into operation in times of famine. With regard to labour bureaux it was exceedingly desirable to increase the mobility of labour. Very often there was a demand for labour in one spot and a surplus in another. In several of their colonies the State had established labour bureaux, stretching over the whole country, which enabled workmen to find out where the demand for labour was. They existed in Australia and New Zealand, and, in a modified form, in the United States, France, and Switzerland. He thought it would be possible to establish a national system of labour bureaux in connection with the town halls in large towns, and in the post offices in smaller towns and villages so that working men might obtain information whether labour was needed in their own district or some other part of the country. In this way it might be possible to obtain information as to the need for workmen in our colonies and in other parts of the world. Labour bureaux existed already in some of the Metropolitan boroughs, but their usefulness depended upon their number and intercommunication. If such social machinery were set up it would do much to relieve the feeling of disappointment and despair engendered in the minds of the unemployed in their blind and vain search for work.
    His next suggestion related to penal farm colonies for vagrants. There had been a demand for such colonies from several Boards of Guardians, and the Local Government Board had been petitioned to this effect. Such colonies existed in Holland, where there were in one colony 2,700 deliberate vagrants
    318
    detained and set to useful agricultural work and other occupations. In Merxplas in Belgium there was an institution where 2,800 people were detained and compelled to work upon the land. These men were sentenced to these colonies by orders from the magistrates, and they were detained for periods varying from two to seven years. If such institutions were established in this country they would do much to prevent these deliberate idlers and wastrels becoming burdens on the ratepayers in workhouses or on the taxpayers in prisons. Unquestionably there were many difficulties in the way of all these proposals, and disadvantages might be alleged to any scheme, but surely there were also disadvantages in leaving things as they were.
    The problem before them was a very real and grave one, and the Government ought to approach these suggestions rather with a desire to take action then in a spirit of hostile criticism. He pleaded for the appointment of a Royal Commission on this question of the unemployed to examine the various suggestions which had been made. There was a Committee appointed in 1895, the labours of which were in terrupted by the dissolution of that year, but the Committee was subsequently reappointed and it reported in 1896. None of the matters, however, which he had brought before the House were even considered by that Committee, with the sole exception of relief works. When he asked a Question on this subject last session the First Lord of the Treasury replied that the time was not ripe for taking the course suggested. Surely in a matter of this kind it was better to take time by the forelock and make inquiries now in order that practical schemes might be devised which could be set on foot when depression became seriously and gravely acute. He would implore the Government not to dismiss this matter lightly, but to grant at least the Commission of Inquiry for which he pleaded. If the House found by this or some other method a solution for this grave difficulty they would have done something to gain the affection of some of the most deserving of our countrymen, and erected a monument to their glory which would never perish.
    SIR JOHN GORST: The hon. Members who have preceded me have laid before the House the most difficult of all the difficult social problems which are now before us for solution. I think they have stated the case perfectly correctly. There is no doubt that within a very short distance of this House there are persons who are habitually starving, who are unable to obtain work even if they are desirous of doing so, and particularly the kind of work they are desirous to obtain. Whenever a slight depression of trade or a spell of cold weather takes place their misery becomes acute and distressing. It is no answer to that to say that some of those persons are imposters. Of course some are imposters. Whenever public compassion is excited there are people in the metropolis of London who take advantage of it for the purpose of serving their own ends. It is no answer to say that some of them are undeserving, because undeserving people have deserving wives and families who share their starvation, and undeserving people have a right to live and to be fed as well as the deserving. It is no answer to say that hon. Members have exaggerated the number. I do not think myself that they have, but even if they have exaggerated the number, and even if half are in the condition described, it is a condition of things that urgently demands the attention of Government and of Parliament. But althought this social disease is well known, and has formed the subject of discussion by philanthropists and philosophers for years, nobody has ever yet succeeded in devising a real and satisfactory remedy. I think it was the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil who reminded the House that just eight years ago, before the present Government came into office, this question of the unemployed was in one of those acute phases. A Committee of the House was then appointed to consider and report on the question, and so urgent was the case thought to be at the time that the Committee was desired to make an interim Report and to say what immediate steps should be taken to relieve the very acute distress which at that time prevailed. That Committee was composed of the very best men on the two sides of the House. It applied itself with great earnestness to the work, examined a great number of witnesses, and gave most close attention to the subject. What was the
    320
    result? It made an interim Report to say that nothing could be immediately done. There was no measure that they could suggest likely at once to relieve the distress and to be acceptable to the two Houses of Parliament. They sat on to the end of the session, when their proceedings were interrupted by the dissolution of Parliament. But they reported before the dissolution took place that they could find no remedy, and that they were quite unable to find anything that would cure the evil they admitted, and which they said had been satisfactorily proved, to exist. In the next session the Committee was re-appointed, and my hon. friend, who was at that time the Secretary of the Local Government Board, was appointed Chairman. That was also a strong Committee composed of men of great ability and great knowledge of this subject. They were not interrupted by any dissolution of Parliament, and they sat until they had concluded their investigation. They also admitted the existence of this monstrous evil, but they, in their turn, could suggest no permanent remedy. Now, we have this unsolved problem to-day before us. Although the facts of the case have been investigated, I do not think there is any return or any information accessible to Members of Parliament which will give the real truth of the state of things, because these people who are unemployed are of the labouring classes. There are some of those referred to by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who are skilled artisans or good workmen, and who, from some depression in their trade, are suddenly thrown out of work. There are also people who are chronically out of work, and who are never in any regular and continuous work. They work two or three days in the week, but are not habitually employed for the rest of the week. But there are a great many people among the unemployed who do not work in the ordinary sense of the term. They earn a living by looking out for odd jobs, selling small articles in the streets, and so forth, but they do not intend to work and do not want to work. There are a large number of people who are spoken of as unemployable. Now the unemployable are a class for whom I feel the most profound compassion, because many of those unemployable have originally been extremely good workmen. There is nothing that deterior-

    321
    ates more rapidly than the capacity to do good work. It is a common law of nature. When any function is not exercised it very soon withers away, and when a man is accidentally thrown out of work, from that moment, as it were, the workman begins rapidly to deteriorate. If he is unfortunately, through no fault of his own, out of work for several months, at the end he is neither physically nor mentally capable of doing the kind of work he was formerly able to perform. There was an interesting attempt made some years ago to sample the unemployed. The inquiry was conducted by a Committee of Toynbee Hall in connection with local committees at various places all over the United Kingdom. There were not only centres in London, but in Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, and many other large towns. The plan was this—a street or typical block of houses, or, it might be, one or two streets or blocks of houses, were chosen, inhabited by the poorer kind of workers. A census was taken at the beginning of winter in all those houses, and the occupations of every householder were taken down. Out of the names so taken down a number of people alleged themselves to be out of work. Those people who alleged themselves to be out of work were observed during the whole winter. They did not know that they were being watched. The observation was done through School Board officers, rent collectors, sanitary officers, district visitors, and people of that kind. At the end of the winter the information obtained from all those various centres was collected by a very clever American gentleman. Although the inquiry was far too small to admit of any general conclusions being drawn as to proportions or percentages, or anything of that kind, yet it did throw a good deal of light on the condition of the so-called unemployed. The most remarkable conclusion at which the Committee arrived was this, that the unemployed are a permanent class. They are not people who go about from place to place. They are not people who change from occupation to occupation. They are not clever enough for that. The clever artisan who is thrown out of work would apply himself to some other trade; but those chronically unemployed people have not the energy to shift their habitation or their employment. That was confirmed by the in-
    322
    quiries of the Committee, who eight years ago reported on this subject. They addressed a great number of inquiries to local authorities all over the country, and the result was, that it appeared from the answers to these inquiries that the bulk of the people unemployed were not unemployed because of trade depression or changes of occupation, but because of seasonal reasons and work stopping in winter. I think we may almost conclude that the mass of the unemployed people is always existing. They are always present with us in ordinary times. They live at semi-starvation, and they and their families scarcely ever have enough to eat. They are habitually underfed. In particular seasons, of which the present winter appears to be one from economical and seasonal causes, their position becomes acute, and the public conscience is aroused. People say, "Oh! something must be done to help them in Parliament." Then a Royal Commission is appointed, but nothing really is done. I earnestly hope that the President of the Local Government Board will understand that it is not a Royal Commission that is wanted at all, for sufficient facts of the case are known. What is wanted is a remedy. Now, I am afraid, and I am sorry to say it, that there is no real remedy for this particular disease of the body politic. It is like some of the diseases of the human body—doctors cannot cure them; all they can do is to improve the general health. I am afraid that this is a social disease which cannot be cured in itself; it is really to be met by a general improvement of the social condition of the people in every direction. If all these children were healthily brought up; if all were properly educated— I do not mean merely in reading, writing, and arithmetic—but taught so as to have an intelligent development of their character, and were brought up as healthy men and women; and if you had the industries of the country properly organised, I think that this unemployed class might be starved out altogether. The disease would disappear with the class which furnished the great bulk of the unemployed, because cases of skilled workmen suddenly thrown out of em-

    323
    ployment could easily be dealt with by trades unions and the local authorities. The distress from which they suffer is generally very short, and they can be put into a different category, as they do not form the bulk of the unemployed at the present moment. How is that to be done; how is this improvement in the diseased body to be made? People, I think very rightly, will not give up the idea of doing something for these unhappy people— some unemployed and unemployable— who generally lead a most miserable and wretched life. It is rather remarkable that every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate has suggested remedies applicable by the local authorities. My right hon. friend, the Member for Birmingham, who gave a most interesting speech to the House, believes in small holdings, and in putting people on the land. I think every effort should be made to do this; and if the community which he described as existing in Worcestershire could be repeated in every county in England, not only would it reduce the number of unemployed, but the nation would be strengthened. If we could put a million of people on the land, this country would be richer and stronger. The right hon. Gentleman says that the county authorities have got ample powers now, and that they do not require legislation if they would only put the existing Acts in force. But the right hon. Members for Merthyr Tydvil and Battersea claimed that some additional powers should be given to the local authorities, and some obstructions removed which prevent them from trying experiments. A good many suggestions were made by hon. Members, some of which were of so Socialistic a character that they could not expect me to support them. But the hon. Member for Birmingham and the hon. Member who has just sat down have made some practical suggestions which, if local authorities were willing to try experiments in that direction, they should be allowed to do. Some of those experiments have already been tried in the larger boroughs, and there is no practical reason why they should not be established in all boroughs. The hiring of land, and the taking a farm, are not, I believe, beyond the powers of the
    324
    local authorities at present. I think they have power to do so.
    MR JOHN BURNS: No.
    SIR JOHN GORST: Well, if they want the power, they should have it. Because it is no use saying that these unemployed people cannot be reclaimed. I do not at all hold with those who say that the present unemployed are wastrels, and that you cannot do anything for them. But you can. It has been established and proved that you can do something for them by the operations of the Salvation Army. I do not know what is going on now down at Hadley, the Salvation Army farm in Essex; but, whatever you may think of the Salvation Army itself and its doctrines, if you go down to Hadley you may see some of the formerly most idle people from the slums of London now working extremely hard and well. How the Salvation Army does is a wonder, but they do succeed in making these people work extremely hard, and what the Salvation Army has done, other institutions might do, and all local authorities can do; or they might employ the Salvation Army or the Church Army to supervise the work. It is not a thing unknown, even in Governments, because the Government of the Australian Colonies has employed General Booth and the Salvation Army in many social works, and in what the Commonwealth of Australia have done we might follow. The House will observe that the work of the Salvation Army at Hadley has been put to an extremely practical test. The Countess of Warwick, having determined to carry out very large improvement operations in her garden at Easton, which involved a great deal of work, made a contract with the Salvation Army to do it. The Salvation Army brought down to Easton sixty of these so-called unemployables, with, of course, Salvation Army foremen; and the Countess of Warwick has stated publicly that the work done is admirable, and that her head gardener, who was perfectly aghast when he first heard of the contract being made, now admits that he never saw a job of the kind better or more speedily carried out. I must add that though these people were formerly of the worst and most undesir-

    325
    able character—two of them being, I believe, murderers—when they lived at Easton there was no crime, no drunkenness, and no disorder of any kind whatever. That is a very good test. I am not a Salvationist myself, but I confess I am perfectly capable of appreciating social work of this kind, and I would say to the local authorities and to the President of the Local Government Board, "Go thou and do likewise." I would not have a Royal Commission, but I think the President of the Local Government Board should take into consideration whether the powers now possessed by the local authorities are ample, and if they must or must not be extended. The Government are going to bring in a Bill to give additional powers to the local authorities with reference to the housing of the poor, and some provisions might be included in that Bill for dealing with the unemployed. It might lead to a very practical result if the local authorities were given sufficient powers in this matter. The hon. Member for Birmingham says that the County Councils have not dealt with their powers under the Small Holdings Act; but it is the people themselves who are to balme. Parliament has done its part, and it is the fault of the people themselves if the County Councils have not done their part. Hon. Members should stir up the electors to return to their County Councils men who will carry out the powers which Parliament has conferred on the people; and if the social condition of the people is not improved, I think it will be seen that that is the fault of the people themselves. Hon. Members should endeavour, in a missionary spirit, to go amongst the people and stir them up to go something for themselves, and make their representatives on the County Councils do what is absolutely necessary for their welfare.
    SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs): This debate has extended over nearly the whole ground, and I would support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr. The question of the unemployed is, of course, one of great difficulty, as we all know; and there is no doubt that great differences, of opinion exist as to the causes which
    326
    lead to the frequent unemployment of labour. In dealing with the social system under which we live, I do not think it is desirable to make very extensive changes all at once in the customs of the people; but in the meantime it is most desirable to do everything which can be done, and I believe a great can be done, for the purpose of providing work for the unemployed and of reclaiming those persons who are capable, or might be made capable, of doing work. The Amendment deals with two matters, one of which relates to the land. My right hon. friend the Member for the Bordesley Division referred to legislation which was passed creating small holdings. I think my right hon. friend will remember that it is now twenty years since he and I spent many days, I might almost say many weeks, together in drawing up the first Small Holdings Bill ever drafted under the ægis of the Colonial Secretary. My right hon. friend admits that the Bill was not carried in its entirety. It contained no compulsory powers, and it is necessary in many parts of the country, if you want land, to have compulsory powers. My right hon. friend knows as well as I do that the Arcadia in Worcestershire which he described would be impossible in many parts of the country, because the owners would not be prepared to part with their land. When we introduced the Bill it contained compulsory powers, and I, for my part, have not changed my mind in the matter, althought I do not presume to reproach my right hon. friend for having changed his. We are, after all, dealing in this Amendment with the unemployed, who are nearly all in the great cities, and it is to the authorities of the great cities we must look to provide a remedy by taking the people to the land; yet it is these very urban districts which do not possess the compulsory powers which have been given to the County Councils.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: They do not possess the land.
    SIR ROBERT REID: I want to refer to all the arguments put forward by my right hon. friend in order to support the doctrine that we ought to give to the Urban Councils, as well as the County Councils, the power of getting land.

    327
    There is another small defect in the Act, if I may speak of defects at all in my right hon. friend's presence, and it is that the machinery is rather cumbrous. It was necessary to adapt the measure to the prejudices of the House of Commons when the Act was passed. People were apprehensive, as they always are when any reform is brought forward for the first time; the Bill was looked upon with derision, and in 1885 it was described by the Tory Party as a measure to provide "three acres and a cow." The Bill was drawn in a tentative spirit. It has many good qualities, and it has also some defects, the chief of the latter being that the machinery is somewhat too cumbrous.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: It is not cumbrous at all.
    SIR ROBERT REID: My right hon. friend has no doubt a certain amount of parental affection for the Bill; but in my opinion it has some little defects, and it is with these that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil proposes to deal. A measure ought to be introduced empowering the local authority to acquire land for cultivation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University used a most potent argument in support of that proposal. He referred to the Salvation Army having executed works to the satisfaction of fastidious owners. Why should not the Urban Councils deal with the case of the unemployed as well as the Salvation Army or any other agency interested in the work of reclamation? I have said enough in respect of the question of the land. In the latter part of the Amendment it is proposed that the local authorities should be authorised to set up undertakings on which men unable to find employment in the ordinary labour market might be set to work. If that were to be interpreted as imposing an obligation on Town Councils to find employment for all who are unemployed. I could not support it.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I purposely framed my Amendment to enable local authorities to act without compelling them to act.
    SIR ROBERT REID: I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says, because it bears out the interpretation I put upon the words. The proposal is permissive; it allows the local authorities to make experiments and to provide employment according to the necessities of the case. I cannot see anything in the least injurious in that. An hon. Gentleman referred to the well-known Board of Trade circular of 1892, which required, or rather recommended, local authorities to find employment when it was absolutely necessary, and this Amendment does nothing more than slightly extend the recommendations of that circular. The fact is we have the workhouse and we have the prison; but there is no machinery I know of, available to local authorities to assist in cases of necessity, which does not partake of the nature of degradation, and they have no means of trying experiments either in work or reclamation. No one knows what the ultimate solution of this problem may be. I do not pretend to tell where wiser men than I have failed; but I do not see the smallest objection to allowing the local authority a far freer hand than they have. I believe they would exercise their powers with judgment; they would certainly exercise them in a guarded manner; and although I sympathise heartily with the aspirations of my right hon. friend that a more full remedy might be provided by getting the people back to the land, it is because we must not accept that as an absolute panacea for all the evils of the situation that I most heartily concur in the Amendment.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I confess I listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and to his conclusions, in some surprise, since he told the House that he had no hesitation in supporting the Amendment because he believes in the first part, giving local authorities some new powers in regard to the acquisition of land, and regards the second part as carrying the local authorities not much further than the circular of 1892. I would point out to the House that either the Amendment would carry them much further on

    329
    that it would be useless. The local authorities have powers to carry out local works of various kinds, and I certainly object, as I shall show the House, not only to the first part but to the second part. I object to the first part because in the form advocated by the hon. Member it would be much more likely to increase destitution than to decrease it; and I object to the second part because everything necessary in that direction can be done at present by the local authorities, if they think it desirable, and if distress is sufficiently acute.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Might I ask whether the expression, local authority includes Rural as well as Urban and Town Councils?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly. I am talking now of the second part of the Amendment, which runs as follows: "to set up undertakings, whereby men and women, unable to find employment in the ordinary labour market, might be profitably set to work." What setting up undertakings precisely means I don't know, and the phrase has not been elaborated by the hon. Gentleman, but if he means undertaking local works of any kind necessary in any locality, then comes again the question of the local authorities. They have the power at present if it is that kind of undertaking which is included in the circular of the Local Government Board to which reference has been made. Whatever my hon. friend has done, nobody who has heard his speech can deny that it was one of the most interesting features of an interesting debates because, after all, there are many of us who have been long enough in politic, and Parliament to remember when this scheme of land reform found but few friends, and was not popular on either side of the House, as it is sometimes believed to be now. My hon. friend, by working the country and working Parliament; by incessant labour amongst the agricultural community of the country, did his best to secure this reform. I believe that to no one man here is this reform so much due as to my hon. friend, and aprt altogether from his views, hearty and sincere as they are, he has made a most interesting contribution to a most interesting debate, while some of these reforms which he has advocated
    330
    he has seen placed upon the Statute-book.
    I agree with a good deal that has been said by my hon. friend. I have not much objection to the extension of small holdings if you adopt certain precautions, but I altogether decline to accept the description which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil gave of British agriculture. I confess it always surprises me when I hear hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House maintain that British agriculture has failed, and that the British farmer is a failure as compared with the farmer of other countries.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: No, no!
    MR. WALTER LONG: It is all very well to say "no," but I took down the hon. Gentleman's words.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: My point was that a greater number of people were employed on the land in Continental countries than were employed in this country. I had no desire to cast any reflection on the skill or ability of the British farmers.
    MR. WLATER LONG: The hon. Member said the land of this country could be made as prosperous as the land of other countries if a new system was adopted. It is more prosperous now. The hon. Member went on to say that it did not pay the farmer to increase the fertility of the soil, because the profit went into the pockets of the landlord. Therefore, his contention was that the land-tenure of this country has made the land less productive than the land of other countries. I maintain that that proposition is a false one. If any one who holds that view will take the figures as to the production of this country as compared with that of others, they will find that we produce more and carry a greater amount of stock, except horned cattle, than any other country. If you take all the other figures you will find that the system which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has maligned has made the land of this country the most productive in the world. Therefore it is not just to attack the land, and say we have not done as well with the land of this country as other countries with a different system have done. What is

    331
    the state of this question? The hon. Member has given some figures. His estimate, in my judgment, according to the best means I have of testing it, is largely exaggerated. The speech we have listened to to-day here has been more limited in its character and more moderate in its tone than many other speeches that have been made outside. We have heard there is a much wider spread of destitution than has been alluded to in this debate. But what I want to impress upon the House is that although there are signs in the Metropolis and in the large cities of an increase in destitution, in the returns with regard to pauperism, and also that there are a large number of people out of situations, neither in the Metropolis nor the country is the case so serious as to justify any Government in adopting those extreme and drastic measures that have found favour in certain portions of the House. These can only be justified in times of national disaster, as in the time of the Lancashire cotton famine. At the present time, although the lack of employment is serious, I hope and believe it will diminish, because happily for us the climatic conditions are more favourable than hitherto. and we have not those conditions of weather which are so prejudicial to many of the workers. I have been at some pains to ascertain, as far as possible, the number of the unemployed in the Metropolis, and I am given to understand that 400,000 is an exaggerated estimate. I have examined those figures by the tests open to us at the Board of Trade, and it the House examines them by those tests it will find they are exaggerated. But take any one of the local cases mentioned and apply to that case the test of local knowledge, and you are led to the conclusion that there has been considerable exaggeration. One hon. Gentleman said that in Manchester there was a large number of people who were unable to obtain shelter, and who were sleeping in a place called the brick-kilns, and else where in the open-air, and that there was every evidence of great pressure in the city of Manchester. My hon. friend behind me, the Member for South-West Manchester, who lives in that city, has been closely following this question, and has been to the brick-kilns, the lodging-houses, and the shelters in Manchester, and has been able to see
    332
    for himself the condition of things there. My hon. friend assures me that he went round those places and found, he believed, that there was plenty of room in all the lodging-houses and shelters. There was only one lodging-house which was crowded, and the reason for that was that it was one established by the Wesleyan Church of a special character, and attracted people to it by its surroundings. My hon. friend stated that in one place he found provision of about a thousand beds, and that the average occupation of those beds fell far below that number. If that is so, it is not fair to suggest that people are sleeping in the open because they cannot get shelter.
    MR KEIR HARDIE: They can't pay for it.
    MR WALTER LONG: The hon. Member suggests that they will not go to the casual wards, and cannot afford to pay for the shelters, but even then there is the question which has been raised as to the brick-kilns. My hon. friend the Member for South-West Manchester has visited the brick-kilns and has seen the condition of things there, and he gives me his evidence that the number sleeping out in the brick-kilns has been largely exaggerated. I only mention that to show that there can be no doubt that there will always be, on questions of this kind, great exaggeration. I do not say this in order to undervalue the gravity of the case made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, but because I think it is right that all these statements made with regard to the numbers of destitute, and so forth, should be very carefully tested before they are accepted as showing the real facts of the case. Most of the cases are exaggerated, I admit, but what are exceptions? Everybody knows there are unemployed in different parts of the country, and, as a rule, it is not difficult to find, where the numbers are serious, what the reason has been for the great falling off in employment. In West Ham, where the unemployed are more numerous than in any other part of the country, the reason is that there has been a great falling off of employment at the docks, and if you take some of the

    333
    towns in the north you will find the reason is that these men are mostly employed in the shipbuilding industry, and there has been a great falling off in shipbuilding. But because there has been a temporary want of employment at the docks and in the shipbuilding industry, are you to turn these men into landholders and farmers in the country, and put them on the land in the hope that you will make them contented labourers? Because if that is the only remedy you have, I am convinced it will fail you and fall very short of your real requirements. There are some other suggestions made. There have been suggestions made that there should be an increase in the labour bureaux, and better means of communication between different districts as to the condition of the unemployed in the labour market. I think there is something to be said for labour bureaux of that sort, and when the suggestion was made some years ago I was attracted by it, but the experience of these bureaux in this country does not show that they are largely taken advantage of by the labouring classes, so I do not know that the extension of that system is one that can be profitably recommended for the solution of the unemployed problem. Another suggestion is that we should go in for large works of afforestation. When I was at the Board of Agriculture this question was being constantly brought before me by agriculturists and others from Scotland, where a great deal more work has been done, and better done, in connection with afforestation than in almost any other part of the world. The work there has been of an admirable character, but when you come to regard it as a profitable enterprise what are the facts of the case? Those who are engaged in the work tell me that some years must elapse before you can hope for the smallest profit. ["The profits accumulate."] But where is the money to come from to run this system of afforestation during the fourteen or more years during which it would be unremunerative?
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: From the same source as the money for the Uganda Railway.
    MR. WALTER LONG: But the hon. Gentleman is one of the many critics who are constantly finding fault with us for spending too much public money.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Abroad.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Not only abroad. Unless it is on a particular object suggested by the hon. Gentleman the expenditure of public money is, in his view, bad. Does the hon. Gentleman, from his knowledge of the men with whom he is acquainted, really believe that to start a system of afforestation would deal with even the smallest fraction of the unemployed question? How many of the unemployed would accept the offer of such work? It is almost trifling with the question to suggest that by methods of land cultivation or afforestation, you can deal with a problem so difficult and deep-seated as this. No doubt there is some land in the country which might very well be used for planting timber, but this work is of a peculiarly difficult and laborious kind, and if you put to it a large number of the present unemployed they would soon say it was not their liking. Many of those who recently paraded the streets of London have been offered work and declined it. They have said, "That is not what we want, we want money to be distributed amongst those who are in want of it." These men, in many cases, are acquainted with a particular class of labour, such as in the docks or shipyards. Are you going to take them from work which they understand and put them to work of which they know nothing? And would you ask them to devote the rest of their lives to it, or are they to be so employed only spasmodically in times of depression? The Suggestion is altogether too general and crude for serious consideration.
    Then my right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge dealt with the work of the Salvation Army. I have had an opportunity of seeing the work of the Salvation Army. I have visited Hadley Farm and seen the work the men are doing. No doubt forty or fifty men might easily be found who could dig a garden as well as the average agricultural labourer, but I am not at all pre-

    335
    pared to accept my right hon. friend's suggestion that Boards of Guardians or Municipal Authorities, still less the Local Government Board, should employ the Salvation Army as an agency for dealing with the unemployed, or that we should follow their example and ourselves set men to work. Such a plan would, after all, deal with only a very small number of those in difficulty; it would not in any way remove the difficulty or get to the root of the problem and prevent its recurrence.
    Another suggestion is that the circular previously issued by the Local Government Board should be re-issued. During the recess I was constantly in London, and in communication with my inspectors all over the country. With one exception those inspectors have been strongly opposed to the issue of that circular at present, their reason being that the local authorities are fully alive to the state of affairs, and have in every case, where the difficulty is considerable, taken action either through committees of their own or in conjunction with charitable bodies All the evidence points to the undesirability of issuing a circular which ought only to be issued when the circumstances are so grave as to make some special steps necessary. It is not sufficient to say that there are a certain number of unemployed in the country generally. Before we ask local authorities to go outside their ordinary domain and find work which is not really necessary for the locality, we ought to be quite certain that they are either ignorant of the condition of things or are apathetic in their treatment of it. There is no evidence whatever in that direction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University asked whether, in the opinion of the Government, the powers possessed by local authorities are sufficient, and whether, if they are not sufficient, we are prepared to increase them. I am not aware of any new power required by local authorities to enable them to carry out local works. Boards of Guardians have full power in regard to relief, and local urban and rural sanitary authorities can do the work they are empowered to do at a special time if they think it desirable.
    I do not think there is any sovereign remedy for this difficulty of the unemployed. Many of the subjects discussed yesterday and today touched this
    336
    question—the provision of better houses, sanitary surroundings, and so forth—but I ask hon. Members not to believe that any large scheme of making local authorities cultivators of land, or of calling upon them to employ men on large tracts of land, would do any real good. Small holdings are excellent things in their way, but everybody knows that unless the land is carefully selected and special regard paid to the conditions under which it is held, you might as well throw your money into the sea. The same remark applies to the allotments system. A little may be done in different ways, but that anything can be done by a big scheme is quite contrary to the fact.
    We must all sympathise with those who are temporarily out of work—especially with those who want work and cannot get it. I have been sorry to hear reference of a depreciatory character to charitable agencies. Many of those who suffer most will never be dealt with except by means of charitable associations; they would starve in a garret, rather than ask for help outside, and still less appeal to the Poor Law. It is only through these charitable associations, and by means of the noble men and women who devote their lives to this work, that you can reach some of the most deserving people at a time like the present. I should, therefore, be sorry for anything to be said, even inadvertently, which would lead people to believe that the work of charity in connection with the unemployed is not noble work, or that it carries any form of degradation to those who are assisted thereby, especially when their necessity arises from no fault of their own. If the labours of charitable agencies were lessened, I am convinced that in times like the present the suffering would be far greater and more real even than now. There was a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Battersea which I was rather surprised to hear. He suggested that the Militia should be called out at a later period of the year.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid what he suggested was that the Militia should not be called out at those portions of the spring and summer when work was most plentiful.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I do not think I was misrepresenting the hon. Member when I say that he suggested that they should be called out in the autumn and winter. This, however, is a War Office question. I regret that he suggested that the selection of the time of the year was due to want of energy on the part of the officers, where-as it is due to the belief that it is only at those times of the year that it is possible to give them the training that is essential for them to get under canvas. I do not think his reason is well founded. I can only assure the House that as far as the Local Government Board is concerned we have watched, and shall continue to watch, the conditions of labour very closely. I do not think there is an evil effect in connection with this question of the unemployed that escapes our attention, but I deprecate the adoption by this House of remedies which at first sight may seem practical, but which will not bear the test of examination, and which, if applied, would increase, and not decrease, the number of unemployed in the country.
    *MR. NANNETTIsaid that this question of the unemployed also affected the Sister Isle to a great extent. He had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was surprised at the want of sympathy he had shown for the Amendment of his hon. friend. He had stated that the hon. Member who moved this Motion had not suggested any remedy to meet the difficulty. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in his Amendment suggests a remedy. He (the hon. Member for Merthyr) had drawn attention to the efforts which were now being made by trades organisations to assist those of their members who were out of work, but the drain upon their resources was terrible, and some of the members of those organisations were paying double and treble levies in consequence of lack of employment. He thought some step should be taken by the Government to strengthen the hands of corporations, so that at times like this they would be able to do something to deal with this terrible problem. He instanced the case of Dublin, when an appeal was made
    338
    recently to the Council by the unemployed for work, and pointed out that owing to such restrictions as were imposed on municipal authorities only a temporary form of relief could be given. With reference to afforestation and the reclamation of waste land, he suggested to the Chief Secretary for Ireland that in the Bill he was about to introduce he would insert some provision for the reclamation of waste land and the planting of timber in Ireland. They in Ireland could not take advantage of the Small Holdings Act, with the result that the people from the country came into the towns and swamped the labour market. The labour organisations would not be able to meet the needs of the increasing number of unemployed much longer, because their funds would not last for ever, and as soon as their money was exhausted then the responsibility of the State would be very serious. It was the duty of the Government to give a sympathetic hearing to this Amendment, and he appealed to the House to vote for it and give some encouragement to the thousands of people who in processions were marching through the streets begging for bread.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid this had been a most interesting debate, and thanks were due to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil for bringing this question forward. He was greatly surprised that the Speech from the Throne made no reference to this question. What was the existing state of affairs? They had heard the numbers of the unemployed. It had been estimated that between 5 and 6 per cent. of the total members of trades unions were unemployed, but not sufficient account had been taken of the enormous number of unskilled labourers who were not members of trades unions. The number of unemployed could not be accurately estimated, because the number of unskilled labourers who had no organisation could not be calculated at any given time. Nor were the returns of the trades unions a real test of the definite state of employment in the country, because the members of trades unions were the best skilled artisans, and they were the very last people who were dispensed with by employers, since they would be difficult to replace, and when business was slack they were often

    339
    retained, if only employed on half or quarter time. The President of the Board of Trade in his speech said very truly that various remedies had been proposed for the existing state of affairs, and he referred to one of the remedies put forward by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. He asked would it not be much better, instead of looking to remedies, to ascertain the causes which produce this want of employment.
    There was no other country but this that suffered from this state of affairs. There was no real want of employment in the United States and Germany, and in those countries the unemployed problem was much less acute. In no other country were the Government face to face with this problem of the unemployed, and was there any other capital in the world which had been the withness of such processions of unemployed as those which had been seen in London. There might be some persons in those processions who were unemployable and undeserving, but it could not be doubted that there were a considerable number who, if they could obtain employment, would welcome the opportunity. But beyond all these men there were a very large number who would rather starve in a garret than accept Poor Law relief or charitable assistance, and still less would they take part in processions of the unemployed. Therefore it was the duty of the Government not only to find remedies but to examine into the causes. These questions were perfectly well known, and until the representatives of the people determined to go into the causes they would always have this problem of the unemployed with them. It was absurd and ridiculous for them to impose new burdens on the taxpayer so as to find work for the unemployed, or to attempt to distribute relief amongst them, so long as they admitted 70,000 or 80,000 aliens into the East End of London with the result that their own people were driven out of employment in much greater numbers. These aliens were coming to this country in greater numbers every day, without the slightest restriction or inquiry. Under these circumstances what encouragement was there to put capital into businesses in order to employ labour under the existing system?
    The President of the Local Government Board stated that shipbuilding was very much depressed, and no
    340
    wonder that this was so when they saw the disabilities under which shipping was labouring at the present time. What encouragement was there to people to build ships when they saw how many shipping companies were paying no dividend at all? What encouragement was there to put capital into manufactories in this country when their capital was not protected in the slightest degree, and when the whole of their output was met with favoured foreign competition without the slightest tax upon foreign goods. They were greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil for introducing this subject. It was far better to look at the causes of the want of employment, than to beat about the bush in regard to wild schemes of relief. Let them attack the disease at its fountain head, and prevent this question of the unemployed being always with us. It was not with the people of the United States, France, or Germany. If we alone in the world maintained a particular fiscal system, and if we alone were face to face with this perpetual problem of the unemployed, surely there was ground for believing that there was something wrong with the industrial and fiscal system which brought about such a state of affairs.
    *MR. FENWICKsaid that, in his opinion, alien immigration had no effect whatever on the skilled trades of this country; and, admittedly, these trades were suffering very considerably from the want of employment at this moment. He thought the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who moved the Amendment, was to be congratulated on the very important admissions which had been drawn from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He agreed that it would be difficult, it not impossible, to find a sovereign remedy for the unemployed, but he was surprised to hear that confession from the other side of the House, because it seemed to him to be in direct conflict with the opinions held by their late chief, Lord Salisbury, in 1895. This question of the unemployed was one of the trump cards they played in their electioneering game in 1895. Lord Salisbury went to Bradford to prepare the way for the coming election of the year. In the speech he delivered, he seemed to indicate

    341
    that there was, in his opinion, a sovereign remedy for dealing with this question of the unemployed. What was the remedy? It was a Government in whom the people had confidence. Looking to the majorities by which it was supported in both Houses of Parliament, surely they must come to the conclusion that, at all events, the present Government had the confidence of the country behind it. Yet here they were with a Conservative Government in office discussing this serious and solemn question of the unemployed.
    He agreed also that the number of the unemployed might be somewhat, and probably was, exaggerated. His own impression was that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had under-estimated the number when he said that the minimum would be something like 400,000, because the Secretary of the National Committee on the Unemployed, who had been in constant receipt of reports from all parts of the United Kingdom, had stated that, in his opinion, the number could not be less than 900,000. But it seemed to him that the very fact that they had difficulty in ascertaining what was the state of the situation was a reason why the Government ought to have acted upon the recommendation of the Select Committee which considered this question. That committee recommended that greater care and attention should be paid in the way of better organisation in order to get at the facts as to the number of unemployed, yet nothing had been done to provide a remedy. Only last year the Government passed a Bill which provided for creating labour bureaux in London, and he was misinformed if there had been any active attempt to put the measure into operation. He confessed that the local authorities were responsible to a large extent for more not being done, and he sincerely hoped that one result of this discussion would be to compel local authorities to exercise the powers they possessed for dealing with the question of the want of employment. He suggested that the Government should if necessary introduce legislation for the creation of labour bureaux throughout the country, so that they might be better able to know the state of the labour market. He thought one of the difficulties that had stood in the way of their acquiring land was that they had no compulsory powers. There were Lord De Freynes in England as well as
    342
    Ireland, landlords who would neither let nor sell their land to local authorities, and there was no power to compel them. Until the local authorities were invested with powers to acquire land compulsorily in order to enable them to deal with questions affecting the social comfort of the people, they could not expect that these authorities would show very much greater activity than they were doing at the present moment.
    He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division state that the present Acts contained all that was necessary. They did nothing of the kind in his opinion. The Allotments Act and the Small Holdings Act were practically dead letters at this moment, simply because they had to deal with the question on voluntary lines. In his judgment they would never have a satisfactory solution of this question until they got rid of the voluntary principle, and enacted that where land was necessary for the socila amelioration of the people local authorities, where landlords were reluctant to part with their land voluntarily on reasonable terms, should have power to acquire it compulsorily. He sincerely hoped that this debate would dispel the idea that the way to get rid of want of employment was to have a Conservative Government in office.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that hon. Members who for so many years had supported the principle of the compulsory acquisition of land, where the public interest demanded it, could hardly refrain from taking part in this discussion. It was perfectly arguable that any land taken for afforestation or small holdings would not give any immediate relief to those unemployed at the present time. With that he concurred. Any system of afforestation started upon a larger scale could not be expected to bring immediate relief to any person now unemployed. Moreover, when they were dealing with allotments, small holdings, or afforestation they must have men who had been thoroughly trained for work, and educated for it, or they could do nothing good. But, looking further ahead, there were many cases besides those with which the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs dealt so well, and which had been brought to his mind inconnection with the drafting of the Small Holdings Bill. On the Local Government

    343
    Bill for Scotland they had supported compulsory powers, and the Congested Districts Board for the Highlands had been given a certain mode of compulsion, as had been shown by their report issued the other day. Although it was true, as the President of the Local Government Board had said, that a larger amount of produce was grown upon much of the land in this country than on the land of any other country in the world, yet it was also the case that there was a larger proportion of waste land in this country which might be utilised than in any other country in Western Europe. Again, production here was limited to certain forms of agricultural produce. In the East of Scotland, where the mining industry was developed, the farmers, who were the best in the world, had been affected by farmers from the West of Scotland because they could not produce the milk which was required in the district. There were certain classes of agricultural crops which could only be produced by minute care bestowed on the land on small holdings, and there was no form of occupation on land which could maintain so large a population as the small holding system. So far, therefore, he was favourable to it, but unless the mantle of Mr. Horace Plunkett's co-operative scheme could fall upon them he was afraid that not so much progress could be made in this country as they desired. If the genius of Ireland which had been shown in this capacity for co-operation could awaken any responsive spark in this country, where the agriculturists, large or small, were notoriously incapable of co-operation, there was, he believed, a great future for small holdings. What he wanted to point out was that if there were compulsory powers for afforestation on any large scale—and that could only be conducted by the State, and where the foresters were properly trained—then they might have scores of thousands of men engaged in that labour who would gain a good livelihood. In that way, and by the extension of small holdings, they might add greatly to the stability of the social system of this country. That was what was wanted, although it was looking a long way ahead. He maintained that there was need for compulsory powers for the acquisition of land being held both by the local authorities and by the State if they were to lay the foundation of the increased prosperity of the rural popula-
    344
    tion, and promote that stability in the social condition of the people, which would be a stand-by when periods of depression came upon them. The end of the war and the severe winter might have tended to a great deal of the hardship experienced at the present moment, but he was satisfied that unless they had compulsory powers, and trained people to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them, they should have in the future more serious crises than that which they were going through at present.
    MR. CAWLEYsaid he could not see that Protection would do away with te unemployed, and he was certain that the unemployed would be in a far worse position if their food and clothing were dearer than they were now, which would be the case under Protection. The hon. Member who had introduced the Amendment had declared that the tide of labour was continually flowing from the country to the town. This question of the unemployed was, in his opinion, absolutely bound up with that fact. In the last decade the people employed in the agricultural districts had decreased by 127 for every 10,000, and he thought this question should seriously occupy the House. When the Agricultural Rating Bill was being passed through Parliament it was urged in its favour that it would preserve the bone and sinew of the country on the land, but he did not think it had had that effect. He had one suggestion to make as to compulsory purchase. At present people who bought land did so in small quantities, and had, therefore, to pay high prices for it. He did not see how the local authorities could buy land for allotment purposes without putting a burden upon the rates, and he did not believe the people of this country would favour any scheme which would increase the local rates. In 1896 an enormous number of large estates were in the market, and he had then made a suggestion that all these estates should be scheduled, and instead of giving two millions a year for the relief of local rates, the Government should spend the two millions in buying some of these estates, cut them up into small holdings of one to twenty acres, to be let at a low purchasing rentals. The Government would not lose any money by such a transaction, and would send

    345
    many people back to the land. He believed the prosperity of the country was intimately connected with this question, and he hoped the Government would

    AYES.

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

    Haldane, Rt.Hon. Richard B.

    O'Shaughnessy, P.J.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shee, James John

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Partingcon, Oswald

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E)

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Hope John Deans (Fife, West)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Price, Robert John

    Black, Alexander William

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Rea, Russell

    Boland, John

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Mortey)

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Reddy, M.

    Brigg, John

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Redmond, William (Clace)

    Burnner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Joyce, Michael

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Caldwell, James

    Lambert, George

    Robertson. Edmund(Dundee)

    Cameron, Robert

    Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Roche, John

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Leese, Sir Jos. F.(Accrington)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Rose, Charles Day

    Cawley, Frederick

    Levy, Mauice

    Runciman, Walter

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lloyd-George, David

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Lough, Thomas

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, W.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Crombie, John William

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Cullinan, J.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Macveagh, Jeremiah

    Spencer, Rt Hon CR (Northants)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Delany, William

    M'Govern, T.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Dewar, John A.(Lnverness-sh.)

    M'Kean, John

    Tennant, Harold

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

    Dillon, John

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

    Doogan, P.C.

    Mooney, John J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Douglas, Charles M.(Lanark)

    Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Toulmin, George

    Duffv. William J.

    Murnaghan, George

    Tully, Jasper

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Murphy, John

    Walton, John L.(Leeds, S.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Walton, Joseph(Barnsley)

    Edwards, Frank

    Newnes, Sir George

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Ellis, John Edward

    Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)

    Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

    Emmott. Alfred

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Wason, John Catheart(Orkney)

    Fvans, Saml. T.(Glamorgan)

    Norman, Henry

    Weir, James Galloway

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Norton. Capt. Cecil William

    White, George(Norfolk)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nussey, Thomas Willians

    White, Luke(York,E.R.)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

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

    Whiteley, George(York,W.R.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Brien, Kendal(Tipprary Mid)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Field, William

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersfld)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Grant, Corrie

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Keir Hardy and Mr. John Burns.

    Grey Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N)

    Gurden, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Malley, William

    NOES.

    Aird, Sir John

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Bagot, Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Askinson, Right Hon. John

    Baird, John George Alexander

    do something to solve this very intricate and difficult problem.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Nose, 201. (Division List No. 3.)

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

    Gosechen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

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

    Gretton, John

    Pym, C. Guy

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Randles, John S.

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Groves, James Grimble

    Rankin, Sir James

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Hain, Edward

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Bignold, Arthur

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Bigwood, James

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G. (Midx)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bond, Edward

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

    Rensha', Sir Charles Bine

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)

    Renwick, George

    Bowles, T. G. (Lynx Regis)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Bull, William James

    Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Helder, Augustus

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

    Henderson, Sir Alexander

    Russell, T. W.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

    Hobhouse, RtHnH (Somrst E)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford.

    Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

    Hope. J. F. (Sheff., Btside)

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Sandys, Lt -Col. Thos. Myles

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Saunderson, Rt.Hon.Col. Ed.J.

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J A(Worc)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Chapman, Edward

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tattham)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Simcon, Sir Barrington

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

    Smith, H. C. N'thnm. Tynes'e

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Keswick, William

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

    Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Spear, John Ward

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgour)

    Stanley, Edward J.(Somerset)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

    Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lawson, John Grant

    Stock, James Henry

    Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

    Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Craig, Charles C. (Antrim. S.)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Cranborne, Lord

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Crossley. Sir Savile

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G. Ox'd Univ.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Davenport. William Bromley-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Denny, Colonel

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Valentia, Viscount

    Doughty, George

    Maclver, David (Liverpool)

    Vincent Col.Sir C. E H. Sheffi'd

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Walrond, Rt. Hon.Sir Wm.H.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

    Maxwell, WJH. (Dumfriesshire)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Milvain, Thomas

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Mitchell, William

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Fisher, William Haves

    Montagu, Hon.J.Scott(Hants.)

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

    Fison. Frederick William

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Morrell, George Herbert

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

    Flower, Ernest

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Forster, Henry William

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Galloway, William Johnson

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

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Gibbs, HnA.G.H(City of Lond)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Percy, Earl

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

    Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin…Nrn)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Gore, HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Main Question again proposed.

    THE LONDON AND GLOBE FINANCE CORPORATION
    MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire,): In bringing this Motion
    348
    before the House I wish to say, in the first instance, that I have no interest whatever in any of the companies which will be the subject of this discussion. I am not, and never have been, a shareholder in any of them, and

    349
    I take the matter up absolutely as a public question, because I think if it is not fully investigated that public confidence in joint-stock enterprise must be at an end. If such things as I will disclose to the House can be done, then an immediate alteration of the law ought to be called for. It has been stated that the reason why a public prosecution has not taken place is that certain exalted personages have been mixed up in these matters. I do not believe a word of that, and I am sure that the Attorney General would not allow himself to be influenced by any such circumstances. I regret to have to bring this matter before the attention of the House, as the House is not quite the place to try it, because one feels there is no defence; but I am obliged to do it because the question whether the persons connected with these companies should be prosecuted or not rests with the Attorney General, and he has refused to act. On the 16th August the Public Prosecutor wrote to a correspondent stating that he was acting under the directions of the Attorney General. Therefore, as a public prosecution must be set in motion by the Attorney General, it is only here that we are able to put the facts before him. I do not intend to indulge in any rhetoric, but I will simply state the facts as taken from the Report of the Official Receiver and Liquidator, Mr. Barnes. There are three companies mixed up in this matter — the London and Globe Financial Corporation, the British American Corporation, and the Standard Exploration Company, involving a capital of &5,000,000. The London and Globe was registered on the 1st March, 1897, with a capital of &2,000,000. It had an aristocratic directorate, including two lords, one baronet, and another gentleman, Mr. Whitaker Wright, who controlled the whole concern. Mr. Whitaker Wright had 67,650 shares originally, and disposed of 65,150, and he had only 2,500 when the company was wound up. The first balance sheet was produced on the 9th September,1898. It showed an estimated profit of &989,000, a realised profit &182,000, and a paper profit &807,000. A dividend of 15 per cent. was paid, and &500,000 was put to the reserve. The second balance sheet was produced on the 30th September,1899, and showed a profit of &275,000; a dividend of 10 per
    350
    cent. was declared, and the reserve fund of &500,000 was kept intact. In that report the directors state:—
    " The directors propose to limit future dividends to 10 per cent. per annum, and by this means the directors believe the shares will be taken out of the speculative category, and soon be classed as an investment security from which the proprietors can count on receiving a specific return with unfailing regularity."
    This was fifteen months from the previous balance sheet. It purported to show a profit on the previous year's transactions of &463,672. Yet the report stated that great financial depression had existed during the year, and that market values had heavily declined, and that in the case of this company a very large sum had been written off for depreciation, but, thanks to the new business transacted during the period, the balance to the credit of the profit and loss account might be considered satisfactory. This is the point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House. I take the figures as given, precisely, by the Official Receiver, without any ornamentation on my own part. This balance sheet was produced on the 5th December, 1900. Early in October Mr. Worters, then the principal accountant of the London and Globe Finance Corporation, prepared a draft balance sheet to the 30th of September which showed heavy losses. This Mr. Worters handed to Mr. Whitaker Wright, who immediately changed the accountant, and replaced Mr. Worters by Mr. Malcolm. And then Mr. Barnes goes on to say: "Between the 1st October and the 5th December, 1900, numerous transactions took place between the London and Globe and its allied companies, the effect of which was to improve the position of the London and Globe by over &1,000,000 sterling." Mr. Whitaker Wright, as managing director of the London and Globe Corporation, sold large blocks of shares to allied companies, of which he was also a director, to the extent of &1,000,000. One of these transactions, which I take from the Official Receiver's report, is worthy of notice. On the 29th of November, two months after this company was shown by its accountant to have sustained a heavy loss on its year's transactions, there was a board meeting held of the Standard Exploration Company, when Mr. Whitaker Wright, and one other director only, bought 105,102 shares from the London and Globe

    351
    Corporation. The amount of this transaction was &1,392,600. Surely this was an enormous transaction for a company to enter into when only two directors were present, and the managing director of the company which bought the shares was the managing director of the company which sold them. This only took place about six days before the balance sheet was prepared. The total transfers from the London and Globe to the Standard Exploration Company amounted to no less than &1,603,000. That is to say, between the times when the London and Globe Company found its accounts showed a loss and the time when the balance sheet was drawn up these transactions were entered into solely for the purpose of preparing the balance sheet finally issued to the shareholders. Although these transfers to the extent of &1,603,000 took place, none of the brokers gave their consent to them, nor were they consulted in any way about them. They were carried out, says Mr. Barnes, by the new accountant on the 5th of December 1900—the very day this balance sheet was issued. On the 29th of December, the whole of the entries relating to these transfers were written back and the liability of the brokers retransferred to the London and Globe Corporation. This, the House will agree, is certainly a matter that should be enquired into. Let me take another point. Just after the balance sheet of 1899 the London and Globe Corporation practically surrendered &250,000 worth of shares to the British and American Corporation. That was just after the London and Globe Corporation had prepared its balance sheet and circulated its accounts. Just before the issue of its next balance sheet its solicitors discovered that this transaction was ultra vires, so they again credited their own company with this &250,000, which happened to operate very favourably so far as the London and Globe Corporation was concerned, because they had given away the money just after the issue of one balance sheet and had taken credit for it just before the issue of the next. Another point to which Mr. Barnes drew attention was that there was an omission of London and Globe liabilities to the amount of &119,769, which was explained as having been due to an over-
    352
    sight, no entry having been made in the books of the London and Globe Corporation. The shares stood in the balance sheet of the company as of the value of &2,332,682 Cs. 1d. It was rather curious that the penny is brought in, because the value of these shares was enormously inflated. Of that Mr. Barnes gives us an instance. He says 410,238 Standard Exploration Company shares were valued at &415,362, or at 20s. 3d. a piece, whereas they were only worth in the market from 9s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. That is another matter which, I suggest, requires a great deal of elucidation. I come to another point—the Victoria Gold Estates Company. This was a London and Globe Corporation promotion. The London and Globe Corporation gave the chairman of the company &500 in shares to become the chairman; that gentleman occupies one of the most respected positions, and bears one of the most honoured names in the country. By some financial jugglery they sold part of the property to two companies promoted by the London and Globe, and on the 3rd of December, 1900, two days before they published their balance sheet, they asked the Victoria Estates Company for an advance of &75,000 in cash, and I here observe that the 200,000 shares in the company held by the London and Globe, and the 80,000 held by Mr. Whitaker Wright, are treated on the same basis. That was a fraud on the London and Globe Corporation, and Mr. Barnes says by these operations the London and Globe converted an asset of &200,000 into one of &764,000, and increased its profit by &564,000. That was done for the purposes of the balance sheet. Now I think we come to something more astonishing, because I find, in order to show a respectable balance at its bankers, in the balance sheet, the London and Globe not only obtained this advance of &75,000, from the Victoria Estates Company but on the 5th of December, the day when the balance sheet was issued, it obtained a loan of &25,000 for two days from a firm of stockbrokers, for which the company paid &500. I ask the House whether this is not a case for enquiry. In that very year the company was purported to have made a profit of &463,672, and it had brought forward &295,459, thus showing a total in hand of &757,182, and they were obliged to go, in order to

    353
    dress their windows or to provide a respectable balance at their bankers, and pay &500 for a loan of &25,000 for two days.
    I have taken all these figures from the Official Receiver's return. I have not put in any of my own, because I know there can be no defence here. I am certain the Attorney General will not defend this matter. I have shown that this company, when their accountant showed that they had a balance against them, superseded the accountant; that they found, just before they issued their balance sheet, that a gift they had made to an allied company of &250,000 was ultra vires, and that they had to bring it back; that that coincided almost with the issue of the balance sheet; that they transferred from the London and Globe to the allied companies, the Standard Exploration Corporation and the British and American Corporation, no less than &1,603,456, as to which the brokers were never consulted, and were never informed that such a thing was going to be done, and that, moreover, some three weeks after the whole thing was written back to the London and Globe Finance Corporation. I have shown to the House that &119,769 was omitted from the balance sheet; that the valuation of the shares, &2,332,632 0s. 1d., was greatly inflated; that they manipulated 200,000 &1 shares, of which they only possessed 50,000, to secure a cash balance; that they transferred an asset of 250,000 shares into an asset of &764,285, and I have shown the House how they goy together the money to show a decent cash balance at their bankers. I ask the House whether this was not a case to justify a prosecution. Twenty-three days after the last of these transactions the whole thing collapses and they are unable to meet their liabilities. That is the case that I put to the House, and I am sure, as reasonable men, they will see that here is material for the Public Prosecutor. The Lord Chief Justice said through no fault of Mr. Barnes the investigation of this matter was not satisfactory. That is the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice.
    I do not wish to make any charge, but it is well known in the City that a Member of the Government is a sleeping partner in this company. I know that that would not influence the hon. and learned Gentleman, but there is the fact.
    354
    " The whole history of the 'Globe' and its allies, which may be said to have been typified by, and to have culminated in, this remarkable balance sheet, appeared to the ordinary business man, when he had mastered its leading features, to be fully deserving of that investigation in a Court of Justice which he assumed it would receive."
    He goes on to say—
    " By failing to prosecute in this case the Attorney General is taking a grave responsibility."
    I could go into other matters, but I will not. I must say, however, that the Standard Exploration Company issued a prospectus, which has been described by Mr. Justice Kekewich as cunning and tricky, and not only misleading, but distinctly false. The Master of the Rolls would not be able to differ from the conclusion of Mr. Justice Kekewich; and Mr. Justice Romer said the prospectus was untrue in fact, and that Mr. Whitaker Wright's evidence was vague, unsatisfactory, and contradictory. If this had been a bank manager, or a bank clerk with a salary of &100 a year, the law would have been upon him at once. There ought to be no difference. The majesty of the law should not be stern in the case of the law should not be stern in the case of the poor, and doubtful and hesitating in the case of the rich. There have been aristocratic gentlemen mixed up in this affair. I am very sorry for it, but if men with noble names allow themselves to be connected with companies they must take the consequences of their action. If they use their names as bird-lime for the unwary investor they must take the responsibility, as they draw the salaries. The middle-class "Nonconformist swindler," as he has been called—Jabez Balfour— was brought home to this country and prosecuted. What is sauce for Jabez Balfour must be sauce for the London and Globe Finance Corporation. We are entitled to have the facts of this case probed to the bottom. Fraud and falsification have been openly alleged. Either these directors are much-maligned men or they deserve punishment, and I ask the Attorney General to allow a jury of twelve British men to decide that question. I beg to move.
    MR. SOARES (Devonshire,)formally seconded.
    Amendment proposed—
    " At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'And we humble express our regret that no prosecution has been instituted against

    355
    the directors of the London and Globe Finance Corporation.'"—(Mr. Lambert.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member referred to a certain rumour, which he said he did not believe, to the effect that the absence of action by the Director of Public Prosecutions was due to the connection of some exalted personages in this case. I am not surprised at the hon. Member bot believing that rumour; the only thing I am surprised at is that he thought it worth referring to. There is not one vestige of truth in the rumour. Although I do not complain of the hon. Gentleman saying he disbelieves any such idea, I do think hon. Members ought to be very careful how in their places in this great assembly they ever mention rumours of that kind lest ignorant people should suppose there is something in them, otherwise they would not have been mentioned in this House. I think there ought to be a great sense of responsibility on the part of any Member of this House before he even thinks fit to mention matters of this kind here, lest he should give them a fictitious importance. The whole thing is absolutely baseless. The hon. Gentleman in other parts of his speech referred to the fact that aristocratic gentlemen were mixed up in this case. Who those aristocratic gentlemen may be I do not know.
    MR. LAMBERT: I said aristocratic directors.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Who are they?
    MR. LAMBERT: Shall I read out the names? As the hon. and learned Gentleman has challenged me, I will read the names from the Official Receiver's list. (The hon. Member read the names of the directors of the London and Globe Finance Corporation, and of the directors of companies promoted by it, and in which it was financially interested, to whom qualification shares were presented.)
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The hon. Gentleman has read out the names of a great many gentlemen, many of whom
    356
    were not directors of the London and Globe Finance Corporation, and several of whom are unfortunately now dead. All I can say is that, be they aristocratic or plebeian, it would not make the slightest difference in my decision in regard to the matter of a prosecution. I confess I think it is a matter for grave observation that any Member of this House should condescend to insinuate that the connection of aristocratic gentlemen with any case has in the slightest degree influenced the action of the Attorney General. I am sure there is not an hon. Gentleman in the House who believes it, and it is a matter for very grave observation and for the reflection of the hon. Gentleman in his calmer moments that he should have stooped to make such an insinuation.
    MR. LAMBERT: I did not make any insinuations. You challenged me.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The hon. Gentleman made no insinuations! Then I think it is unfortunate that he should have referred to the fact that aristocratic gentlemen were connected with the case. If he made no insinuation, why did he refer to it?
    MR. LAMBERT: Because it was the fact.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The hon. Gentleman in another part of his speech said that a member of the Government was connected with a firm which had something to do with some of these transactions. Did the hon. Gentleman by that mean to suggest that the fact that a member of the Government was connected with a firm which had something to do with some of these transactions had anything to do with there not being a prosecution in this case?
    MR. LAMBERT: Certainly not. I wished the matter to be probed to the bottom in order to show that there was not complicity.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I put it to every hon. Member in the House whether, when an hon. Member says that a member of the Government is associated with a firm which had something to do with these transactions and that he wants the

    357
    matter probed to the bottom in order to show that that member of the Government had no complicity, that was not an insinuation? I leave the hon. Member on this point to the judgment of the House and to his own sense of what is becoming when the heat of debate has passed away. I put it to the House that it is a very serious matter that any member of this great and honourable assembly should use his position here for the purpose of putting forward insinuations, in themselves absolutely baseless, and to which no one of any experience or judgment can attach the slightest importance, but to which some ignorant people may attach importance when currency has been given to them by a Member of this House.
    The hon. Member entered at some length into the character of the transactions connected with the London and Globe Finance Corporation. Those transactions no one for one moment will defend. Everyone must feel that in their nature they were most reprehensible, and that the persons concerned in them deserve very severe judgment to be passed upon them by all who value commercial integrity and honour. But the question is not one of civil liability. The question is not one of inquiry or investigation. The hon. Member throughout his speech spoke of the propriety of there being a criminal prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions as if that were synonymous with an inquiry into the facts connected with these companies. Every hon. Member, more particularly those associated with the profession to which I have the honour to belong, will realise that there is all the difference in the world between a case being proper for inquiry and thorough investigation, and its being proper to institute a criminal prosecution on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    The question to be determined when the Attorney General has to settle whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should take up a particular case, is not whether inquiry and investigation would be desirable, not whether inquiry and prosecution would be a popular thing; the Attorney General has laid upon him a very serious and responsible duty,—viz., that of determining whether in his
    358
    opinion the Director of Public Prosecutions should take up a case which involves the making of a criminal charge against certain persons. By the Motion of the hon. Member the House is asked to affirm that it regrets a criminal prosecution was not instituted against the directors of the London and Globe Finance Corporation. That is a very different question from desiring that such transactions as those to which the hon. Member has referred should be probed to the bottom. I am sure everyone in the House agress with the hon. Member when he says that it is desirable that such transactions should be most thoroughly probed, but I desire the House to realise the difference between that question, and other question which will come before the House for decision on this motion—viz., whether a criminal prosecution should have been taken in hand by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this evening's sitting.

  EVENING SITTING.

    KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS)
    Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [19th February] to Question [17th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
    "Most Gracious Sovereigh,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both House of Parliament."—(Mr. Gretton.)
    Which Amendment was—
    "At the end of the question to add the words, 'and we humble express our regret that no prosecution has been institutted against the directors of the London and Globe Finance Corporatioin.'"—(Mr. Lambert.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY, continuing his speech, said: When the House adjourned in response to the Motion of the hon. Member, I was addressing my remarks to the position of the Direction of Public Pro-

    359
    secutions. In this case it is a complete mistake to suppose that the action of the Direction of Public Prosecutions prevents any prosecution. The law of England is not the same as that of Scotland, in which the right of prosecution rests entirely with the Government. Anybody in England is at liberty to institute a prosecution, and my having held that this is not a case in which the Director of Public Prosecutions should move does not in the slightest degree interfere with the right of any individual, or any body or persons, who thinks that there is a proper case for a prosecution, to take action. I read in the newspapers that a fund is being raised for the purpose of a prosecution in this case. There is also pending a summons before the judge in the liquidation of the company, with the object of getting the judge to direct the Receiver to take proceedings by way of prosecution. I will not be betrayed into uttering one word which could in any way be considered prejudicial either to that application or to any prosecution, whether by the Receiver or by any private prosecutor, which may ensure under either of the proceedings to which I have referred. I should consider myself unworthy of my position if, even under the greatest provocation, I made a statement or advanced arguments which might be considered to prejudice either the prosecution or the defence in such a matter. Some things I might say might be damaging to a possible defender, and some things I might say might be considered to damage the prospects of a possible prosecution, and if I were to do so in an answer to the invitation of the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion, he would be the very first to denounce me. I trust I shall carry with me the feeling of the House when I say it is impossible for me under these circumstances to follow the hon. Member into the details of this case. I shall be perfectly ready at the proper time to state the reasons which guided my action, shall be prepared to state them fully, and, I hope, give satisfaction to those hon. Gentlemen who have the opportunity of listening to me; but I will not on this occasion enter upon a line which might entail results which, in the administration of the criminal law, I should deplore.
    The fact that I considered that the Director of Public Prosecutions should not take up this matter ought not to pre-
    360
    judice, and, so far as I am concerned, will not be allowed directly or indirectly to prejudice, any proceedings which may otherwise be taken. With regard to may own action, the conclusion to which I came was not a hasty or ill-considered conclusion. The matter was most full considered by me, I had the very best assistance in dealing with this case, which is one of somewhat peculiar difficulty, and formed the subject of repeated and prolonged consultations. After I was able to arrive at a decision with regard to the matters first submitted to me, it was suggested that further evidence might be available. I invited the sending in of further evidence, and some further statements were sent in after an interval of several months. Those statements were carefully considered; and the conclusion I arrived at was that those further statements could not be allowed to vary the decision I had already arrived at, which was that
    I could not properly say that the Director of Public Prosecutions should put the criminal law in motion in this case. In arriving at that conclusion absolutely no consideration influenced me, except the merits of the question. It is almost surprising that it should be necessary for one occupying my position to say that. Indeed, it is not necessary. The rumours to which the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment thought it necessary to refer reflect the utmost discredit upon those who concocted them, and upon those who put them into circulation. I say not a word more in respect to them.
    But although I say no more about the details of the case, if the House will bear with me I will submit a few observations on the position of the Director or Public Prosecutions, and the Attorney General, whose direction he is bound to obey as to putting the criminal law in action. The duty which the law throws upon the Attorney General in regard to putting the criminal law in motion is one of the most anxious and responsible which any man could well have thrown upon him. It would be a great relief to every one filling the office, which I have the honour to hold, if it were left to the departments to determine whether there should or should not be a prosecution in matters relating to the business of the departments. A decision might conceivably be arrived at on the ground

    361
    of general policy, and because it was considered that, on the whole, it was desirable that the matters should be investigated. But the law has thought it right to say that before the machinery for the investigation of a crime was put into motion there should be the intervention of a responsible officer, who is answerable to this House, and that he should determine whether the case was one suitable for a criminal prosecution—whether on the merits of a particular case it was right that there should be a criminal prosecution. That is the only question which any one who occupies that office would consider. In discharging that duty the Attorney General is exercising a function of an almost judicial nature. It is his duty to consider the particular case; it is not his duty to consider whether, on general grounds of policy, or on grounds of popular agitation, an inquiry may, or may not, be desirable. In the discharge of that duty the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions will be actuated by no respect of persons whatever. I do not believe there is a single Member of this House, except the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, who would have insinuated the contrary. As long as the House honours me with its confidence I shall endeavour to discharge my duties in this respect without fear and without favour. In this matter I claim the support of every one who values the independence and the purity of the administration of the criminal law. The matter is one of principle, which far transcends the importance of the particular case out of which this discussion has arisen. And I ask the House with confidence to say that, in a matter of this kind, it is the duty of the Attorney General, discarding all side issues and all considerations which ought not to influence anyone in determining as to whether or not the criminal law should be put in motion, to arrive, to the best of his ability, at a decision on the merits of the particular case before him, so far as they bear on the question whether it is right that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be put in motion.
    SIR ROBERT REID SIR ROBERT REID said he regretted that he could not support his hon. friend who had brought this Motion on this occasion,
    362
    and he thought he would be running away from his duty if he did not say a word with regard to this extremely important subject. He was very sorry that the Attorney General had exhibited some warmth with regard to his hon. friend, who he did not think intended to make any insinuation against the honour of the Attorney General. His hon. friend had acted from a sense of public duty just as much as the Attorney General. There was another thing in regard to which he believed his hon. friend was right. Not speaking of this particular case at all, he did believe most firmly that, unless the sharp edge of the criminal law was applied, whenever necessary, for the purpose of suppressing abominable frauds, especially in connection with companies, they would never be able to deal with them as they desired. Since he had been in the House he forgot how many Acts they had passed for the purpose of suppressing frauds in prospectuses, and in other ways, that were so common. Unless they invoked the terrors of criminal prosecutions they could not prevent what was going on. So far he was heartily with his hon. friend, who had put the case forward in a most temperate way. But what they had really to consider now was whether the House should censure the Government for not directing a particular kind of prosecution by the Public Prosecutor—in fact, what might be called a State prosecution. The Attorney General, who was the responsible officer, declared that, after very careful investigation and after taking the advice of other very competent persons, he had come to the conclusion that this was not a case in which he thought he could direct the Public Prosecutor to act. He knew very well those who would advise the Attorney General—he had been advised by some of them himself; they were most competent advisers—and he knew that they were influenced by no desire except to see public justice done. The point that had to be considered was not simply the question whether a criminal prosecution was or was not to take place. The question was whether it was to be a State prosecution. It must be remembered that in this country it was open to any one to institute a prosecution, and if the case went for trial, and the grand jury returned a true bill, the prosecution would be paid for out of rates or local funds.

    363
    [An Hon. MEMBER: To what amount?] And quite apart from that, if people wished to prosecute they could do so themselves out of public subscriptions. He was rather surprised to hear that interruption. The cost of the prosecutions he referred to did come out of public funds, and if those who prosecuted thought that the public funds did not make an ample allowance, it was competent for them to use private subscriptions. That being the case, hon. Members had to ask themselves whether they were prepared to overrule the decision and declare that the Public Prosecutor ought to have taken it up. But let them reflect. What materials had they on which to overrule this decision? Would anyone ask himself what knowledge he had of a criminal case? He took a very serious view of criminal prosecutions. While he thought there should be no shrinking from inflicting the criminal law, he knew it was a grave and a distressing thing to have to order a criminal prosecution. For himself he declared that he did not know what the materials here were for a prosecution. He had heard his hon. friend state the facts very clearly from his point of view; he stated there was a balance sheet falsely made up; and that, he understood, was the main ground of his action. Were they, then, to accept that statement, and accept it as the ground for over-riding the mature decisions of the Attorney General and instituting a criminal prosecution? He was not prepared to take that course. He looked up to and respected the House of Commons above any institution in the country, but much as he looked up to it in his opinion it was not, and never had been, a reliable body to exercise any kind of judicial functions. From the time of Sir Robert Walpole, who was unfairly sent to the Tower on a charge of embezzlement, down to the proceedings about Mr. Bradlaugh, twenty years ago, the House had never distinguished itself in this way; and here they were asked to overrule what was stated to be, and what was, a judicial decision given. He thought this: that where a Government believed that criminal guilt existed in a case of this kind it was their duty to order a prosecution; but, if they did not do that, unless a clear case could be made out or some improper motive
    364
    shown—unless it was perfectly obvious that it was a case of neglected duty—he was not prepared to take the responsibility of urging that the terrible weapon of the criminal law should be used against a private person.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYthougtht his hon. friend had an extremely good case for his Motion, and he had put it to the House extremely well. The facts were undisputed that a fraudulent balance sheet had been issued, and that on the faith of it credit had been obtained. With all due deference to his hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries, he thought there could be no worse offence than that. It was as grave an offence as obtaining money from a shopkeeper on a bogus cheque. He had not much sympathy with the shareholders of this company, because they ought to have known that it was a highly speculative undertaking; but the fact remained that they had been induced to buy its shares by the fraudulent balance sheet which had been placed before them. While he admitted that the Attorney General could have no object in view but to do what was right, he could not conceive on the facts how his hon. and learned friend arrived at the decision that a prosecution ought not to ensue. As to the statement of the Member for Dumfries that any person could prosecute in the case, and that the State would pay the expense, he would ask his hon. and learned friend whether he was prepared to take up the brief in the circumstances? If so, he had no doubt but a prosecution would be instituted.
    *MR. DUKEsaid it was the boast of our jurisprudence that the administration of the criminal law was free from the interference of Party or Government—free from the interference of any influence save that of the duty which was felt by an aggrieved person or public authority to bring an offender to justice. No private person had a right to institute criminal proceedings unless he believed that a criminal offence had been committed, and unless he proceeded with the sole purpose of bringing the offender to justice. He could not do it in order to expose a scandal, or to preach

    365
    a particular commercial or moral doctrine; and it would be setting up a grave danger in public life if the restraint imposed in the case of a private person were removed in the case of the authority which was entrusted with the enforcement of the criminal law, backed by all the resources of the State. He hoped the House would not take the perilous step of setting itself up as a judge on a case of this kind. What chance of escape would an accused person have, in a case arousing public excitement, if the indictment against him was endorsed by the House of Commons? He had defended prisoners in Treasury prosecutions, and no greater burden could be thrown upon a lawyer than that of defending a man against whom a responsible public authority thought there was a case upon which the jury ought to convict. Well, hon. Members from Ireland know something about this. Some of them knew it by practical and unhappy experience. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: We have been condemned before we were tried.] They all knew quite well that it did not need a true bill from the House of Commons to enforce a conviction in some circumstances. Hon. Members thought it might result from strong feeling in some quarter or another. [NATIONALIST cries of "Hear, hear ! "] But where was the strong feeling in this case? As far as the facts relating to this matter were concerned, the chief centre of feeling had been in the City of London. There meetings had been held with a view to the prosecution of a particular person for the offences which were the subject of this Resolution. Among the aggrieved persons in this case were some of the wealthiest in the country, and no doubt they had been advised. He suspected that their real difficulty was that they had been advised that if they embarked upon a prosecution they would be undertaking a very difficult enterprise.
    But was this a case which needed the intervention of the Public Prosecutor in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice? If the aggrieved persons were advised or were convinced that they had a case in which they might reasonably hope for a conviction, there was no difficulty in the way of taking action on the score of lack of funds. The aggrieved persons had been advised
    366
    and had not prosecuted. How could the Government be censured for not taking action when their legal adviser had told them that he did but believe there could be a conviction on any indictment he could tender to a jury? The Attorney General might have taken the easy course of directing a prosecution in order to shield himself from unworthy suspicions out of the House and unworthy attacks within the House; but, had he done so, could any action be more contemptible? It had been said that this was not an attack upon the hon. and learned Gentleman's honour. Then what was it? Was it an attack upon his judgment? It must be one of the two. The Attorney General's honour was established long before he became a Member of the House of Commons in a profession which was jealous of the honour of its members. The hon. and learned Gentleman had shown that he knew what the law was upon this question.
    Before parting with the subject he would ask leave to deal briefly with the only grounds upon which any person could present an indictment to a jury with regard to this company. One of those grounds was the issuing of a fraudulent prospectus. He did not believe that anyone considered that any of the prospectuses issued by this company amounted to a criminal offence. Another ground was the issuing of a fraudulent balance sheet. Anything more scandalous than the matters which were proved in regard to the issuing of the balance sheets of the London and Globe Company and some of the other associated companies it would be difficult to conceive. But the legal offence, if it had been committed, could be proved in half-an-hour. The whole matter had been the subject of examination of the persons concerned before an official in the High Courts, and every relevant fact appeared in the shorthand notes of those examinations, which were open to everybody concerned to see, including the gentleman who held indignation meetings in the City. The Attorney General had come to the conclusion that in these depositions there was not a case upon which he could warrant the expenditure of the public funds. There was one other ground.

    367
    and that was a prosecution for "rigging the market." So far as appeared from any facts which had been published or discussed that offence was not alleged. He did not wish to apologise for the persons who were involved in this scandal, and who had issued those false balance sheets. If means could be found of bringing the persons implicated to justice, no one would be more delighted than he should be, but the question here was whether this House should intervene and, without evidence before it and without express knowledge, should censure the responsible Minister of the Crown because he, in the exercise of his judgment, found there was no case for a criminal prosecution, under the circumstances alleged, which he would undertake upon his responsibility. He submitted that such a censure would be unjust, and however desirable it might be that a prosecution should take place, this House should abide by the judgment of the chief Law Officer of the Crown, in whose honour and integrity they all had confidence.
    MR. WILLIAM MCARTHURstating the view of the ordinary plain business man in this matter, said he never felt more strongly what am is fortune it was for the commercial community that they could not have in this House a commercial legal opinion rather than the purely legal opinion with which they had been favoured by the Attorney General. Personally, having lost no money over Mr Whitaker Wright, he had no vindictive desire to see him prosecuted; but statements had been made which to a pain layman were astounding. A sum of &5,000 was necessary to carry out the proposed prosecution, and subscriptions were invited from all the sufferers in this gigantic fraud, and yet his hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries told him that anybody could prosecute anybody else for nothing, and they the Government was bound to see anybody through a prosecution of this kind. To his lay mind that was a statement which was absolutely unintelligible. The Attorney General had treated the case as if it were a set of casual statements made by a casual Member of Parliament; but the facts
    368
    were not the facts of the hon. Member for South Molton, but of an officer of the law, the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, backed by the opinion of three of the most eminent judges on the Bench. Those were the facts which the Attorney General held out as being the irresponsible statements of his hon. friend.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I never said anything like that.
    Mr. W. MCARTHURsaid that when, in these circumstances, the Attorney General got up and said there was no case for a prosecution, he could only ask — "What is the good of the law as a protector of ordinary honest commercial men of business?" His hon. friend the Member for Plymouth said that the interest in this matter was confined to the City of London. He begged to assure him, from personal knowledge, that he was absolutely wrong.
    MR. DUKE: I did not say that it was confined to the City of London. I said that it chiefly centred in the City of London.
    MR. MCARTHURsaid he had had letters from all parts of the country from people who had been adsolutely ruined by this fraudulent swindle. If the law was helpless in a case of this kind, and the House of Commons ought to do nothing but accept the assurance that it was powerless, then the law was no use to the commercial community of the City of London, and the sooner it was altered the better. For his own part, not being a lawyer, and therefore not bound by that code which appeared to make lawyers always defend each other, he should, in the interests of ordinary commercial morality and the protection of honest people, most unhesitatingly vote for the Amendment.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,): I may perhaps, be allowed to intervene in this debate for a very few moments, because, of course, the House will readily understand that I was associated in the

    369
    consideration of the course the Attorney General ought to take, and in the consultation to which he has referred, and although the responsibility for the action taken rests, and must rest, upon him, my hon. and learned friend, in this case, as in all cases of importance, consulted not merely myself as a Law Officer but also others who were eminent in the criminal law and in the administration of it in this country. In the first place let me say that this is not an Amendment directed against the Government but against the Attorney General. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I will tell you why it is not directed against the Government. It is one of these matters in which the sole responsibility for what is done must rest upon, and must be taken by, the Attorney General, and if the Cabinet tomorrow were to order and direct the Attorney General to institute a prosecution in this or any other case he should refuse, and rightly refuse, to do so unless it commended itself to him upon a full consideration of the facts and the law appertaining thereto. What is the reason why the hon. Member who has just spoken is going to vote for such a Motion? Because he says that the commercial world has been shocked by the revelations.
    MR. W. MCARTHUR: The Official Receiver has been shocked.
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: Very well, that the Official Receiver has been shocked. Is the hon. Member aware that one of the persons called in to advise and to express his opinion with a view to guiding the Attorney General was the Official Receiver, who, he says, has been shocked by this case? Is the hon. Member aware that the Official Receiver brought all the documents before that officer to the notice of the Attorney General and those engaged with him in the consultation? Therefore, if that is so, and if the Attorney General has not overlooked these matters, and has taken the proper course in consulting these parties, is the hon. Member, who confessed that he is not a lawyer, going to set up his judgment in the matter against that of the Attorney General, who has had all the facts before him in coming to a conclu-
    370
    sion in the matter? From what I know of my hon. friend, I think that before he does so he will ask himself on what grounds he does so. Of course the hon. Member has a right to do so. Is it because the hon. Member believes that the Attorney General has acted dishonourably in the exercise of his discretion? Does he believe that he acted to the best of his ability? I am perfectly sure that the hon Member does. This is not a matter of one, two, or three hours consultation or consideration at all. The decision was arrived at in the most deliberate way in the investigation of the facts which the officials were able to bring before the Attorney General in his official capacity; and, therefore, as far as honesty of opinion, care, and caution in the framing of that opinion are concerned, I am sure the hon. Member would say that no case can be made out as against the Attorney General. What is the Attorney General blamed for? Is he blamed for having come to a wrong conclusion? [Cries of "Yes."] I hear hon. Members say "Yes." Do hon. Members think that upon a short debate in the House, without having the facts or materials before them, they are able to re-try a case which the Attorney General has at great labour already tried for the purpose of seeing whether it would exercise his discretion to order a public prosecution or not? I say that is absolutely ridiculous. You might as well at once abolish the office of Attorney General in relation to these prosecutions if upon each occasion when certain hon. Members think he has come to a wrong conclusion, they upon statements brought before them, and upon such a discussion as is taking place in this House, take upon themselves to review the decision he has come to, and ask the House to vote that the Attorney General was wrong after having honestly, and to the best of his ability, come to a conclusion. That is really what it comes to. It is said that Mr. Whitaker Wright published a false balance-sheet. I believe that he did. I think that it is an admitted fact that this was done; but will any one get up and say that a man can be prosecuted because he publishes a false balance-sheet? [Cries of "He ought to be," and "Why not alter the law?"] Then the House must pass a law. But surely, if it is necessary to pass a law for

    371
    that purpose, there ought not to be a vote of censure on the Attorney General because he does not prosecute under a law that does not exist. The hon. Member for Peckham, who, I am sure, has no ill-feeling towards the Attorney General, says that certain persons were, by reason of this balance sheet, induced to give credit. Is that an indictable offence?
    MR. LAMBERT: It is an attempt to defraud.
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: The question is not so simple as hon. Gentlemen imagine. These are all matters with which the Attorney General is competent to deal—at all events, as competent to deal as the ordinary layman; and, once you admit that the Attorney General is honest and competent, you cannot review his action in this House without turning the whole legal procedure of the country into a farce. We are told that a large number of shareholders have been injured by reason of this false report, doctored report, fraudulent report, if you like. Is it not an extraordinary thing that not a single shareholder in this company has, upon that report, taken a civil action to get back his money from Mr. Whitaker Wright, who is perfectly well able to pay? Is it because they have sympathy with Mr. Whitaker Wright, or is it because they have the same advise that such an action is not maintainable? It is also said that there are a number of shareholders and creditors burning to take action, and that what deters them is the cost of the proceedings. Personally, I venture to say that the cost of the proceedings has little to say to it; but the House should not imagine that the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries has stated what the rule is as to the demand for cots when private individuals take these proceedings. The London and Globe Finance Corporation is in liquidation; and I am told that the liquidator has spoken very strongly of the frauds committed by Mr. Whitaker Wright. It is open to any of the shareholders to go before the liquidator and ask him to allow a prosecution to be brought, and to have the costs defrayed out of the assets of the London and Globe Corporation. Has any shareholder done that? And if not, why not? Everybody is burning for a prosecution, and yet no one will take the responsibility
    372
    for it. There is also the power of charging Mr. Whitaker Wright with malfeasance, and having the matter investigated by the liquidator; and if any material facts can be brought out, they can have them so brought out, and subsequently laid before the Public Prosecutor. The truth of the matter is that there is remedy after remedy open to the parties who are said to complain of the decision of the Attorney General; and yet not one of them has moved a step. It is said that the shareholders are writing every day to Members of Parliament. I think hon. Members would find in some cases that they were men who bought their shares as a speculation for a shilling or eighteen pence, when the London and Globe had practically smashed up. All these circumstances tend to show that the advisers of those who have remedies open to them and do not take them have come to much the same conclusion as that of the Attorney General, on whose shoulders rests a very much greater responsibility. What the House is now being asked to do is what the Press has been doing for months past, and what makes the administration of the law all the more difficult—and that is to force the hand of the Attorney-General and to overrule the discretion which he properly exercises on the facts which are laid before him.
    *SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid they had heard from the hon. and learned Member the Attorney General that reprehensible things had been done; they heard also from the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth that scandalous things had been done, and that it was quite obvious by whom they had been done. They heard from the Solicitor General that a fraudulent balance-sheet had been published, and that it was quite obvious by whom it was published. They heard from the Attorney General that the persons who had done this deserved to be punished. The Solicitor General had tried to persuade the House that this Amendment was an attack upon the honour of the Attorney General. That was said merely to prejudice the case. It was not an attack upon the honour of the Attorney General, but what they did find fault with was that, according to

    373
    the law, the person who was to blame could not be prosecuted by the authorities constituted to perform that duty, and that the Government had made no proposal to amend the law. The Solicitor General said this was not an attack on the Government.
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: I did not say so.
    *SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he would repeat that the hon. and learned Gentleman said this was not an attack on the Government. Well, it was the first time he had heard that doctrine enunciated in that House. An Amendment to the Address is always held to be a censure of the Government, but he was prepared to denounce that as an absurd fiction. He thought the House ought to be able at all times to express an honest opinion in an Address to the Crown without its being represented that they intended to attack the Government.
    *SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that no one could enter into this debate, after what had been said, without a compelling sense of public resposibility. It had been asked what was the law worth if it could not meet such a case; and it might well be asked what was the Public Prosecutor worth if he could not deal with a question of this kind. While he had every respect for the numerous counsels' opinions offered gratuitously that evening, he must say that he ventured to respectfully differ from them, unusually unanimous though they were. The Solicitor General had said that it was clear that a false balance sheet had been published, and he had also said the Act had yet to be passed which would make that a criminal offence. He differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He believed that the publication— and he said it with a high written authority—of a false balance sheet, which was the means of obtaining almost millions from the confiding public, was an offence at Common Law. At any rate it might be, in his view, made the subject of a conviction for conspiracy at common law, and when there were several defendants, in one sense there was less difficulty in establishing conspiracy. He believed the case also to be within the terms of the Criminal
    374
    Law Consolidation Acts of 1861, and also the Companies Act, 1862. But he rose very largely that night to say that if that were not the case, it would be a great discouragement to those Members who had served upon the Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade only a year or two ago—in 1889—to revise the Companies Acts, and to frame a Bill, which afterwards became an Act, containing a clause which, at any rate, had apparently been overlooked by the Solicitor General, when he said that the Act had yet to be passed to deal with what he admitted to be a false balance sheet. The material part of the clause ran: "If any person in any return, report, certificate, or balance sheet, makes a statement, false in any material part, knowing it to be false, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour." He failed to find a difficulty in interpreting these words; and having served on the Committee, and having had the advantage of discussions with Mr. Justice Buckley, Lord Davey, and other colleagues like Sir John Hollams, he belived it to be largely declaratory of what was the Common Law bearing on the subject.
    He was very far from partaking in any censure on the Attorney General, either officially or personally, or the Government for their inaction in this matter. In any case he would be very reluctant to do so; but he nevertheless thought it would not be consistent with loyalty to his profession of the law if he were to give or not to give a silent vote without expressing his individual opinion on this most extraordinary case of all stupendous fraud, followed by absolute impunity. He asked the House to dismiss from their mind the fringes of the case and the mere phrases used by his hon. friend. He was quite sure that his hon. friend did not intend to impute anything to anybody in bringing forward this Motion, and he was also sure that references to personal honour were altogether out of place. The suggestion of a Government conspiracy to suppress the consequences of a crime was equally absolutely inadmissible, and he certainly would not recognise, in such a non-political matter, the technical suggestion that in taking a particular course one was expressing censure. He preferred

    375
    to accept the words of the Attorney General himself that he was responsible to the House. He agreed with the Attorney General when he said that a Prosecution would be a very serious responsibility; but, it should be remembered, that there would be previously a searching magisterial investigation. And, in his opinion, if the admitted falsity of the balance-sheet were proved, coupled with the inevitable inferences of fraud from the vibration of paper balances, just at the moments when they were financially required, and with the other circumstances detailed in the reports of the Official Receiver, and the examinations before the Registrar, the onus — which was always, in such cases, an important consideration—of displacing those inferences from facts, and of rebutting the presumptions of intentional fraud, would be shifted from the prosecution to the accused. He maintained that on the facts as presented by the Official Receiver, there was a Prima facie case— and, after all, that was the whole question — which demanded investigation in the interests of justice and of this House, whose concern it was to see that justice was impartially administered without regard to persons or to classes. They were not trying the case, and he quite granted that the mode proposed in the Amendment of dealing with the case was not the only one, for not only could any individual, technically, prosecute, but the Liquidator might do so by leave of the court, but, in any event, there would be almost insuperable difficulty in dealing with the matter from that point of view. He ventured to say that even if there were any funds, as suggested by the Attorney General, they would be quite inadequate for justice to be done to the public. The very expensive preliminary investigation alone involved such large sums that no individual ought to be asked to assume the responsibility. Therefore, it was that the Public Prosecutor existed, and they were asking him to vindicate his existence and his utility. He also ventured to say that if the law confessed itself important to deal with a matter of this kind it would be a great reflection upon the administration of justice in this country. He had felt great reluctance
    376
    in dealing with this subject, but it was necessary to protect large bodies of men and women, shareholders, and creditors and the public, who, if they were speculative, were nevertheless entitled to justice. They were a body of people who had no cohesion; and when it was found that the result of transactions like this was illimitable misery in numerous directions, great damage to the commerical character of our country, a deterrent to the investment of capital, and a reflection on our whole public judicial system, something should certainly be attempted to remedy the grievance, and to put to the test of legal judicial inquiry and investigation in the magisterial and other courts, whether there had, in fact, been falsity and fraud, and, by argument in open court, whether or not, in point of law, there had been a criminal and indictable offence.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I need hardly say that I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to obtrude any legal opinions upon the House, not merely because the hour is late, but because I am incapable of giving an opinion on such a subject which is worth listening to. But I think I have gathered what it is that has influenced most of the speakers, and many of those who have listened to them, who feel that the House of Commans ought to take some action on the present occasion. I do not misinterpret the feeling of the House when I say that there is no man on either side of the House who, either in public or in private, or even to himself, has made any suggestion of suspicion as to the motives by which the Attorney General was actuated in the course that he has taken. There is probably no man in this House, not even those who, like myself, are entirely ignorant of the law, who doubts that the Attorney General's advice has not only been honestly given, but has been given by a man eminently qualified to give advice upon any matter connected with the laws of this country. The third observation I think I may make with general assent is that it is not intended on this occasion to make an attack upon His Majesty's Government. It is perfectly true, as an hon. Gentleman said opposite, that every Amendment to the Address is an attack upon the Government, and in that sense, of course, this is an attack upon the Government; but it is not an attack upon them in a matter in

    377
    which they have any discretion. It is due to the Attroney General to say in the clearest manner, not only in the interests of the Attorney General but in the interest of all, that his position as the District of Public Prosecutions is a position absolutely independent of any of his colleagues. It is not in the power of the Government to direct the Attorney General to direct a prosecution. No Government would do such a thing; no Attorney General would tolerate its being done. Though it is, I believe, peculiar to the British Constitution that political officers, like the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney General, should occupy what are in fact great judicial positions, nobody doubts that in the exercise of their judicial or quasi-judicial functions they act entirely independently of their colleagues, and with a strict and sole regard to the duty they have to perform to the public. That is the position of my learned friend, and that is the position of the Government in connection with this subject.
    Now I pass to what I believe to be the animating motive of almost all the speeches we have heard tonight in favour of the Amendment. I think that motive is a feeling of deep and profound indignation at the fraudulent transactions in which Mr. Whitaker Wright has been engaged. Nobody can have even a most cursory knowledge of those transactions without being conscious that if these are things which can be done in a great commercial centre like London, in connection with a vast transaction like that of the London and Globe, and can be done with impunity, a great fault lies somewhere. The only question is where that evil lies. I venture respectfully to say that no man can have listened to the debate tonight and have weighed—I will not say the reasoned legal view of my learned friend the Attorney General, because I imagine he was precluded by the fact that there were proceedings pending in this matter from going into the details of the reasons which have influenced his judgment—but have listened to what he said, or what the Solicitor General told us of the enormous pains taken by the Law Officers of the Crown in examining this case, without admitting that the fault does not lie either with the Director or Public Prosecutions, or with those who advised him. The fault lies in the law. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION side of the
    378
    House: No, no.] Is that a lawyer or a layman? Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that it is the jury which make the law? My hon. friend below the Gangway says that in his view an offence has been committed.
    *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Under the Statutes of 1861 and 1862, and at Common Law.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, both the question of Common Law and the question of Statute Law have been critically and carefully examined by the Law Officers of the Crown, and they, rightly or wrongly, take a different view from that held by my hon. friend. Whilst all admit that if such scandalous frauds are allowed to go unpunished the fault lies somewhere, I venture to say to the House that the fault does not lie with my learned friend, but with the language of the statute. The phraseology of the statute is evidently intended to protect the shareholders in a company and the creditors of a company against fraudulent prospectuses; and it is a very grave omission in the framing of the statute that it does not provide an adequate remedy against fraud, however gross, however scandalous, which is not directed against these persons. My learned friend's attention has been called to this defect in our law by the very scandalous and painful case of Mr. Whitaker Wright and the Globe Finance Company; and he has expressed his opinion to the Government that there ought to be an amendment to the law making such practices absolutely impossible. The Government, advised in that sense by my learned friend, entirely share his view, and think that an amendment of that kind ought to be introduced as soon as possible. I need hardly say we shall take steps to carry that view into effect. Meanwhile, what

    379
    I ask the House to do is to make the law what it ought to be, and not to attack a judicial officer whose duty it is to administer the law as he finds it. I cannot imagine a worse precedent than that this House should constitute itself a kind of grand jury in criminal matters; that, moved by passions which in this case we all share, and which, I believe, are amply justified by the facts, we should endeavour to compel a judicial officer to do that which, in his conscience, he believes he ought not to do. Let the House reserve itself for the function for which it is fitted—the amendment of the law—bringing it into a condition to meet the needs of the community, and into harmony with the general principles of justice. I hope and believe the House
    will not differ from the general principle I have laid down, and will be content with the pledge I have given, that we shall endeavour to amend the law in accordance with that broad view of commercial morality so ably defended by my hon. friend. We shall do that which it is our function to do, and not set a precedent which, in this case, may only do an injury to the Government and my hon. and learned friend, but which, followed in different circumstances by the House, may inflict a real blow on the criminal jurisprudence of this country.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 166. (Division List No. 4.)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fison, Frederick William

    Percy, Earl

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Flower, Ernest

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Forster, Henry William

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Atkinson, Right Hon. John

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Pryce-Jones Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bagot, Capt. Joseceline FitzRoy

    Gardner, Ernest

    Randles, John S.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin…Nrn)

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries))

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

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

    Gretton, John

    Renwick, George

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge)

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Groves, James Grimble

    Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Roberst, Sumuel (Sheffield)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bigwood, James

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx)

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bond, Edward

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Bull, william James

    Henderson, Sir Alexander

    Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

    Butcher, John George

    Hobhouse, Rt HnH (Somrst E)

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

    Hope, J. F. (Sheff. B'tside)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hoult, Joseph

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

    Hudson. George Bickersieth

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Jessel, Capt Herbert Merton

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Wore)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

    Smith, H C (Northmb. Tyneside)

    Chapman, Edward

    Kimber, Henry

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

    Charrington, Spencer

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

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

    Knowles, Lees

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Stock, James Henry

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lawson, John Grant

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Legge. Col. Hon. Heneage

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasg.)

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edwd. M.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Cox. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Charles C. (Antrim, S.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm H.

    Cranborne, Lord

    Lucas. Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

    Welby, Sit Chas. G. E. (Notts)

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Macdona, John cumming

    Willoughby de Eres by, Lord

    Cubitt Hon. Henry

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Willox, Sir John Arch bald

    Davenport. William Bromley-

    Maple, sir John Blundell

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Denny. Colonel

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Mitchell, William

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

    Doughty, George

    Montagu, G. (Huntington)

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Wylie, Alexander

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Wyndbam, Quin, Major W. H.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Sir Alexander Acland-

    Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

    Parkes Ebenezer

    Hood and Mr. Anstruther-

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Main Question again proposed.

    MINISTERS OF THE CROWN AND PUBLIC COMPANIES
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the question with which his Amendment dealt went to the very root of public life. He wished to insist on the incompatibility of the union of the
    382
    offices of Ministers of the Crown with those of directors of public companies. The speech to which the House had just listened was a fitting introduction to the question he wished to raise, although the Prime Minister, who knew so many things, was not versed in finance or in criminal law. The impress of finance

    383
    had been very prominent in recent discussions, and the phrase "due regard to economy" was replaced in the King's Speeches by references to considerable expenditure and to Imperial responsibilities. He would think that the first step in reducing the public expenditure would be to lessen the number of directors in the Ministry. This question had frequently been brought before the House. So far back as 1891, Mr. Goschen, who was then the Leader of the House, was asked if the Government would grant a return of its members who held directorships in public companies. He immediately got very angry and insisted that it would be invidious to comply with the request. Then the matter was in abeyance till 1895, when the Member for King's Lynn asked the First Lord if he was aware that twenty of the new Ministers held sixty directorships among them, and if they would be called upon to resign them. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said he would not institute such an inquisitorial investigation, and there the affair rested. Four years ago he himself moved an Amendment to the Address calling attention to the incompatibility of the union of the two offices, and a curious thing happened. No fewer than eighteen gentlemen took part in the discussion, and of them all only four had a word to say in favour of the union of the offices. One of the four was the First Lord himself, who was not a director, but who, out of a mistaken feeling of chivalry, defended his colleagues—thereby making a very considerable mistake; and another speaker was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, a former Finance Minister, whose absence from the House he deplored. Thanks to the
    384
    influence of the Government, the Motion was defeated in the House. But the opinion outside the House was very different, for nearly every paper in the Metropolis—including The Times—insisted on the impropriety of the union of the two offices. On the 8th May, 1900, he again brought forward a Motion directing the attention of the country and of the House of Commons to the matter, and was defeated, curiously enough, by a majority of eleven—a majority which included no fewer than twenty Ministers of the Crown, of whom eleven held among them nineteen directorships. Now he had no personal feeling towards any Member of the House in this metter, but he would like to give the names of those eleven Ministers. They were Mr. Anstruther, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Akers Douglas, Mr. Fellowes, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Sir John Gorst, Lord George Hamilton, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. W. E. G. Macartney, Mr. A. G. Murray and Mr. Ritchie. They were the men who defeated his Motion, and he said, without any hesitation whatsoever, that the public opinion of this country and of the House itself was in favour of the widest possible chasm separating Ministers on the Front Bench from the front pages of prospectuses. He was happy to know that the Radical leaders had adopted the principle laid down by Mr. Gladstone of insisting on the resignation of company directorships as a preliminary to the acceptance of public office. What were the cardinal principles on which this Motion was supported? The principle which he maintained was that Ministers of the Crown, when they held directorships, could not liberate themselves from suspicion that arose from the conflict the administration of their Department and their interests as company directors.

    385
    When the vote of a Minister of the Crown was impugned in that House on account of his connection with a public company, all his colleagues voted straight for him like soldiers on parade, and thus he was sure of thirty-one or thirty-two votes in his favour. Mr. Gladstone had said that he hated the idea of the slightest inequality between Members, but there was one power entrusted only to a Minister of the Crown, that of imposing a charge on the public funds. Let them imagine what a situation would be created if the President of the Board of Trade, in his zeal, wanted to bring in a comprehensive measure for railway reform! He would have to submit it to a Cabinet no fewer than seven of whom were railway directors. He remembered when Mr. Mundella, as honourable a man as ever entered the House, resigned his position at the Board of Trade owing to his connection with a public company. No man consistently with the dignity of the public service, could act as Minister of the Crown and at the same time be a paid servant of a trading company. Every person who entered into the service of the State should give his whole time to that service, and not place himself in a position in which there was any possibility of his public and private duties coming into conflict. His Amendment, he admitted, was worded strongly, but it was not so strong as the denunciation of the late Lord Russell of Killowen, who said that the union of the positions of Minister of the Crown and company director constituted a perfect scandal in public life. The great majority of the funds of Departments in the present government were company directors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer who, by virtue of his office, was the head of the
    386
    Civil Service in this country, was a director in two public companies.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): No.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he was delighted to hear even of that late repentance; he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had shed them, although he had held them until a year ago. Under the rules of the service he was bound to censure, if not dismiss, a civil servant for acting as a company director, and how could he do that if he were himself breaking the rule. Might he not be told "Physician heal thyself?" He would now come, by an easy transition, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Secretary of State for War. He was a gentleman of many parts, and he excelled in them all according to the opinion of certain hon. Members opposite. He was a man of wonderful and versatiel genius, and he was also a company director. He had lately posed in a military aspect, and had received royal salutes as a militia officer. He, in his capacity as Secretary of State for War, would cashier any poor officer who had nothing but his pay and who was induced to take a directorship. Yet he was a company director himself. When he first directed attention to the right hon. Gentleman's companies they were the mystic number of seven. That number was reduced to five, then to three, and now the right hon. Gentleman was director of only one company. It was the right hon. Gentleman's pet lamb, and he would tell the House something about it. That wonderful financial genius, who was not at all unknown to the Treasury Bench he meant the revered Mr. Hooley—in whose case a prosecution was incon-

    387
    venient and unsuitable—used to say that the principal thing in a prospectus was the front page, and that he had paid no less than &60,000 for a good front page. Now the right hon. Gentleman was a famous man; his fame had extended to what Mr. Austin, the Poet Laureate of the Party opposite, called the "gold reef city." An advertisement appeared in a Johannesburg paper setting forth the directors of the Rock Life Assurance Company, and they included, in double-leaded type, "The Right Hon. St. John Brodrick, M.P., Secretary of State for War." When attention was drawn to it, directions were given that the name of the Secretary of State for War should appear in small type, and not be double leaded. He was no longer to appear as a "double-barrelled front pager."
    MR. STRUTTsaid that the advertisement appeared without the authority of the Secretary of State for War, and was inserted by the agent of the company in Johannesburg. Immediately it was discovered it was corrected by cable.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he thought the Secretary of State for War was able to defend himself, even though he could not defend his office.
    MR. STRUTTsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not asked him to defend him.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid there was one observation he felt bound to make, which he thought would anticipate an argument which the First Lord of the Treasury might advance in his reply.
    388
    No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would reply very well, because he knew nothing about the subject. It might be said that Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, many of whom were not wealthy men, should be allowed to eke out the pittance given to them by an ungrateful and parsimonious country by accepting directorships. At present eighteen Ministers, the greatest geniuses the earth had ever produced, were where starving themselves on salaries amounting to &93,000 per annum, and they held fourteen directorships. He stated, and he would defy contradiction, that thirty-three out of fifty-six Ministers of the Crown who constituted the present Administration held sixty-eight directorships. In that was included the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had now been converted, and, therefore, the correct number of Ministers holding directorships was thirty-two, and they held no fewer then sixty-eight directorships. Out of the 670 members of the House only thirty-two per cent. were directors, but more than fifty per cent. of the members of the Government, who ought to give all their time to the country, were directors. Ministers should not incur the suspicion of being engaged in a conflict between their public and private duties. No one would say a word in disparagement of the Duke of Devonshire, but he should not be president of an Armaments Committee when he was chairman of a company which supplied arms to the navy. The Duke of Devonshire was chairman of the Barrow Hematite Company and a director of the Furness Railway Company. As to the Secretary of State for War, he would appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury, now that Army Administration was in such difficulty and danger, to ask him to retire from the Rock Life Assurance Company. The Secretary of

    389
    State for India was also a director. He was on the Board of the Pelican Life Insurance Company. It was the last of many directorships held by the noble Lord, a kind of "pelican in the wilderness." The President of the Board of Trade held nine directorships, but he resigned them when he was appointed. He maintained it was inconvenient that a gentleman who had held no fewer than nine directorships should be at the head of a department dealing with company matters, and in which he must always come into conflict with company interests. As to the Lord Advocate, he had three directorships, some extraordinary and some ordinary.
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The hon. Member is wrong. I have no extraordinary directorships.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid, that as Public Prosecutor, the Lord Advocate would have to intervene in cases of fraud. How would he manage in a case of fraud against one of his own companies? Would a prosecution be inconvenient and unsuitable? Another Scotch Minister, Lord Blafour of Burleigh, had three directorships. The President of the Board of Agriculture had no directorships, and he thought he knew what that right hon. Gentleman's opinion was about Government directorships. The Postmaster General had no directorships, but he had directorships before he became a Minister of the Crown. On the 6th May, 1901, he asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the following question —
    390
    "Whether he is aware that last September a proclamation was issued by the Governor of Johannesburg dealing with the conduct of banking business in that city, and containing the announcement that notes of the Bank of Africa would be accepted as cash at all the Government offices within the town and district of Johannesburg, and what is the reason for the conferring of this privilege on the Bank of Africa?"
    The Secretary of State for War, who replied, said he had not seen the proclamation, but that inquiry would be made. He repeated the question a few months afterwards, and then tried the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who also said that inquiries would be made, but he had never heard anything further about it. When he asked that question he knew that the Postmaster-General was a director of the Bank of Africa with Mr. Rochefort Maguire, of the Rand. As to the minor Ministers, they had fifty-three directorships. One of them, the Chancellor of the Duchy, had no directorships. He was Whip for many years, and was a gentleman whom they all admired and respected; but although he held no directorships, he, as Whip of the Party opposite, was in some way or other associated with company promoting financiers. He kept the cheque for &30,000 that Mr. Hooley gave to the Conservative funds until the Government thought it would be inconvenient to cash it, and sent it back. It was always a rule of the House that Ministers should, as far as possible, be exempt from commercial and financial transactions. The Secretary to the Treasury was chairman of a company. Surely it was inconvenient that a Whip should have anything to do with such matters, having regard to the way in which committees on railway matters were constituted. Turning to the Junior Lords of the Treasury, the hon. Member for St.

    391
    Andrews was a director, but he was a kind of proselyte, having received the office since his appointment as a Minister of the Crown. The offer of a directorship to a Minister of the Crown was a very ugly thing for those who made it, to say nothing about those who accepted it. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks was a director of six companies; he only hoped that since his acceptance of office the number had been reduced as much as his majority. He was glad to be able to say of the Attorney General, who had just had a bad quarter-of-an-hour, that he was not a company director. But the Solicitor General was a director, which showed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had, in his exile in England, acquired the financial genius of the English people. The Treasurer of the Household was a director of the Barrow Hematite Iron and Steel Company, which provided munitions for ships of war.
    MR. RANDLESsaid the Company made only iron and steel rails.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that would suit his case still better. Then there were eight Lords-in-Waiting, and five of them had as many as twenty-two directorships. Ten members of the Cabinet had fourteen directorships, half of which were of railway companies, though the Minister for Agriculture had said, in a recent speech, "Railway companies are managed by ornamental directors." He knew for a fact that a gentleman who had sat on the Treasury Bench was offered a directorship with &400 a year, and told he would not be required to go near the board, but
    392
    simply to give his name. He was a poor man, but honourable, and refused the offer. Guinea-pigging, which was a reproach to this House, but which, he believed, was much exaggerated, would cease to exist if they could only weed out directors from the Treasury Bench. The position of guinea-pigs in the House of Commons must be made intolerable, and he urged the House to purify the Treasury Bench by Insisting that Ministers should consider the reward of the salary they received from the country as amply sufficient, without attaching their names to trading institutions. He begged to move. He concluded by moving his Amendment.
    MR. ROCHEformally seconded.
    Another Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'and we humbly represent to Your Majesty that thirty-three of the fifty-six Ministers of the Crown who constitute Your Majesty's Administration hold among them no fewer than sixty-eight directorships in public companies, and that we consider the position of a public company director to be incompatible with the position of a Minister of the Crown, and that the union of such offices is calculated to lower the dignity of public life.' "—(Mr. MacNeill.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    Debate arising.
    And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.
    Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Report by the CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES of the House of Lords and the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS in the House of Commons—
"That, having regard to Section 16 (2) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the provisions of the Fife Electric Power Company Order, and Part III. of the Hamilton, Mother-well, and Wishaw Tramways Order, are of such a character that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bills and not by Provisional Orders.
"That the provisions of the Life Association of Scotland Order and the Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, Order do not relate wholly to Scotland, and are of such a character that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bills and not by Provisional Orders.
"That the provisions of the Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Order are of such a character that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order.
"That the provisions of Parts IV. and V. of the Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order raise such questions of policy and principle that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order."

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Order in Council of the 16th December, 1902, amending the "Barotziland North-Western Rhodesia Order in Council, 1899."
  Orders in Council of the 16th February, 1903, entitled "The Siam Order in Council, 1903," and the "Southern Rhodesia Order in Council, 1903."

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1858.
  Order in Council of 16th December, 1902, approving a statement of proposed new and revised appointments and alteration of salaries in the establishment of the Secretary of State for India in Council.
  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  Return of the number of aliens that arrived from the Continent at Ports in the United Kingdom, in each month of the year 1903: Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Lord Wolverton.)
  Order in Council of 16th February, 1903, applying the Colonial Probates Act, 1892, to the colony of the Transvaal.
  DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865
  Order in Council of 16th February, 1903, defining the Dockyard Port of Portland and making regulations with respect thereto.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894
  Two Orders of Council of the 16th February, 1903, fixing the establishment of the Corporation of the Trinity House; Confirming byelaws made by the Pilotage Board for the Port of Newport (Mon.).
  ST. LUCIA
  Rule amending Rule No. 224 relating to the flogging of prisoners.
  GRENADA
  Rule applying the marks system to escaped and re-captured prisoners.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896
  Five Orders, numbered 6,594, 6,608, 6,612, 6,615, and 6,616 respectively, relating to the landing of foreign animals in Great Britain.
  PUBLIC RECORDS (WAR OFFICE)
  Seventh Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in the office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising construction of light railway: in the Urban District of Whitley and Monks eaton, in the County of Northumberland

  259
  in the County of Gloucester, in the Borough of Cheltenham, and in the Urban District of Charlton Kings; in the County of Wilts, from Amesbury to Bulford; in the County of Cornwall, from Padstow to Trequrrain, in the parish of St. Mawgan; in the Municipal Borough of Poole and the Urban District of Branksome, in the County of Dorset; in the County of Essex, in the Urban Districts of Walthamstow, Leyton, and Chingford.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) (GENERAL ORDERS)
  Two General Orders, dated 13th May, and 17th December, 1902.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896
  Amended general regulations made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, dated 9th February, 1903.
  MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS)
  Returns of descriptions of qualifications of deputy lieutenants lodged during 1902 as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

  NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS)
  Account of the gross amount of all moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September 1845 to 5th January 1903.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOPS (HOURS OF CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to empower local authorities to fix the hours of closing of shops was presented by the Lord Ribblesdale; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 1.)

  THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I desire to take this, the earliest opportunity open to me, to ask the Lord Chancellor whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to re-introduce, at an early date, with the view of its becoming law before the end of the current session, the Prevention of Corruption Bill, the principle of which has
  260
  already been affirmed in this House, and which aims at making the acceptance, or the offer, of a secret commission a criminal offence. I would further like to express a hope that the noble and learned Lord may see his way to give an assurance to the House that he will not only introduce the measure at an early date, but use his great influence to secure its passage during the current session. Last year I had the honour to serve on a departmental Committee of the War Office on canteen contracts; and the evidence taken in the course of that inquiry disclosed a state of things so grave that I hold it would be a scandal if any delay were allowed to occur before this House took the necessary action to make this form of corruption a criminal offence. I am convinced that the practice of accepting and offering secret commissions is nothing short of a canker attacking the vitals of our commerce. I hold it to be the duty of this House to take such prompt and vigorous action as will rally behind it public opinion of a strong enough character to enable us to force this Bill through the other House of Parliament, notwithstanding the apathy and hostility it may have to encounter there. I cannot believe that a Bill on the subject will meet with any opposition in the other House. I have been requested by the great body of co-operators who, as your Lordships are aware, number 7,000,000 of the population, to ask the noble and learned Earl what are the intentions of the Government with respect to this subject, and to express a hope that the Government will in the interest of honest trading endeavour to secure the passage of a Bill through Parliament.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack answers the question that has been put on him, I wish to join in the noble Earl's appeal. Your Lordships will remember that two years ago I myself introduced a Bill of a somewhat ambitious character, which was identically the same as the Bill introduced by the late Lord Chief Justice, Lord Russell of Killowen. When I withdrew that Bill the noble and learned Earl was good enough to introduce a Bill dealing with the matter from a less ambitious point of view,

  261
  but grappling with the main difficulties. I believe that Bill passed your Lordships' House, though it was not possible, owing to the pressure of public business, to pass it through the other House. Since then I have received, and am constantly receiving, appeals of the same kind as those received by the noble Earl opposite. A mass of material was collected by the late Lord Chief Justice, which goes on gathering in amount from month to month, and I am satisfied that the language used by the noble Earl as to the extent of the evil is in no way exaggerated. I should like to join in the appeal to the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack to do his utmost to pass, at any rate, a measure which will lay down the principle we contend for and make the way more easy for further legislation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I do not conceal from myself that what has been said by both noble Lords on this matter is well worthy of attention. I have myself received since last year ample proof of the extraordinary development of the system of corruption by what are delicately called commissions, but which are, in truth, bribes to people to betray their duties to their employers. But whether the facts collected and published have not to some extent increased it I do not say; I cannot help thinking, however, that a great many people have learned from them, for the first time, how easy it is by pressure on others to insist on commissions. The fact undoubtedly is that the system has grown extensively, and I quite agree that it demands the attention claimed for it. As far as I am concerned, I am happy to say that I hold in my hand a Bill which, as soon as the other business of the House is disposed of, I propose to ask your Lordships to read a first time. At all events, your Lordships will, at an early period of the session, have an opportunity of discussing and passing the measure in this House. At the same time I cannot forbear from giving this warning, that a Bill which is not considered of what I might call first-rate political importance to either side is not treated with that attention which Bills of a more ambitious character, and appealing more to the spirit of Party Politics, are likely to receive. In the congested state of
  262
  the House of Commons business, there is no doubt that, there is great difficulty in getting on with a Bill of a character that is neutral, although it is most important socially. I will do my best to push the Bill through the House, and will do what I can to advance the prospect of its becoming law, because nobody feels more strongly than I do the enormous importance of this question.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the better prevention of corruption was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 2.)

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION
  Return (in part) respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 3.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.